In a message dated 1/5/2003 1:50:51 PM Pacific Standard Time, L writes:

Subj: History 

Date: 1/5/2003 1:50:51 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: L

To: <The Author>

"><The Author>:
For your information: The words "separation of church and state" do not appear anywhere in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights or any later amendment to the Constitution.<"

It is true that the literal phrase isn't there, but the First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof....", "separation of church and state" is simply a clearer, more concise phrase.

">The expression was coined by Thomas Jefferson in an informal letter to the Baptist Church of the state of Georgia. This offhand reference has had its meaning distorted, because Jefferson used it to advocate for churches being freed of government regulation, not an absence of religion from government. TJ clearly did not and never believed such a thing.
In Liberty, L <"

"Far from being an "informal letter" or "offhand reference", Jefferson used it to make a major pronouncement on church and state. "Before sending it, Jefferson had it reviewed by Levi Lincoln, his attorney general. Jefferson told Lincoln he viewed the response as a way of "sowing useful truths and principles among the people, which might germinate and become rooted among their political tenets." At the time he wrote the letter, Jefferson was under fire from conservative religious elements who hated his strong stand for full religious liberty. Jefferson saw his response to the Danbury Baptists as an opportunity to clear up his views on church and state. Far from being a mere courtesy, the letter represented a summary of Jefferson's thinking on the purpose and effect of the First Amendment's religion clauses." Jefferson clearly stated (wrote) many times that he did absolutely want "an absence of religion from government": Jefferson proposed this language [for the new Virginia constitution]: "All persons shall have full and free liberty of religious opinion; nor shall any be compelled to frequent or maintain any religious institution": freedom for religion, but also freedom from religion." (Edwin S. Gaustad, Faith of Our Fathers: Religion and the New Nation, San Francisco: Harper &Row, 1987, p. 38. Jefferson proposed his language in 1776.) 

Certainly, no power to prescribe any religious exercise, or to assume authority in religious discipline, has been delegated to the General Government. It must then rest with the States, as far as it can be in any human authority. But it is only proposed that I should recommend, not prescribe a day of fasting and prayer. That is, that I should indirectly assume to the United States an authority over religious exercises, which the Constitution has directly precluded them from. (Thomas Jefferson, just before the end of his second term, in a letter to Samuel Miller--a Presbyterian minister--on January 23, 1808; from Willson Whitman,arranger, Jefferson's Letters, Eau Claire, Wisconsin: E. M. Haleand Company, ND, pp. 241-242.

I can pull dozens of Jefferson "anti religious" quotes, do you know of even 1 where he supports religion in government? The consensus of the founding fathers (even the religious ones) was much the same. 

"If all the framers wanted to do was ban a national church, they had plenty of opportunities to state exactly that in the First Amendment. In fact, an early draft of the First Amendment read in part, "The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief, nor shall any national religion be established...." This draft was rejected. Following extensive debate, the language found in the First Amendment today was settled on. The historical record indicates that the framers wanted the First Amendment to ban not only establishment of a single church but also "multiple establishments," that is, a system by which the government funds many religions on an equal basis. A good overview of the development of the language of the First Amendment is found in scholar John M. Swomley's 1987 book Religious Liberty and the Secular State. Swomley shows that during the House of Representatives' debate on the language of the religion clauses, members specifically rejected a version reading, "Congress shall make no law establishing any particular denomination in preference to another...." The founders wanted to bar all religious establishments; they left no room for "non-preferentialism," the view touted by today's accommodationists that government can aid religion as long as it assists all religions equally. (The Senate likewise rejected three versions of the First Amendment that would have permitted non-preferential support for religion.)"

Remember, Jefferson and most of the "big name" (executive) founding fathers were not christians of any sort but were deists, which basically means they thought some omnipotent entity(s) started the universe (like the big bang) then never again interacted or influenced it in any way.

