rd "religion" to "a national church" in order
to fit his undereducated knowledge of American history.
Gene Garman
America's Real Religion
americasrealreligion.org
___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscrib
revision and is erroneous. Which
is why I dropped membership in the ACLU long ago.
Gene Garman
America's Real Religion
americasrealreligion.org
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If "Establishment of Religion" has a known and definite meaning in
the context of its adoption with the
as if it were a license
for anarchy, and I no longer support the semi-separationist ACLU.
Gene Garman
America's Real Religion
americasrealreligion.org
Douglas Laycock wrote:
Don't confuse the ACLU (American Civil
Liberties Union) with the ACLJ (American Center for Law and Justice
stablishment of "religion," which commandments, in the words of James
Madison, Jr., strongly guard "separation between Religion and Government"
(William and Mary Quarterly, 3:555).
Gene Garman, M.Div.
America's Real Religion
americasrealreligion.org
[EMAIL PROTECT
ay. Thanks.
Gene Garman, M.Div.
America's Real Religion
www.americasrealreligion.org
Newsom Michael wrote:
The answer to
your first question is perfectly obvious.
-Original
Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wedne
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gene Garman has an essay on his website criticizing CJ Rehnquist's
use of history. Here's an excerpt:
"In other words, Justice Rehnquist failed to use all of the record
of history in his attempt to justify his dissent. The f
principle of "separation between Religion and Government,"
(James Madison, "Detached Memoranda," William and Mary Quarterly, 3:555).
Gene Garman, M.Div.
America's Real Religion
www.americasrealreligion.org
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 7/22/05 12:00:46 PM Eastern D
one wishes to read my recent review of Van Orden v.
Perry, simply click on the following link:
http://www.sunnetworks.net/~ggarman/breyer.html
Gene Garman, M.Div.
America's Real Religion
www.americasrealreligion.org
Douglas Laycock wrote:
The difference
between the public
You will probably have to ILL it: Separation of Church and State in Virginia,
H. J. Eckenrode.
Gene Garman, M.Div.
America's Real Religion
www.americasrealreligion.org
Pybas, Kevin M wrote:
Before traipsing to the library I would appreciate hearing from list members what you regard
1811, veto
messages to Congress, relating to unconstitutional religion bills passed
by Congress. Madison will tell you, for example, that the religion commandments
were intended to include more than just "a national religion" or a state
church.
Gene Garman, M.Div.
America's Real Religion
Eckenrode's work is dated 1910 and is an invaluable resource as to documented
opinions expressed on both sides of the Virginia debate relating to disestablishment
of the state church in Virginia.
The Writings of John Leland by L.F. Greene should also be read.
Gene Garman, M.Div.
America's
onstructionist"
arguments presented by the majority in Van Orden v. Perry.
Gene Garman, M.Div.
America's Real Religion
www.americasrealreligion.org
Steven Jamar wrote:
On Jul 25, 2005, at 6:07 PM, Gene Garman wrote:
Words mean things or the Constitution is nothing
more than a blank piece of p
PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Gene Garman
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2005 4:26 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: research question
You will probably have to ILL it: Separation of Church and State in
Virginia, H. J. Eckenrode.
Gene Garman, M.Div.
America's Real
James Madison,
but he is a primary source authority who provides original intent to the
meaning of the words he helped write. If anyone is interested in further
commentary, see my rebuttal of revisionist Justice Rehnquist's dissent, in
Wallace v. Jaffree, wherein he changed Establis
works.net/~ggarman/breyer.html
.
Gene Garman, M.Div.
America's Real Religion
www.americasrealreligion.org
Steven Jamar wrote:
There is,
of course, one basic problem with Gene Garman's argument to the extent it
is premised on the First Amendment before the Civil War Amendments. It says
"Co
, instead.
Does anyone have a reference to a serious attempt to re-establish
a church after 1778, in any of the colonies?
Ed Darrell
Dallas
Gene Garman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Unfortunately,
Steve's suggested "problem" is erroneous and a distortion. I never said
overnment" (James
Madison). The principle established by the Constitution's religion commandments
is voluntarism in matters of religion. In America religion is to be freely
exercised, not established by law or Congress or (thanks to the Fourteenth
Amendment) government at any level, whether stat
gion
and their use in any ceremony respecting any "office or public trust" is an
outright violation of the Constitution.
What part Article 6 is difficult for the accommodationist ACLU and "judges
in every state" to understand?
Gene Garman, M.Div.
ing courts and judges.
The North Carolina law injecting "Holy Scriptures" into any legal proceeding
is, therefore, constitutionally objectionable. What part of "make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" does the accommodationist ACLU or
any other attorney not understand?
parates government and religion so that we can
maintain civility between believers and unbelievers as well as among the
several hundred denominations, sects, and cults that thrive in our nation,
all sharing the commitment to liberty and equality that cements us together"
(Leonard W. Levy, The Establ
is to be completely voluntary
(the absence of government). That is much of about what America is. James
Madison perfectly stated the constitutional principle established by the
Constitution's religion commandments in Art. 6. and in the First Amendment:
"separation between Religion and
nship between religion and government. Any suggestion that he was
confused about his plainly stated understanding of "separation" as being
the essence of the Constitution's religion commandments is not sustainable
by any investigation of his entire record.
