hey great words have been said the rest is the elementals will sort the best out IE your god is with you the truth is sum gods/elementals are an awful lot better than others and have HUGHMAN tempers and live benignly with hughmans if you kn0w your stuff witch you do youd notice them everyday 4 ever and as you sirmised its a bit let it b to a few years later,instantainiously if you want a new species of plant.Hears what i wanted to say asking elementals to prove evolution sure is going to be a problem though their allready at it they tend to blow my mind. my speciality in that field was punching holes inthe clouds to see the blue skies on a rainy dayif you want to no how to do beter ask the elementals. any way the moral of the story means once your on the right wavelenght dont let the local witch turn you into a toad

Yet the quality of the above conversations seems to me that were on to something rare in this wolrd and that this meeting of minds for good is obviously raising our standerds far beyond the majority,Right whos going to preach our ways of seeing thingsa next

theres gotta b another obvious use
I mean the current lingo is probably more useful than the project

Thank you, billvelek. Your post appears to be written in the spirit of discussion for the purpose of stimulating constructive dialogue. My response is intended to be taken in this same vein. Unfortunately, it is impossible to properly address every issue that you bring up. These practical restraints compel me to deal with the one basic issue: The constitutional basis (or lack thereof) for the notion of “the separation of church and state”. (Please bear in mind that I have no formal legal training … )

Again, my comments are directed at the self-proclaimed political agenda currently being pursued by organized Christian religious sects. The self-appointed core advocates/activists of this movement are Christian-right-wing-religious-fundamentalists. They make no secret of this fact. Their most recent attempt to gain political influence was through the manipulative fabrication of a pseudo-scientific concoction they named “The Theory of Intelligent Design (ID)”. This term was coined solely for its deceptive broad and positive-name-association-impact on the average person.

What we all almost universally “intuitively sense” as the presence of some intelligent design or purpose is not at issue here. I, for one, know that this fundamental creative power which exists within every single thing to be a certainty – right down to my marrow. I know this just as clearly as I know that this so-called theory is nothing more than bait used to lure the “decent at heart and in spirit” into unwittingly endorsing a deceptive and destructive sectarian religious bid for power. The entire ID controversy is a blatant backdoor assault on science through the education process; and a treacherous assault on our basic freedoms using the concept of “God” as a rationalization with which to destroy Constitutional rights and our fundamental freedoms as a society.

The most important thing to realize is that the current discussion has absolutely nothing to do with spirituality or the belief in God. God has nothing to do with this issue. The only issue that I am discussing involves the actions and intentions of religious sects who are determined to gain political power and the religious advantage that comes with it.

For the forum members benefit, the precedent for the idea of a “separation of church and state” is based upon the interpretation of the First Amendment: "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."

The study of how court decisions continue to define the underlying meaning/application of a law over time is called “case law.” In the case of Constitutional Law, the most relevant determination of “what the law (Constitution in this case) was intended to mean” is based upon the intent of the Founding Fathers who wrote it. Since the words “the separation of church and state” were not included in the literal words that make up the 1st Amendment of the Bill of Rights, the Supreme Court must attempt to accurately reconstruct the intentions (guiding principles/values) of the Founding Fathers when they actually wrote the document.

The phrase “the separation of church and state” first appears in the form of a direct quote contained in a published letter written in 1802 by then president Thomas Jefferson.

Let’s just move on to the topic at hand, then.

Yes, billvelek. The proper literary conventions at this particular time in history called for the date of official documents to begin with the term “In the year of our Lord.” Do you really find this relevant? If we extend the logic: Since it is no longer stylistically acceptable to use the suffix A.D. after the year, then all documents which lack this suffix will stand as historical proof that the writers of these documents obviously did not believe in God.

To illustrate the point, please consider the following quoted passage.

The word "God" does not appear within the text of the Constitution of the United States. After spending three-and-a-half months debating and negotiating about what should go into the document that would govern the land, the framers drafted a constitution that is secular. The U.S. Constitution is often confused with the Declaration of Independence, and it's important to understand the difference.

