"Separation of Church and State"

[Tennyson]

Re: "Separation of Church and State&quot

Walz does not stand for the proposition the establishment clause prohibits taxation of churches and religious entities. The language you cite from the Walz decision clearly indicates the Court is stating the government providing tax exemption and tax exception is permitted by the establishment clause. The history cited by the Court is relied upon to establish the principle that government exemption/exception from taxation extended to churches and religious entities is allowed under the establishment clause.

There is a difference between government conduct allowed by the establishment clause and government conduct prohibited by the establishment clause. Walz is dealing with the former, the Court deciding that government exemption/excepting churches and religious entities from taxation is allowed by the establishment clause. Walz never held government taxation of churches and religious entities was prohibited by the establishment clause and neither does the history cited by the Court make such a demonstration.

The Town of Greece case lacks, entirely, any "judicial example of argumentative precedent." There is nothing in the opinion to remotely suggest the establishment clause prohibits the government from taxing churches and religious entities. Ergo, the opinion thoroughly lacks "argumentative precedent." Indeed, there is a complete lack of historical evidence to support the idea the establishment clause precludes government taxation of churches and religious entities.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I put myself in a pickle by bringing up court cases. As I qualified earlier, that is not the basis of my argument. That argument is that the federal government taxing churches are a violation of the First Amendment for myriad reasons. Neither of these cases is under the jurisdiction of the federal government. I will address the rulings in any case.

Walz does make an establishment distinction between tax exemption and taxing churches. This distinction was made under the entanglement test regarding government involvement. The court’s opinion was that the government cannot avoid some level of involvement as exempting churches from taxation is a level of involvement, but was less involvement than taxing. Taxing is a higher level of prohibited government involvement than tax exemption, and that was established in the ruling.

From Burger’s opinion:

As Mr. Justice Holmes commented in a related context "a page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner, 256 U. S. 345, 349 (1921). The exemption creates only a minimal and remote involvement between church and state and far less than taxation of churches. It restricts the fiscal relationship between church and state, and tends to complement and reinforce the desired separation insulating each from the other.​

 

[Tennyson]

Re: "Separation of Church and State&quot

I want to augment by prior response to this post with the following remarks. The historical evidence cited by Walz in its reasoning demonstrates the Establishment Clause does not prohibit the federal government from taxing churches. If the Establishment Clause prohibited taxation of churches and/or church property, then Congress would not have needed to pass legislation providing "tax exemptions for churches." Congress passing legislation providing "tax exemption for churches" is a redundancy if the Establishment Clause already precluded taxation of churches. The historical evidence cited to by the Court in Walz demonstrates the First Congress did not understand the Establishment Clause to preclude taxation of churches, thereby necessitating the First Congress to provide "tax exemptions for churches."

The Establishment Clause does not prohibit government taxation of churches.

You are viewing history through the lens of the fallacy of nunc pro tunc, and discounting the application of hermeneutics.

The historical record evidences that the federal government was prohibited from making any law regarding taxation of churches or religions. The First Congress did not pass any laws regarding churches and taxation. The First Congress passed seventy-four laws, and there were no property tax laws passed.

The First Congress understood that the establishment clause not only precluded taxation of churches, but any law regarding the Bill of Rights. The thirteen states all had some form of state sponsored churches after the ratification of the Constitution including subsidies. Why would consider levying taxes on an entity that they are supporting with tax dollars?

 

[Tennyson]

Re: "Separation of Church and State"

Why would you need to elaborate and mention details on the Greece case?

Because you brought it up on this thread, vaguely claiming it has something to do with the tax exempt status of a church?

No, the First does not mention any of those things, nor does it mention taxes or tax status for religious organizations. Did you bring that up, or did Oberon?

Call me whatever you like counselor, but at this early point in the game, I cannot imagine paying good money to you for attorneys services rendered. Being unable to clearly make a point on an internet forum does not bode well for your performance in a courtroom in an actual case.

I made my point. Twisting my words does not make your point nor it that method an argument against my post. It is not my responsibility to aid you in understanding my post or its concept.

 

[jmotivator]

Re: "Separation of Church and State"

A little bad news for you--my 1977 Roget's Thesaurus show "exempted" and "excepted" to be fairly well synonyms. It may be that the IRS uses "excepted" in its manuals and verbiage, but the words are synonymous.

Pro-Tip: Don't look to Roget's Thesaurus for legal definitions.

 

[Thoreau72]

Re: "Separation of Church and State"

Pro-Tip: Don't look to Roget's Thesaurus for legal definitions.

Layman answer: I do not. I consult Black's in that case. Considering that in the US the predominant language is English, Roget's is very helpful for those challenged by the meanings of words.

I hope you would not offer another "Pro-Tip" advising one to not look to Webster's for other definitions?

