Stop the Ground Zero Mosque -- Join us on FACEBOOK

On Sep 2, 11:40*am, "mazorj" wrote:
READER ALERT: *We've veered way OT here and what follows is a lengthy
response to Jud's feeble attempt to defend Beck.

Although I said mazorj could have the last word (and I am sure that he
will!), I must begin my rebuttal to say that nowhere in my post did I
attempt to defend Beck. Re-read please and then re-read again. My post
said that you overuse buzz words, and asked you to explain the MLK
'desecration', to which you did respond but didn't come near to
defining how Beck committed 'desecration'. And yes, I am well aware
that the 1st Amendment addresses government suppression of free
speech, not on a citizen-to-citizen basis.


Do you consider people who object to building an Islamic cultural center
blocks away from Ground Zero to be hypocrites when they see nothing
objectionable in having a rabid neocon crypto-racist like Beck cynically
desecrate the site and date of MLK's seminal speech?

Just asking (and yes, veering OT, mea culpa).


I guess the 1st Amendment rights only apply when people are saying
what you agree with. "Rabid neocon crypto-racist?" There should be a
penalty for using too many 'buzz words' in the same sentence. Please
tell us all just how you think Beck 'desecrated' the site and date?
Oh, that's right, I am sorry, I forgot...it would have been totally
proper and correct and not desecration if it was someone with whom you
agreed, and in reality, nothing to do with MLK at all. In case you
need a reminder...the Constitution guarantees everyone to air their
grievances.

Jud -mea maxima culpa-
Flame on! You may have the last word.
=======================

(Jerry, pay attention too)

Why is it that whenever someone's ox gets gored like I just did to Beck's,
the most common (and weakest) response is to rise to the defense with some
drivel about encroaching on the offender's First Amendment rights? *This is
a straw-man argument, totally worthless.

Nowhere did my flame on Beck say or even suggest that he had no legal right
to do what he did, or that he should be muzzled. *But "Hello?" *Jud, you do
realize, don't you, that just because something is legal doesn't make it
right by any number of non-statutory standards and values that might be
applied?

More like a rant than a flame. Patting yourself on the back for
"goring Beck's ox" are you? Maybe in your mind that's what happened.
The way I see it is that you have been drinking too much of the ultra-
liberal Kool Aid. It offends you that someone with a different point
of view than yours happened to hold a rally on the same date and at
the same venue of a previous rally. You don't seem to think that it
was 'right' for Beck to be there at that particular time and place, by
YOUR values. Perhaps you would like to be consulted for your opinion
and permission for a ruling in the future?

For example, Islamic schools in America have the FA right to teach their
students their interpretation of their religion, including harsh laws of
punishment, asserting that women are vessels of sin and are inferior to
males and subject to their domination, that as a religious principle,
martydom by suicide bomb is an admirable avenue to heaven, that democracy is
the Satanic illusion, etc. *It's all perfectly legal under the FA as long as
they don't cross the line into performing illegal acts or openly urging
others to act out their cruel, violent beliefs on anyone.

But you and I and probably 99% of our fellow Americans would feel that we
have the right - and indeed the responsibility - to exercise our FA right to
denounce these practices and even the teaching of them. *THAT is a crucial
part of the FA. *If someone speaks, someone else has the right to rebuttal.
It doesn't matter if the rebuttal takes the form of sweet, gentle Koombaya
sessions, or is essayed as a strongly worded Internet flame (which mine
was). *You and I can even tell each other to shut the hell yup without
violating the FA. *The FA only guarantees the right to make a statement
without prior restraint by the government. *(Even that can be curtailed but
we'll skip that for now.) *The religious beliefs I described, no matter how
you or I may feel about them, are protected by the FA... and so is our right
of rebuttal. *THAT, sir, is the real power of the FA at work.

So following that logic, the FA does not give Beck the right or even the
expectation that no other citizen shall call him a moron or evil or question
his motives or the sensitivities of the times and places he chooses to
speak - or *even to shut up (which I didn't). *You dish it out, you better
be prepared to take it.

Oh I can take it, I have been spoken to in harsher terms before. By
your reasoning then, you should also expect the same sort of response.
I am actually quite amused by the liberal 'outrage' that someone had
the temerity to 'desecrate' MLK, although there was no reference to
him, just the fact that the rally was held when and where it was.

