Post Reply
Page 1 of 3  •  1 2 3 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Endowed by the Creator
4 years ago  ::  Sep 03, 2010 - 2:57PM #1
anidominus
Posts: 105

I have a question.  Do you think the founding fathers were stupid?  Do you think they were a bunch of ignorant stupid white men who would tie their shoes together, if they had shoe strings, so they could continuously trip as they walked down the street?  I personally think the founders were intelligent people and when it comes to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution they thought them out very carefully.  I know Thomas wrote the D.O.I. but the other guys didn’t put their names on it without reading it and critiquing it.


What the founding fathers wanted as it relates to “Separation of Church  and State” shouldn’t be too hard to figure out just by reading the DOI.


All squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares


Everything that separates church from state isn’t necessarily what the founders meant when implementing this so called “principle”.  If they wanted to use this statement specifically they could have but in the constitution they chose not to.  Basically, the church and the state in Britain were meddling in each other organizational affairs.  The founders wanted the meddling to cease and therefore implemented the establishment clause in the bill of rights.  Now, the BOR was done at the request of the states… not the founding fathers.  The constitution would not have been passed if they didn’t include the BOR and there were some who were against it.  Keep that in mind.  Also the guys who worked on the constitution were not necessarily the same guys who worked on the DOI.


The Constitution is no more a secular document than McDonald’s dress code policy.


To suggest that the Constitution is “secular” is to impose upon it a status that is utterly ridiculas.  If you look at policy handbooks of churches across the country I doubt any of them are “religious”.  Policy and procedures are just that… policy and procedures.  The purpose of the Constitution was to outline the roll and responsibility of the Federal Government.  If you read the DOI it tells you that the government gets its powers from the consent of the people.


If the people had consented to the government getting involved in the affairs of the church they could have consented to it.  Therefore, there is nothing in the Constitution (at least in its original form) that would have prohibited the meddling the founders experienced in Britain, but based on people desire not to see that happen and the difficulty in changing the constitution it would have been very tough to get that done. And even today the bill of rights can be repealed by a single amendment.


The Declaration of Independence is a Civil Lawsuit.


Every civil lawsuit has 5 things. 


A) Plaintiff
B) Defendant
C) A Complaint
D) Legal System upon which to adjudicate the case
E) Impartial Judge


The DOI has all 5 of these things.


A)    The Founding Fathers
B)     King George of Britain
C)    Begins at paragraph 3 according to Ushistory.org
D)    [Discuss Later]
E)     Last Paragraph.  “Supreme Judge of the World”


Now, to my knowledge I don’t know of any “one world” government back in those days so who is the Supreme Judge of the World the founders spoke of?  If you’re going to make an appeal to someone, especially when you are trying to go over the head of a King you’re not going to make this appeal to anyone with whom you are not familiar or at least you believe his authority can override those of a “lower court”.


Also, if there is a “Supreme Judge” then this “Supreme Judge” must be officiating over a legal system of some description.  So, the question is… who’s?  Earlier in the DOI the founders referred to a “Creator” who was the endower of rights.  If the founding fathers were complaining that the rights the “Creator” gave them were being violated by the King then it would suffice to say that the Founders were suing the King in the Creators court and making an appeal to that court’s Judge.


Now, if you are a lawyer, are you going to file a lawsuit in a place were you know nothing about the legal system.  Unless you are stupid you will not.  You will first understand the legal system, see if you can win your case, and if you think you can, you will file the lawsuit.


Why would the founders do something so faulty as to file a lawsuit upon a legal system they knew nothing about?  They wouldn’t have.  Therefore, the Creator and the legal system were both well known to the founders.  So, what one entity did the founders believe in that would be above the King of Britain?  Nature?  Yeah right, nature is about the survival of the fittest.  Man?  Who?  The King of France?  The King of Britain?  No Good.  Themselves?  How could they have created themselves? 


There is only one answer that makes any sense.  God, and to be more specific, the God of Abraham, Iassac, and Jacob.  The God of the Jews.  Christians believe in the God of the Jews.  Demanding Jesus’ name be used in place of “Creator” was unnecessary.  And God’s true name is only mentioned a few times in all of scripture so putting his name here was not necessary at all.   The agnostics in the bunch were heavily influenced by their Christian surroundings 


So what does this mean for Separation of Church and State?


The way Separation of Church and State is being used today by some is a farce.  First of all the God they believed in was essential in determining where the rights of man came.  So to understand what rights you have you must understand God.  The Constitution does not grant rights… it puts a written protection on some rights.


