Separation of church and state

Like bringing up irrelevant stuff to misdirect attention much?What does religious affiliation of private colleges have to do with separation of church and state?Also, Harvard was not started as a Christian school.From the Harvard History page:

quote:

---

Harvard is the oldest institution of higher education in the United states, established in 1636 by vote of the Great and General Court of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. It was named after the college's first benefactor, the young minister John Harvard of Charlestown, who upon his death in 1638 left his library and half his estate to the institution.

---

Yale was not started as a specifically Christian School.

quote:

---

Yale’s roots can be traced back to the 1640s, when colonial clergymen led an effort to establish a college in New Haven to preserve the tradition of European liberal education in the New World. This vision was fulfilled in 1701, when the charter was granted for a school wherein Youth may be instructed in the Arts and Sciences [and] through the blessing of Almighty God may be fitted for Publick employment both in Church and Civil State. In 1718 the school was renamed Yale College in gratitude to the Welsh merchant Elihu Yale, who had donated the proceeds from the sale of nine bales of goods together with 417 books and a portrait of King George I.

---

From Yale's history page.and for Princeton...?

quote:

---

Princeton was the fourth institution of higher education in the U.S. to conduct classes. The university, unlike most American universities that were founded at the same time, did not have an official religious affiliation.

---

from the Wiki article on Princeton.You have to check things from Answers in Genesis.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

I should have made this clear much earlier. I bring it up largely not to complain, but to show the insecurity it displays. If one or two people were making good arguments against me, the other 11 or 12 wouldn’t have much or anything to say. It shows a lack of confidence in each other — a feeling that other posters are doing inadequate jobs. But it also seems to be an attempt to make my position look like one of a tiny minority, with your saying I’m wrong about so many things. Current Supreme Court justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and probably John Roberts wouldn’t think they’re too wrong. Neither would former justice William Rehnquist. Neither would the many millions of people across the US that make talk radio and Fox news the successful enterprises that they are. If most of those at these forums get their news exclusively from the NY Times, CNN, or the faculty at Harvard, that doesn’t necessarily mean that most of the population does. Stone v Graham County of Allegheny v ACLUYou can say that those aren’t 100% voluntary religious activities, but they’re 90%. When these types of cases are judged, they are justified by citations of previous case law. In Stone, the pre 1947 citations were zero, post 1947 citations were fifteen. In Allegheny, pre 1947 citations were zero, post 1947 citations were 126.

It tells me that they checked up on what was going on in US politics throughout the 30’s and 40’s, that led up to that decision, and saw it (combined with FDR’s actions) to be a good idea for their communist/atheist government. Our currency got In God We Trust put on in the 1950’s, the era of McCarthyism. McCarthyism was a lot more than just a backlash of the 1947 Everson case, but that was a small part of it. The courts say that, when they base their decisions on their own past decisions more than on the original intent of the framers. See the above referenced citations in 'Stone' and 'Allegheny'. Those cases would have been decided differently before 1947. No. Just like there shouldn’t be a cooperative relationship between an atheist university management and state, or humanism and state. In the late 18th and into the 19th century, Congress appropriated time and again public money in support of religion. Typical was Jeffersons treaty with the Kaskaskia Indians, which provided annual cash support for the tribe’s Roman Catholic priest and church. That was a time very close to the formation of the constitution. It’s today’s revisionists that trumpet the separation of church and state who hate the constitution, not me.

It could affect how much 'separation of church and state' content a con-law course would have. You should check things from Wiki also. From another Wiki page;

quote:

---

At the urging of Benjamin Rush and Richard Stockton, whom he met in Paisley,[7] Witherspoon finally accepted another invitation (he had earlier turned one down in 1766) to become President and head professor of the small Presbyterian College of New Jersey in Princeton. To fulfill this, he and his family emigrated to New Jersey in 1768 at the age of 45. He became the sixth President of the college, later known as Princeton University.

---

The College of New Jersey's name was changed to Princeton, and it had a Christian (Presbyterian) founding.

And presumably when those notorious communist/atheists Madison and Jefferson wrote about "separation of church and state" they'd been playing with their time machine again.

HUH?That makes no sense at all. My education (not even con law) was in an Episcopal Church School and even there we were able to see that the US was NOT founded as a Christian Nation and that the origin of the Constitution was English Common Law, the Iroquois Nation and the Enlightenment and that the biggest obstacle to creating a Nation was the Christian Sects.Also, about Princeton, what you seem to be thinking of is what became Princeton Theological Seminary which was added to expand the curriculum from it's existing Liberal Education. They are separate institutions.BUT, again, what does the affiliation of a College have to do with separation of Church and State?