I have no beef with the Park Service for granting him the permit, nor do I
want to see the Becks of the world subjected to prior restraint by the
government. *The fault, dear sir, lies not in ourselves, but in the star
performer. *If he had chosen a different date for his rally at the Lincoln
Memorial, you'd hear scattered disgruntled objections to the place of the
venue but not the massive uproar that this created. *Likewise if he had kept
the date but moved the rally. *(In either case he'd still hear objections to
the nature of his views, although that's always going to happen and is a
separate debate on the merits, not the circumstances.)

That's where I can agree with you! If it was held elsewhere and/or on
a different date, there would STILL be objections from the uber-
liberals. So, what's the beef? If the objections were predestined, it
really didn't make a difference, did it?

But... for him to hold this event at the same time and place as MLK and then
try to claim that both were pure coincidence, GMAFB. *He willfully created a
perfect storm of public outrage against him when he could have avoided most
of it. *His adoring fans may be dumb enought to believe that the timing and
venue were "pure coincidence" but I and millions of others aren't buying it.
For us it was a sly, too clever by half, deliberate poke in the eye against
MLK, blacks and other people of color. * I think that now he genuinely
regrets his sophomoric decision to make it a "two-fer" by adding the MLK
angle. *Not because it was offensive, but because it drew most media
attention away from his intended purpose and the content of the rally. *In
communications it's called stepping on your own message.

Again, I find myself agreeing with you (GASP!), to a point. I am not
sure that I buy his 'coincidence' story either, but that is beside the
point. I don't see where it is a poke in the eye or offensive. Going
on that premise, no one should EVER hold a rally at ANY place or on
ANY date where an historic speech previously took place. Political
correctness and over sensitivity anyone?

Let me make it perfectly clear: *To paraphrase Voltaire's classic take on
free speech, I will defend to my death Beck's right under the FA to hold his
rally, any time and anywhere he wants; but I also will go to my grave
exercising my FA right to publicly despise and denounce him and all others
of his ilk, his views, his actions, and his hypocricies, in the strongest
terms I can summon.

OK, we are on the same page again except the part about the
"hypocricies." Would that be based in fact, or in your own personal
opinion? Despise, denounce him, his ilk, views and actions all you
like. This is a free country after all, but don't confuse your own
opinions as fact.

If you can dispute my characterizations of Beck (allowing for hyperbole)
then please, exercise your FA right to do so. *By failing to provide any
factual rebuttals and falling back on a hackneyed Usenet strawman dodge, you
have deserted the field after adding nothing of significance.

Alright, I will! You have called him "rabid" (hyperbole I assume?) and
a "crypto-racist." From previous posts I note that you enjoy using the
prefix 'crypto' a lot, but I still fail to see where he is a racist,
crypto or otherwise! Please enumerate anything he has said or done to
lead you to believe that Beck is a racist. Holding that rally doesn't
make him a racist. I am half expecting you invoking Godwin's law at
any moment. No strawman argument here. You made the allegation, now
please explain yourself. I have not deserted the field, but returned
to it, this time only, to respond to your false allegations that I
have feebly defended Beck. I am not defending Beck per se, but to his
holding a rally at a time and place of his choosing, coincidental or
not.

And Finnan, don't bother sticking your fetid nose into this again. *We
already know what your despicable views are, as posted through your unending
parade of transparent nyms in rcc and the documented history of your bigoted
tirades in other newsgroups.

(Go ahead now, Jud. *Try to claim that I am trying to muzzle Finnan and
strip him of his FA rights. *As if. *Not even close to being true, both here
and with Beck.)

Hee hee hee! I wish someone could muzzle Finnan. I just wish that you
could see that holding that rally does NOT make him a racist. That's a
serious allegation, which is false.

- mazorj
"There's a reason why free speech was part
of the very first amendment to the Constitution."

The Second Amendment protects all the others.

In a different post you mentioned shouting "FIRE!" in a crowded
theater. That Supreme Court ruling was made by Oliver Wendell Holmes,
where he made the famous "Clear and present danger" statement.

On Sep 3, 12:03*am, "mazorj" wrote:
"Jerry Dennis" wrote in message

...
On Sep 2, 11:40 am, "mazorj" wrote:

READER ALERT: We've veered way OT here and what follows is a lengthy
response to Jud's feeble attempt to defend Beck.

snipped for brevity only

Excellent response. *Civil, to the point, and no flamage.