 

[NotreDame]

"Separation of Church and State"

You are viewing history through the lens of the fallacy of nunc pro tunc, and discounting the application of hermeneutics.

The historical record evidences that the federal government was prohibited from making any law regarding taxation of churches or religions. The First Congress did not pass any laws regarding churches and taxation. The First Congress passed seventy-four laws, and there were no property tax laws passed.

The First Congress understood that the establishment clause not only precluded taxation of churches, but any law regarding the Bill of Rights. The thirteen states all had some form of state sponsored churches after the ratification of the Constitution including subsidies. Why would consider levying taxes on an entity that they are supporting with tax dollars?

I'm an Originalist and Textualist, so your allegation of nunc pro tunc isn't applicable to me. I very much adhere to the reasonable public meaning at or near the time of ratification of the Constitution, as evinced by the historical evidence, as the meaning of the Constitution, when and where the plain text does not provide a reasonable meaning.

What I did was to examine the historical evidence you invoked and observed that historical evidence does not support your claim. This is all about logical induction, deductive reasoning, from the evidence you have relied upon. Quite simply, the evidence doesn't support your inductive claim.

The historical record does you invoked, as relied upon in those two decision you cite, does not support the claim the First Congress understood the Establishment Clause prohibited taxation of churches. Such a claim leads to an illogical redundancy. Here is your illogical argument.

1. First Congress believed the Establishment Clause preclude taxation of churches.
2. Number one necessarily means no legislation is needed to exempt or except churches from tax laws passed by Congress because this was already accomplished by the EC of the 1st amendment.
3. Congress passed legislation specifically exempting and/or excepting churches from its tax laws. This is ILLOGICAL REDUNDANCY as the EC already achieves what the law sought to provide.

I'm not convinced Congress engaged in the futile and illogical exercise of redundancy.

Instead, Congress passed legislation exempting and/or excepting churches from taxation because the EC did not do so. This demonstrates the First Congress did not view such exemption/exception from tax laws as violative of the EC in 1st Amendment.

But there is a difference between what the EC allows Congress to do and what the EC requires. The EC doesn't require tax exemption/exception, hence Congress passed a law creating the exemptions/exceptions. The EC allows Congress to pass those exemptions/exceptions.

Your claim isn't supported by the evidence. Well, I suppose your claim is supported by the evidence if we assume the First Congress engaged in an unnecessary, irrational, and illogical redundancy of granting by law that which is already provided by the EC of the 1sf Amendment.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[11Bravo]

Re: "Separation of Church and State"

why the heck would we separate the church and state? has this been approved by the Vatican?

 

[Fledermaus]

Re: "Separation of Church and State"

why the heck would we separate the church and state? has this been approved by the Vatican?

The Vatican is irrelevant to the separation of church from the AMERICAN state.

The only state the Vatican has real sway over is the Papal States.

 

[11Bravo]

Re: "Separation of Church and State"

The Vatican is irrelevant to the separation of church from the AMERICAN state.

The only state the Vatican has real sway over is the Papal States.

the vatican must be consulted for any major US decision.

 

[Fledermaus]

Re: "Separation of Church and State"

the vatican must be consulted for any major US decision.

According to whom?

 

[Tennyson]

Re: "Separation of Church and State"

I'm an Originalist and Textualist, so your allegation of nunc pro tunc isn't applicable to me. I very much adhere to the reasonable public meaning at or near the time of ratification of the Constitution, as evinced by the historical evidence, as the meaning of the Constitution, when and where the plain text does not provide a reasonable meaning.

What I did was to examine the historical evidence you invoked and observed that historical evidence does not support your claim. This is all about logical induction, deductive reasoning, from the evidence you have relied upon. Quite simply, the evidence doesn't support your inductive claim.

The historical record does you invoked, as relied upon in those two decision you cite, does not support the claim the First Congress understood the Establishment Clause prohibited taxation of churches. Such a claim leads to an illogical redundancy. Here is your illogical argument.

1. First Congress believed the Establishment Clause preclude taxation of churches.
2. Number one necessarily means no legislation is needed to exempt or except churches from tax laws passed by Congress because this was already accomplished by the EC of the 1st amendment.
3. Congress passed legislation specifically exempting and/or excepting churches from its tax laws. This is ILLOGICAL REDUNDANCY as the EC already achieves what the law sought to provide.

I'm not convinced Congress engaged in the futile and illogical exercise of redundancy.

Instead, Congress passed legislation exempting and/or excepting churches from taxation because the EC did not do so. This demonstrates the First Congress did not view such exemption/exception from tax laws as violative of the EC in 1st Amendment.