Gene Garman, M.Div.
America's Real Re
iate. Every public
school student should be taught about all of the major cultures and religions
of the world, as any good broad educational program would provide without
question.
Gene Garman, M.Div.
America's Real Religion
www.americasrealreligion.org
Rick Duncan wrote:
Prof. David DeWolf
many religions and of none, all allowed the freedom to believe
whatever they wish and to freely practice their beliefs, within the restrictions
of the laws of the land, which apply to all citizens equally, regardless
of religion.
Gene Garman, M.Div.
America's Real Religion
www.america
hose of us
who, in a nation composed from its beginning of citizens of many religions
and of none, are "original intent," "strict constructionist" separationists
and accept the simple wisdom of the Constitution's religion commandments,
as written, lest Art. 6., Sec. 3., the
te and religion is best for the state and best
for religion" (Everson v. Board, 330 U.S. at 59, McCollum v. Board,
333 U.S. at 232). The only reasonable implication which can be justified from
these men and these decisions is that "separation means separation," not
something l
are explicit that the Constitution and laws
of the United States shall be supreme over the Constitution and laws of the
several States; supreme in their exposition and execution as well as in their
authority. [James Madison, March 3, 1833].
Gaillard Hunt, Writings of James Madison, 9:512.
Gene Garman
of the Davis Court in respect to understanding
the reach of the Exercise Clause that I make my point. The Exercise Clause
does not forbid regulation of actions in conflict with the laws of society.
Gene Garman, M.Div.
Douglas Laycock wrote:
If you read the required oath in Davis, it is entirely about
support of religious societies,
contrary to the article of the Constitution which declares that "Congress
shall make no law respecting "
President James Madison, Feb. 28, 1811
The Writings of James Madison
Gaillard Hunt (New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1908), 8:132-133).
Gene Garman, M.Div.
e Complete Works
of Benjamin Franklin, John Bigelow, 13:506).
Gene Garman, M.Div.
Paul Diamond wrote:
Can't we expand the argument. Why shouldn't the state be neutral
in 'morals'- where there is a 'culture war' the State must be neutral (not
only permit a private alterna
various
charitable establishments in Great Britain The excessive wealth of ecclesiastical
corporations and the misuse of it in many countries of Europe has long been
a topic of complaint. In some of them the Church has amassed half perhaps
the property of the nation" (James Madison, William and Ma
government in our nation to suppress real or imagined attacks upon a particular
religious doctrine (Burstyn 343 U.S. at 505).
Gene Garman
Alan Brownstein wrote:
It's not just songs that raise this issue. The Davis High School football team is the Blue Devils. In theory, this is suppose
and no law), and the memorial monument to Leland and Madison near
Orange, Virginia, marks the spot where they met to discuss religion freedom.
The significance of their wisdom and the social harmony generated therefrom
is expressed and embodied in the Constitution's religion commandments. Publ
apply equally to everyone, regardless of religion.
Gene Garman, M.Div.
Volokh, Eugene wrote:
My apologies for the delay responding, but I thought I'd say a few
more words about Marty's post.
1) Before getting to the theory, let me explore a concrete example
inspired by Marty's
, in spite of judicial precedent from Reynolds
v. U.S. (1879) to Everson v. Board (1947). I concur with Jefferson
and Everson.
Does the above adequately respond to your question?
Gene Garman
Gene Summerlin wrote:
If, as you state, the "exercise of 'religion' . . .cannot be prohibit
It is
speech, press, peaceable assembly, and petition which shall not be abridged.
Have I responded properly and adequately to your question?
Gene Garman
Will Linden wrote:
Does your contention
that religious exercise can not be "totally prohibited", but can be "abridged&qu
obliged to call for
help of the civil power, 'tis a sign, I apprehend of its being a bad one"
(Works of Benjamin Franklin, 13:506).
Gene Garman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What meaning do you ascribe to the word "free?"
-- Daniel Bort
_
"Can a man excuse his practices ... because of his religious belief? To permit
this would be to make ... religious belief superior to the law of the land,
and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government
could exist only in name under such circumstances."
Reyn
attorney, first United States Secretary
of State, and President, Thomas Jefferson, who, in 1802, wrote: "the legitimate
powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions."
Gene Garman
Steven Jamar wrote:
The question is
not whether the government can restrict people from put
an be prohibited?
I cited two examples to the contrary in statements from the attorney Thomas
Jefferson and a unanimous Supreme Court in Reynolds. Please, cite
me a reference to anyone from those periods in our history who makes the
assertion you champion.
Gene Garman
Gene Summerlin
to the
free exercise of religion, but it is the word which accommodationists
prefer and promote as if there is no difference in meaning between
prohibiting and abridging. I welcome your input as to a definition
of prohibiting having a meaning different from totally.
Gene Garman
on.law. It has been a pleasure
discussing the issue. Thanks to the attorney who encouraged me to join your
listserv and to all of you for allowing my input. You have helped strengthen
my position, but I now need to use my time in other ways.
Gene Garman, M.Div.
americasrealreligion.org
Douglas Laycock
42 matches
Mail list logo
