For hundreds of years, the Catholic and Protestant churches had been at war
with one another. Our Founding Fathers were aware of this and, therefore,
did not want to establish one Church over another. BRBR


What about the possibility that a large number of early settlers had fled
Europe do to state sanctioned religious persecution? Maybe the founding
fathers saw a state-established religion as tyranical. Maybe the best way to
fight the tyrany of state-sponsored religion is to forbid the government the
opportunity to foist religious zealotry on the citizenry. Keeping prayer
private keeps freedom public.


Joe Egan
EMP
Colchester, VT
www.eganmedia.com

"EganMedia" wrote in message
...
For hundreds of years, the Catholic and Protestant churches had been at
war
with one another. Our Founding Fathers were aware of this and, therefore,
did not want to establish one Church over another. BRBR


What about the possibility that a large number of early settlers had fled
Europe do to state sanctioned religious persecution? Maybe the founding
fathers saw a state-established religion as tyranical. Maybe the best way
to

The state sanctioned religion was a specific denomination. As well, people
were persecuted for not participating.

fight the tyrany of state-sponsored religion is to forbid the government
the
opportunity to foist religious zealotry on the citizenry. Keeping prayer
private keeps freedom public.

That may be a nice saying but I don't agree with it. Whey do you think that
for almost 200 years Bible reading and prayer was allowed in public schools?
Why wasn't it prohibited from the start?



Joe Egan
EMP
Colchester, VT
www.eganmedia.com

"EganMedia" wrote in message
...
For hundreds of years, the Catholic and Protestant churches had been at
war
with one another. Our Founding Fathers were aware of this and, therefore,
did not want to establish one Church over another. BRBR


What about the possibility that a large number of early settlers had fled
Europe do to state sanctioned religious persecution? Maybe the founding
fathers saw a state-established religion as tyranical. Maybe the best way
to

The state sanctioned religion was a specific denomination. As well, people
were persecuted for not participating.

fight the tyrany of state-sponsored religion is to forbid the government
the
opportunity to foist religious zealotry on the citizenry. Keeping prayer
private keeps freedom public.

That may be a nice saying but I don't agree with it. Whey do you think that
for almost 200 years Bible reading and prayer was allowed in public schools?
Why wasn't it prohibited from the start?



Joe Egan
EMP
Colchester, VT
www.eganmedia.com

squig wrote:
"EganMedia" wrote in message
...

For hundreds of years, the Catholic and Protestant churches had been at

war

with one another. Our Founding Fathers were aware of this and, therefore,
did not want to establish one Church over another. BRBR


What about the possibility that a large number of early settlers had fled
Europe do to state sanctioned religious persecution? Maybe the founding
fathers saw a state-established religion as tyranical. Maybe the best way

to

The state sanctioned religion was a specific denomination. As well, people
were persecuted for not participating.


fight the tyrany of state-sponsored religion is to forbid the government

the

opportunity to foist religious zealotry on the citizenry. Keeping prayer
private keeps freedom public.


That may be a nice saying but I don't agree with it. Whey do you think that
for almost 200 years Bible reading and prayer was allowed in public schools?
Why wasn't it prohibited from the start?

Bigger problems to deal with live the revolution, the civil war,
industrial buildup
as well as very little national awareness as the tv and radio and
convieniant nation wide travel were still scifi
Just because we were focus on fist obtaining slave(a real Christian
value if ever there was one) then on freeing them
does not mean we should remain quagmired in the wrongs of the
past(allowing Idolatry in public schools)

George

squig wrote:
"EganMedia" wrote in message
...

For hundreds of years, the Catholic and Protestant churches had been at

war

with one another. Our Founding Fathers were aware of this and, therefore,
did not want to establish one Church over another. BRBR


What about the possibility that a large number of early settlers had fled
Europe do to state sanctioned religious persecution? Maybe the founding
fathers saw a state-established religion as tyranical. Maybe the best way

to

The state sanctioned religion was a specific denomination. As well, people
were persecuted for not participating.


fight the tyrany of state-sponsored religion is to forbid the government

the

opportunity to foist religious zealotry on the citizenry. Keeping prayer
private keeps freedom public.


That may be a nice saying but I don't agree with it. Whey do you think that
for almost 200 years Bible reading and prayer was allowed in public schools?
Why wasn't it prohibited from the start?

Bigger problems to deal with live the revolution, the civil war,
industrial buildup
as well as very little national awareness as the tv and radio and
convieniant nation wide travel were still scifi
Just because we were focus on fist obtaining slave(a real Christian
value if ever there was one) then on freeing them
does not mean we should remain quagmired in the wrongs of the
past(allowing Idolatry in public schools)

George

"George Gleason" wrote in message
...
squig wrote:
"EganMedia" wrote in message
...