But there is a difference between what the EC allows Congress to do and what the EC requires. The EC doesn't require tax exemption/exception, hence Congress passed a law creating the exemptions/exceptions. The EC allows Congress to pass those exemptions/exceptions.

Your claim isn't supported by the evidence. Well, I suppose your claim is supported by the evidence if we assume the First Congress engaged in an unnecessary, irrational, and illogical redundancy of granting by law that which is already provided by the EC of the 1sf Amendment.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You are making statements that are the result of the fallacy of nunc pro tune.

If you want to make a textualist claim, then you would need to rely on the progression of the evolution of the ten version of the establishment clause starting on Madison’s proposal that was devoid of the word “respecting”; then the version with “touching religion”; then the version with “infringing”; and then why the final version in September ended up with the word “respecting” in the establishment clause and not the word “prohibiting” as in the free exercise clause, or the word “abridging” that is used in the speech and press clause. And why bother with changing the phrase from “establishing religion” to “respecting an establishment of religion”:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
​

Or why the word “infringe” was used in the Second Amendment rather than the word “respecting”:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.​

The word “respecting” had a very specific meaning regarding any type of involvement and an absolute prohibition of any form of involvement. It was used in the negative in the establishment clause, and it was used in the positive in Article IV:

The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States.​

The word “respecting” was used in conversation just as we use the words “about” or “regarding” today. One example of the general understanding and use of the word “respecting” in conversation can be found in the records of the First Congress on June 8, 1789, by William Smith of South Carolina:

Mr. SMITH, of South Carolina, inquired what were the words used by the conventions respecting this amendment. If the gentleman would conform to what was proposed by Virginia and Carolina, he would second him. He thought they were to be excused provided they found a substitute.​

There is no traction for a textualism argument.

 

[Tennyson]

Re: "Separation of Church and State"

I'm an Originalist and Textualist.

If you want to use originalism, then you need to adhere to the legal maxim of the legal English the Constitution was written with of potestas stricte interpretatur, strictly interpreted, and in dubiis, non praesumitur pro potentia, the presumption is not in favor of a power.

Using historical evidence, logical induction, and deductive reasoning by applying the established method of historiography of using the hermeneutic principle of interpreting the actions and the whole body of work by the founders, the principles of whole-system thinking, which precludes using random synecdoche evidence, and the convergence of evidence culminates with the prohibition of the federal government from any method of control or interaction with churches or religion. This is the result and is protected by the principle of hermeneutic equity until some newly discovered evidence surfaces.

The First Congress understood that religion was completely off limits in any regard. The First Congress did not pass legislation exempting churches from taxation. But the Twelfth Congress passed a law that refunded import duties paid by religious organizations.

Again, the historical record evidences that the federal government was prohibited from making any law regarding taxation of churches or religions. The First Congress did not pass any laws regarding churches and taxation. The First Congress passed seventy-four laws, and there were no tax laws passed regarding religion or churches. The taxes consisted of custom duties, land sales, carriages, refined sugar, and goods such as distilled spirits and tobacco. What taxes were they going to levy on churches? Preaching? Tithes? Churches conducted no business and had no activity that could be taxed. There was no federal property tax other than the sale of property.
The tax exemption for churches and religion was not a random concept. It was based on the English Statute Charitable Uses under Statute of Elizabeth I in 1601, which covered religion and churches, and the term “religious uses” was used under that umbrella around 1640 and was later became one of the four principal divisions of charity in the case Income Tax Special Commissioners v Pemsel in 1891:


1. Trusts for the relief of poverty;
2. Trusts for the advancement of education;
3. Trusts for the advancement of religion;
4. and trusts for other purposes beneficial to the community, not falling under any of the preceding heads.


Just a couple of exhaustive examples are Madison’s Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments exempting religion from any authority and Marshall’s opinion in McCulloch v. Maryland 1819: “That the power to tax involves the power to destroy….”

 

[NotreDame]

Re: "Separation of Church and State"

If you want to use originalism, then you need to adhere to the legal maxim of the legal English the Constitution was written with of potestas stricte interpretatur, strictly interpreted, and in dubiis, non praesumitur pro potentia, the presumption is not in favor of a power.



The First Congress understood that religion was completely off limits in any regard. The First Congress did not pass legislation exempting churches from taxation. But the Twelfth Congress passed a law that refunded import duties paid by religious organizations.