For the most part, I happen to agree with you, but I still (and always
will) challenge the "perception" of Freedom of Speech. *Everyone,
including Supreme Courts past, seems to believe that you can say
whatever you want, whenever you want, to whomever you want, and
there's nothing the recipient can do about it. *The truth of the
matter is that the Founding Fathers put Freedom of Speech in the Bill
of Rights to allow the people to criticize the government without fear
of retaliation by that government. *Any true Constitutional scholar
will tell you that. *It's only because of groups like the ACLU and
"open-minded" judges that Crucifixes in urine, burning the flag, Al
Sharpton's racial rhetoric, KKK and neo-Nazi rallies, Glen Beck, Sarah
Palin, the Westboro Baptist Church protests, the National Enquirer,
and everything else is now considered "freedom of expression" (I defy
ANYONE to find that phrase anywhere in the Constitution).

We could go on for hours, but I will close with a saying we used when
I was on active duty, "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll
defend to the death your right to say it."

Jerry
Enjoying a good debate.
======================

Thanks for the civil reply.

this section snipped as not related to my response below

The FA also prohibits government establishment of religion. *Some of the
noted cases brought by ACLU were when someone tried to stop government
suppression of religion, but sometimes the suits were against government
practices such as Christmas crèches on government property. *The religious
establishment clause prevents it. *Even if the display is privately funded,
playing the "free speech" card won't win that case.

Again, as far as Free Speech goes, I see your points and agree with
them, but in my own opinion (layman that I am) the courts have been
extremely liberal (meaning generous) with their interpretation.

I do want to comment about your religious comment above. You state
correctly that the First Amendment prohibits the government to
ESTABLISH a religion. This was intended to stop any actions like
those that Henry VIII did to England. Putting up a Nativity Scene,
Menorah, Buddha, Mohammed, or any other religious icon of any sort
does not "establish" any religion, though at a stretch, it may be
construed as an "endorsement." Again, we could argue for hours, but
it's nice to be able to discuss potentially "hot topics" without
resorting to name-calling and insults. And for that, I thank you.

Jerry

"Jerry Dennis" wrote in message
...
On Sep 3, 12:03 am, "mazorj" wrote:
"Jerry Dennis" wrote in message

...
On Sep 2, 11:40 am, "mazorj" wrote:

READER ALERT: We've veered way OT here and what follows is a lengthy
response to Jud's feeble attempt to defend Beck.

snipped for brevity only

Excellent response. Civil, to the point, and no flamage.

For the most part, I happen to agree with you, but I still (and always
will) challenge the "perception" of Freedom of Speech. Everyone,
including Supreme Courts past, seems to believe that you can say
whatever you want, whenever you want, to whomever you want, and
there's nothing the recipient can do about it. The truth of the
matter is that the Founding Fathers put Freedom of Speech in the Bill
of Rights to allow the people to criticize the government without fear
of retaliation by that government. Any true Constitutional scholar
will tell you that. It's only because of groups like the ACLU and
"open-minded" judges that Crucifixes in urine, burning the flag, Al
Sharpton's racial rhetoric, KKK and neo-Nazi rallies, Glen Beck, Sarah
Palin, the Westboro Baptist Church protests, the National Enquirer,
and everything else is now considered "freedom of expression" (I defy
ANYONE to find that phrase anywhere in the Constitution).

We could go on for hours, but I will close with a saying we used when
I was on active duty, "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll
defend to the death your right to say it."

Jerry
Enjoying a good debate.
======================

Thanks for the civil reply.

this section snipped as not related to my response below

The FA also prohibits government establishment of religion. Some of the
noted cases brought by ACLU were when someone tried to stop government
suppression of religion, but sometimes the suits were against government
practices such as Christmas crèches on government property. The religious
establishment clause prevents it. Even if the display is privately funded,
playing the "free speech" card won't win that case.

Again, as far as Free Speech goes, I see your points and agree with
them, but in my own opinion (layman that I am) the courts have been
extremely liberal (meaning generous) with their interpretation.

I do want to comment about your religious comment above. You state
correctly that the First Amendment prohibits the government to
ESTABLISH a religion. This was intended to stop any actions like
those that Henry VIII did to England. Putting up a Nativity Scene,
Menorah, Buddha, Mohammed, or any other religious icon of any sort
does not "establish" any religion, though at a stretch, it may be
construed as an "endorsement." Again, we could argue for hours, but
it's nice to be able to discuss potentially "hot topics" without
resorting to name-calling and insults. And for that, I thank you.
___________

Wouldn't "tolerance" be more appropriate than "endorsement"?

