Pope's Butler Sentenced to 18 Months for Stealing Documents - New York Times [getdailynow.blogspot.com]
Just as health and science studies are taking off in a robust job market, Massasoit Community College this week found itself missing from Gov. Deval Patrick's announcement of $ 298 million for new community college buildings. Massasoit had been hoping ... State snubs Brockton college in building budget
State.wmvСоÑтоÑние â€" абÑтрактный термин, обозначающий множеÑтво Ñтабильных значений переменных параметров объекта. СоÑтоÑние характеризуетÑÑ Ñ‚ÐµÐ¼, что опиÑывает переменные ÑвойÑтва объекта. СоÑтоÑние Ñтабильно до тех пор, пока над объектом не будет произведено дейÑтвие; еÑли над объектом будет произведено некоторое дейÑтвие, его ÑоÑтоÑние может изменитьÑÑ. ПоÑÐ»ÐµÐ´Ð¾Ð²Ð°Ñ‚ÐµÐ»ÑŒÐ½Ð°Ñ Ñмена ÑоÑтоÑний объекта называетÑÑ Ð¿Ñ€Ð¾Ñ†ÐµÑÑом.
VATICAN CITY â€" The pope’s butler was sentenced to 18 months in prison on Saturday after being convicted of stealing the pope’s private documents and leaking them to a journalist.
Judge Giuseppe Dalla Torre read the verdict Saturday two hours after the three-judge panel began deliberating the fate of the butler Paolo Gabriele. The judge said the sentence was reduced to 18 months from three years because of mitiigating circumstances, including that Mr. Gabriele had no previous record.
In his final appeal to the court, Mr. Gabriele said he leaked the pope’s private correspondence to a journalist out of a “visceral love†for the church and the pope.
In the courtroom was Mr. Gabriele’s father. It was the first time a family member has attended his weeklong trial.
Mr. Gabriele is accused of stealing the pope’s private correspondence and passing it on to journalist Gianluigi Nuzzi, whose book revealed the intrigue, petty infighting and allegations of corruption and homosexual liaisons that plague the leadership of the Roman Catholic Church.
The book, “His Holiness: Pope Benedict XVI’s Secret Papers†has convulsed the Vatican for months and prompted an unprecedented response, with the pope naming a commission of cardinals to investigate the origin of the leaks alongside Vatican magistrates.
In her closing arguments, the defense lawyer Cristiana Arru insisted that only photocopies, not original documents, were taken from the Apostolic Palace, disputing testimony from the pope’s secretary who said he saw original letters in the evidence seized from Gabriele’s home.
Ms. Arru admitted Mr. Gabriele’s gesture was “condemnable†but said it was a misappropriation of documents, not theft, and that as a result Gabriele should serve no time for the lesser crime.
It’s not clear where Gabriele will serve his sentence or if he will be sent back to jail. He has been held on house arrest since July after spending his first two months in a Vatican detention room. The Vatican has said he would serve any sentence in an Italian prison because it does not have any long-term prison facilities.
But a papal pardon is nevertheless widely expected.
Related Pope's Butler Sentenced to 18 Months for Stealing Documents - New York Times Articles Question by ~Jusagirl~: Exactly where does the phrase "separation of church and state" exist in the USA's founding documents? I've looked. I can't find it. The first amendment states: "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." OK......how does not making a law respecting an estalishment of religion translate into "seperation of church and state?" Thats like saying "congress shall not make a law about what color you can wear" translates into "you can ony wear white or black in a government facility." Makes about as much sense. So where is this term "seperation of church and state?" Best answer for Exactly where does the phrase "separation of church and state" exist in the USA's founding documents?:
Answer by cyanne2ak
It was in the Declaration of Independence and also in the Articles of Confederation. It predates the Constitution.
Answer by truthspeaker10
The phrase "separation of church and state" appears in almost every legal interpretation of the 1st amendment. It is also known as the "establishment clause" which you listed in your question. Be happy you live in a nation that allows you the freedom to follow whatever religion you so choose. Be is Christianity, Judaism, Taoism, Buddhism, Islam, or Atheism. I do not support the notion that the USA is a "christian" nation. In fact Jesus HIMSELF claimed that there is only one kingdom of god (heaven).
Answer by David G
The phrase was said by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to the Danbury Baptists referring to the first amendment, "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and State. " It is found in no other founding documents including the declaration of independence.