Again, the historical record evidences that the federal government was prohibited from making any law regarding taxation of churches or religions. The First Congress did not pass any laws regarding churches and taxation. The First Congress passed seventy-four laws, and there were no tax laws passed regarding religion or churches. The taxes consisted of custom duties, land sales, carriages, refined sugar, and goods such as distilled spirits and tobacco. What taxes were they going to levy on churches? Preaching? Tithes? Churches conducted no business and had no activity that could be taxed. There was no federal property tax other than the sale of property.
The tax exemption for churches and religion was not a random concept. It was based on the English Statute Charitable Uses under Statute of Elizabeth I in 1601, which covered religion and churches, and the term “religious uses” was used under that umbrella around 1640 and was later became one of the four principal divisions of charity in the case Income Tax Special Commissioners v Pemsel in 1891:


1. Trusts for the relief of poverty;
2. Trusts for the advancement of education;
3. Trusts for the advancement of religion;
4. and trusts for other purposes beneficial to the community, not falling under any of the preceding heads.


Just a couple of exhaustive examples are Madison’s Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments exempting religion from any authority and Marshall’s opinion in McCulloch v. Maryland 1819: “That the power to tax involves the power to destroy….”

I do not need a lesson from you on how to apply originalism. Especially when you reference "strictly interpreted" as originalism rejects strict interpretation, at least Scalia's brand, which I follow. See "A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law."

In addition, originalism does not adhere to the legal maxim you cited, the presumption you invoke, precisely because originalism asks what the text says, and any maxim not found in the text's meaning is irrelevant. Your maxim is not a meaning of any phrase or wording the Constitution. So, you begin with a non-Originalist position, a position not found within the meaning of the text. You beginning point of the analysis is not Originalist.

And you can dispense with the ostentatious use of Latin phrases as they aren't impressive to this lawyer. A sound, logical argument is impressive, substance over form, and sound reasoning over the use of fanciful phrases that impress the uninformed, the unwise, and uneducated, but fail miserably to qualify as persuasive reasoning to others, such as this lawyer. I can quote Latin all day, any fool with internet access can, but such conduct doesn't make for a good argument.

There is no historical evidence to demonstrate Congress was prohibited from taxing churches. Indeed, the historical evidence you cited to in the 2 cases failed to support such a view, and such evidence only established the First Court Congress did not perceive the EC as precluding tax exemption/exceptions granted to churches by law. There is no evidence the EC mandated exemption of churches from Congress' taxing power.

It's worth noting the EC is a very odd clause to rely upon for the notion of mandatory tax exemption/exception for churches from Congress' taxing power.

I've read Madison's Remonstrance some dozen times, wrote an essay about it, and nothing in the prose says the EC mandates exemption/exception of churches from Congress' tax powers.

Nothing in the opinion of McCulloch v Maryland unequivocally says, implies, or suggests the EC mandates churches exempted/excepted from Congress' tax powers.

You've made an argument replete with fancy Latin phrases but devoid of supporting facts and sound, logical reasoning.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[NotreDame]

"Separation of Church and State"

You are making statements that are the result of the fallacy of nunc pro tune.

If you want to make a textualist claim, then you would need to rely on the progression of the evolution of the ten version of the establishment clause starting on Madison’s proposal that was devoid of the word “respecting”; then the version with “touching religion”; then the version with “infringing”; and then why the final version in September ended up with the word “respecting” in the establishment clause and not the word “prohibiting” as in the free exercise clause, or the word “abridging” that is used in the speech and press clause. And why bother with changing the phrase from “establishing religion” to “respecting an establishment of religion”:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
​

Or why the word “infringe” was used in the Second Amendment rather than the word “respecting”:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.​

The word “respecting” had a very specific meaning regarding any type of involvement and an absolute prohibition of any form of involvement. It was used in the negative in the establishment clause, and it was used in the positive in Article IV:

The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States.​

The word “respecting” was used in conversation just as we use the words “about” or “regarding” today. One example of the general understanding and use of the word “respecting” in conversation can be found in the records of the First Congress on June 8, 1789, by William Smith of South Carolina:

Mr. SMITH, of South Carolina, inquired what were the words used by the conventions respecting this amendment. If the gentleman would conform to what was proposed by Virginia and Carolina, he would second him. He thought they were to be excused provided they found a substitute.​

There is no traction for a textualism argument.

All of the above are claims you are making with no historical evidence to be found supporting your multitude of claims above.

Furthermore, the word "respecting" when considered in the proper context of the entire phrase, did not have a meaning of not taxing churches. The word "respecting" in the EC was understood best as tantamount to "favor" and "favoring" an establishment of religion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[CLAX1911]

A common objection of neo-conservatives is that the term "separation of church and state" is not found in the U.S. Constitution. This is true also of "the trinity" in the Bible. The term is not found, but the principle is. Obviously, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" contains this principle, but that is not the whole picture. States like the Commonwealth of Virginia had official state religion of Baptist a long time ago. At the time, this was not a violation of the "establishment clause" as the 1st Amendment was not binding on the states, but it was most certainly a violation of religious freedom as it took Jefferson's "Virginia Statue for Religious Freedom" to abolish the state religion.