Second, the founders objective was to create a government that had to be beholding to the people.  They were not trying to create a “secular government”.  The fact that so many people were fed up with the state and church meddling in each others affairs the people never would have consented to such activities but the door on those possibility was never closed.


Third, the Constitution says that the congress can not pass a law in respect to the establishment of a religion nor prevent the free exercise thereof.  At the end of the day, when all the laws are passed, those laws are going to be passed based on a group’s opinion that the law should be passed. 


There is nothing written anywhere that revokes a law because of where the idea for the law originated whether Christian Scripture or an atheists’ brain.  So long as the people have consented to give the government the authority to pass a law regarding a subject then the law should stand otherwise it shall fall.


As educated as we claim to be we shouldn’t even be having this debate regarding separation of church and state.  Those words never appear in either the Constitution or the DOI and what is mentioned is specific and well defined.  The establishment clause was never meant to rip commandments off of walls, crosses out of grave yards, and to yank prayer out of school.  There was not one law passed invoking any of those things and therefore the courts really had nothing to rule on. 


What has happened with Separation of Church and State is that our freedom to express our Christian identity in our everyday lives weather private or public have been violated.  The very people who claim to be champions of liberty are in fact destroyers of it.  So, if you are Christian I encourage you to speak up for your RIGHT to express your Christian faith privately and publically.

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Sep 03, 2010 - 4:09PM #2
amcolph
Posts: 17,634

Sep 3, 2010 -- 2:57PM, anidominus wrote:


What has happened with Separation of Church and State is that our freedom to express our Christian identity in our everyday lives weather private or public have been violated.  The very people who claim to be champions of liberty are in fact destroyers of it.  So, if you are Christian I encourage you to speak up for your RIGHT to express your Christian faith privately and publically.




In what specific ways has your freedom to express your Christian identity privately and publically been violated?


I am a Christian myself, but have not had that experience.

This post contains no advertisements or solicitations.
Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Sep 03, 2010 - 5:28PM #3
anidominus
Posts: 105

Sep 3, 2010 -- 4:09PM, amcolph wrote:


Sep 3, 2010 -- 2:57PM, anidominus wrote:


What has happened with Separation of Church and State is that our freedom to express our Christian identity in our everyday lives weather private or public have been violated.  The very people who claim to be champions of liberty are in fact destroyers of it.  So, if you are Christian I encourage you to speak up for your RIGHT to express your Christian faith privately and publically.




In what specific ways has your freedom to express your Christian identity privately and publically been violated?


I am a Christian myself, but have not had that experience.





In no way that I can recall has my personal religious freedom's been violated that I know of.

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Sep 03, 2010 - 7:11PM #4
amcolph
Posts: 17,634

Sep 3, 2010 -- 5:28PM, anidominus wrote:


Sep 3, 2010 -- 4:09PM, amcolph wrote:


Sep 3, 2010 -- 2:57PM, anidominus wrote:


What has happened with Separation of Church and State is that our freedom to express our Christian identity in our everyday lives weather private or public have been violated.  The very people who claim to be champions of liberty are in fact destroyers of it.  So, if you are Christian I encourage you to speak up for your RIGHT to express your Christian faith privately and publically.




In what specific ways has your freedom to express your Christian identity privately and publically been violated?


I am a Christian myself, but have not had that experience.





In no way that I can recall has my personal religious freedom's been violated that I know of.




Then what's your case?  Are you arguing on behalf of someone else?


If so, can you outline that person's experiences for us?

This post contains no advertisements or solicitations.
Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Sep 03, 2010 - 7:41PM #5
anidominus
Posts: 105

Sep 3, 2010 -- 7:11PM, amcolph wrote:


Sep 3, 2010 -- 5:28PM, anidominus wrote:


Sep 3, 2010 -- 4:09PM, amcolph wrote:


Sep 3, 2010 -- 2:57PM, anidominus wrote:


What has happened with Separation of Church and State is that our freedom to express our Christian identity in our everyday lives weather private or public have been violated.  The very people who claim to be champions of liberty are in fact destroyers of it.  So, if you are Christian I encourage you to speak up for your RIGHT to express your Christian faith privately and publically.




In what specific ways has your freedom to express your Christian identity privately and publically been violated?


I am a Christian myself, but have not had that experience.





In no way that I can recall has my personal religious freedom's been violated that I know of.