In a message dated 1/5/2003 11:42:29 AM Pacific Standard Time, L writes:

"><The Author>: 

First of all, you should join the League of Communist Women, Oops, I mean the League of women voters! You have some very similar views as them. They did not like me...<"

Ok, that's pretty weak. To start off with, I don't know how much I agree with TLOWV. I've heard some things from them that I agree with & some that I don't but I have no idea what %. But equating church/ state separation to communism is as old and inane as equating atheism and communism. Lets start with the fact that they are utterly independent of each other. Communism is a political system that functions (at least as well as it functions at all) with or without religion. Church/State separation is a policy that can be applied to just about any non theocratic political system. Now while it would appear that the "great" communist systems in place during the 20th century employed Church/State separation, in a very real sense they did not. Simply put, one of the primary reasons for Church/State separation is so the individual elements of the political system (in our case the voters and their representatives) are not controlled/restrained by a body outside the system (ie having the church, which would be unaccountable to the governmental system, make laws). The communist systems in place merely replaced the church with their own elite groups, giving them absolute and unquestionable final authority. The reason that these governments banned religion is that it would have been competition for the peoples blind and unquestionable obedience, not for philosophical reasons. Hitler was much more efficient, using peoples blind obedience to religion to support himself. If you want to be technical, many versions of the ussr's constitution guaranteed the right of religious freedom, so obviously they were not exactly precisely practicing their form.

">The Constitution does not state there must be a separation of church and state--this supposed clause came from those liberal judges in the Supreme Court, if I am not mistaken.<"

No, you had it right in the other email, the establishment clause has been expressed as the separation of church & state since the beginning, by it's author.

">Furthermore, the First Amendment does not support such meaning of the statement as used--"Separation of church and state." The First Amendment keeps government out of religion, not Christianity out of government.<"

Very incorrect. The first part of the 1st amendment (the establishment clause) is to keep religion (not just christianity) from being established (promoted/ made into laws) by the government, the 2nd part (the free exercise clause) is to keep government from regulating ("excessively" at least) religion.

How do you get "keeps government out of religion" from "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"?

">Back in the day we were not as familiar with foreign Gods, especially when the Bill of Rights was established--the word religion meant Christianity.<"

-Boggle- 

Umm you're seriously trying to claim that the man who wanted ancient greek to be the USA's official language, that based much of his philosophy on roman and greek writings, the man who Wasn't A Christian and wrote: 

"Where the preamble [of the Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom] declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting the words "Jesus Christ," so that it should read, "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination. (Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography)" 

This man was unfamiliar with other religions and just used the word "religion" in place of christianity???? Ok. Ah, would you happen to have even 1 quote supporting such a thing?

"><The Author>, it also gives you your right to believe as you wish. (I may think it is twisted, but you are entitled to your belief as I am mine and everyone else for that matter) That is what makes America great.<"

But you need to understand that it's not a matter of belief. It's written down in many places by many people and even using twists of language that make Clinton's look like dictionary definitions, it's still clear what the writers of the majority of our government intended. It's only a belief if you have not read them, which "they" don't want you to because it undermines their support.

"In every country and every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own. It is easier to acquire wealth and power by this combination than by deserving them, and to effect this, they have perverted the purest religion ever preached to man into mystery and jargon, unintelligible to all mankind, and therefore the safer for their purposes. (Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to Horatio Spofford, 1814)"

"And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a Virgin Mary, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.... But we may hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away [with] all this artificial scaffolding. (Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, 11 April 1823)"

"In the Supreme Court's 1892 Holy Trinity Church vs. United States, Justice David Brewer wrote that "this is a Christian nation." Many Christians use this as evidence. However, Brewer wrote this in dicta, as a personal opinion only and does not serve as a legal pronouncement. Later Brewer felt obliged to explain himself: "But in what sense can [the United States] be called a Christian nation? Not in the sense that Christianity is the established religion or the people are compelled in any manner to support it. On the contrary, the Constitution specifically provides that 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.' Neither is it Christian in the sense that all its citizens are either in fact or in name Christians. On the contrary, all religions have free scope within its borders. Numbers of our people profess other religions, and many reject all."

As to everyone being entitled to their opinion, well someone said that "Everyone is not entitled to their own opinion. They're entitled to their informed opinion". But that's a different discussion.

">If Mack [Wimbish] wants to have his swearing in [to the office of Sheriff] at his church, so what. How is this setting a precedent when no one else has ever chosen to do it? OK, maybe they will now--but I doubt it.<"

Yes, he's setting a precedent that others are likely to use (ie he had his semi official ceremony in a church so next the official ceremony is done in 1, then the priest presides over it, ect). It won't necessarily happen, that's true, but it makes it all that more likely. And it's illegal.

>"I know [Mack Wimbish] to be a man of great integrity and his personal religious freedom, is very important to him. I for one will be at the Church congratulating Mack and being grateful that he is our next Sheriff.<"

As I wrote, I don't have a problem believing that he's not trying to make a statement, and even if he is I'm sure he thinks it would do good, but his motives don't much change the results. And it seems quite likely that you wouldn't have a problem being in the church since it shares your basic beliefs!

