quote:

Originally posted by Richard Munro:

The chaplains were honored posthumously with a special Medal of Heroism and a stamp, issued in 1948. By an act of Congress, February 3 was designated "Four Chaplains Day." Honoring their courage and civic virtue and showing respect for their supreme sacrifice might be said by some absolutists as unwarranted government support for religions but I think such a view extreme and dogmatic.

You are the only one I know who has made such a stupid claim.

quote:

Originally posted by Richard Munro:

...the Supreme Court has of late rejected nonpreferentialist interpretations of the the establishment clause...

The first and fundamental rule in the interpretation of all [legal] instruments is, to construe them according to the sense of the terms...the intention of a law is to be gathered from the words...words are generally to be understood in their usual and most known signification, not so much regarding the propriety of grammar, as their general and popular use...

--Joseph Story

If the founders had intended to express a nonpreferentialist view of religious liberty they would have used nonpreferentialist language such as, " No preference shall be given by law to any Christian sect or mode of worship." Instead they granted the U. S. Government no authority whatsoever over religion. As James Madison so famously said, "Its least interference with it, would be a most flagrant usurpation."

***************************************************************************************************

James Madison, Virginia Ratifying Convention
12 June 1788

Papers 11:130--31

The honorable member has introduced the subject of religion. Religion is not guarded--there is no bill of rights declaring that religion should be secure. Is a bill of rights a security for religion? Would the bill of rights, in this state, exempt the people from paying for the support of one particular sect, if such sect were exclusively established by law? If there were a majority of one sect, a bill of rights would be a poor protection for liberty. Happily for the states, they enjoy the utmost freedom of religion. This freedom arises from that multiplicity of sects, which pervades America, and which is the best and only security for religious liberty in any society. For where there is such a variety of sects, there cannot be a majority of any one sect to oppress and persecute the rest. Fortunately for this commonwealth, a majority of the people are decidedly against any exclusive establishment--I believe it to be so in the other states. There is not a shadow of right in the general government to intermeddle with religion. Its least interference with it, would be a most flagrant usurpation. I can appeal to my uniform conduct on this subject, that I have warmly supported religious freedom. It is better that this security should be depended upon from the general legislature, than from one particular state. A particular state might concur in one religious project. But the United States abound in such a variety of sects, that it is a strong security against religious persecution, and it is sufficient to authorise a conclusion, that no one sect will ever be able to outnumber or depress the rest.

One might note I did NOT make in fact such a "stupid claim" as the gentleman in question asserts. But one may find many such similar assertions by persons who hold the absolutist view on the meaning of the establishment clause that and I quote Justice Black that neither the federal nor state government can act to "aid one religion, aid all religins, or prefer one religion over another."

According to the absolutisits who are many religious activity should be carried out SOLELY IN THE PRIVATE SPHERE OF SOCIETY. As I pointed out before if this attitude where carried out to its logical conclusion there would be no room for ANY PUBLIC demonstration of relgious feeling or tradition. What we have then is de facto persecution of religion, free speech and free exercise of religion.

It is from such attitudes or doctrines come the very real PC 'war on Christmas' though once again there are some people who claim everything is fine and nothing has changed in America.

quote:

Originally posted by Richard Munro:
One might note I did NOT make in fact such a "stupid claim" as the gentleman in question asserts. But one may find many such similar assertions by persons who hold the absolutist view on the meaning of the establishment clause...

You should have done that before you made the claim. Provide us evidence that others have made the stupid claim, or be honest and admit you just pulled it out of your butt.

quote:

According to the absolutisits religious activity should be carried out SOLELY IN THE PRIVATE SPHERE OF SOCIETY.

I am a strict separationist and I know many strict separationits. Not one of us holds that "religious activity should be carried out SOLELY IN THE PRIVATE SPHERE OF SOCIETY." Furthermore a Google search reveals that you are the only one on the Internet who has made that claim.

The fundamental principle of strict separation is no civil power over religion (in the private or the non-private sphere).

"There is not a shadow of right in the general government to intermeddle with religion. Its least interference with it, would be a most flagrant usurpation."

--James Madison

quote:

As I pointed out before if this attitude where carried out to its logical conclusion there would be no room for ANY PUBLIC demonstration of relgious feeling or tradition.

You can publicly demonstrate your religion as much as you wish, as long as it does not break out into a trespass upon the prerogatives of Jehovah.

quote:

What we have then is de facto persecution of religion and free exercise of religion.

Go file a complaint with Jesus. He was the one that forbid civil governments to become entangled in "the things that are God's."

quote:

It is from such attitudes or doctrines come the very real PC 'war on Christmas' though once again there are some people who claim everything is fine and nothing has changed in America.

Civil authorities are not wagging war on Christianity by remaining neutral in matters of religion. Besides, true Christianity flourished in the face of civil persecution by Rome.

If Christianity is truth, it will prevail, provided it is not "disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate."

1) I am glad to know your greatest authority is the INTERNET; there are more things in heaven and earth than to be found in your philosophy.

2) God bless us all; yes, one has hope that the truth may prevail despite anger, despite pride and despite PC languge police. There is always that hope but then there is always the unexpected too. Farewell anonymous gentleman.