The term "separation of church and state" gained prominence in American politics after the Supreme Court decision in Everson v Board of Education. If you read this decision and many others, you will understand that the 1st Amendment applies to the states through the 14th Amendment. Prior to the Civil War, the Bill of Rights was a protection that applied only to the Federal government. Many modern conservatives may find this hard to believe, but a state legislature could actually ban privately owned firearms and it would not be a violation of the 2nd Amendment as it applied only to the Federal government. This is basic "federalism".

After the civil war the 14th Amendment was "ratified" and was the first amendment which stated "No state shall..." The war and specifically this amendment turned the Constitution on it's head and started not only the vast growth in corporate power and corporate personhood "rights", but made the Bill of Rights applicable to the states which the courts expanded more and more especially throughout the 20th Century. These many court decisions will state the 1st, 4th, 5th, etc...is applicable through the 14th Amendment.

People can blame "secular liberals" or whoever all they want, but this goes back to the American civil war. My point is not to say which system was better or worse, but to give understanding to those who do not know this.

Please read my entire post before responding.

The exact wording doesn't show up but the idea is there. The first amendment states that the government may not make any laws respecting the establishment of a religion.

This clause seperated the church from the state. And thus far it's effective. No state has made an official church of the state.

It's necessary for the freedom of religion.

To make my point clear, churches having tax exempt status does not make the religion the official religion of the state. Nor do monuments of the ten commandments on court yards.

The idea was that you could be Jewish, Hindu, puritan, or catholic and you would be equal in status to the dominate confessional faith. Meaning your vote is counted as one your personhood isn't based on having the right faith.

We have seen this fail, in the case of Colorado city Arizona.

But it is isolated nowadays.

 

[Tennyson]

Re: "Separation of Church and State"

I do not need a lesson from you on how to apply originalism. Especially when you reference "strictly interpreted" as originalism rejects strict interpretation, at least Scalia's brand, which I follow. See "A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law."

In addition, originalism does not adhere to the legal maxim you cited, the presumption you invoke, precisely because originalism asks what the text says, and any maxim not found in the text's meaning is irrelevant. Your maxim is not a meaning of any phrase or wording the Constitution. So, you begin with a non-Originalist position, a position not found within the meaning of the text. You beginning point of the analysis is not Originalist.

And you can dispense with the ostentatious use of Latin phrases as they aren't impressive to this lawyer. A sound, logical argument is impressive, substance over form, and sound reasoning over the use of fanciful phrases that impress the uninformed, the unwise, and uneducated, but fail miserably to qualify as persuasive reasoning to others, such as this lawyer. I can quote Latin all day, any fool with internet access can, but such conduct doesn't make for a good argument.

There is no historical evidence to demonstrate Congress was prohibited from taxing churches. Indeed, the historical evidence you cited to in the 2 cases failed to support such a view, and such evidence only established the First Court Congress did not perceive the EC as precluding tax exemption/exceptions granted to churches by law. There is no evidence the EC mandated exemption of churches from Congress' taxing power.

It's worth noting the EC is a very odd clause to rely upon for the notion of mandatory tax exemption/exception for churches from Congress' taxing power.

I've read Madison's Remonstrance some dozen times, wrote an essay about it, and nothing in the prose says the EC mandates exemption/exception of churches from Congress' tax powers.

Nothing in the opinion of McCulloch v Maryland unequivocally says, implies, or suggests the EC mandates churches exempted/excepted from Congress' tax powers.

You've made an argument replete with fancy Latin phrases but devoid of supporting facts and sound, logical reasoning.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Your first responses were peppered with clues that the Constitution and American history are subjects that are foreign to you. After reading your last two uncivilized posts that were as devoid of counter arguments as your earlier posts, it is obvious that you have attempted to educate yourself regarding the Constitution and American history through a Google search autodidact education. This leads me to the conclusion that you are the personification of the Dunning–Kruger effect. Two maxims that are absolute and one is generally accepted, and the other is from Socrates: If you have to resort to name calling and ad hominem dialogue to divert away from the substance of the argument, you were never in the argument, and When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser― Socrates.

What you have demonstrated is your fundamental lack of understanding of what constitutes originalism, strict interpretation, that originalism does not reject strict interpretation, what the legal maxim used in the Constitution, ignorance of when Latin is appropriate and when it is not, that a lack of a counter argument is bad form and not substance, no understanding of historical evidence, no understanding of doctrines, no understanding how the establishment clause evolved during the debates in the House and Senate, why certain words were used and certain words were discarded, no understanding of Walz, no understanding of Town of Greece, no understanding of McCullough v. Maryland, no understanding of Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments, no understanding of what the establishment clause means or why it was created, and6 absolutely no understanding of the word “respecting.”