">You know <The Author>, before each session of Congress they pray--what do you say to that!<"

I'd say that congress does not prey before each session, a prayer is offered that a very small % of them even attend. And it's blatantly illegal. You know the thing is you have a collage degree in political science, yes? The fact that they didn't even show you a small fraction of the original writings certainly makes me feel better about not having wasted time with such classes. Although I suppose my verbal debate skills would have been much improved. <g>

Subj: Re: History/ Re: Ingamail 010303
Date: 1/5/2003 7:18:55 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: L
To: <The Author>

"> <The Author>:
You should have been an instructor of history and theology! OK--my college degree is in Political Science, however, I cannot remember much from those days--it was 10-12 years ago! You spend much time theorizing and discussing your beliefs. I am going to read your writing again, and I will discuss your issues. You must know that you can say something is blue and I could say the same thing is black. This is done in the California legislature every day--it is all in the interpretation of everything, hence, the difference of opinions.
I will now do my homework and respond. I have not done so for years. 
L <"

This is what I sent back:

It's done everywhere everyday unfortunately, but the fact is that there are definitions for blue and black (if an object is emitting/reflecting less then x amount of photons it's black. If the photons being emitted/reflected are between y and z frequency, the object is blue). Now obviously not everything is as clear cut, but if you can't agree to acknowledge the parts that are ... you get what we have now, decisions based on who can talk the "loudest" not the facts.
I look forward to hearing the results of your research.

In a message dated 1/8/2003 9:18:19 AM Pacific Standard Time, L writes:

Subj: Here we go...
Date: 1/8/2003 9:18:19 AM Pacific Standard Time
From: L
To: <The Author>

"> <The Author>:
This is for discussion purposes only. Remember I have not read much of this in quite a long time so it has to sink in again. I appreciate your interpretation, however, we will probably not come to any agreement on our individual beliefs, however I am going to give it a shot.
First of all, I believe you have the Establishment Clause all wrong. It says that government can't endorse, control or dictate religion or churches. It does NOT say that "religion and...government can't have anything to do with each other, it states that the Government (which includes government employees/ officials) acting in an official capacity." <"

Ok you really need to reread my email. I wrote:

<<< I think your problem with understanding this is that you are arguing against a strawman. The establishment clause doesn't say that religion and government can't have anything to do with each other, it states that the Government (which includes government employees/ officials acting in an official capacity, but not private citizens/ groups/ companies) cannot endorse any religion. >>>







"> As for this idiocy that Thomas Jefferson was an atheist, you might refer to this:
The phrase itself stems from a letter which Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptist had written to him on October 7, 1801, expressing their concern about their religious freedoms. Jefferson responded to reassure them that he also believed in religious liberty (you are correct that it was to prevent a state organized religion and for more individual religious freedoms for those who believe and those that do not) and said, in part: (I realize that you read this...however, see below where again Jefferson refers to the separation of church and state)

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore man to all of his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

The Danbury Baptists letter was, by the way, not the only time Jefferson used this phrase. It appears again in a letter he wrote to Virginia Baptists in 1808:
Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person's life, freedom of religion affects every individual. State churches that use government power to support themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of the church tends to make the clergy unresponsive to the people and leads to corruption within religion. Erecting the "wall of separation between church and state," therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society. <"

Umm, once again reread what I wrote. I did not say Jefferson was an atheist, Jefferson was a Deist. I wrote:

<<< Remember, Jefferson and most of the "big name" (executive) founding fathers were not christians of any sort but were deists, which basically means they thought some omnipotent entity(s) started the universe (like the big bang) then never again interacted or influenced it in any way. >>>

"> All that said, it seems clear that you were indoctrinated in a government school. It's sadly quite common for "public" school graduates to go about regurgitating such nonsense without questioning who planted it in their mush-filled skulls.
By the way, if it wasn't your schooling, where did your beliefs come from--they don't seem consistent with the other members of your family? <"

-Snort-
If I relied on the government schools for my knowledge I'd be lucky to even know that there Was a Thomas Jefferson (or that he didn't own a chain of dry cleaners in NY). I learned from reading books and now I learn from books and digitized books (internet). I then come to tentative conclusions based on the correlation of this new data with the old data.
And I must agree that it's common for people to blindly regurgitate what they've heard without questioning it at all. <whistles along>

"> I am still researching....
L <"

Remember, when you create a position different from the one you are arguing with, it doesn't matter how thoroughly (or not) you attack it, it's still a logical fallacy and invalid.
I look forward to the debate beginning.