"Jerry Dennis" wrote in message
...

....
I do want to comment about your religious comment above. You state
correctly that the First Amendment prohibits the government to
ESTABLISH a religion. This was intended to stop any actions like
those that Henry VIII did to England. Putting up a Nativity Scene,
Menorah, Buddha, Mohammed, or any other religious icon of any sort
does not "establish" any religion, though at a stretch, it may be
construed as an "endorsement." Again, we could argue for hours, but
it's nice to be able to discuss potentially "hot topics" without
resorting to name-calling and insults. And for that, I thank you.

Jerry
===================

It's been said "Never argue religion or politics." I'll debate either at
the drop of a hat. But we're now on the verge of mixing the two. This may
be a good time to defer to the wisdom of "Let's agree to disagree."
However, as a partial answer, allow me one last essay in which I discuss
another amendment, after which the floor is all yours for what should be the
last round of this hopefully informative exchange.

Both the First and Second Amendments have required us to decipher the
meaning and intent of specific language in the context of their time. A
"strict" modern interpretation of the term "establishment" of religion as
you described it would logically produce your interpretation. Conservatives
generally favor that approach since it tends to limit today's enlarged scope
of government.

I can think of other interpretations. One would be seeing "the
establishment of" as a noun instead of a verb, as in "the existing
institution or entity known as religion in all its forms". That would
strongly support the "liberal" interpretation of separation of church and
state. Government is prohibited from doing anything that favors the
particular cultural "establishment" that we call religion, not just the act
of establishing an official state religion. Even allowing a Christmas
crèche in front of city hall favors both the particular"establishment" that
we call religion, as well as a specific organized religion. Yes, my take
hinges on vocabulary and grammar, but so does yours.

The other "revisionist" approach would be to recognize that while 18th
Century America had its different sects and that even their relatively minor
differences gave rise to discrimination and violence (a primary motive for
that part of the FA), they all were of the Christian persuasion. Except for
the occasional odd Pennsylvania Dutch or Jewish immigrant or whatever, no
one objected to general acceptance of observing Christmas, placing Christian
totems on public property, (Christian) prayer in school, etc. It was part
of who we were back then. But now we have a great many citizens who adhere
to myriad forms of religion foreign to us, and even some who are vehemently
opposed to all religious beliefs (atheists and some agnostics). Many of
them object to Christmas crèches, prayer in school, religious icons sitting
year round on public property, etc. as government aiding in the
"establishment of religion" however you want to interpret it. Since these
practices often are in direct opposition and even insulting to their
religious beliefs, their rights are being trampled upon. This certainly
violates the spirit, if not the literal language of a law intended to
protect religious freedom and equality.

You prefer to use a more restricted sense of the term "establishment".
However, there is a bigger issue at stake here than the particulars of any
amendment: "Strict" interpretation of words and clauses is not always in
the best interest of conservative values, let alone our collective
interests. To show this I need to draw a parallel between the First and
Second Amendments.

You correctly noted that the primary justification for guaranteeing free
speech was as a citizens' defense against government oppression. The Second
Amendment's "right to keep and bear arms" (RKBA), as written, puts teeth in
the citizens' right to defend (through their "well regulated" militias)
against government oppression - in both cases this being against the newly
formed federal government. The former colonials were extremely fearful of
replacing a foreign tyrant with a home-grown one.

Now keep two things in mind. By then, in most cases only colonial (and then
state) governments could authorize formal standing militias; and that
states, not the federal government, were still considered the fundamental
authorities of, and ascendant over, the "United States of America." ("The
United States are, not is." Lincoln reversed that forever in preserving the
Union.) Militias were formed under the states' inalienable right to provide
security for their citizens. They were to ward off local threats, be they
Indians, local lawless elements, or foreign intruders. As such they acted
as an arm of the state government in lieu of a standing state army or
statewide police force.

Here's the problem. The Second Amendment has a clause that, under a
"strict" reading, confers RKBA only in the context of a "well regulated
militia." Which means that under a "strict" (limited, restrictive) reading
it does NOT confer a blanket right to gun ownership as it has been taken to
mean by firearms advocates. If anything, because it is silent on the
matter, it implies that gun ownership can be limited by a state to weapons
necessary for their well regulated militia. (States might even forcibly
mandate possession of militia-type weapons for able-bodied men as
Switzerland has done, since the Second Amendment also is silent on this.)

