"With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation's wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan - to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace, among ourselves, and with all nations." (Abraham Lincoln's second Inaugural Address, March 4, 1865.) (Josylin's birthday in 1970.)

"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causing me to tremble for the safety of my country. …corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed," (Disputed as from Abraham Lincoln.)

"With public sentiment, nothing can fail; without it nothing can succeed, Consequently he who moulds public sentiment, goes deeper than he who enacts statutes or pronounces decisions. He makes statutes and decisions possible or impossible to be executed." (From Abraham Lincoln's first debate with Steven Douglas in 1858 Senate race. Ottawa, Illinois on August 21, 1858.)

Justice, truth, and meditation with the purifying of thought and body were taught to be the way to knowledge and happiness in the last recorded lesson of Jesus in about The year of our Lord 115, by some Followers Of Jesus, Son of Mary. In somewhat unrelated events, and that lesson of Jesus unknown to them in The Year of Our Lord 1776, the philosophy of truth, justice, liberty and the pursuit of happiness was written in the Constitution of the United States. It is interesting that the fathers of the US came to the same general conclusions as Jesus about what is best for people. In the Year of Our Lord 2004 the philosophy that the church and state should not mix, for offending truth, justice and equality for all of the freedom for religious beliefs and the freedom for the exchange of words of ideas, but not sticks and stones. The father Thomas Jefferson wrote about the necessity for separating the religion of individuals from the laws of a true, just, equal system of liberty and pursuit of happiness. The system of the British kingdom required, at that time, an Englishman to belong to the Church of England by decree of the King. Jefferson thought a system of true, just, and equal laws should not make those conditions, and worked to defeat ideas that could lead to a one declared church or religion of US, but not to declare no God conception at all by government in its documents, as evidenced in those writers' documents. Out of this was born the separation of church and state issue still being discussed today in 2004.

In the extreme application of many philosophies the point is reached where the philosophy no longer makes sense. In existentialism, the philosophy grounding one in their experience of the physical world, and the empiricism of scientific measurements, leads one in the extreme, to realize that, according to the theory, there is nothing really real and no purpose what so ever to anything. As Lou Marinoff, Ph.D., wrote in "Plato not Prozac!" about Kierkegaard's version, "no essence, no mystery, no intangibles, no meaning, no purpose, no value." "…the easy trap to fall into is to wonder why you are alive at all." Some people suffer mental illness problems and are given medicines or a talking to with doctors for existential thoughts like this. They can lead to suicide in the extreme application of the theory, where the depressed person realizes that there may be no meaning in living in an extreme consideration of physical existence. The fallacy here is the premise that human life only has a physical side. In truth, you must change that premise. In truth, life also has the psyche or spiritual side, an essence of sorts, that willingly constructs a purpose by the freewill of thought. One only needs to think before the logical limits of the extreme existential premise.

Another example from mathematics with infinities, Zeno's paradox of throwing a rock at tree 8 feet away, is the fact that if you choose two points and you "go half way" from one toward the other, then go half way from that point to the second point, and half way from there, ad infinitum, you will never reach the second point. In the extreme application of the theory, you can not get from one place to another place. But, the truth is when you decide to go to the bathroom you can in fact get to the toilet. The problem in Zeno's example is, again, in the premise of the argument, not withstanding solutions provided by the calculus and infinite sequences of Newton and Leibniz, or reformation of calculus and infinite series math in the 1900s. If you construct a syllogism with the premise to 'only go half way' from a point to a second point, and therefore 'not go all the way' from the point to the second point, you can't logically conclude to eventually go all the way to the second point. You set up to only go half way, not all the way -- so -- going all the way violates the logical argument. Only thing is, this violates the reality of going to the bathroom point from the living room point.

The extreme application of the separation of church and state philosophy says the morals of religious philosophies have no place in secular government. The "If in religion, then, not in state" syllogism. As shown in the beginning, the philosophy of the foundation of the secular US Constitution is the same as the religious philosophies of many recorded lessons of Jesus Christ and other religious points as well. The premise that government can not favor one religion over another in the extreme becomes fallacious when the fundamental truth and justice of life are bared as well. Now the separation premise is suspect, from what we have seen in the previous examples. For example, the Ten Commandments are in truth are one the best commonly known set of sentences of the fundamental truth and justice of human life. That is probably why they have not disappeared since Moses wrote them down in stone around 3000 years ago, if you believe the Bible. No matter how they are worded, or by whom, most people will recognize the Ten Commandments, singly or grouped, and remember their origin in the Bible - at least in the USA - where the argument is so now centered. In the extreme philosophy of the separation of church and state, the Ten Commandments can logically not be used in secular affairs because--- people remember their religious origin. If the premise is changed, we must accept that the truth and justice of a set of rules of behaviors' merit, whether or not the origin is remembered, and not logically be discarded only because we remember a religious origin of the rules. (The Bible, i.e. Genesis, may be imperfect science of 3,000 years ago, and Science of 2004 imperfect science as well, rather than either myth.) Don't throw out the fundamentals of truth's history with the historical bath water of religions.

If we take one of the Ten Commandment, "thou shall not steal," and apply the extreme philosophy of separation of church and state we can not write a law against stealing, because in the theory we can't allow the Bible rules in secular dos and don't. Constructing the extreme syllogism: If in religion, then, never or not in state. This is as logical as not getting to the bathroom in the above math of infinity example. If we do not allow stealing we logically must also allow the statement "thou shall not steal" in secular affairs and documents, a statement that most remember as one of the Ten Commandments. The premises of the syllogism becomes suspect when considering the extreme philosophical applications of that syllogism. Again, a much better method is to think to an application to practice before the logically, unrealistic limits of the extreme separation of church and state.

The secular law is also religiously enforced with populations in its extreme applications. Things that are not true and not just come to pass because a secular law's extreme, fundamental wording enforcement allows or does not allow the judged. Because a law is written in a secular law book is not reason enough for a judge to uphold it in unjust extremes of specific cases. A judge must certainly prove the truth in his decisions of extremity as well, or the fallacy only is shifted from the book to the judge. Our country, nor anyone else, would not be any better off. Justice and truth in the specific situation before the judge dictates the judgment, and the written law is only and should only be, a guide, not to be held to verbatim in those extreme applications that, as we have seen, will turn fallacious. In short, in truth, a judge must judge the justice and truth alone, and use the guidelines of written laws and precedence from all texts and situations to guide him and her, but not let those always dictate his or her decision. He and she should be accountable with his and her head. This is the burden of a judge, any judge or judger. So, all judges, legislatures and lawyers should decide, with their own capitol punishment's accountability and/or consideration, to allow or not allow any behavior or text in specific cases, with truth and justice apparent to US the public, in the specific case, regardless of any specific sentence written in any specific document. Again, and in brief, think to an application before the fallacy of logical extremes.