Then what's your case?  Are you arguing on behalf of someone else?


If so, can you outline that person's experiences for us?





Let me know when you have read the entire article. 


Thanks!!

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Sep 03, 2010 - 9:10PM #6
amcolph
Posts: 17,634

Sep 3, 2010 -- 7:41PM, anidominus wrote:



Let me know when you have read the entire article. 


Thanks!!




I read your entire post, including this:


"As educated as we claim to be we shouldn’t even be having this debate regarding separation of church and state.  Those words never appear in either the Constitution or the DOI and what is mentioned is specific and well defined.  The establishment clause was never meant to rip commandments off of walls, crosses out of grave yards, and to yank prayer out of school."


 
You're right.  It's not just the "establishment" clause, but the "free exercise" clause as well.


Your right to the free exercise of your religion extends only so far as it does not affront someone else's right to free exercise.  Prayer in school is a good example.  Requiring students to pray in a manner established by the theology of a particular Christian sect is an interference with the free exercise of religion of all of the students who do not belong to that sect (including mine, thank you very much).  That is, it constrains them to participate in a religious ritual which is not consistent with their own religious belief.  When the state imposes that constraint, it is a violation of the establishment clause as well.


As to your other examples, you will have to be more specific. Desecrating the graveyards of any religion is against the law in this country, and I am not aware of any action of the courts to overturn it.




This post contains no advertisements or solicitations.
Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Sep 03, 2010 - 9:50PM #7
anidominus
Posts: 105

Sep 3, 2010 -- 9:10PM, amcolph wrote:


Sep 3, 2010 -- 7:41PM, anidominus wrote:



Let me know when you have read the entire article. 


Thanks!!




I read your entire post, including this:


"As educated as we claim to be we shouldn’t even be having this debate regarding separation of church and state.  Those words never appear in either the Constitution or the DOI and what is mentioned is specific and well defined.  The establishment clause was never meant to rip commandments off of walls, crosses out of grave yards, and to yank prayer out of school."


 
You're right.  It's not just the "establishment" clause, but the "free exercise" clause as well.


Your right to the free exercise of your religion extends only so far as it does not affront someone else's right to free exercise.  Prayer in school is a good example.  Requiring students to pray in a manner established by the theology of a particular Christian sect is an interference with the free exercise of religion of all of the students who do not belong to that sect (including mine, thank you very much).  That is, it constrains them to participate in a religious ritual which is not consistent with their own religious belief.  When the state imposes that constraint, it is a violation of the establishment clause as well.


As to your other examples, you will have to be more specific. Desecrating the graveyards of any religion is against the law in this country, and I am not aware of any action of the courts to overturn it.








Much better question/ statement.


Our freedom's do not stop and end at our persons.  If we gather together as a group [of any size] the group has rights.  The group has a right to express itself and govern itself according to its wishes. 


If county [a group] leadership [officials of that group] decided to allow schools to pray then it is up to each school to establish what kind of prayer it wants to use for that school.  The school may, and it would be a good idea, to seek out assitance from the parents of the children to make that determination. 


If we have various Christian sects a prayer that would be suitable to the majority of those sects would suffice.  If other secs come in or an entirely diffrent religion wants to come in then they have every right to express their input.  If athiest come in they have a right to express their input.


If some people don't like the prayer they can respect the rights of the others to pass such legislation and deal with it accordingly.  Laws get passed all the time that everyone doesn't agree with but we all have to abide by them anyway so the fact that an athiest doesn't like the prayer doesn't mean his desire to not hear a prayer trumps everybody elses right to establish a prayer and speak it.


Sometimes an area is so populated with one particular religion (sect) that prayer in school just becomes something that is as natural as prayer at home but if at some point the school wants to regulate then as a group they have the freedom to do so.


If over time athiest become the dominate force in a county they have every right to say that there will be no more prayer in school.  And guess what... the Christians left in the county  should respect the right of the group to legislate such a thing and deal with it.


And you can apply the same concept between Federal, State, Local, and City governments.


This is the America the founders wanted.


I find it amazing that under "Freedom of Speach" a person can say any old filthy, disgusting, or horrible thing they want to say and the reply to Chrisitians is deal with it.


Yet under freedom of religion if we want to put a cross in the front of our public cemetary... no.  Ten commandments on the wall in the court house... no.  Christmas scene on the public square.... no  Why?  because it may offend someone and seperation of church and state. 


That is TOTAL BS.