For hundreds of years, the Catholic and Protestant churches had been
at

war

with one another. Our Founding Fathers were aware of this and,
therefore,
did not want to establish one Church over another. BRBR


What about the possibility that a large number of early settlers had
fled
Europe do to state sanctioned religious persecution? Maybe the founding
fathers saw a state-established religion as tyranical. Maybe the best
way

to

The state sanctioned religion was a specific denomination. As well,
people
were persecuted for not participating.


fight the tyrany of state-sponsored religion is to forbid the government

the

opportunity to foist religious zealotry on the citizenry. Keeping
prayer
private keeps freedom public.


That may be a nice saying but I don't agree with it. Whey do you think
that
for almost 200 years Bible reading and prayer was allowed in public
schools?
Why wasn't it prohibited from the start?

Bigger problems to deal with live the revolution, the civil war,
industrial buildup
as well as very little national awareness as the tv and radio and
convieniant nation wide travel were still scifi
Just because we were focus on fist obtaining slave(a real Christian
value if ever there was one) then on freeing them
does not mean we should remain quagmired in the wrongs of the
past(allowing Idolatry in public schools)

George

Sorry, but I'm not buying it. The Revolution was over, the Civil War was
almost 100 years later, etc.

"George Gleason" wrote in message
...
squig wrote:
"EganMedia" wrote in message
...

For hundreds of years, the Catholic and Protestant churches had been
at

war

with one another. Our Founding Fathers were aware of this and,
therefore,
did not want to establish one Church over another. BRBR


What about the possibility that a large number of early settlers had
fled
Europe do to state sanctioned religious persecution? Maybe the founding
fathers saw a state-established religion as tyranical. Maybe the best
way

to

The state sanctioned religion was a specific denomination. As well,
people
were persecuted for not participating.


fight the tyrany of state-sponsored religion is to forbid the government

the

opportunity to foist religious zealotry on the citizenry. Keeping
prayer
private keeps freedom public.


That may be a nice saying but I don't agree with it. Whey do you think
that
for almost 200 years Bible reading and prayer was allowed in public
schools?
Why wasn't it prohibited from the start?

Bigger problems to deal with live the revolution, the civil war,
industrial buildup
as well as very little national awareness as the tv and radio and
convieniant nation wide travel were still scifi
Just because we were focus on fist obtaining slave(a real Christian
value if ever there was one) then on freeing them
does not mean we should remain quagmired in the wrongs of the
past(allowing Idolatry in public schools)

George

Sorry, but I'm not buying it. The Revolution was over, the Civil War was
almost 100 years later, etc.

squig wrote:
"George Gleason" wrote in message
...

squig wrote:

"EganMedia" wrote in message
...


For hundreds of years, the Catholic and Protestant churches had been

at

war


with one another. Our Founding Fathers were aware of this and,

therefore,

did not want to establish one Church over another. BRBR


What about the possibility that a large number of early settlers had

fled

Europe do to state sanctioned religious persecution? Maybe the founding
fathers saw a state-established religion as tyranical. Maybe the best

way

to

The state sanctioned religion was a specific denomination. As well,

people

were persecuted for not participating.



fight the tyrany of state-sponsored religion is to forbid the government

the


opportunity to foist religious zealotry on the citizenry. Keeping

prayer

private keeps freedom public.


That may be a nice saying but I don't agree with it. Whey do you think

that

for almost 200 years Bible reading and prayer was allowed in public

schools?

Why wasn't it prohibited from the start?


Bigger problems to deal with live the revolution, the civil war,
industrial buildup
as well as very little national awareness as the tv and radio and
convieniant nation wide travel were still scifi
Just because we were focus on fist obtaining slave(a real Christian
value if ever there was one) then on freeing them
does not mean we should remain quagmired in the wrongs of the
past(allowing Idolatry in public schools)

George


Sorry, but I'm not buying it. The Revolution was over, the Civil War was
almost 100 years later, etc.



And Fox news was broadcasting on smoke signals
just how was national policy to be supervised across a unconnected country?
like I said it was a very local thing that was just on the back burner
Also education was not up to speed on pointing out all the failings of
religion
once a educated population could talk to each other and recognized the
great wrong that was being done
corrections were started
G

squig wrote:
"George Gleason" wrote in message
...

squig wrote:

"EganMedia" wrote in message
...


For hundreds of years, the Catholic and Protestant churches had been

at

war


with one another. Our Founding Fathers were aware of this and,

therefore,

did not want to establish one Church over another. BRBR


What about the possibility that a large number of early settlers had

fled

Europe do to state sanctioned religious persecution? Maybe the founding
fathers saw a state-established religion as tyranical. Maybe the best

way

to

The state sanctioned religion was a specific denomination. As well,

people

were persecuted for not participating.



fight the tyrany of state-sponsored religion is to forbid the government

the


opportunity to foist religious zealotry on the citizenry. Keeping

prayer

private keeps freedom public.


