Religious activism, then and now
by Albert 1

# 1. 1/26/10 3:43 AM by John The Joonior
thumbsup.gif Thanks for the word--abrogate-- Now I know what happened to my civil rights. They were abrogated in a civil court of matrimonial distress.(under extreme duress.)--

Thanx John

Main Entry: 2ab·ro·gate 1 : to abolish by authoritative, official, or formal action : ANNUL, REPEAL 2 : to put an end to : do away with : set aside synonym see NULLIFY

Main Entry: nul·li·fy 1 : to make null; specifically : to make legally null and void 2 : to make of no value or consequence : reduce to nothing : synonyms INVALIDATE, NEGATE, ANNUL, ABROGATE:

Editor's Note: it's a verey real but nasty word

# 2. 1/26/10 3:48 AM by John The Joonior
thumbsup.gif I had learned this word to describe how the State Of New York has "subrogated" the rights to the child support arrears in my case. The NYS Dept. of Taxation and Finance, is the "collector" and re possessor of all and any assets they choose.

Just to share-Thanx John

I learn something new everyday here at WOTL.

Main Entry: sub·ro·ga·tion 1 : an act of subrogating : as a : the substitution of one for another as a creditor so that the new creditor succeeds to the former's rights in law and equity : a legal operation by which a third person who pays a creditor succeeds to his rights against the debtor as if he were his assignee -- compare SUBSTITUTION 1a b : succession by an insurance company after payment of a loss to the insured's rights against the party responsible for the loss (as against a person negligently or willfully causing fire damage to insured property) 2 : the legal relation created by an act of subrogation

Editor's Note: I'm not familiar with using that one but it's appropriateness might be worthy of adding to my lixicon

thanks John

# 3. 1/26/10 12:11 PM by Hawkeye - East Rochester
“I do however want to see the Law, especially the Constitution's intent to maintain a wall between Church and State,respected.”

That’s funny because I’ve read, and re-read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights repeatedly and have YET to find such a wall either by direct or implied comment. Perhaps you could point me in the right direction on this one.

Editor's Note: It would take some research. You are not one of those who deny Jefferson';s antipathy toward's organized Christianity are you. If so I'll lend you one of the to copies of the Bible he edited.

I think you are capable of reading between the lines and connecting the dots.

At least Jefferson was one I know(there may have been more) that was responsible from putting that invisible wall in place as he knew well the danfers of theocracy.

# 4. 1/26/10 3:09 PM by Hawkeye - East Rochester
First, I never mentioned Jefferson, only the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and there is nothing in either document about a “wall of separation.”

There is, of course, the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment but that merely forbids the government from “establishing” or creating their own religion. This was specifically added in reaction to the Brits' creation of the Church of England. But it does not mention a word about separating the government FROM religion of any type. No wall, just no “establishment”.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. See? Nothing about a 'wall.'

The actual TERM “separation of church and state” first appeared in the ‘Danbury Baptist Church letter’ that Jefferson wrote in 1802 in response to a letter he had received from the church's members. The Danbury Baptists were a religious minority in Connecticut, and they complained that in their state, the religious liberties they enjoyed were not seen as immutable rights, but as privileges granted by the legislature — as "favors granted." Jefferson's reply did not address their concerns about problems with state establishment of religion - only of establishment on the national level.

That letter is not and never has been a part of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, and is most often quoted out of context to try to make a point the liberals continually try to make.

“I think you are capable of reading between the lines and connecting the dots.”

On many things, I am but I am a strict Constitutionalist and DO NOT read between its lines. I like the lines just the way they are. Where the Bill of Rights is concerned, no part is negotiable but it is written that the Constitution can be (and has been) changed by sufficient votes and legislation in specific prescribed manner. (Not by Greek style democracy) Unfortunately, activist judges also think they have that same power. I know you support that. I do not.

Editor's Note: There have been times when the amendment process was too cumbersome to deal with a need to address real time problems that congress also was incapable of dealing with so the Supreme Court became activist to take up the slack.

Of couse it can cut both ways so I only conditionally support activist interpretation.

With a Conservative Court decisions can go the other way like when Gore lost.

I would like to see a better way but think it might be to radically restructure into a parliamentary European style system.

I have no confidence in our present system to ever provide useful amendments.

# 5. 1/26/10 3:16 PM by Jim - Rochester
To messers Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.


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.

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.

Editor's Note: It looks like Hawkeye is also aware of Jefferson's work.

I think that "strict interpretation" is still interpretation that denies the wisdom of common sense.

# 6. 1/26/10 3:21 PM by Jim - Rochester
One more

Treaty of Peace and Friendship Between the United States and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary, 1796-1797

"As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion--as it has itself no character of enmity against the law, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [Muslims],"

Editor's Note: If the general public ever became educated political propaganda as practiced today wouldnt have a chance but they prefer to let others do their thinking for them.

The Christian promoters will insist to their dying day that America is a Christian Nation. All others must take a seat in the back of the bus.

They want a theocracy, Jefferson, and I'm quite sure most of the Founders did not.

include comments