But conversely, that also means that even under the Second Amendment, states
are free to limit or even prohibit firearms outside the context of their
militia (now the National Guard). The Second Amendment is targeted only
against Congress passing laws that would disarm citizens so that they could
not form (well regulated) militias to ward off federal troops sent by an
oppressive federal government. (When I say "oppressive" I don't mean it at
the level of "the income tax is oppressive government" or any of the other
similar modern complaints. The framers were addressing the depravations of
a truly oppressive and often brutal Crown government.)

At this point, Jerry, you probably think you know where I'm coming from and
where I'm going with the gun thing. Wrong, oh Great Karnak! :-)

I am a responsible owner of many firearms, from pocket pistols to military
weapons. I've been issued a concealed carry permit and on occasion have
used it. That's why the gun owner in me was delighted when the SCOTUS
struck down the ridiculous, gun-grabbing Washington, D.C gun laws. It
opened the door to a more liberal (yes, liberal! - for the reasons I just
outlined) interpretation of the Second Amendment. Which IMO is a very good
thing. Overly restrictive gun laws are toppling like drunks on a pitching
ship deck.

As with all the other Constitutional rights, the Second Amendment has to be
viewed today in the context of times and circumstances not imagined by its
writers. To parallel one of your comments, the words "personal and home
defense against criminals" are nowhere to be found in the Constitution. But
to me and the many responsible, law-abiding gun owners, that is the primary
reason why I would want firearms; and we should not be subjected to gun laws
that are intended to thwart - or merely have the effect of thwarting -
responsible personal possession and carrying of firearms. (There also are
other legitimate pursuits such as hunting and collecting and target
shooting.) In this case the decision to strike down any unreasonably
proscriptive interpretations of the Second Amendment was the right (no pun
intended) thing to do, even though it bears all the earmarks of an action by
an "activist court".

And here I'll summarily dismiss in advance any claims that what the court
did was not "activist." It was. To my great dismay, my honest reading of
the *entire* Second Amendment, as put in the context I just described, does
not indicate that the framers were intending to confer a blanket RKBA as it
is interpreted by firearms advocates. Since there were few if any local
laws restricting firearms, they presumably didn't see the need to address
that. But by being silent on that aspect while specifically protecting the
existence of armed, well regulated militias, they missed the opportunity to
craft a true RKBA for all citizens. Local firearms laws weren't even on
their map. They just wanted to ensure that the federales couldn't legally
disarm an opposing local defense system (militia) against invasion by an
oppressive federal government. Period. The "activist" SCOTUS ruling brings
things forward by enlarging its interpretation in order to address today's
firearms issues. Hallelujah and Amen.

I don't know that we're necessarily polar opposites on strict versus
contextual interpretation, but my view is that the Constitution cannot be
viewed as set in stone, because it is abysmally (though necessarily)
deficient in explaining how its limited, literal verbiage should be applied
to developments and circumstances not even envisionable by its writers.
Yes, it can be amended through a long, tortuous process, but if we only went
that route we'd be amending the damn thing several times a year to
accommodate modern realities. (Or worse yet, convening Constitutional
Conventions to mass produce amendments. If that ever happens, Katie bar the
door!)

Absent a continual stream of amendments, we are forced to ask ourselves
"What would George or Thomas or Ben have said about this?" Our government's
master plan needs a little breathing room to keep it relevant over the
centuries. We should have vigorous debates about, and rigorous legal
scrutiny of each proposal for an "enlarged" interpretation. But IMO our
democracy would have fallen into serious disrepair (or even disappeared in
spasms of violent uprisings) years ago if all along we hadn't been
interpreting it to accommodate continual changes to its limited 18th Century
contexts.

Whew! Your turn. Assuming we're done then, I'm going to go mix religion
and numismatics by checking out the thread on Vatican Euros.

- mazorj the Not So Strict Constitutional Constructionist

On Sep 4, 9:16*pm, "Bremick" wrote:
"Jerry Dennis" wrote in message

...
On Sep 3, 12:03 am, "mazorj" wrote:



"Jerry Dennis" wrote in message

....
On Sep 2, 11:40 am, "mazorj" wrote:

READER ALERT: We've veered way OT here and what follows is a lengthy
response to Jud's feeble attempt to defend Beck.

snipped for brevity only

Excellent response. Civil, to the point, and no flamage.