With no apparent post-graduate education regarding American history or the law--especially the Constitution, and no willingness to make a perfunctory attempt at an autodidact education of either, you are not qualified to have an exchange with me on either of the subjects and what you have produced, other than being philistine in nature, is actually quite boring.

You are a living breathing document advocate who forsakes any form of originalism, textualism, strict construction, and the sub-methods of constitutional interpretation.

I am pretty sure you are a just a garden variety internet troll.

 

[NotreDame]

"Separation of Church and State"

Your first responses were peppered with clues that the Constitution and American history are subjects that are foreign to you. After reading your last two uncivilized posts that were as devoid of counter arguments as your earlier posts, it is obvious that you have attempted to educate yourself regarding the Constitution and American history through a Google search autodidact education. This leads me to the conclusion that you are the personification of the Dunning–Kruger effect. Two maxims that are absolute and one is generally accepted, and the other is from Socrates: If you have to resort to name calling and ad hominem dialogue to divert away from the substance of the argument, you were never in the argument, and When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser― Socrates.

What you have demonstrated is your fundamental lack of understanding of what constitutes originalism, strict interpretation, that originalism does not reject strict interpretation, what the legal maxim used in the Constitution, ignorance of when Latin is appropriate and when it is not, that a lack of a counter argument is bad form and not substance, no understanding of historical evidence, no understanding of doctrines, no understanding how the establishment clause evolved during the debates in the House and Senate, why certain words were used and certain words were discarded, no understanding of Walz, no understanding of Town of Greece, no understanding of McCullough v. Maryland, no understanding of Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments, no understanding of what the establishment clause means or why it was created, and6 absolutely no understanding of the word “respecting.”

With no apparent post-graduate education regarding American history or the law--especially the Constitution, and no willingness to make a perfunctory attempt at an autodidact education of either, you are not qualified to have an exchange with me on either of the subjects and what you have produced, other than being philistine in nature, is actually quite boring.

You are a living breathing document advocate who forsakes any form of originalism, textualism, strict construction, and the sub-methods of constitutional interpretation.

I am pretty sure you are a just a garden variety internet troll.

My "first responses" weren't "peppered" with anything you ascribed to them. And your first entire first paragraph accurately describes your posts, replete with ostentatious use of Latin phrases, incorrectly invoking maxims not applicable to originalism while humorously providing the wrong instruction of originalism, and now your diatribe in the post above. You delude yourself.

Now, for the record, I graduated top 20% from Notre Dame law school, and I am licensed to practice law in Indiana. I'm quite sure you lack a law degree, given the fact you cite cases that do not support your view and fail to perceive this fact, or perhaps graduated from lowly Thomas Cooley or the soon defunct Valpo school of law.

Ask anyone who has engaged me on these forums, such as Visbek, and they'll inform you I'm an Originalist. Originalism, once again as exposed by Scalia in his book, "A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law," does not adhere to strict interpretation. Scalia describes strict interpretation as "wooden."

The fact is your posts are an unmitigated wreck of non-sense, devoid of any cogent, lucid, logical reasoning and legal reasoning.

You are right. I'm not "qualified" to have an exchange with you, I'm too advanced. Sit right, maybe I can a house pet more on your "qualified" level.

Regardless, no cases have EVER held the EC prohibits taxation of churches, no cases have cited to facts substantiating such a notion, and no facts have been expressed in this thread demonstrating such a notion.

Oh, I'm certain Socrates, a man favoring substance, wouldn't be impressed with your unimpressive use of Latin phrases. Appearing to be educated, and taking on the affectations of a man of much erudition, is easy, but soon exposed. You've been exposed. The substance of what is argued is more revealing, and your posts lack substance but are inundated with fanciful statements.

Unsurprisingly, you mischaracterized the post of mine that you addressed above, as my post had substance. Your posts never did and the frustration is your lack of understanding your posts lack substance, the monotonous repeat of the same tune of posting more replies lacking substance, compounded by blaming me for your inadequacy of good replies.

I cannot have possibly lost this argument since you provided nothing to lose to in this thread. Your posts were vacuous, they remain empty, and I cannot lose to something that doesn't exist, namely any rational argument or cogent legal reasoning.

You lose. Insert more coins to play.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Tennyson]

Re: "Separation of Church and State"

My "first responses" weren't "peppered" with anything you ascribed to them. And your first entire first paragraph accurately describes your posts, replete with ostentatious use of Latin phrases, incorrectly invoking maxims not applicable to originalism while humorously providing the wrong instruction of originalism, and now your diatribe in the post above. You delude yourself.

Now, for the record, I graduated top 20% from Notre Dame law school, and I am licensed to practice law in Indiana. I'm quite sure you lack a law degree, given the fact you cite cases that do not support your view and fail to perceive this fact, or perhaps graduated from lowly Thomas Cooley or the soon defunct Valpo school of law.