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

That has to be the lamest stretch of reality I have ever heard in the debate over separation of church and state. You are truly going to go down fighting that the Constitution is based on the christian bible because of the phrase "Sundays excepted"? Really? Really? That is all you got?
You ahve been asked multiple times to show how the constitution embodies christian principles and this is it? WOW!!!! AS other poster have pointed out you have nothing here. YOur examples much more coincide with Greek and Roman traditions than judeo-christian.

quote:

---

Most of the colleges in the United States that started over 300 years ago were Bible-proclaiming schools originally. Harvard and Yale (originally Puritan) and Princeton (originally Presbyterian) once had rich Christian histories.

---

I think you can say all of the colleges started 300 years ago were christian schools. Funny how you hark back to pre-USA days. You see 300 years ago was pre-constitution. So you have no point here. Well you do but it is stupid. The first publicly chartered Universities post Constitution were the University of Georgia and University of North Carolina. The traditional colleges and Universities(especially the religious affiliated) were out of the reach of the average person and minorities(blacks) until the passage of the Morril act and the founding of Land grant colleges in 1862. Because we had a revolution and a constitution since then.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Stone and County of Allegheny are Establishment Clause cases, not Free Exercise Clause cases. Here's an important point for you to learn. Private citizens have the right to Free Exercise of their religion, governments don't. So those cases have absolutely nothing to do with voluntary religious activities. They have to do with prohibiting Establishment of Religion by the government.So, I still maintain my position that it's a neocon lie that voluntary religious activities are unconstitutional.As far as what you think about what Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Rehnquist or the entire listening audience of Faux news may think, irrelevant, unless they want to come here and debate. Please try and stick to the point.

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas JeffersonFor we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- PhatIt has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

The Russians wouldn’t have noticed Madison’s and Jefferson’s writings on it, because they weren’t in the constitution. I doubt if Russia would have had access to obscure little letters to Danbury Baptists of 1802. But they would have had access to the big change in 1947, especially if America’s liberal news media were trumpeting it as loud as they could, as I suspect they were. America may not have had the equivalent of Katie Couric and Dan Rather and Al Franken back then, but it had the NY Times.

quote:

---

The Congressional Records from June 7 to September 25, 1789, record the months of discussions and debates of the ninety Founding Fathers who framed the First Amendment. Significantly, not only was Thomas Jefferson not one of those ninety who framed the First Amendment, but also, during those debates not one of those ninety Framers ever mentioned the phrase "separation of church and state." It seems logical that if this had been the intent for the First Amendment — as is so frequently asserted-then at least one of those ninety who framed the Amendment would have mentioned that phrase; none did.

---

The Separation of Church and State - WallBuilders

Sure it does — if today’s universities are controlled by atheists and liberals, it only makes sense that separation of church and state are going to make up about half of a conlaw course. Far more than it would be in universities that are Christian, or have a wide range of representation of beliefs in its authority structure. Yes yes I know — Christians are the ones who are most adamant about separation of church and state, far more than atheists, I see it all the time on scientific forums.

No, I’ve got a lot more — it was in Message 56. But Sunday’s excepted is enough to demolish any absolute truth claims of the Treaty of Tripoli - that's the point I was making above. If you’re going to be part of a gang, taking note of how many times an entire gang asks questions, it’s only logical that you should read all my responses to them. That’s not it, how about checking out Message 56? You could back that up by showing evidence that the founders referenced Greek and Roman traditions as they were forming and debating US foundings more than they referenced the Bible. What was being taught in colleges at the time of the US founding would have been very similar to what was being taught before the founding of the US.How out of reach they were to the public isn’t relevant to what they were teaching, and comparing it to what is being taught today. You know I was talking about its evolution from the constitution to today, not from before the constitution to the constitution.

Do you ever read what you write? Once again...HUH?

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Was the Thanksgiving Day proclamation by George Washington an establishment of religion by the government? It wasn’t in president Washington’s day, but it clearly would be today.There seems to be lot of fuzzy middle ground in determining what the difference is between ‘free exercise’ and ‘establishment’. What was considered free exercise before 1947 is now considered establishment. Free exercise has been narrowed down to mean little more than a quiet Bible study in someones basement. Just about anything more out in the open than that is establishment. What 19th century courts called "encouragement", today is being called "establishment". Because you don’t acknowledge the 1948 case,
McCollum v Board of Education. The court didn’t permit voluntary elective religious classes, including parental consent, and no expense to the school system. Without something like this getting in the way, humanism/atheism then gets combined with state, unopposed.

quote:

---

The January/February 1983 issue of The Humanist carried this article titled "A Religion for a New Age." The author stated:
I am convinced that the battle for humankind's future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects the spark of what theologians call divinity in every human being. These teachers must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preachers, for they will be ministers of another sort, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist values in whatever subject they teach, regardless of the educational level preschool day care or large state university.(20)

---

Education and New Age HumanismI can load you up with quotes from Elitist university administrators about how humanism has to be part of all levels of today's school curriculums.

(seconds later) Maybe it is YOU who needs to read what I write?

Here once again is what you wrote. Can you really not see that you contradicted yourself, that the two quotes are mutually exclusive? Do you want me to parse them for you?

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!