That may be a nice saying but I don't agree with it. Whey do you think

that

for almost 200 years Bible reading and prayer was allowed in public

schools?

Why wasn't it prohibited from the start?


Bigger problems to deal with live the revolution, the civil war,
industrial buildup
as well as very little national awareness as the tv and radio and
convieniant nation wide travel were still scifi
Just because we were focus on fist obtaining slave(a real Christian
value if ever there was one) then on freeing them
does not mean we should remain quagmired in the wrongs of the
past(allowing Idolatry in public schools)

George


Sorry, but I'm not buying it. The Revolution was over, the Civil War was
almost 100 years later, etc.



And Fox news was broadcasting on smoke signals
just how was national policy to be supervised across a unconnected country?
like I said it was a very local thing that was just on the back burner
Also education was not up to speed on pointing out all the failings of
religion
once a educated population could talk to each other and recognized the
great wrong that was being done
corrections were started
G

"George Gleason" wrote in message
...
squig wrote:
"George Gleason" wrote in message
...

squig wrote:

"EganMedia" wrote in message
...


For hundreds of years, the Catholic and Protestant churches had
been

at

war


with one another. Our Founding Fathers were aware of this and,

therefore,

did not want to establish one Church over another. BRBR


What about the possibility that a large number of early settlers had

fled

Europe do to state sanctioned religious persecution? Maybe the
founding
fathers saw a state-established religion as tyranical. Maybe the best

way

to

The state sanctioned religion was a specific denomination. As well,

people

were persecuted for not participating.



fight the tyrany of state-sponsored religion is to forbid the
government

the


opportunity to foist religious zealotry on the citizenry. Keeping

prayer

private keeps freedom public.


That may be a nice saying but I don't agree with it. Whey do you think

that

for almost 200 years Bible reading and prayer was allowed in public

schools?

Why wasn't it prohibited from the start?


Bigger problems to deal with live the revolution, the civil war,
industrial buildup
as well as very little national awareness as the tv and radio and
convieniant nation wide travel were still scifi
Just because we were focus on fist obtaining slave(a real Christian
value if ever there was one) then on freeing them
does not mean we should remain quagmired in the wrongs of the
past(allowing Idolatry in public schools)

George


Sorry, but I'm not buying it. The Revolution was over, the Civil War was
almost 100 years later, etc.



And Fox news was broadcasting on smoke signals
just how was national policy to be supervised across a unconnected
country?
like I said it was a very local thing that was just on the back burner
Also education was not up to speed on pointing out all the failings of
religion
once a educated population could talk to each other and recognized the
great wrong that was being done
corrections were started
G
As important an issue as Freedom of Religion was, I can't agree that it was
a "back burner" issue. We didn't talk to each other until the 20th century?

"George Gleason" wrote in message
...
squig wrote:
"George Gleason" wrote in message
...

squig wrote:

"EganMedia" wrote in message
...


For hundreds of years, the Catholic and Protestant churches had
been

at

war


with one another. Our Founding Fathers were aware of this and,

therefore,

did not want to establish one Church over another. BRBR


What about the possibility that a large number of early settlers had

fled

Europe do to state sanctioned religious persecution? Maybe the
founding
fathers saw a state-established religion as tyranical. Maybe the best

way

to

The state sanctioned religion was a specific denomination. As well,

people

were persecuted for not participating.



fight the tyrany of state-sponsored religion is to forbid the
government

the


opportunity to foist religious zealotry on the citizenry. Keeping

prayer

private keeps freedom public.


That may be a nice saying but I don't agree with it. Whey do you think

that

for almost 200 years Bible reading and prayer was allowed in public

schools?

Why wasn't it prohibited from the start?


Bigger problems to deal with live the revolution, the civil war,
industrial buildup
as well as very little national awareness as the tv and radio and
convieniant nation wide travel were still scifi
Just because we were focus on fist obtaining slave(a real Christian
value if ever there was one) then on freeing them
does not mean we should remain quagmired in the wrongs of the
past(allowing Idolatry in public schools)

George


Sorry, but I'm not buying it. The Revolution was over, the Civil War was
almost 100 years later, etc.



And Fox news was broadcasting on smoke signals
just how was national policy to be supervised across a unconnected
country?
like I said it was a very local thing that was just on the back burner
Also education was not up to speed on pointing out all the failings of
religion
once a educated population could talk to each other and recognized the
great wrong that was being done
corrections were started
G
As important an issue as Freedom of Religion was, I can't agree that it was
a "back burner" issue. We didn't talk to each other until the 20th century?

squig wrote:
"George Gleason" wrote in message
...

squig wrote:

"George Gleason" wrote in message
...


squig wrote:


"EganMedia" wrote in message
...