If you would like information regarding the ALCU which is the main transgressor against religious freedoms then look them up.  Perhaps you'll see what I'm talking about or perhaps you wont.

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Sep 04, 2010 - 10:24AM #8
amcolph
Posts: 17,634

Sep 3, 2010 -- 9:50PM, anidominus wrote:






Much better question/ statement.


Our freedom's do not stop and end at our persons.  If we gather together as a group [of any size] the group has rights.  The group has a right to express itself and govern itself according to its wishes. 


If county [a group] leadership [officials of that group] decided to allow schools to pray then it is up to each school to establish what kind of prayer it wants to use for that school.  The school may, and it would be a good idea, to seek out assitance from the parents of the children to make that determination. 


If we have various Christian sects a prayer that would be suitable to the majority of those sects would suffice.  If other secs come in or an entirely diffrent religion wants to come in then they have every right to express their input.  If athiest come in they have a right to express their input.


If some people don't like the prayer they can respect the rights of the others to pass such legislation and deal with it accordingly.  Laws get passed all the time that everyone doesn't agree with but we all have to abide by them anyway so the fact that an athiest doesn't like the prayer doesn't mean his desire to not hear a prayer trumps everybody elses right to establish a prayer and speak it.


Sometimes an area is so populated with one particular religion (sect) that prayer in school just becomes something that is as natural as prayer at home but if at some point the school wants to regulate then as a group they have the freedom to do so.


If over time athiest become the dominate force in a county they have every right to say that there will be no more prayer in school.  And guess what... the Christians left in the county  should respect the right of the group to legislate such a thing and deal with it.



You understand, don't you, that many Christians and those of other faiths also oppose prayer in school, as they understand full well that the conditions that you set forth can never be met in practice?  It is rather like the old "separate but equal" rule.  It looks good on paper to people who are, at bottom, indifferent to the rights of those unlike themselves, but it just doesn't work out in practice.  Public school children can pray in groups before or after school and privately at any time.  That should suffice.


I agree, that if in some small rural public school where everybody belongs to the same church you can have your prayers, but the minute even a single one who doesn't moves in, a Catholic or a Mormon or a Buddhist, you're done.


I find it amazing that under "Freedom of Speach" a person can say any old filthy, disgusting, or horrible thing they want to say and the reply to Chrisitians is deal with it.


Yet under freedom of religion if we want to put a cross in the front of our public cemetary... no.  Ten commandments on the wall in the court house... no.  Christmas scene on the public square.... no  Why?  because it may offend someone and seperation of church and state. 


That is TOTAL BS.



I believe I know the cases that you are thinking of and if so your characterization of the is, indeed, BS.


Perhaps you could disabuse me of that notion by providing specific details.


If you would like information regarding the ALCU which is the main transgressor against religious freedoms then look them up.  Perhaps you'll see what I'm talking about or perhaps you wont.





Ah, yes.  The terrible ACLU, who have done things like successfully defend the legal rights of Fundamentalist Christian groups who wanted to have pre-school 'round the flagpole' prayer circles and after school Bible study clubs on school grounds.

This post contains no advertisements or solicitations.
Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Sep 04, 2010 - 11:08AM #9
anidominus
Posts: 105

Sep 4, 2010 -- 10:24AM, amcolph wrote:


You understand, don't you, that many Christians and those of other faiths also oppose prayer in school, as they understand full well that the conditions that you set forth can never be met in practice?  It is rather like the old "separate but equal" rule.  It looks good on paper to people who are, at bottom, indifferent to the rights of those unlike themselves, but it just doesn't work out in practice.  Public school children can pray in groups before or after school and privately at any time.  That should suffice.


I agree, that if in some small rural public school where everybody belongs to the same church you can have your prayers, but the minute even a single one who doesn't moves in, a Catholic or a Mormon or a Buddhist, you're done.



If that's the way YOUR community wants to handle that situation then so be it.  That's what YOUR freedom is for.  My community may wish something else.


I believe I know the cases that you are thinking of and if so your characterization of the is, indeed, BS.


Perhaps you could disabuse me of that notion by providing specific details.



It's not my job to read the news for you.  If you really want to know if they, or what,  happened all you have to do is look them up.   I could look them up and place all the links here but that would be a waste of time time now wouldn't it?  Because there is nothing in any of those stories that's going to convice you that religious freedom extends to communities as well as individuals.


Ah, yes.  The terrible ACLU, who have done things like successfully defend the legal rights of Fundamentalist Christian groups who wanted to have pre-school 'round the flagpole' prayer circles and after school Bible study clubs on school grounds.