For the most part, I happen to agree with you, but I still (and always
will) challenge the "perception" of Freedom of Speech. Everyone,
including Supreme Courts past, seems to believe that you can say
whatever you want, whenever you want, to whomever you want, and
there's nothing the recipient can do about it. The truth of the
matter is that the Founding Fathers put Freedom of Speech in the Bill
of Rights to allow the people to criticize the government without fear
of retaliation by that government. Any true Constitutional scholar
will tell you that. It's only because of groups like the ACLU and
"open-minded" judges that Crucifixes in urine, burning the flag, Al
Sharpton's racial rhetoric, KKK and neo-Nazi rallies, Glen Beck, Sarah
Palin, the Westboro Baptist Church protests, the National Enquirer,
and everything else is now considered "freedom of expression" (I defy
ANYONE to find that phrase anywhere in the Constitution).

We could go on for hours, but I will close with a saying we used when
I was on active duty, "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll
defend to the death your right to say it."

Jerry
Enjoying a good debate.
======================

Thanks for the civil reply.

this section snipped as not related to my response below

The FA also prohibits government establishment of religion. Some of the
noted cases brought by ACLU were when someone tried to stop government
suppression of religion, but sometimes the suits were against government
practices such as Christmas crèches on government property. The religious
establishment clause prevents it. Even if the display is privately funded,
playing the "free speech" card won't win that case.

Again, as far as Free Speech goes, I see your points and agree with
them, but in my own opinion (layman that I am) the courts have been
extremely liberal (meaning generous) with their interpretation.

I do want to comment about your religious comment above. *You state
correctly that the First Amendment prohibits the government to
ESTABLISH a religion. *This was intended to stop any actions like
those that Henry VIII did to England. *Putting up a Nativity Scene,
Menorah, Buddha, Mohammed, or any other religious icon of any sort
does not "establish" any religion, though at a stretch, it may be
construed as an "endorsement." *Again, we could argue for hours, but
it's nice to be able to discuss potentially "hot topics" without
resorting to name-calling and insults. *And for that, I thank you.
___________

Wouldn't "tolerance" be more appropriate than "endorsement"?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Bruce, it would depend on who's interpreting the icon. In my own view
"tolerance" is the better term, but some, both on the left or right,
would view it as an "endorsement." Good catch.

Jerry

On Sep 5, 2:40*pm, "mazorj" wrote:
"Jerry Dennis" wrote in message

...

...
I do want to comment about your religious comment above. *You state
correctly that the First Amendment prohibits the government to
ESTABLISH a religion. *This was intended to stop any actions like
those that Henry VIII did to England. *Putting up a Nativity Scene,
Menorah, Buddha, Mohammed, or any other religious icon of any sort
does not "establish" any religion, though at a stretch, it may be
construed as an "endorsement." *Again, we could argue for hours, but
it's nice to be able to discuss potentially "hot topics" without
resorting to name-calling and insults. *And for that, I thank you.

Jerry
===================

It's been said "Never argue religion or politics." *I'll debate either at
the drop of a hat. *But we're now on the verge of mixing *the two. *This may
be a good time to defer to the wisdom of "Let's agree to disagree."
However, as a partial answer, allow me one last essay in which I discuss
another amendment, after which the floor is all yours for what should be the
last round of this hopefully informative exchange.

remainder snipped for brevity

Mazorj, my hat is off to you. You present a well-thought out
response. We happen to agree more than some may realize. I, too,
will echo your "Let's agree to disagree" sentiment. It has been an
informative discussion. Now, let's move on to the reason we're really
here; to discuss coins.

Jerry

"Jerry Dennis" wrote in message
...

....
Mazorj, my hat is off to you. You present a well-thought out
response. We happen to agree more than some may realize. I, too,
will echo your "Let's agree to disagree" sentiment. It has been an
informative discussion. Now, let's move on to the reason we're really
here; to discuss coins.

Jerry
=====================

Likewise. It's been a pleasure.

You are wrong Jerry.

The U.S. Constitution says

ESTABLISH religion.

Not ESTABLISH a religion.

JAM

On Sep 7, 3:00*pm, Frank Galikanokus
wrote:
You are wrong Jerry.

The U.S. Constitution says

ESTABLISH religion.

Not ESTABLISH a religion.

JAM

You got me, there, Frank. For anyone interested, I've copied and
pasted the First Amendment from http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am1

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.

I hope we're all on the same page, now. And I hope we can all be good
neighbors online.

Jerry
Bruce, wasn't that your old tag line?