The Declaration of Independence is seen as that document that established the new nation of the United States. It was written by Thomas Jefferson in 1778, nine years before the U.S. Constitution was written. It was signed by the Continental Congress and sent to King George III of England. It is a very eloquent document that is celebrated every July 4, but it is not the law of the land. It is a statement of sentiments directed to King George III in reaction to unfair taxation.

The Declaration of Independence refers to "the Creator:"

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

The Declaration of Independence is not a legal document; it is not the U.S. Constitution. Foes of the principle of separation of church and state often refer to the word "Creator" in the Declaration of Independence as proof that the framers of the U.S. Constitution intended for the United States to be ruled by a sovereign being. Nothing could be further from the truth. The United States Constitution was written and ratified by elected officials representing a coalition of Enlightenment rationalists and evangelical Christians who were deeply concerned about entanglements between religion and government.

The US Supreme Court has repeatedly interpreted the First Amendment as if it requires this "wall of separation" between church and state. It not only prohibits any government from adopting a particular denomination or religion as official, but requires government to avoid excessive involvement in religion.

The phrase “wall of separation” entered the language of constitutional law in Reynolds v. United States (1879). Almost 70 later, in the landmark case Everson v. Board of Education (1947), the Supreme Court elevated the phrase to constitutional doctrine. In McCollum v. Board of Education (1948), the Court essentially “constitutionalized” Jefferson’s term in its definition of the 1st Amendment which now includes this phrase.

We need to be clear about the “misinterpretation of the Jefferson reference” which you refer to. While serving as president, Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut on January 1, 1802. It contains the first known reference to the "wall of separation". The essay states in part:

"I contemplate with solemn 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".

What is there to misinterpret?

The following quotes from three of the President/Founding Fathers (including James Madison who is also regarded as “the father of the U.S. Constitution”) leave no doubts.

"Erecting the ‘wall of separation between church and state’ ... is absolutely essential in a free society." - Thomas Jefferson

"The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State." - James Madison

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..." - Opening statement of Article XI of The Treaty of Tripoli, approved by President John Adams and Secretary of State Timothy Pickering and ratified by the Senate.

“Whilst we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess and to observe the Religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny an equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet yielded to the evidence which has convinced us." - James Madison

The intent of the Founding Fathers was clear. Therefore, counselor, I respectfully submit that any other considerations are irrelevant.

This is an interesting juxtaposition, in the USA you have a separation of church and state, and yet the right wing Christian fundamentalists appear, from an external view, to have a significant impact on the functioning of the state. Whereas in the UK the where church and state are absolutely en-meshed with the head of state being the head of the established church, the church has very little direct influence on the functioning of the state.

As for myself, I beleive in a 'God' (for want of a better word), but have lost faith in the established Churches due to their utter hypocrisy. The Anglican church is about to go into schism over practising homosexual clergy. That is when the sexual act is between two same sex consenting adults, however when the homosexual act is paedophillic in nature, just like the Catholic Church through out the world, it will forgive and protect the offenders.

It's nice to hear from you again, buddy. I miss your New England pragmatism (shades of Emerson & Thoreau).

I agree. There is no reason to believe that any child could not certainly benefit in many ways, besides just receiving a much higher quality education, by attending a private school.

And while I am certain that I am not telling you anything that you do not already know, my friend, I believe that the following point is worth reiterating.

A child does not develop spiritual sensibilities simply from reading the Bible any more than he will develop an abiding respect for ethical living by reading a book on the law. Dogma may be acquired through explanation, reasoning and recitation; but spiritual truth remains hidden between the words; within the nuances.

Only when children directly witness for themselves some model of living spiritual truth within the words and actions of a person whom they respect and admire does their spiritual training truly begin.

Of course, it certainly makes sense that there is a much better chance that the child will encounter such an example in a private school vs. a public school. Still, the child’s best hope is when at least one such model is also their parent.

So, marysduby, let us know how things are going with you.

24 hour club 18 30 TV, watch us evolve.


seriously folks keep talking http://www.twra5t.co.uk