Ask anyone who has engaged me on these forums, such as Visbek, and they'll inform you I'm an Originalist. Originalism, once again as exposed by Scalia in his book, "A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law," does not adhere to strict interpretation. Scalia describes strict interpretation as "wooden."

The fact is your posts are an unmitigated wreck of non-sense, devoid of any cogent, lucid, logical reasoning and legal reasoning.

You are right. I'm not "qualified" to have an exchange with you, I'm too advanced. Sit right, maybe I can a house pet more on your "qualified" level.

Regardless, no cases have EVER held the EC prohibits taxation of churches, no cases have cited to facts substantiating such a notion, and no facts have been expressed in this thread demonstrating such a notion.

Oh, I'm certain Socrates, a man favoring substance, wouldn't be impressed with your unimpressive use of Latin phrases. Appearing to be educated, and taking on the affectations of a man of much erudition, is easy, but soon exposed. You've been exposed. The substance of what is argued is more revealing, and your posts lack substance but are inundated with fanciful statements.

Unsurprisingly, you mischaracterized the post of mine that you addressed above, as my post had substance. Your posts never did and the frustration is your lack of understanding your posts lack substance, the monotonous repeat of the same tune of posting more replies lacking substance, compounded by blaming me for your inadequacy of good replies.

I cannot have possibly lost this argument since you provided nothing to lose to in this thread. Your posts were vacuous, they remain empty, and I cannot lose to something that doesn't exist, namely any rational argument or cogent legal reasoning.

You lose. Insert more coins to play.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Whatever you have to tell yourself to justify your actions is fine with me.

My statements stand. Anyone with an internet connection and a computer can post all day long that someone is incorrect without ever making an argument or providing any evidence to the contrary. These characters are a dime a dozen. That is what you have done. Trolls seek to provoke an uncivilized back and forth as you have attempted. I do not have the inclination to engage in that rhetoric nor do I have the inclination to engage anyone who cannot make an argument. So, good luck to you.

 

[NotreDame]

Re: "Separation of Church and State"

Whatever you have to tell yourself to justify your actions is fine with me.

My statements stand. Anyone with an internet connection and a computer can post all day long that someone is incorrect without ever making an argument or providing any evidence to the contrary. These characters are a dime a dozen. That is what you have done. Trolls seek to provoke an uncivilized back and forth as you have attempted. I do not have the inclination to engage in that rhetoric nor do I have the inclination to engage anyone who cannot make an argument. So, good luck to you.

Once again the communication process fails you.

I made arguments rebutting your view. You chose not to address those arguments. I explained why the cases didn't support your view. The fact remains those cases do not support your contention.

The historical facts cited in those cases do not support your contention.

I explained why the cases and historical facts do not support your contention.

Your retorts were nothing more than ostentatious use of Latin phrases not germane to the issue, citing to more decisions having nothing to do with your perspective, incorrectly informing me as to what is originalism, incoming maxims denounced by originalism, and eventually resorting to caustic replies in response to being told your posts lacked substance.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[AllanHampton]

Re: "Separation of Church and State"

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion for one very good reason, the ratified 1789 U.S. Constitution did NOT, does not, delegate a power in religion.

 

[LittleNipper]

Re: "Separation of Church and State"

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion for one very good reason, the ratified 1789 U.S. Constitution did NOT, does not, delegate a power in religion.

The Constitution can make no law preventing the free exercise of religion either. Oddly, there is nothing in the Constitution giving the government the right to control education. Historically, ALL education was the brainchild of and established by religious institutions and not the government. The Federal Government has infringed on this aspect of religious freedom since the 20th century and manipulated what can and cannot be expressed in the now"publicly controlled" institutions.

 

[pinqy]

Re: "Separation of Church and State"

The Constitution can make no law preventing the free exercise of religion either. Oddly, there is nothing in the Constitution giving the government the right to control education. Historically, ALL education was the brainchild of and established by religious institutions and not the government. The Federal Government has infringed on this aspect of religious freedom since the 20th century and manipulated what can and cannot be expressed in the now"publicly controlled" institutions.

Engel v Vitale 370 U.S. 421 (1962) The State of New York wrote a prayer that schools were required to recite every day. Jewish and spiritual but non-religious families protested.
Abington v Schempp 374 U.S. 203 (1963) Pennsylvania required the reading of at least 10 Bible verses every day without comment. Other states required reading of the Lord's Prayer. Edward Schempp, a Unitarian Universalist, protested.

How do you figure either of those cases are free exercise of religion when the State is mandating what, when, where, and how for religious observance?