For hundreds of years, the Catholic and Protestant churches had

been

at


war



with one another. Our Founding Fathers were aware of this and,

therefore,


did not want to establish one Church over another. BRBR


What about the possibility that a large number of early settlers had

fled


Europe do to state sanctioned religious persecution? Maybe the

founding

fathers saw a state-established religion as tyranical. Maybe the best

way


to

The state sanctioned religion was a specific denomination. As well,

people


were persecuted for not participating.




fight the tyrany of state-sponsored religion is to forbid the

government

the



opportunity to foist religious zealotry on the citizenry. Keeping

prayer


private keeps freedom public.


That may be a nice saying but I don't agree with it. Whey do you think

that


for almost 200 years Bible reading and prayer was allowed in public

schools?


Why wasn't it prohibited from the start?


Bigger problems to deal with live the revolution, the civil war,
industrial buildup
as well as very little national awareness as the tv and radio and
convieniant nation wide travel were still scifi
Just because we were focus on fist obtaining slave(a real Christian
value if ever there was one) then on freeing them
does not mean we should remain quagmired in the wrongs of the
past(allowing Idolatry in public schools)

George


Sorry, but I'm not buying it. The Revolution was over, the Civil War was
almost 100 years later, etc.



And Fox news was broadcasting on smoke signals
just how was national policy to be supervised across a unconnected

country?

like I said it was a very local thing that was just on the back burner
Also education was not up to speed on pointing out all the failings of
religion
once a educated population could talk to each other and recognized the
great wrong that was being done
corrections were started
G

As important an issue as Freedom of Religion was, I can't agree that it was
a "back burner" issue. We didn't talk to each other until the 20th century?


you are confusing what is important today with what was important then
priorities change
religion was much less agressivly shoved at me as public policy as
little as 20 years ago
I may have been blissfully unaware, or perhaps because I was part of the
problem(a good catholic boy) I did not see the injustice
for what ever reason it was not focused on back then now it is
impearitve that we continue to fight against Christianity's self
assigned dominance in national politics
Not really
G

squig wrote:
"George Gleason" wrote in message
...

squig wrote:

"George Gleason" wrote in message
...


squig wrote:


"EganMedia" wrote in message
...



For hundreds of years, the Catholic and Protestant churches had

been

at


war



with one another. Our Founding Fathers were aware of this and,

therefore,


did not want to establish one Church over another. BRBR


What about the possibility that a large number of early settlers had

fled


Europe do to state sanctioned religious persecution? Maybe the

founding

fathers saw a state-established religion as tyranical. Maybe the best

way


to

The state sanctioned religion was a specific denomination. As well,

people


were persecuted for not participating.




fight the tyrany of state-sponsored religion is to forbid the

government

the



opportunity to foist religious zealotry on the citizenry. Keeping

prayer


private keeps freedom public.


That may be a nice saying but I don't agree with it. Whey do you think

that


for almost 200 years Bible reading and prayer was allowed in public

schools?


Why wasn't it prohibited from the start?


Bigger problems to deal with live the revolution, the civil war,
industrial buildup
as well as very little national awareness as the tv and radio and
convieniant nation wide travel were still scifi
Just because we were focus on fist obtaining slave(a real Christian
value if ever there was one) then on freeing them
does not mean we should remain quagmired in the wrongs of the
past(allowing Idolatry in public schools)

George


Sorry, but I'm not buying it. The Revolution was over, the Civil War was
almost 100 years later, etc.



And Fox news was broadcasting on smoke signals
just how was national policy to be supervised across a unconnected

country?

like I said it was a very local thing that was just on the back burner
Also education was not up to speed on pointing out all the failings of
religion
once a educated population could talk to each other and recognized the
great wrong that was being done
corrections were started
G

As important an issue as Freedom of Religion was, I can't agree that it was
a "back burner" issue. We didn't talk to each other until the 20th century?


you are confusing what is important today with what was important then
priorities change
religion was much less agressivly shoved at me as public policy as
little as 20 years ago
I may have been blissfully unaware, or perhaps because I was part of the
problem(a good catholic boy) I did not see the injustice
for what ever reason it was not focused on back then now it is
impearitve that we continue to fight against Christianity's self
assigned dominance in national politics
Not really
G

Whey do you think thatfor almost 200 years Bible reading and prayer was
allowed in public schools?Why wasn't it prohibited from the start?

I don't know why. Why wasn't slavery prohibited from the start? Why weren't
women given the right to vote right from the start?


Joe Egan
EMP
Colchester, VT
www.eganmedia.com

Whey do you think thatfor almost 200 years Bible reading and prayer was
allowed in public schools?Why wasn't it prohibited from the start?

I don't know why. Why wasn't slavery prohibited from the start? Why weren't
women given the right to vote right from the start?


Joe Egan
EMP
Colchester, VT
www.eganmedia.com

EganMedia wrote:
Whey do you think thatfor almost 200 years Bible reading and prayer was
allowed in public schools?Why wasn't it prohibited from the start?


I don't know why. Why wasn't slavery prohibited from the start? Why weren't
women given the right to vote right from the start?

Because the guys had a really good sense of compromise and
pragmatics. No matter how they each personally felt about
all of these issues they knew that they had to come up with
something that would be acceptable to a large number of
people, all with differing views. The constitution is not
so much a model of morality and enlightenment as it is a
model of pragmatics. That it said nothing on any issue says
nothing at all about that issue except that it might have
been too contentious to address. To look to it for any kind
of adjudication of what's right and wrong on anything it did
not very precisely address is plain silly.

All it was meant to do was delimit the role of the federal
government and guarantee a few personal rights as an
afterthought. Measured on how well it has succeeded at the
former it might as well be thrown out because it has been so
totally violated as to be meaningless.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

EganMedia wrote:
Whey do you think thatfor almost 200 years Bible reading and prayer was
allowed in public schools?Why wasn't it prohibited from the start?


I don't know why. Why wasn't slavery prohibited from the start? Why weren't
women given the right to vote right from the start?

Because the guys had a really good sense of compromise and
pragmatics. No matter how they each personally felt about
all of these issues they knew that they had to come up with
something that would be acceptable to a large number of
people, all with differing views. The constitution is not
so much a model of morality and enlightenment as it is a
model of pragmatics. That it said nothing on any issue says
nothing at all about that issue except that it might have
been too contentious to address. To look to it for any kind
of adjudication of what's right and wrong on anything it did
not very precisely address is plain silly.

All it was meant to do was delimit the role of the federal
government and guarantee a few personal rights as an
afterthought. Measured on how well it has succeeded at the
former it might as well be thrown out because it has been so
totally violated as to be meaningless.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

"EganMedia" wrote in message
...
Whey do you think thatfor almost 200 years Bible reading and prayer was
allowed in public schools?Why wasn't it prohibited from the start?

I don't know why. Why wasn't slavery prohibited from the start? Why
weren't
women given the right to vote right from the start?


Joe Egan
EMP
Colchester, VT
www.eganmedia.com

You may have to refresh my memory but I don't believe either was mentioned
pro/con in the Constitution.

"EganMedia" wrote in message
...
Whey do you think thatfor almost 200 years Bible reading and prayer was
allowed in public schools?Why wasn't it prohibited from the start?

I don't know why. Why wasn't slavery prohibited from the start? Why
weren't
women given the right to vote right from the start?


Joe Egan
EMP
Colchester, VT
www.eganmedia.com

You may have to refresh my memory but I don't believe either was mentioned
pro/con in the Constitution.

Actually, in the Constitution, slaves were acknowledged by becoming 3/5 of a
person based on the electoral vote. In other words, a slave owner who had
3000 slaves had more electoral votes in his holding than a simple free
person in New York City. OR, to bring it down to even a smaller situation,
it only took a slave owner with 3 slaves to have more sway with the
electoral college than one person in New York City.

Just that point alone makes the electoral college system stupid. And it was
in the Constitution, like I said.

Now don't get me wrong. I understand that places like NYC have millions of
people while there are states that don't have much of anyone, like Montana
and the Dakotas, but hey, to me, they don't mean much anyway in terms of
electoral votes. If their vote counts the same as mine, then it makes no
difference whether their state has more or less electoral votes. Plain and
simple. I said this four years ago, and I'm saying it again. The electoral
college idea is stupid in this day and age of virtual instant
communications. And, for the record, if the tallies are correct on the
votes made, then Bush would still be President, so my saying that the
electoral college is stupid wouldn't effect **** in the past election.

But then again, out of a country of 300 million, perhaps we'd have a larger
voting population if votes actually counted for something. At the least it
becomes cumbersome to split the electoral vote into segments for each state,
but that would still be better. A simple one person, one vote would be
best.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

"squig" wrote in message
...
"EganMedia" wrote in message
...
Whey do you think thatfor almost 200 years Bible reading and prayer
was
allowed in public schools?Why wasn't it prohibited from the start?

I don't know why. Why wasn't slavery prohibited from the start? Why
weren't
women given the right to vote right from the start?


Joe Egan
EMP
Colchester, VT
www.eganmedia.com

You may have to refresh my memory but I don't believe either was mentioned
pro/con in the Constitution.

Actually, in the Constitution, slaves were acknowledged by becoming 3/5 of a
person based on the electoral vote. In other words, a slave owner who had
3000 slaves had more electoral votes in his holding than a simple free
person in New York City. OR, to bring it down to even a smaller situation,
it only took a slave owner with 3 slaves to have more sway with the
electoral college than one person in New York City.

Just that point alone makes the electoral college system stupid. And it was
in the Constitution, like I said.

Now don't get me wrong. I understand that places like NYC have millions of
people while there are states that don't have much of anyone, like Montana
and the Dakotas, but hey, to me, they don't mean much anyway in terms of
electoral votes. If their vote counts the same as mine, then it makes no
difference whether their state has more or less electoral votes. Plain and
simple. I said this four years ago, and I'm saying it again. The electoral
college idea is stupid in this day and age of virtual instant
communications. And, for the record, if the tallies are correct on the
votes made, then Bush would still be President, so my saying that the
electoral college is stupid wouldn't effect **** in the past election.

But then again, out of a country of 300 million, perhaps we'd have a larger
voting population if votes actually counted for something. At the least it
becomes cumbersome to split the electoral vote into segments for each state,
but that would still be better. A simple one person, one vote would be
best.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

"squig" wrote in message
...
"EganMedia" wrote in message
...
Whey do you think thatfor almost 200 years Bible reading and prayer
was
allowed in public schools?Why wasn't it prohibited from the start?

I don't know why. Why wasn't slavery prohibited from the start? Why
weren't
women given the right to vote right from the start?


Joe Egan
EMP
Colchester, VT
www.eganmedia.com

You may have to refresh my memory but I don't believe either was mentioned
pro/con in the Constitution.

"Roger W. Norman" wrote in message
...
Actually, in the Constitution, slaves were acknowledged by becoming 3/5 of
a
person based on the electoral vote. In other words, a slave owner who had
3000 slaves had more electoral votes in his holding than a simple free
person in New York City. OR, to bring it down to even a smaller
situation,
it only took a slave owner with 3 slaves to have more sway with the
electoral college than one person in New York City.

Just that point alone makes the electoral college system stupid. And it
was
in the Constitution, like I said.

Now don't get me wrong. I understand that places like NYC have millions
of
people while there are states that don't have much of anyone, like Montana
and the Dakotas, but hey, to me, they don't mean much anyway in terms of
electoral votes. If their vote counts the same as mine, then it makes no
difference whether their state has more or less electoral votes. Plain
and
simple. I said this four years ago, and I'm saying it again. The
electoral
college idea is stupid in this day and age of virtual instant
communications. And, for the record, if the tallies are correct on the
votes made, then Bush would still be President, so my saying that the
electoral college is stupid wouldn't effect **** in the past election.

But then again, out of a country of 300 million, perhaps we'd have a
larger
voting population if votes actually counted for something. At the least
it
becomes cumbersome to split the electoral vote into segments for each
state,
but that would still be better. A simple one person, one vote would be
best.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

"squig" wrote in message
...
"EganMedia" wrote in message
...
Whey do you think thatfor almost 200 years Bible reading and prayer
was
allowed in public schools?Why wasn't it prohibited from the start?

I don't know why. Why wasn't slavery prohibited from the start? Why
weren't
women given the right to vote right from the start?


Joe Egan
EMP
Colchester, VT
www.eganmedia.com

You may have to refresh my memory but I don't believe either was
mentioned
pro/con in the Constitution.




It wouldn't be a Republic -- it would be a democracy, which is what the
Founding Fathers didn't want.

"Roger W. Norman" wrote in message
...
Actually, in the Constitution, slaves were acknowledged by becoming 3/5 of
a
person based on the electoral vote. In other words, a slave owner who had
3000 slaves had more electoral votes in his holding than a simple free
person in New York City. OR, to bring it down to even a smaller
situation,
it only took a slave owner with 3 slaves to have more sway with the
electoral college than one person in New York City.

Just that point alone makes the electoral college system stupid. And it
was
in the Constitution, like I said.

Now don't get me wrong. I understand that places like NYC have millions
of
people while there are states that don't have much of anyone, like Montana
and the Dakotas, but hey, to me, they don't mean much anyway in terms of
electoral votes. If their vote counts the same as mine, then it makes no
difference whether their state has more or less electoral votes. Plain
and
simple. I said this four years ago, and I'm saying it again. The
electoral
college idea is stupid in this day and age of virtual instant
communications. And, for the record, if the tallies are correct on the
votes made, then Bush would still be President, so my saying that the
electoral college is stupid wouldn't effect **** in the past election.

But then again, out of a country of 300 million, perhaps we'd have a
larger
voting population if votes actually counted for something. At the least
it
becomes cumbersome to split the electoral vote into segments for each
state,
but that would still be better. A simple one person, one vote would be
best.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

"squig" wrote in message
...
"EganMedia" wrote in message
...
Whey do you think thatfor almost 200 years Bible reading and prayer
was
allowed in public schools?Why wasn't it prohibited from the start?

I don't know why. Why wasn't slavery prohibited from the start? Why
weren't
women given the right to vote right from the start?


Joe Egan
EMP
Colchester, VT
www.eganmedia.com

You may have to refresh my memory but I don't believe either was
mentioned
pro/con in the Constitution.




It wouldn't be a Republic -- it would be a democracy, which is what the
Founding Fathers didn't want.

What part isn't a republic? A representative republic requires that
people's votes count so that representatives are chosen to expound those
votes. It doesn't make any difference how you cut and slice it, it's still
the same representative republic. Just tallied differently because it's
become something even MORE representative.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

"squig" wrote in message
...
"Roger W. Norman" wrote in message
...
Actually, in the Constitution, slaves were acknowledged by becoming 3/5
of
a
person based on the electoral vote. In other words, a slave owner who
had
3000 slaves had more electoral votes in his holding than a simple free
person in New York City. OR, to bring it down to even a smaller
situation,
it only took a slave owner with 3 slaves to have more sway with the
electoral college than one person in New York City.

Just that point alone makes the electoral college system stupid. And it
was
in the Constitution, like I said.

Now don't get me wrong. I understand that places like NYC have millions
of
people while there are states that don't have much of anyone, like
Montana
and the Dakotas, but hey, to me, they don't mean much anyway in terms of
electoral votes. If their vote counts the same as mine, then it makes
no
difference whether their state has more or less electoral votes. Plain
and
simple. I said this four years ago, and I'm saying it again. The
electoral
college idea is stupid in this day and age of virtual instant
communications. And, for the record, if the tallies are correct on the
votes made, then Bush would still be President, so my saying that the
electoral college is stupid wouldn't effect **** in the past election.

But then again, out of a country of 300 million, perhaps we'd have a
larger
voting population if votes actually counted for something. At the least
it
becomes cumbersome to split the electoral vote into segments for each
state,
but that would still be better. A simple one person, one vote would be
best.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

"squig" wrote in message
...
"EganMedia" wrote in message
...
Whey do you think thatfor almost 200 years Bible reading and
prayer
was
allowed in public schools?Why wasn't it prohibited from the start?

I don't know why. Why wasn't slavery prohibited from the start?
Why
weren't
women given the right to vote right from the start?


Joe Egan
EMP
Colchester, VT
www.eganmedia.com

You may have to refresh my memory but I don't believe either was
mentioned
pro/con in the Constitution.




It wouldn't be a Republic -- it would be a democracy, which is what the
Founding Fathers didn't want.

What part isn't a republic? A representative republic requires that
people's votes count so that representatives are chosen to expound those
votes. It doesn't make any difference how you cut and slice it, it's still
the same representative republic. Just tallied differently because it's
become something even MORE representative.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

"squig" wrote in message
...
"Roger W. Norman" wrote in message
...
Actually, in the Constitution, slaves were acknowledged by becoming 3/5
of
a
person based on the electoral vote. In other words, a slave owner who
had
3000 slaves had more electoral votes in his holding than a simple free
person in New York City. OR, to bring it down to even a smaller
situation,
it only took a slave owner with 3 slaves to have more sway with the
electoral college than one person in New York City.

Just that point alone makes the electoral college system stupid. And it
was
in the Constitution, like I said.

Now don't get me wrong. I understand that places like NYC have millions
of
people while there are states that don't have much of anyone, like
Montana
and the Dakotas, but hey, to me, they don't mean much anyway in terms of
electoral votes. If their vote counts the same as mine, then it makes
no
difference whether their state has more or less electoral votes. Plain
and
simple. I said this four years ago, and I'm saying it again. The
electoral
college idea is stupid in this day and age of virtual instant
communications. And, for the record, if the tallies are correct on the
votes made, then Bush would still be President, so my saying that the
electoral college is stupid wouldn't effect **** in the past election.

But then again, out of a country of 300 million, perhaps we'd have a
larger
voting population if votes actually counted for something. At the least
it
becomes cumbersome to split the electoral vote into segments for each
state,
but that would still be better. A simple one person, one vote would be
best.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

"squig" wrote in message
...
"EganMedia" wrote in message
...
Whey do you think thatfor almost 200 years Bible reading and
prayer
was
allowed in public schools?Why wasn't it prohibited from the start?

I don't know why. Why wasn't slavery prohibited from the start?
Why
weren't
women given the right to vote right from the start?


Joe Egan
EMP
Colchester, VT
www.eganmedia.com

You may have to refresh my memory but I don't believe either was
mentioned
pro/con in the Constitution.




It wouldn't be a Republic -- it would be a democracy, which is what the
Founding Fathers didn't want.

"Roger W. Norman" wrote in message
...
What part isn't a republic? A representative republic requires that
people's votes count so that representatives are chosen to expound those
votes. It doesn't make any difference how you cut and slice it, it's
still
the same representative republic. Just tallied differently because it's
become something even MORE representative.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

"squig" wrote in message
...
"Roger W. Norman" wrote in message
...
Actually, in the Constitution, slaves were acknowledged by becoming
3/5
of
a
person based on the electoral vote. In other words, a slave owner who
had
3000 slaves had more electoral votes in his holding than a simple free
person in New York City. OR, to bring it down to even a smaller
situation,
it only took a slave owner with 3 slaves to have more sway with the
electoral college than one person in New York City.

Just that point alone makes the electoral college system stupid. And
it
was
in the Constitution, like I said.

Now don't get me wrong. I understand that places like NYC have
millions
of
people while there are states that don't have much of anyone, like
Montana
and the Dakotas, but hey, to me, they don't mean much anyway in terms
of
electoral votes. If their vote counts the same as mine, then it makes
no
difference whether their state has more or less electoral votes.
Plain
and
simple. I said this four years ago, and I'm saying it again. The
electoral
college idea is stupid in this day and age of virtual instant
communications. And, for the record, if the tallies are correct on
the
votes made, then Bush would still be President, so my saying that the
electoral college is stupid wouldn't effect **** in the past election.

But then again, out of a country of 300 million, perhaps we'd have a
larger
voting population if votes actually counted for something. At the
least
it
becomes cumbersome to split the electoral vote into segments for each
state,
but that would still be better. A simple one person, one vote would
be
best.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

"squig" wrote in message
...
"EganMedia" wrote in message
...
Whey do you think thatfor almost 200 years Bible reading and
prayer
was
allowed in public schools?Why wasn't it prohibited from the
start?

I don't know why. Why wasn't slavery prohibited from the start?
Why
weren't
women given the right to vote right from the start?


Joe Egan
EMP
Colchester, VT
www.eganmedia.com

You may have to refresh my memory but I don't believe either was
mentioned
pro/con in the Constitution.




It wouldn't be a Republic -- it would be a democracy, which is what the
Founding Fathers didn't want.




Your comment was that it would best to have our system as 1 person, 1 vote.
That would make it a democracy. By the way, each state decides how to elect
the electors. Two of them do as you suggest (with a little twist). The
overall state winner gets 2 electoral votes (that correspond to the
Senators, so to speak) and each district winner gets the corresponding
elector. I believe those 2 states are Maine and Nebraska. If you don't like
it, do something to change it.

"Roger W. Norman" wrote in message
...
What part isn't a republic? A representative republic requires that
people's votes count so that representatives are chosen to expound those
votes. It doesn't make any difference how you cut and slice it, it's
still
the same representative republic. Just tallied differently because it's
become something even MORE representative.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

"squig" wrote in message
...
"Roger W. Norman" wrote in message
...
Actually, in the Constitution, slaves were acknowledged by becoming
3/5
of
a
person based on the electoral vote. In other words, a slave owner who
had
3000 slaves had more electoral votes in his holding than a simple free
person in New York City. OR, to bring it down to even a smaller
situation,
it only took a slave owner with 3 slaves to have more sway with the
electoral college than one person in New York City.

Just that point alone makes the electoral college system stupid. And
it
was
in the Constitution, like I said.

Now don't get me wrong. I understand that places like NYC have
millions
of
people while there are states that don't have much of anyone, like
Montana
and the Dakotas, but hey, to me, they don't mean much anyway in terms
of
electoral votes. If their vote counts the same as mine, then it makes
no
difference whether their state has more or less electoral votes.
Plain
and
simple. I said this four years ago, and I'm saying it again. The
electoral
college idea is stupid in this day and age of virtual instant
communications. And, for the record, if the tallies are correct on
the
votes made, then Bush would still be President, so my saying that the
electoral college is stupid wouldn't effect **** in the past election.

But then again, out of a country of 300 million, perhaps we'd have a
larger
voting population if votes actually counted for something. At the
least
it
becomes cumbersome to split the electoral vote into segments for each
state,
but that would still be better. A simple one person, one vote would
be
best.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

"squig" wrote in message
...
"EganMedia" wrote in message
...
Whey do you think thatfor almost 200 years Bible reading and
prayer
was
allowed in public schools?Why wasn't it prohibited from the
start?

I don't know why. Why wasn't slavery prohibited from the start?
Why
weren't
women given the right to vote right from the start?


Joe Egan
EMP
Colchester, VT
www.eganmedia.com

You may have to refresh my memory but I don't believe either was
mentioned
pro/con in the Constitution.




It wouldn't be a Republic -- it would be a democracy, which is what the
Founding Fathers didn't want.




Your comment was that it would best to have our system as 1 person, 1 vote.
That would make it a democracy. By the way, each state decides how to elect
the electors. Two of them do as you suggest (with a little twist). The
overall state winner gets 2 electoral votes (that correspond to the
Senators, so to speak) and each district winner gets the corresponding
elector. I believe those 2 states are Maine and Nebraska. If you don't like
it, do something to change it.