Answer by Zee HatMan
It does not exist in any of those documents. The original concept was a guideline for government not to create a national religion. It was never meant to say that the nation can not consist of religious peoples or preventing people from exercising their religion in public Today it has become an artificial construct of the political left as a way to attack persons of faith. It is one of those 'Tell a lie long enough and people will come to believe it'.
Answer by ShadowCat
Thomas Jefferson has been mis-quoted by those who would take freedom of speech away! He meant that Government cannot intrude to tell the Churches what they could and could not say or do within Reason! There is No State Mandated Church. Our Constitution is in Fact a Secular document taken from the Bible, Hamerabic/Babylonian and Greek laws, when this Republic was Forged! In fact they invited Churches to participate in the governmental process as the conscious of government. Religious groups can also Redress government without fear of being arrested and convicted for expressing religious morality! Many of the Amendments to include the Abolishment of Slavery adnd Women's Rights are based upon Biblical principals that all mankind is created equal in the sig ht of God as we are made in His Image and likeness. Acts 10. People are not tried in the dead of night without witnesses because of Matthew Chapter 25 -28! You are guarantted not to be searched and to be secure in your homes and persons, because of the Common Laws found in Scripture! The Authority given to government and police is found in Romans 13. and in Leviticus Chapters 16-19 Atheism has not dried one tear, nor has it protected not one person in TRUTH!
Answer by Perdendosi
(1) As noted it does not exist in the Constitution. The term is "respecting an establishment of religion." (2) It was used by T.J. as mentioned above in his letter to the Danbury Baptists, and was referred to more extensively in relation to the Virginia Declaration of Rights, which predated the Bill of Rights. (3) It was adopted in the 1940s by Justice Hugo Black in a Supreme Court decision relating to forced prayer in elementary school; thus, it became part of our legal lexicon. (4) "Separation of church and state" no longer applies in modern Supreme Court doctrine. The current tests are whether a law is religiously "neutral" (but this is on the way out); whether the law "coerces" someone into practicing faith (Justice Kennedy especially); or whether the State "endorces" religion (Justice O'Connor and perhaps Justice Breyer) or a particular religion (Justices Scalia and Thomas, perhaps Alito and C.J. Roberts, we don't know yet). "Endorsement of religion" is a far cry from "separation of church and state," as nearly all Supreme Court justices today recognize that there will be come interaction between church and state. (5) "Separation of Church and State" is used much more by political forces and the media as an imprecise reference to the rights guaranteed by the Establishment Clause -- but it's very hard to say 'Respecting an establishment of religion' in a sound bite, and it's hard to understand. (6) "Respecting an establishment of religion" does NOT mean that the Framers were SOLELY concerned with whether the Federal Government could establish, or ordain, a church. There was also a concern that civil government, if too closely aligned with churches would TAINT AND HARM RELIGION. Look at Continental Europe and England, where most countries have/had established churches. They ended up weak, watered down, and powerless. Also, the Framers were much more concerned about government's coercive control affecting someone "freedom of conscience," (the real harm sought to be protected by the Establishment Clause), so it's not merely saying "this is the preferred religion" or "pay the preferred religion," it's the anti-democratic idea that the government will tell you what to think in relation to God. Now, of course, that covers A LOT more ground than just an established church, but can mean a variety of religiously infused activities. (I could write a treatise here, but it's just too much to say.) (7) This "Separation of Church and State is no where in the Constitution" argument is very, very tired. No respected scholars use the term, nor do judges, except in the most perfunctory, flippant manner. It does not add to or detract from the debate, because "respecting an establishment" can mean much more than 'separation of church and state' anyway. As a person who believes in an expansive reading of the Establishment Clause (AND an expansive reading of the Free Exercise Clause), I detest when anyone uses the term "separation of church and state." But that's just the beginning of the argument, not the end. http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/estabinto.htm
Video responses - Everybody say itFor the Michigan State Legislature. This was an idea that I heard about from BionicDance www.youtube.com t's June 22nd, otherwise known as Everybody Say 'Vagina' Day Lisa Brown (D), Michigan State Representative, was censured and prevented from speaking by Rep. Mike Callton (R), for using the word 'vagina' in a political speech about reproductive rights. Read more about it here www.cnn.com He claimed, "What she said was offensive. It was so offensive, I don't want to say it in front of women. I would not say that in mixed company." It was not offensive at all; it's a scientific, medical term, and Rep. Brown used it as such. And to show support for her, today, June 22nd, has been declared "Everybody Say 'Vagina' Day". Category:
0 comments:
Post a Comment