Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: greenspirit who wrote (69569)	12/31/1999 12:12:00 PM
From: MSB	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

I'm just guessing at what the reason is for the Kansas decision to chuck the other half of creationism. For some reason I can't seem to remember what the correct term is though. Science is, imo, almost as much a religion as the more established religions are. So it seems only fair to me that if one is going to accept one theory, then others should be included as well. I like Del (although my reasons might be a bit screwy), but his comment regarding Kansas rubbed me the wrong way. As far as the Church and State thing goes, I wouldn't know. So did you take profits yesterday in FCSE? I was kind of disappointed that you didn't give an opinion on what relation the rise in the 30 year bond might have on the stock market going forward. Later, Mike

To: greenspirit who wrote (69569)	12/31/1999 11:20:00 PM
From: Grainne	Respond to of 108807

Is it your disappointment about the recent Ohio ruling against school vouchers that brings you to to point out that there is no Constitutional principle of separation of church and state? I know that the conservative right makes this argument, but it does not seem to be based on much. Perhaps we could discuss the issue in greater detail after New Year's Eve is over. au.org Incidentally, just because the exact statement "Separation of church and state" is not found in the Constitution, that does not mean that this was not the intent of our country's founders. <<One problem is lawyers and judges spend too much time reading and studying other court/judges opinions, and not enough time studying the source documents.>> The purpose of the Supreme Court is to interpret the Constitution, Michael. What exactly is it that you think is the proper function of courts, anyway?

To: greenspirit who wrote (69569)	1/1/2000 12:19:00 AM
From: Krowbar	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

Michael, I thought that you read at least a thousand of my posts bashing religion. If so, surely you must have read me posting several times that Thomas Jefferson coined the phrase "separation of church and state" in response to the Baptists of Danbury, Connecticut questioning exactly was meant by 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 freedom of press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. (Amendment 1,The Constitution of the United States.)" His response was this.... "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 prohibit the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state." (Thomas Jefferson, as President, in a letter to the Baptists of Danbury, Connecticut, 1802; from George Seldes, ed., The Great Quotations, Secaucus, New Jersey: Citadel Press, 1983, p. 369) You said this.... "One problem is lawyers and judges spend too much time reading and studying other court/judges opinions, and not enough time studying the source documents." I agree. Don't you think Thomas Jefferson makes a pretty good source? The separation of church and state is not something just thought up by liberal judges as some demagogue Republican right wingers would have you believe, including George W. They could have found the source just as easily as I did, but prefer to distort the truth. I find it hard to believe that they are not aware of Jefferson's clarification letter. If they aren't, they don't deserve to be in office. Now, are you going to repeat that same rubbish again 6 months from now, or are you going to remember it this time? I wonder, does this post qualify as bashing religion too? Del