 

[LittleNipper]

Re: "Separation of Church and State"

Engel v Vitale 370 U.S. 421 (1962) The State of New York wrote a prayer that schools were required to recite every day. Jewish and spiritual but non-religious families protested.
Abington v Schempp 374 U.S. 203 (1963) Pennsylvania required the reading of at least 10 Bible verses every day without comment. Other states required reading of the Lord's Prayer. Edward Schempp, a Unitarian Universalist, protested.

How do you figure either of those cases are free exercise of religion when the State is mandating what, when, where, and how for religious observance?

There are various levels of government. Home, Community, County, State and Federal. The issue at large is can the Federal Government assume control of the State. And a question begs to be asked: What came first prayer and Bible reading in any given school or some select group claiming that such offends them. Jews certainly have their own institutions and under a free society should be able to institute whatever procedures they deem appropriate. Edward Schempp was a known agitator who I do not have any respect for. He "claimed" to be Christian; however, he was a Unitarian and as such misrepresented not only himself, but Christ and the Bible. He fought alongside Madeline Murray O'Hair who was an avowed Atheist.

Any "Christian" parent who objects to a daily reading of a small portion of the Bible is not doing right by their children or the wellbeing of the community at large. Such simply don't have a comprehension of what constitutes an in depth, well rounded education. And where the Bible has been ejected from education lower grades, chaos, and disrespect always follows.

 

[pinqy]

Re: "Separation of Church and State"

There are various levels of government. Home, Community, County, State and Federal. The issue at large is can the Federal Government assume control of the State.

No, the issue is to what degree does the first amendment apply at the local level...whether or not the Bill of Rights was made applicable to the State and Local governments by the 14th amendment.

And a question begs to be asked: What came first prayer and Bible reading in any given school or some select group claiming that such offends them. Jews certainly have their own institutions and under a free society should be able to institute whatever procedures they deem appropriate.

Could you please clarify what you mean here? And how is it applicable to other religious minorities?

Edward Schempp was a known agitator who I do not have any respect for. He "claimed" to be Christian; however, he was a Unitarian and as such misrepresented not only himself, but Christ and the Bible. He fought alongside Madeline Murray O'Hair who was an avowed Atheist.

Completely irrelevant to the matter.

And you didn't actually answer my question. Do you really think the government has the right to dictate when, where, how, and what children hear or do for religious expression? Is mandating set Bible readings, without comment, free exercise?

 

[LittleNipper]

Re: "Separation of Church and State"

No, the issue is to what degree does the first amendment apply at the local level...whether or not the Bill of Rights was made applicable to the State and Local governments by the 14th amendment.

Could you please clarify what you mean here? And how is it applicable to other religious minorities?


Completely irrelevant to the matter.

And you didn't actually answer my question. Do you really think the government has the right to dictate when, where, how, and what children hear or do for religious expression? Is mandating set Bible readings, without comment, free exercise?

The government doesn't have the right to do anything other than protect the borders and regulate trade between States and from foreign countries. An established community has every right to mandate what it wishes and what it feels is important to the welfare of that community.

Citizens have the right to help formulate those rules and through freedom of speech express their pleasure or displeasure. Citizens also have the right to form their own communities (The Quakers, the Amish, the Chinese, and the Mormons did it) What is wrong, and what is happening today is that laws and regulations are being put into place to appease minorities with no regard for what the majority of citizens in any given town or community have accomplished, or think/believe ----- AND without proof that such changes are not harmful, destructive, or will accomplish the ends intended -------------------------- AND it is being done on a nation wide scale circumventing Amendment protocol, making any attempt to affect change or correction by individual citizens impossible.

So the Federal government essentially has limited the common town or community to deciding what style streetlights it wants and if school taxes should remain the same or not and little else. Government tries to manipulate "transgender" bathrooms. I never even heard of transgender until some long forgotten tennis player imagines that he needs to wear wigs and dresses. This should not concern every town in America. The fact that some parent moves to town and wishes that her children should not be exposed to thoughts of GOD is not my concern --- sorry they moved to the wrong place. The school was progressing just fine sticking to old tried and true methods (when a high school education meant a student was proficient in more then just dressing themselves and artistic tattoos).

Can you write or only print? Can people actually read your signature or is it a scribble? Can you build a fort/treehouse or only play video games? Can you formulate a problem or do you need a calculator? Do you understand how Latin contributed to the English language or are we fortunate if you even use punctuation? Do you know who Methuselah was or are you even in a quandary about what "Christ" means? Are you stuck on billion and billions of years or have you ever discussed eternity?

Did you know that students are attending college who need remedial English and Math ----things they should know from elementary School? Sorry, but the government has been fooling around with education for 50 years now. A college education has gone from 2000 to 80,000 dollar plus ---- and frankly, they are not any more intelligent and seemingly a whole lot less thoughtful