If only Jason Voorhees had rescured a few drowning children we would have invited him to the Christmas party.




Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Sep 04, 2010 - 12:06PM #10
TPaine
Posts: 9,380

Are we back to the prayer in school debate again? How many times does this topic have to be brought up in this forum? SCOTUS decided in Abington School District v. Schempp way back in 1963 that the state (through the public schools) cannot promote religion through Bible readings or prayer. This decision does not prevent students from praying silently or reading their Bibles in their free time.


caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.p...


The DOI is not a legal document. It was written to explain to the public why the colonies were declaring their independence from Britain. The fact that it was written by the Unitarian Thomas Jefferson should be all one should need to understand that the term "Nature's God" referred to the Deist, not Christian deity. Anyone who has read anything written by Jefferson on the topic of religion knows that he was not a Christian, and that he firmly believed in the separation of church and state.

The address of the Danbury Baptists Association in the state of Connecticut, assembled October 7, 1801. To Thomas Jefferson, Esq., President of the United States of America.

Sir,

Among the many million in America and Europe who rejoice in your election to office; we embrace the first opportunity which we have enjoyed in our collective capacity, since your inauguration, to express our great satisfaction, in your appointment to the chief magistracy in the United States: And though our mode of expression may be less courtly and pompous than what many others clothe their addresses with, we beg you, sir, to believe that none are more sincere.
Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious liberty--that religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals--that no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious opinions--that the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbors; But, sir, our constitution of government is not specific. Our ancient charter together with the law made coincident therewith, were adopted as the basis of our government, at the time of our revolution; and such had been our laws and usages, and such still are; that religion is considered as the first object of legislation; and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the state) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights; and these favors we receive at the expense of such degrading acknowledgements as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen. It is not to be wondered at therefore; if those who seek after power and gain under the pretense of government and religion should reproach their fellow men--should reproach their order magistrate, as a enemy of religion, law, and good order, because he will not, dare not, assume the prerogatives of Jehovah and make laws to govern the kingdom of Christ.
Sir, we are sensible that the president of the United States is not the national legislator, and also sensible that the national government cannot destroy the laws of each state; but our hopes are strong that the sentiments of our beloved president, which have had such genial effect already, like the radiant beams of the sun, will shine and prevail through all these states and all the world, till hierarchy and tyranny be destroyed from the earth. Sir, when we reflect on your past services, and see a glow of philanthropy and good will shining forth in a course of more than thirty years we have reason to believe that America's God has raised you up to fill the chair of state out of that goodwill which he bears to the millions which you preside over. May God strengthen you for your arduous task which providence and the voice of the people have called you to sustain and support you enjoy administration against all the predetermined opposition of those who wish to raise to wealth and importance on the poverty and subjection of the people.
And may the Lord preserve you safe from every evil and bring you at last to his heavenly kingdom through Jesus Christ our Glorious Mediator.

Signed in behalf of the association,
Nehemiah Dodge Ephraim Robbins Stephen S. Nelson




To messers Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem & approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful & zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more & more pleasing.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of 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. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from presenting even occasional performances of devotion presented indeed legally where an Executive is the legal head of a national church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] 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 to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

(signed) Thomas Jefferson
Jan.1.1802


"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." -- Thomas Jefferson: Notes on the State of Virginia, 1781-1783


"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes." --Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, 1813.


"Be it therefore enacted by the General Assembly, That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in nowise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities." ... Thomas Jefferson (The Virginia Act For Establishing Religious Freedom) 1786


The actual supreme law of the land is the Constitution which, by the intent of the Framers, is a totally secular document. The only mention of religion in the body of the Constitution itself is paragraph three of Article VI which states:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.


The Father of the Constitution and it's primary author, James Madison, was also a strong proponent of the separation of church and state.

"Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together"-- James Madison (Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822).


"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 (Letter to Robert Walsh, Mar. 2, 1819).


But Madison also issued a warning. The church would never stop trying to insert itself into the governing of the nation.

"Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and & Gov't in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history" -- James Madison (Detached Memoranda, circa 1820)


"The genius of the Constitution rests not in any static meaning it might have had in a world that is dead and gone, but in the adaptability of its great principles to cope with current problems and current needs." -- Justice William Brennan: Speech to the Text and Teaching Symposium at Georgetown University (October 12, 1985)
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 1 of 3  •  1 2 3 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook