Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    Wow!  Another interesting note ... something that I've always wanted to
    discuss.  I think that there's some interesting discussion to be found
    in this "moral versus civil" rights and "legislation of morality"
    issues that are being discussed in other notes.  I'm glad I joined
    this conference!

.0> I, personally, have made the connection between faith and politics in my
.0> life.  And at this point, it would be impossible for me to sever the two.

    Please, how have you "made the connection"?

    I've often wondered how many people voted for JFK *because* he was a
    Catholic - and - they discounted as "irrelevant" any of his policy
    stands with respect to leading this country.

    Tell me about the connection between faith and politics - is it to the
    extent that it is a significant element in the votes that you cast?

    Tonight, I'm going to look up some court cases (Supreme Court) on this
    subject and get your opinion.

    Bubba

>It is my understanding that "separation of church and state" was to
>prevent the federal government from endorsing any one particular church
>or religion.  It was also to prevent a tax to support such a religious
>institution.

    This has always been my understanding as well. The gap between church
    and state was always intended to be a one way gap. That is, that the
    state was not to meddle in or discourage religion. Never was it
    intended by those who wrote the Constitution to prohibit people of
    religion from meddling in the function of the state. And I suspect 
    that it was assumed that peoples religious beliefs would impact them
    greatly in what they expected and required of their government.

    I have never understood those who cry "separation of church and state"
    when clergy or other religious people act politically on their 
    beliefs.

    			Alfred

The way I see it, you can't *NOT* make a political statement by your
actions.  Every purchase you make, every time you call attention to an
injustice, every time you value another human being, every time you
give asking nothing in return, you are making a political statement.

The converse is also true.  Every effort you make to insure your own comfort
and security, every time you meet injustice with silence, every time you fail
to recognize the value another human being, every time you give expecting
something in return, you are also making a political statement.

In my mind, it's really a matter of what political statement you choose
to make, not whether you'll make one.  There is a political statement
made in virtually every choice you make.

Claiming Christ as my Sovereign is a political statement.  My allegiance
can be with no contradictory authority.  And it is my belief that such an
allegiance places upon me an extraordinary responsibility towards others.

I am called to a radical way of thinking and a radical way of living, one
which I'm still growing towards.

Peace,
Richard

.0> It is my understanding that "separation of church and state" was to
.0> prevent the federal government from endorsing any one particular church
.0> or religion.  It was also to prevent a tax to support such a religious
.0> institution.

It was Thomas Jefferson who coined the phrase "a wall of separation between
church and state".

Two elements to the "separation" issue:  the establishment clause and the
free exercise clause.  Under the establishment clause neither a state nor
the Federal Government can set up a church.  Neither can pass laws which
aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another.
This clause is that which has allowed courts to strike down state support
for parochial schools, statutes mandating school prayer, and the erection
of religious displays (for example, nativity scenes or menorahs) on public
property.

The free exercise clause forbids the government from outlawing religious
belief and from unduly burdening the exercise of a religious belief.

Check out "In Our Defense" by Alderman and Kennedy.  It's a poor man's guide
to the Bill of Rights.

Bubba

.2> I have never understood those who cry "separation of church and state"
.2> when clergy or other religious people act politically on their 
.2> beliefs.

You know, Alfred, you've opened my eyes here.  I freely admit to probing
in note 91 to see if the proposed amendment to the Colorado Constitution
was funded/backed/supported by a religious organization.  When I *really*
think about it, I'm not sure that I can justify, to myself, with any degree
of satisfaction, *why* I wanted to know.  Would it have influenced my
position?  No.  Probably not.  Then, I ask myself, *why* did I want to
know?

I was so incredibly beat to smithereens by "religion" when I was a kid:
no dancing, no smoking, no drinking, no sex, no ... anything that I liked!
Why?  Because it was all a "sin".  This nebulous thing called "sin".

I guess that it's still with me, lo' these many years later, and, when
I hear the word "religion" my guard goes up and a "not_again!" syndrome
takes over.

You're right, Alfred.  I'll try to keep a more open mind toward religion
and judge each political "action" based on it's own merits.

Bubba

    RE: Bubba Beeler
    
    Trying to find the Lord, eh?
    
    Playtoe

>    RE: Bubba Beeler
>    
>    Trying to find the Lord, eh?
    
    I suspect that my good friend from Texas isn't trying. Bubba usually
    succeeds at what he tries. And if he were looking for the Lord he'd
    have found Him by now. :-)
    
    		Alfred

re .3

	Richard,

	Your reply .3 interested me, being one of Jehovah's Witnesses
	we do not get mixed up in worldly politics. The main reason 
	for doing this is in following Jesus' example he prayed in
	John 17:16 NWT "They are no part of the world, just as I am
	no part of the world." But as you say
 
;In my mind, it's really a matter of what political statement you choose
;to make, not whether you'll make one.  There is a political statement
;made in virtually every choice you make.

	Yes, Jehovah's Witness stance of neutrality is in itself a political
	statement for it shows who's side they are on (compare James 4:4). And
	they see benefits from this neutral stance, one being that they do not
	allow nationalistic fervour (that may lead to warfare) to pit themselves 
	against their own brother in different lands (John 13:34,35). Love of
	ones brother should not have national boundaries. They do however 
	respect the current government in power, which ever it's political
	leaning,  but this is relative to God's commandments.


;Claiming Christ as my Sovereign is a political statement. 

	Jehovah's Witnesses do not claim Christ as their Sovereign, but
	Jehovah (compare Psalms 83:18 KJV). However, Christ means "Anointed
	One" the one anointed by Jehovah to be king of his incoming kingdom,
	compare Psalms 2 and Isaiah 9:6. But this claim is as well a political
	statement showing ones allegiance.

;My allegiance can be with no contradictory authority.

	This is how Jehovah's Witnesses see things and for that reason they see
	the importance of taking a neutral stance. A prophesy in Daniel 2:44
	NWT reads "And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set 
	up a kingdom that will never be brought to ruin. And the kingdom itself
	will not be passed on to any other people. It will crush and put and
	end to all these kingdoms, and itself will stand to times indefinite;"
	Seeing that this kingdom that is being established will put an end to
	"all these kingdoms" highlights the importance for a neutral stance.

;And it is my belief that such an allegiance places upon me an extraordinary 
;responsibility towards others. 

	Many today, who become strongly involved in politics see the need to
	canvass for the political party of their choice. A major part of this
	canvassing would include highlighting the party manifesto showing
	what the party would do if they were to form a government. So to 
	Christians having a responsibilty for declaring the good news of
	God's incoming kingdom to all inhabitants of the earth (compare
	Matthew 24:14) this is a commision given to all Christians as Jesus
	commanded of his followers in Matthew 28:18-20. Throughout the Bible
	are promises from God on what this heavenly kingdom (Revelation 5:9,10)
	will bring to all of righteous mankind on earth, it is the duty of
	all Christians to share these promises with others. It shows that they
	want to be subjects of such a government. These promises can be found
	in many Bible passages such as Psalms 37, Isaiah 11 and 35 as well as 
	Matthew 5:5. A wonderful manifesto with a bright future for righteous 
	mankind on earth.

	Phil.

I wish no offense to my JW friends.  I understand their posture with
regard to politics.  I maintain an opposing viewpoint, however.

My viewpoint is this: every voice that is silent lends tacit approval
of the status quo.  I say that the prophets were quite political and
that so was Jesus.  Yes, I agree that he did not run for governmental
office.  But, I don't believe that that is the only indicator of political
action.

If I may, I might recommend "The Politics of Jesus," by John Howard Yoder,
for an indepth study of this aspect.

Peace,
Richard

re .10

	Richard,


	No offense taken. May I ask you why you believe that the prophets 
	along with Jesus were quite political?. I am interested on your
	view on this.

	Thanks

	Phil.

	I have a button that reads:

	Silence equals complicity

	This seems to right true to me. 

			Alfred

Phil .11,

	As I stated before, the way one to chooses to live is, to me, in
itself a political expression.

	I cannot supply you with a comprehensive response regarding the
the political dimension of the prophets and Jesus.  But I'll share a few
off the top of my head, if that's okay.

	Nehemiah went to David, the reigning king, and told the monarch in
no uncertain terms where he's had messed up and how he had disappointed God.

	Isaiah, serving as a consultant, had a direct influence on the
decisions of the king.

	Amos set aside his shepherding business to go and tell the rulers and
the people to bring justice into their dealings with one another.

	Over and over, the prophets blatantly criticized the status quo.
They told the people how empty their rituals were and what kind of behavior
and actions God really wanted from them.  Isaiah declared that the fasting
that God desired was to "break the chains of oppression."  I can think of
no more political statement than this.

	The prophets and Jesus frequently posed no small threat to those
in power, often risking their very lives in the process.  In fact, Jesus
was sentenced to death as an insurrectionist.

	The teachings of Jesus remain revolutionary, even subversive.  Few
live out Jesus' teachings to the degree I believe he intended.

Peace,
Richard

    RE: 7
    
>>    RE: Bubba Beeler
>>    
>>    Trying to find the Lord, eh?
    
    
>    succeeds at what he tries. And if he were looking for the Lord he'd
>    have found Him by now. :-)
    
>    		Alfred
    
    That's why I said "I don't trust it!" :-)

    Re: .14
    
    Why are you bothered by Jerry's notes?
    
    Marc H.

    
    Re.12
    
    I voted for you, Alfred.  (;^)
    
    Cindy

    
      
        I remember ages ago back in high school several of us got
      in trouble for refusing to stand and pledge allegiance during
      home room and at assemblies.
        I'll always remember the vice-principal yelling at us that 
      we should thank God we lived in a free country and that we had
      better start doing what we were told and behave like everyone
      else did. Ya know I don't believe he ever realized what an
      absurd statement that was.
        To this day whenever I hear people questioning the integrity
      of those will not pledge allegiance my thoughts go back to that
      day when as a young man I was told freedom meant blind obedience
      and conformity. 
         If you really believe in the pledge of allegiance and mean it
      when you say it I can respect you for that, but please do not try and
      coerce others into performing what will be an empty ritual for them.
      In doing so you cheapen the ideals that pledge represents. 

                                                               Mike

Note 425.11

Phil.

	Allow me to add that I join my JW friends in refusing to pledge
allegiance to the flag.

Peace,
Richard

    "The Christian convent and monastery are within, where the soul is
    encloistered from sin.  The true followers of Christ carry this
    religious house about with them.  They exempt not themselves from the
    conversation of the world, though they keep themselves from the evil of
    it.

    "What a world should we have if everybody should close himself up within
    four walls.  No.  The perfection of the Christian life extends to every
    honest labour among men.

    "True godliness does not turn men out of the world, but enables them to
    live better in it and excites their endeavors to mend it; not to hide
    their candle under a bushel but to set it upon a table in a
    candlestick.  This recluse attitude runs away by itself and leaves the
    world to be lost.  Christians should keep the helm, and guide the
    vessel to its port; not hide away at the stern of the world and leave
    those that are in it without a pilot."

                               William Penn
                           "No Cross, No Crown"

    RE:  91.1511
    
    >Nothing in the Constitution prohibits the so-called "religious right"
    >from using every power available to it to try to convince the rest of
    >the population to refrain from and to refuse to condone certain
    >behavior.
    
    Consider the political dilemma in (Algeria? Morocco?).  They have a
    civil constitution.  They finally had open elections this year.  The
    Muslim version of the religious right won in the elections, didn't
    they?  So they now have the power to invalidate the constitution and
    put the whole country under Shariah (Moslem law).  The constitution
    under which they gained electoral power becomes null and void.
    
    Hmmm?
    
    L

    There is nothing in the US Constitution that prohibits people from
    changing it. As 27 amendments prove. What is your point? Are you
    suggesting that people who believe in a religion should not be allowed
    to participate in the political process?
    
    		Alfred

   Alfred,

   What is being suggested (if only by me) is that the constitution not
   become the national religion nor support a specific religion.

   Peace,
   Allison

    RE:  .21
    
    >Are you suggesting that people who believe in a religion should not be
    >allowed to participate in the political process?
    
    Alfred, this is nonsense.  I never said such a thing.
    
    I don't have time to go into a longer explanation.
    
    L
    

Correct me where I'm in error, Laura, but it seems to me you are saying that
it's possible, in the democratic process, to maneuver the situation, through
religious extremism, for example, so that it ultimately destroys the
democratic process.

I have to agree.  It is a risk.  You know, Thomas Jefferson thought it
reasonable for a country to go through a revolution every seven years or so.

Peace,
Richard

"In God We Trust" - on our money.

"God Bless America" - who doesn't know that little tune!

"...one nation, under God ..." - ever heard that before?

"...the whole truth, nothing but the truth, so help you God.."  - in court.

"...by our Creator with certain inalienable rights" - Bill of Rights.

"God of our Fathers" - the national hymn.

The House and Senate are both opened with a prayer.

Billy Graham is a regular visitor to the White House.

etc ...

Can one *really* separate church and state?  Does one *really* want to
separate church and state?

Bubba

    What I've grasped so far:

    a) The Bible clearly indicates to some Christians, not all, that certain
    acts are inherently sinful.

    b) Christians are instructed by the Bible to identify to all their fellow
    humans what acts are sinful.

    c) Out of love for their fellow humans, a Christian cannot "condone" a
    sinful act, since it will harm the soul of the person committing it.

    Questions:

    a) I assume our government is founded on the principle that we are all
    endowed by our Creator "with certain unalienable Rights, that among these
    are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness." Do Christians not believe
    this?

    b) I assume that as an American citizen I ought to be able to freely pursue
    what I define to be happiness so long as my actions don't deprive anyone
    else of his/her "unalienable rights". Is this contrary to Christian belief?

    c) I conclude from (c) that any law which forbids an American citizen from
    selecting the consenting sexual partner of his/her choice from among the
    adult population of other citizens to perform a mutually agreeable sexual
    act, is contrary to our ideal implementation of government. Obviously
    Christians have supported such laws in the past because they exist. Would
    abolishing these laws be regarded by Christians as "condoning"? Does God
    will Christians to deprive their fellow citizens of liberty if they'll use
    their liberty to commit sin?

    d) Has God granted every human free will? If by civil law you deprive a
    person of the choice to sin, have you deprived him/her of a God-given
    choice? Does God care about the obedience to His will of people who
    only obey it because they're forced to by their fellow humans?

    e) If Christians are faced with a choice between "condoning" a sin by
    making it legal and depriving someone of equality under the law, which
    is the better choice (lesser of two evils)? If depriving is morally
    worse than condoning, to what extent do Christians feel obligated to
    rectify situations in which deprivation has already occurred?

    f) Is it the agenda of any Christians to abolish this democracy in
    favor of a Christian theocracy? Many? A few? 

    Bonus question ;-): If a Christian works for a company which has a
    policy that forbids discrimination based on sexual orientation,
    professes to value all employees despite their Christian-defined
    sinfulness, and generally discourages people from preaching religion in
    the workspace, is s/he "condoning" sin by supporting such a company
    with his/her labor?

Re: .25  Bubba

>Can one *really* separate church and state?

No.

>Does one *really* want to separate church and state?

Yes.

>"In God We Trust" - on our money.

Should be illegal, but isn't.

>"God Bless America" - who doesn't know that little tune!

That's OK since it's just a song.

>"...one nation, under God ..." - ever heard that before?

Yes - that was thrown in during McCarthy's 50s.  The act of Congress that
made that change should have been ruled unconstitutional, but wasn't.

>"...the whole truth, nothing but the truth, so help you God.."  - in court.

Should be illegal, but isn't.

>"...by our Creator with certain inalienable rights" - Bill of Rights.

You mean the Declaration of Independence.  That document predates the
Constitution, and it's a bit late to change it.  I for one don't believe
that I was endowed by my Creator with inalienable rights.

>"God of our Fathers" - the national hymn.

Is it?  I didn't know we had a national hymn.  Should be illegal, but isn't.

>The House and Senate are both opened with a prayer.

Should be illegal, but isn't.

>Billy Graham is a regular visitor to the White House.

That's OK, he's a citizen.

				-- Bob

Re:  425.26

  >a) I assume our government is founded on the principle that we are all
  >endowed by our Creator "with certain unalienable Rights, that among these
  >are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness." Do Christians not believe
  >this?

Actually, I've always struggled some with this.  I certainly agree with
part of what it attempts to express. 

  >b) I assume that as an American citizen I ought to be able to freely pursue
  >what I define to be happiness so long as my actions don't deprive anyone
  >else of his/her "unalienable rights". Is this contrary to Christian belief?

Very contrary.  Christians believe in a moral God, not a country's 
Constitution as primary.  If you want to know what a *Christian* belief
is, then forget the U.S. Constitution (drafted mostly by non-Christian
Deists) and go to the Bible for what God has revealed.

  >Does God will Christians to deprive their fellow citizens of liberty if 
  >they'll use their liberty to commit sin?

Actually, God gives us great liberties to commit sins.  Just don't whine
about the consequences.

This is what governments usually do, too.

  >If by civil law you deprive a person of the choice to sin, have you 
  >deprived him/her of a God-given choice?

From a Biblical perspective, those who God ordered to be killed because
of a particular sin (murder, for example) no longer have much choice
about what sin to commit next, do they?

  >e) If Christians are faced with a choice between "condoning" a sin by
  >making it legal and depriving someone of equality under the law, which
  >is the better choice (lesser of two evils)? 

Equality?!  The Bible is very clear that people will make the equation

  sin = right

Equality.  It is your choice whether you wish to be one of those.

  >f) Is it the agenda of any Christians to abolish this democracy in
  >favor of a Christian theocracy? Many? A few? 

Answered a little earlier in this string.  Very few (several percent
max) are trying to accomplish this in the U.S.  Sects you have never
heard of in Texas are prime examples.

  >Bonus question ;-): If a Christian works for a company which has a
  >policy that forbids discrimination based on sexual orientation,
  >professes to value all employees despite their Christian-defined
  >sinfulness, and generally discourages people from preaching religion in
  >the workspace, is s/he "condoning" sin by supporting such a company
  >with his/her labor?

Answer:  If a Christian lives and pays taxes in a country which has
a policy that allows and supports the killing of unborn children, is
s/he "condoning" sin by supporting such a country with his/her labor,
money, love and prayers?

Collis

>Actually, I've always struggled some with this.  I certainly agree with
>part of what it attempts to express. 
    
    What part do you not agree with?

>Very contrary.  Christians believe in a moral God, not a country's 
>Constitution as primary.  If you want to know what a *Christian* belief
>is, then forget the U.S. Constitution (drafted mostly by non-Christian
>Deists) and go to the Bible for what God has revealed.
    
    Well, aside from it being an extremely long book, written in an archaic
    language that's difficult to understand, it's not so much me
    understanding the whole belief. I'm specifically interested in
    understanding what the belief's effects are on the Constitution and
    civil law in general. 
    
    I can't forget the law because that's our only common ground. You
    approach that common ground from one perspective and I approach it from
    another. Essential to us arriving at a common ground (or rather to stay
    in it) is our mutual desire to be in one. Now if you're saying that
    your goal is not to arrive at or maintain a common ground, but to cast
    me out of it or make the whole ground conform completely to your
    perspective, then we have little to discuss. You would be, in that
    case, the enemy of the free state I wish to live in. I would be the
    enemy of your state.
    
    I had thought perhaps there was a civil code that Christians and
    non-Christians could agree on, if only for the sake of continuing to
    live with one another without one group oppressing the other or having
    us kill each other off in some kind of American jihad. Do you hold that
    the code of behavior that people may arrive at out of social necessity
    and without consulting God, is too limited or contradicts Christian
    morality? 
    
    For example, we may agree that murder is unacceptable behavior. I do so
    because it deprives citizens of the right to life and because I don't
    want anyone to murder me. You do so, I presume, because it's a sin.
    Nevertheless we agree that it ought to be illegal. On the other hand,
    in the case where an action appears to deprive no one else of their
    rights, I hold that the superior morality is to let the individual
    choose according to his own moral standards. Certainly one may attempt
    to advise (preach at) him, but it's up to him. Would you allow this
    individual that freedom or not?
    
>Actually, God gives us great liberties to commit sins.  Just don't whine
>about the consequences.
    
    I would never whine about the consequences inflicted by God. What good
    would it do? He's a diety and can do whatever He wants. It's the human
    inflicted consequences that are in question. What right has a fellow
    human to inflict any unpleasant consequences on me for actions that
    don't involve him?

>This is what governments usually do, too.
    
    Not apparently when they are dominated by religion.

>From a Biblical perspective, those who God ordered to be killed because
>of a particular sin (murder, for example) no longer have much choice
>about what sin to commit next, do they?
    
    I wasn't aware that God was stll ordering anyone to be killed for any
    given sin these days. Is He? (I actually thought it was you who argued
    against that in the Leviticus discussion in 91.) Presumably if He gave
    us choice it is His to take away. But in the absence of an order from
    God to deprive a person of choice, should a Christian leave the person
    with the choice or take it away? 
    
>Equality?!  The Bible is very clear that people will make the equation
>  sin = right
>Equality.  It is your choice whether you wish to be one of those.
    
    I don't understand these statements relative to my question, but I
    certainly don't expect to understand everything. Thanks for trying
    anyways.

>Answer:  If a Christian lives and pays taxes in a country which has
>a policy that allows and supports the killing of unborn children, is
>s/he "condoning" sin by supporting such a country with his/her labor,
>money, love and prayers?
    
    That's another good question. Is s/he? It doesn't answer the other
    question for me though. I guess the concept of "condoning sin" is
    difficult for me to grasp, maybe because I don't believe in sin in
    the first place. 
    
    John

>    Well, aside from [the Bible] being an extremely long book, written in
>    an archaic language that's difficult to understand,

It's about as long as maybe four of Tom Clancy's thrillers taken together.

Try any of the following versions:

	Revised Standard Version
	New Revised Standard Version
	New English Bible
	New American Bible

/john

Re:  425.29

     >>Actually, I've always struggled some with this.  I certainly agree with
     >>part of what it attempts to express. 
    
  >What part do you not agree with?

"unalienable" mean non-transferable.  Indeed, God has given us rights,
but God can also take them away.

Exactly what is life?  Don't bother asking a fetus, btw.

Exactly what is liberty?  Does this mean I don't have to wear
a seat belt?  Insofar as it means what we typically think of
as freedom, I tend to agree with this (although I reserve the
right to object in specific instances :-) ).

Exactly what is the pursuit of happiness?  This is not a Christian
idea.  We are not to pursue happiness when happiness (as it often
does) involves sin.  No, the pursuit of happiness is a choice,
but is not a "right".

  >Well, aside from it being an extremely long book, 

Lots to cover.  Many think it's not long enough.  :-)

  >written in an archaic language that's difficult to understand, 

True enough.  Not enough Greek and Hebrew scholars around.  Fortunately,
however, the translations are quite easy to understand (although
not necessarily to interpret).

  >I can't forget the law because that's our only common ground. 

I was hoping in the C-P notesfile there would be a different
common ground.

  >Now if you're saying that your goal is not to arrive at or maintain 
  >a common ground, but to cast me out of it or make the whole ground 
  >conform completely to your perspective, then we have little to discuss.

It sounded to me (perhaps I'm hearing badly) that you wanted to take
a secular document and then derive a Christian perspective from it -
meanwhile ignoring (for the most part) the primary Christian book.

If your goal is not to derive a Christian perspective, or if your
methods include using the primary Christian book (experience, history
and reason all welcome as well :-) ), then we can indeed have a
profitable discussion.  The former may not be particularly appropriate
for this conference, however.

  >Do you hold that the code of behavior that people may arrive at out 
  >of social necessity and without consulting God, is too limited or 
  >contradicts Christian morality?

Both, at times.  There indeed is a lot of similarity, but it is a far
cry from any system of laws to the law of God written on our hearts.
Even God did not come close to closing that gap when He gave Israel
laws.

  >For example, we may agree that murder is unacceptable behavior. I do so
  >because it deprives citizens of the right to life and because I don't
  >want anyone to murder me. You do so, I presume, because it's a sin.

I hold to both reasons.

  >Nevertheless we agree that it ought to be illegal. On the other hand,
  >in the case where an action appears to deprive no one else of their
  >rights, I hold that the superior morality is to let the individual
  >choose according to his own moral standards. Certainly one may attempt
  >to advise (preach at) him, but it's up to him. Would you allow this
  >individual that freedom or not?

I think you mistate the question.  It is not whether or not the individual
should commit the action.  The question is whether or not the state
should judge him and/or punish him for this.

I strongly believe that the state should not be amoral.  In other
words, I disagree that the state should punish a murderer simply
because it takes away someone else's life.  It should punish a 
murderer as well because murder is morally wrong.

Exactly how much to be involved in moral issues is the question,
in my opinion.  It's a very tough line to draw.  I don't see
a clear line in the Bible.
    
  >It's the human inflicted consequences that are in question.  What right 
  >has a fellow human to inflict any unpleasant consequences on me for 
  >actions that don't involve him?

Romans 13.

It is a fallacy to think that your actions do not involve others.
As a least common denominator, your actions involve you and therefore
affect you and you, as a person, affect others (even those you do
not see or know).

  >I don't understand these statements relative to my question, but I
  >certainly don't expect to understand everything. Thanks for trying
  >anyways.

I was trying to point out that the meaing of "equality" and when it
is appropriate to use this word is slippery at best.  It's a great
sound bite, but a harder look at the issue oftentimes reveals that
"equality" is not the answer.

     >>Answer:  If a Christian lives and pays taxes in a country which has
     >>a policy that allows and supports the killing of unborn children, is
     >>s/he "condoning" sin by supporting such a country with his/her labor,
     >>money, love and prayers?
    
  >That's another good question. Is s/he? 
    
As Jesus said, if you answer my question, I'll answer yours.  :-)

Collis

>I was hoping in the C-P notesfile there would be a different
>common ground.
    
    Oops. I think you're right. There should be. I apologize for the
    intrusion. Thanks for talking to me so politely, though. Perhaps I will
    find you in a more secular forum someday, where we can finish the
    conversation. (Your last note alone could have kept me going for several
    days ;-) )
    
    Bye,
    
    John

<True enough.  Not enough Greek and Hebrew scholars around.  Fortunately,

   Collis,

   This and other comments made me think of a parallel.  Both legal
   and theological scholars study law from the perspective of history,
   precedence, moral codes, and former societies laws all having the 
   same starting points in history.  

   The only difference to me is I don't stop for lawyers...  ;-)


<however, the translations are quite easy to understand (although
<not necessarily to interpret).

   Maybe a nit but understanding and interpretation are one. 
   Understanding implies interpretation.  So therefore the Bible
   is difficult to understand because it is not easily interpreted.
   This may be the result of the many writing styles represented or
   maybe it could be taught just like Shakespeare, as simply a book.

   Can you imagine teaching the Bible as a secular document.  It was
   interesting taking such a course(elective) is high school(public).
   I remember the teachers first words.  "This course studies one of
   the most contrversial books known to mankind, and is the foundation
   of many laws and moral code.  You may not believe one word of it
   I think you will find it interesting anyway..."  Kinda stuck 
   with me after twenty plus years.  

<I was hoping in the C-P notesfile there would be a different
<common ground.

   It is that hope that keeps mankind trying and often succeeding.
   Like all things in life, it just don't happen.  So searching and
   compromise is work.  Rewarding in itself when it happens.

   Peace,
   Allison

    Several noters make the argument that the government should base its
    laws on morality.  As a simple argument, this is hard to knock down. 
    After all, as humans we are strongly influenced by our morality when we
    make law. But look at it more closely.
    
    Example:  Murder.  Murder, like rape or robbery, is a crime with a
    victim.  Every country in the world has laws against murder, although
    each defines it somewhat differently.  (Inadvertant vehicular homicide? 
    Punishable by death or a fine?  Depends on where it occurs.)
    
    Example:  Homosexuality.  Who is the victim?  Many Christians would 
    re-criminalize it, or remove civil laws which protect homosexuals from
    hate crimes, discrimination and assault.  The only arguable reason for
    effectively making homosexuality illegal is morality.  Whose morality?  
    OK, so you as a Christian are convinced that this is a sin.  But what
    about others who do not?  Yet you seek to impose your morality on
    others through legislation.  You argue that you want to save the sinner
    from his sin.
    
    Example:  Not believing in Jesus.  We Jews are damned to eternal hell,
    right?  So why not legislate that all Americans must convert to
    Christianity?   After all, you want to save our souls, save us from
    eternal damnation, and save us from the sin of not believing in Lord
    Jesus.
    
    I am saying that the separation of church and state is the only
    protection for non-Christians from a revival of Christian bigotry,
    hate, forced conversion, murder, exile, and theft of property.  If you
    doubt that these crimes have occured by justification of saving the
    (non-Christian) sinner, study your history more closely.
    
    As an American, I  resist the imposition of Christian morality through
    legislation.  If we go down that path as a nation, it will end in
    making this country unlivable not only for homosexuals, but for
    non-Christians as well.  The intent of the Constitution's framers will
    have been broached, and our Great Experiment will come to an end.
    
    L

    Indeed.  Even our president of the United States has said that atheists
    are not true citizens and cannot be patriots, or some such.  Keeping
    the Church and the State separate will help prevent the government from
    acting on such sentiments.  Or if it does, will provide an avenue of
    redress.
    
    Mike

    I should have added that hate, murder, exile, bigotry, discrimination,
    forced conversion, and theft of property have been amply practiced by
    one Christian sect against another at various times.
    
    So, if you want to institutionalize your morality as law, beware if a
    more powerful Christian sect takes over and your morals are suddenly
    illegal.
    
    Such experiences greatly influenced the framers of the Constitution.
    
    The Pilgrims came to America to escape bigotry.  Where will you run
    now?  Better lobby for more funding for space colonization. ;-)
    
    L
    

   Our founding fathers created a sovereign govenment to escape control
   (economic and social) from a foreign government.  While doing so they
   recognized the institutions such as the church were also in effect 
   foreign govenments.  Seperation of church and state was created to
   negate outside control of the govenment by other than it citizens.
   It is the bonding of state and govenments that practiced the horrors
   of history under Gods name and thereby corrupted the church and the
   govenment.

   Even Jesus recognized there were Gods laws for the person and laws
   for goverment of men.  

   Peace,
   Allison

>    Example:  Not believing in Jesus.  We Jews are damned to eternal hell,
>    right?  So why not legislate that all Americans must convert to
>    Christianity?   After all, you want to save our souls, save us from
>    eternal damnation, and save us from the sin of not believing in Lord
>    Jesus.
 
	Because one can not legislate what people believe, only what they do.
	
>    I am saying that the separation of church and state is the only
>    protection for non-Christians from a revival of Christian bigotry,
>    hate, forced conversion, murder, exile, and theft of property.

	True. I've seen other countries, like Israel, where there is not a
	strict seperation of church and state. It's not very comfortable to
	be a believed in a different religion there at times. But in general
	even being a minority there is not bad as long as the laws just restrict
	actions and avoid trying to restrict beliefs. Part of my religion that
	involves activity is against the law in Israel - some proslytization.

			Alfred

Re:  Who does it effect?

False logic.  Everything we do effects who we are.  Who
we are (as a sum total) *is* what society is.  Who we are
(as an individual) effects others either more or less
directly.

Some actions have a direct effect.  Others have an indirect
effect.  Most have both.

The question is not "who does it effect" (since the answer
is effectively everybody).  The question is, "how much
does this effect others vs. the individuals need and
desire to choose?"

I understand the difficulties in individual citizens wishing
to submit to God's Laws and to apply some (not all) of the
laws to society.  I, however, do not wish to throw out the
baby with the bathwater by relegating God's values to the
junk pile and ignoring them when it comes time to make laws.
Again, balance is needed.

Collis

re Note 425.36 by TNPUBS::STEINHART:

>     I should have added that hate, murder, exile, bigotry, discrimination,
>     forced conversion, and theft of property have been amply practiced by
>     one Christian sect against another at various times.

        I believe that (most of) the framers of the Constitution
        (actually, the first amendment thereof) had the above in
        mind, i.e., Christian sect vs. Christian sect, and not the
        more general religious position A vs. religious position B.

        A number of religious conservatives use the above as proof
        that the framers of the Constitution intended not a
        religion-neutral government, but a government infused with
        generic Christian values (whatever that is and whoever would
        get to decide) in a non-denominational way.


>     The Pilgrims came to America to escape bigotry.  Where will you run
>     now?  Better lobby for more funding for space colonization. ;-)

        I once heard something in a radio play to the effect that
        "The Pilgrims came to America in order to escape tolerance
        and to enjoy the freedom to oppress people in their own way."
        While some of the American settlers came with the express
        intent of founding a tolerant society, most did not.

        Bob

    As an expression of that intolerance, they managed to hang a Quaker
    woman on Boston Common, for the crime of being a Quaker.  This hanging
    may have had the effect of bringing people to their senses, though, by
    making people realize how horrible this kind of intolerance, carried to
    its ultimate conclusion, really was.  I'll have to check my Quaker
    history, but I recall reading somewhere that there was a change in
    attitude after that event.  Quakers were allowed to practice their
    religion much more easily in nearby Rhode Island; and their own Quaker
    colony of Pennsylvania practiced religious toleration.

    -- Mike

    Indeed, the good citizens of the Massachusetts Bay Colony was notorious
    for inflicting some mighty severe punishments, such as floggings, often
    from town to town (which often resulted in death), imprisonment, exile,
    and even hanging, on those whose religious beliefs did not conform with
    the official faith.  And don't forget that the Rhode Island colony was
    formed by one of the orginal passengers of the Mayflower because even
    he couldn't stand the bigotry and oppression of his own people.
    
    Mike

    RE: .38
    
    >>Example:  Not believing in Jesus.  We Jews are damned to eternal hell,
    >>right?  So why not legislate that all Americans must convert to
    >>Christianity?   
    
    >Because one can not legislate what people believe, only what they do.
    
    Those who convert by the sword try to achieve both.  It has happened
    before, many times.  It can happen again.  I hope not in America.
    
    In the area of personal morality, I'd rather not have the government
    tell me what to do nor what to believe.
    
    When people start ranting about how America is a Christain nation, I
    just hope that this note file's readers will feel as uncomfortable as I
    do.  That is why I write in this string.
    
    And I could do without the (slightly more polite) expression,
    "Judeo-Christian" as used during the recent convention in Texas.  It's
    a euphemism and makes me even more uncomfortable for its insincerity. 
    
    I'm equally uncomfortable with the political slogan "family values".  I
    sure don't think it's got much to do with MY family's values.
    
    This country includes not only Jews but Hindus, Moslems, traditional
    Native Americans, Pagans, atheists, and people of many other
    persuasions. The Constitution provides our only bulwark against bigotry
    and persecution.
    
    I look around me and see a lot of glass houses.  
    
    L

    .26
    
    Hi John!  How ya doing?
    
    jeff

Note 425.34

>    Several noters make the argument that the government should base its
>    laws on morality.  As a simple argument, this is hard to knock down. 
>    After all, as humans we are strongly influenced by our morality when we
>    make law. But look at it more closely.

Laura,

	I was present at a debate Sunday evening where the relationship
between law and morality was brought up.  What you've said here is essentially
true.  Law has its roots in religious morality.  But as I'm certain you're
well aware, this is a nation not only of Christians, but of Jews, Moslems,
Hindus, Buddhists, Native Americans, and others.  Any morality which is
exclusive to one faith, even if that faith comprises the majority of the
people, should not be allowed to dominate the rest of the people.
That's what the Bill of Rights is all about.

Shalom,
Richard

The courts have consistently ruled that freedom of religion does not necessarily
include the freedom to do things which are prohibited for the common welfare.

For example, freedom of religion does not permit pedophilia, even if NAMBLA
were to establish a Greek temple dedicated to "nurturing" young boys.

    Freedom of religion necessarily restricts involuntary prayer in public
    schools.
    
    Considering the religious multiplicity in the U.S., whose prayers would
    be used?  More precisely, to Whom would the prayers be directed?  To
    Jesus?  Or Allah?  Or Jehovah?
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

<The courts have consistently ruled that freedom of religion does not necessarily
<include the freedom to do things which are prohibited for the common welfare.

<For example, freedom of religion does not permit pedophilia, even if NAMBLA
<were to establish a Greek temple dedicated to "nurturing" young boys.

   John,

   I agree.  My thoughts about NAMBLA are unprintable.  It is also our
   basic concept of rights where the thought is do no harm to others
   is reflected.

   It is obvious if only to me that morality has socitial foundations 
   that go beyond mainstream religion.  No matter where you look or 
   when, certain things are considered bad.  Call it common morality, 
   like common sense it's accepted as so above religion or government. 
   My faith is God did make us in such a way we think that way.

   Peace,
   Allison

    What you are calling "common morality" is called the natural law.

    What the replies have been groping for is an expression of the extent
    to which

    (a) the United States of America at any political level forms a
    community of a significant consensus of morality.

    (b) A consensus of morality forms a legal code binding upon all.

    There are moral nihilists who argue that they understand the rage of
    rioters and would formally de-criminalize looting by the poor and 
    order police not to arrest car thieves.
    
    As for religious freedom, we have communities where a voluntary prayer
    conducted only by a small group of students in front of school has
    resulted in their arrest.

    re: .46

    Indeed, the courts have consistently ruled that no freedom can be
    exercised without due regard to how such exercise effects others.

    In other words, with each right comes a concomitant responsibility to
    exercise that right responsibly.
    
    Or, to put it another way, just because one has the right to do
    something doesn't mean it is always the right thing to do.
    
    Mike
    

    "[T]here are those who believe that any merger of Church and State is
    dangerous to our liberty. Sad experience has taught us that such
    ideologues themselves represent a far greater danger to the liberty of
    the very constituencies they purportedly seek to protect."

    	Edward I Koch - former mayor of the City of New York


    			Alfred

re Note 425.51 by CVG::THOMPSON:

>     "[T]here are those who believe that any merger of Church and State is
>     dangerous to our liberty. Sad experience has taught us that such
>     ideologues themselves represent a far greater danger to the liberty of
>     the very constituencies they purportedly seek to protect."
  
        Alfred,

        I realize that you were just quoting Ed Koch, but could you
        give me an example of the "sad experience" referenced above?

        Bob

    RE: .52 Hizzoner does not give direct examples in context of the
    chapter that he makes this statement in. (It's from a book he co-wrote
    with John Cardinal O'Connor FWIW). However in the chapter on education
    he tells about the ACLU bringing suit against the city because they are
    providing remedial services to children attending church related
    schools. The courts force the city to stop doing this in church owned
    buildings. The city tries hard to make up for this by placing trailers
    next to these schools. The students have to leave the building to get
    remedial help. As the mayor points out, and anyone familiar with the
    city knows, space is at a premium there. Not all the school sites have
    room for these trailers so the number of parochial school children
    receiving remedial help was cut in half. I suppose some will consider
    this a happy situation that makes the children better off but I do not.
    I see this as a threat to good education and to liberty. Especially as
    it is mostly children in poverty whose education is suffering.

    The book "His Eminence and Hizzoner" is loaded with Church and State
    conflicts. I'm finding it very interesting reading.

    		Alfred

    Koch believes as I do that Nazism and Communism made the "separation of
    Church and State" the abolition of Church.  The Church acts as a check
    on the immorality of State.

    I advocate the abolition of the phrase "separation of Church and State"
    in favor of the actual wording of the Constitution, namely the
    prohibition of establishment by the government and the affirmation of
    religious freedom for individuals.

re Note 425.54 by SDSVAX::SWEENEY:

>     Koch believes as I do that Nazism and Communism made the "separation of
>     Church and State" the abolition of Church.  The Church acts as a check
>     on the immorality of State.

        Well, then it is quite obvious that there are at least two
        greatly different outcomes from the "separation of Church and
        State".  One apparently is totalitarianism.  The other is
        free and democratic.

        I will not abide the destruction of the latter because of the
        fear of the former.

        Bob

        P.S.  Perhaps it is just me, but it seems highly irrational
        to imply that the Church must have some degree of union with
        the state in order to be a check on the immorality of the
        state.  In fact, I think you make an excellent point FOR the
        "separation of Church and State".

    The judge who wanted William Penn imprisoned didn't believe in the
    separation of church and state either.  He cited the Spanish
    Inquisition as a example of the sort of model he wanted England to
    follow.
    
    -- Mike

    The Quakers were persecuted by both the Nazis and the Communists so I
    don't see why its necessary to reach so far back a few centuries.

    To this day, torture of Roman Catholic priests continues in China.

    If you want to put the label "separation of Church and State" on what
    you define as good governmental policy, go ahead.

    Within your own reply, Bob, is its contradiction.  You refer to a "free
    [outcome]", that's not the "separation of Church and State" but the
    provision of religious freedom to which I refer in my reply.  As for a
    "union" that is your own invention, not mine.

  A bit lengthy,but note Jefferson's concerns about "litmus tests".....
    
             BILL FOR ESTABLISHING RELIGIOUS FREEDOM IN VIRGINIA
                   passed by the Virginia Assembly in 1786

        Well aware that  Almighty God hath created the mind free; that
    all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burdens,or
    by civil incapacitations, tend only  to beget habits of  hypocrisy
    and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the Holy Author
    of our religion, who being  Lord both of  body and mind, yet chose 
    not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty
    power to do;that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers,
    civil as well as ecclesiastical,who, being themselves but fallible 
    and uninspired men  have assumed dominion over the faith of others,
    setting up their  own  oppinions and modes of thinking as the only  
    true  and infallible, and as such  endeavoring  to impose  them on 
    others, hath established and maintained  false religions  over the
    greatest part of the world, and through all time; that to compel a
    man to  furnish  contributions of  money for  the  propogation  of 
    opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical; that even 
    forcing him to support  this or  that teacher of his own religious
    persuasion, is depriving  him of the comfortable liberty of giving 
    his contributions to the  particular pastor whose morals  he would 
    make his pattern,  and whose  powers he feels  most  persuasive to 
    righteousness, and is withdrawing from the ministry those temporal
    rewards, which  proceeding  from an approbation  of their personal
    conduct, are an additional  incitement to earnest and  unremitting 
    labors for the instruction  of mankind; that our civil rights have
    no dependence on our religious opinoins, more than our opinions in
    physics or geometry; that, therefore, the  proscribing any citizen
    as unworthy the public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity
    of being  called to the offices  of trust and emolument, unless he
    profess or renounce  this or that  religious opinion, is depriving
    him injuriously of those  priveleges  and  advantages  to which in
    common  with his fellow citizens  he has a natural right;  that it
    tends also to  corrupt the principles of  that very religion it is
    meant to encourage, by bribing, with a  monopoly of worldly honors
    and emoluments,those who will externally profess and conform to it;
    that though indeed  these are criminal  who do  not withstand such
    temptation, yet  neither are  those  innocent who  lay the bait in 
    their way; that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his pow-
    ers into the field of  opinion and to restrain the  profession  or
    propogation of principles, on the supposition of their ill tenden-
    cy, is a  dangerous fallacy, which at once  destroys all religious
    liberty, because he being of course  judge of  that tendency, will
    make his opinions the rule of judgment, and approve or condemn the
    sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from
    his own; that it is  time enough for the rightful purpose of civil
    government, for its offices to interfere when principles break out
    into  overt acts  against peace and good order; and  finally, that
    truth is great and  will prevail  if left to herself, that she  is
    proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear
    from the conflict, unless  by human interposition  disarmed of her
    natural weapons, free argument and debate,  errors ceasing  to  be
    dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them. 
      
      Be it therefore enacted by the General Assembly,That no man shall
    be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place or
    ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested,or
    burthened  in his  body  or goods, nor shall  otherwise  suffer  on 
    account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall
    be free to profess, and by argument  to maintain, their opinions in
    matters of religion, and  that the same  shall in  nowise  diminish,
    enlarge, or effect their civil capacities.

       And though we well know this Assembly, elected  by the people for
    the ordinary purposes of legislation only, have no power to restrain
    the acts of  succeding assemblies, constituted with the powers equal
    to our own,and that therefore to declare this act irrevocable, would
    be of no effect in law, yet we  are free  to declare, and do declare,
    that the rights hereby asserted are of the natural rights of mankind
    and that if any act shall be  hereafter passed to repeal the present
    or to narrow its operation, such act will be an infringement of nat-
    ural right.
    
    
    
    Doug

re Note 425.57 by SDSVAX::SWEENEY:

>     Within your own reply, Bob, is its contradiction.  You refer to a "free
>     [outcome]", that's not the "separation of Church and State" but the
>     provision of religious freedom to which I refer in my reply.  As for a
>     "union" that is your own invention, not mine.

        I've just been assuming you use normal English words with
        their normal English meaning.  The opposite of separation is
        (some degree of) union.  If you are not for "separation of
        Church and State" then you are for some degree of union.

        Bob

    I believe the phrase "separation of Church and State" lacks sufficient
    semantic consensus to be used in discussions like this.  It's a common
    electronic discussion problem: "I'm for x if you mean x is y."
    
    I'm for "separation of Church and State" if by that you mean religious
    freedom and the state enjoined from establishment of a religion.
    
    I'm not for "separation of Church and State" if by that you mean a ban
    on voluntary prayer in public places by individuals, confiscation of
    bibles from individuals, and taxation of churches.

re Note 425.60 by SDSVAX::SWEENEY:

>     I believe the phrase "separation of Church and State" lacks sufficient
>     semantic consensus to be used in discussions like this.  It's a common
>     electronic discussion problem: "I'm for x if you mean x is y."
  
        You were the one who first used the phrase "separation of
        Church and State" in the current context (discussion of Ed
        Koch's remarks).

        Bob

I've just been in two countries (Egypt and Israel) where it's illegal for
a child not born of Christian parents to be baptized...

There is currently a case before the Supreme Court of Israel concerning
someone who left the country to be baptized.  I don't have any other
details of the case.

/john

    	I found this on the Internet this morning. It appears to be
    	an interesting quote from someone who I think most will agree
    	is something of a Constitutional expert.

>   "The First Amendment has erected a wall of separation between
>    church and state, but that wall is a one directional wall; it 
>    keeps the government from running the church, but it makes sure
>    that Christian principles will always stay in government." 
>      - Thomas Jefferson, Jan 1, 1802, address to the Danbury Baptists
>`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,` [email protected] ,`,`,`

    William Kunsler had what I thought was the most clear explanation to
    date of how the "separation doctrine" (the actual Constitutional
    expression is "shall not establish") is undermining religious freedom:
--
    It's [St. Patrick's Day Parade] a religious assembly and cannot take
    place on public ground. It's religious speech and cannot be spoken a
    public ground without violating separation of Church and State.  Public
    ground is for public assembly and public speech.  The city should bill
    the Catholic Church for a one-day lease of Fifth Avenue.
--

    Pat,
    
    The Hibernions got their order to not allow gays to march in their
    parade based upon the grounds that it is a religious event.
    
    That was *their* argument.
    
    Daniel

>    The Hibernions got their order to not allow gays to march in their
>    parade based upon the grounds that it is a religious event.
    
    What's your point?
    
    			Alfred

    They argued themselves that the parade was a religious event.  It is
    not surprising then that someone brought forth the counter-argument
    that the city should not using public resources for a religious
    demonstration.  It's a case of what went around coming back around.
    
    Daniel

    Parade or not, Fifth Avenue is going to exist on March 17, without anyone
    paying a lease for it.

    Kunsler's point is that religious speech and religious assembly is 
    actually abridged by the first amendment.  Non-religious speech and
    non-religious assembly have the protection of the first amendment,
    religous speech and assembly are prohibited from being conducted in
    public.

It is indeed interesting that our government, which
was setup to *allow* religious freedom, is now being
used to *restrict* religious expression (or at least
people are attempting to use it this way).

The theory seems to be that religious expression is
only appropriate in church and not otherwise in
public.  Seems to me that this is exactly what denial of free
speech is all about  I wonder if the ACLU wants to defend
the case? :-)

Collis

    The ACLU took the side of the Ancient Order of Hibernians and was
    opposed to the Irish Lesbian and Gay Organization in the case before
    the city.

        RE: .63
	
>    	I found this on the Internet this morning. It appears to be
>    	an interesting quote from someone who I think most will agree
>    	is something of a Constitutional expert.

>   "The First Amendment has erected a wall of separation between
>    church and state, but that wall is a one directional wall; it 
>    keeps the government from running the church, but it makes sure
>    that Christian principles will always stay in government." 
>      - Thomas Jefferson, Jan 1, 1802, address to the Danbury Baptists
>`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,` [email protected] ,`,`,`

    	Who is being referred to as the "Constitutional expert?"  It cannot
    be Jefferson, as that quote CERTAINLY did not come from him...
    

    
    Actually that IS a quote from Jefferson and the correct reference
    IS given.  It was in a letter he wrote in response to the Danbury
    Baptists who had heard a rumor that a denomination (I believe
    Methodists) were going to be made National denomination.  Which 
    is exactly what the First Amendment was there to protect against;
    the establishment of a specific denomination.  This was not meant
    to detract from Christianity being the foundation of this great
    nation.  In 1858 there was a case to have Christianity taken out
    of the schools, over 87 precedents were cited that Christian morals
    and religion were the pillars of this nation and to take it out
    of our schools would send this nation into disaster.
    
    Actually the current definition of separation of church and state 
    came from a case in 1962 proving that if you repeat something 
    often enough you can get people to believe it's true.  Interestingly 
    enough it was the first constitutional law case in our history where 
    no precedents were cited.  That's because there was none, but hey 
    lets avoid that ugly detail for now.  I'll try to bring on more
    details about this as soon as I can.
    
    Jill

    
    	The quote is NOT EVEN CLOSE to Jefferson's original, which is as
    follows:
    
    	"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole
    American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no
    law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
    exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church
    and State.  Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the
    nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere
    satisfaction the progress of those sentiments wich tend to restore to
    man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in
    opposition to his social duties."
    				
    				- letter to Danbury Baptist Association,
    				  January 1, 1802
    				  (The Life and Writings of Thomas
    				  Jefferson, Modern Library)
    
    	Jefferson's feelings about creating a Christian nation are quite
    clear in his Act for Establishing Religious Freedom, which lacks any
    reference to a particular belief.  Jefferson celibrates in his
    Autobiography the failure in an attempt by others to "insert the word
    'Jesus Christ'" into the text, proving that the bill applied to "the
    Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, and
    Infidel of every denomination."
    
    	

Jill, I think it would help if you would list the book from which you pulled
the altered quote.  My guess is that contains some form of christian apologetics,
especially the argument that the USA is a christian nation.  Am I correct?

/Mike

    decwrl::"[email protected]"
    
    is the internet form of address to the person who entered the bogus
    Jefferson quote.  Unless he or she is the author of it, then one has to
    go back to the next source.

    It's also a healthy thing to keep in mind that Jefferson was opposed to
    the Bill of Rights and was a slave-owner.  Not everything Jefferson
    said or did is worthy of exaltation.
    
    Richard
    

    
    	Actually, Jefferson was very much in favor of the Bill of Rights. 
    He expressed his displeasure that the 1789 Constitution lacked one.
    
    	Now the slavery dichotomy... that's another matter altogether.  But
    as you said, he was human!

re Note 425.76 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE:

>     It's also a healthy thing to keep in mind that Jefferson was opposed to
>     the Bill of Rights and was a slave-owner.  Not everything Jefferson
>     said or did is worthy of exaltation.

        I don't know if it were true of Jefferson, but some of the
        opponents of the Bill of Rights opposed it because they
        thought it would be used to limit rights rather than protect
        them.

        The argument was that if the constitution contained a list of
        rights, the courts would tend to recognize only those rights
        found on that list, the so-called enumerated rights.  These
        people believed that human beings enjoyed many, many more
        rights than those they could ever write down in
        constitutional form.  A compromise was reached in that the
        ninth amendment specifically states that the enumerated
        rights are not meant to be exhaustive.

        Was it successful?  Well, there's no doubt that you are more
        likely to be well served, should your rights be infringed, by
        the enumerated rights in the Bill of Rights rather than the
        ninth amendment.  However, the ninth amendment states an
        important principle that bolsters the arguments for rights
        such as a general right to privacy (not explicitly named in
        the constitution).  This "right to privacy" was one of the
        bases for the Roe v. Wade abortion decision; as a result the
        existence of the "right to privacy" comes up whenever there
        has been a Supreme Court vacancy.

        Bob

    The "right to privacy" is implied by liberty in the "penumbra"
    arguments used by Justice Douglas in Griswald v. Connecticut.
    
    The Nine and Tenth Amendment, standing alone, have not been the basis
    for a successful claim against the government in over 100 years.

    
    As Patrick already pointed out; the quote ain't mine.  Actually I
    caught the reference and the part about the "wall of separation" 
    and assumed the rest was accurate.  My mistake.  Actually, I saw
    a film recently called "A Godly Heritage" which is excellent.  I'm
    going to write the company that made it as soon as I remember what
    I did with their address.   
    
    The main gist of my message was that this country was built on
    Christian and not just religious beliefs and there are plenty of
    documents to support that.
    
    Jill

re Note 425.79 by SDSVAX::SWEENEY:

>     The Nine and Tenth Amendment, standing alone, have not been the basis
>     for a successful claim against the government in over 100 years.
  
        You keep on repeating this, Pat, even though I certainly
        never claimed it.  It would be as silly as claiming that this
        table in my office hasn't stood alone on its right front leg.

        Bob

re: bogus Jefferson quote
    
jsteiner at the University of Toledo isn't there anymore.
    
From:	DECWRL::MAILER-DAEMON "Mail Delivery Subsystem" 12-MAY-1993 10:04:18.88
To:	sdsvax::sweeney
CC:	
Subj:	Returned mail: User unknown

   ----- Transcript of session follows -----
While talking to anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu:
>>> RCPT To:<[email protected]>
<<< 550 <[email protected]>... User unknown
550 <[email protected]>... User unknown

   ----- Recipients of this delivery -----
Bounced, cannot deliver:
   <[email protected]>

   ----- Unsent message follows -----
Received: by enet-gw.pa.dec.com; id AA08821; Wed, 12 May 93 07:02:36 -0700
Message-Id: <[email protected]>
Received: from sdsvax.enet; by decwrl.enet; Wed, 12 May 93 07:03:18 PDT
Date: Wed, 12 May 93 07:03:19 PDT
From: Patrick Sweeney in New York  12-May-1993 1000 <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Apparently-To: [email protected]
Subject: Jefferson quote

>   "The First Amendment has erected a wall of separation between
>    church and state, but that wall is a one directional wall; it 
>    keeps the government from running the church, but it makes sure
>    that Christian principles will always stay in government." 
>      - Thomas Jefferson, Jan 1, 1802, address to the Danbury Baptists
>`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,` [email protected] ,`,`,`

Do you recall where you saw this quoted?  I believe that this is not what
Jefferson wrote, but I'd like to persue it further.

Pat Sweeney

% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Received: by enet-gw.pa.dec.com; id AA08912; Wed, 12 May 93 07:02:36 -0700
% From: MAILER-DAEMON (Mail Delivery Subsystem)
% Subject: Returned mail: User unknown
% To: sdsvax::sweeney

Conservative columnist James Kilpatrick's column which appeared in the Nashua
Telegraph 5/21/93:

		   More church/state rulings are coming

	  Do atheists have a greater right of free speech than Christian
	ministers?  May a deaf boy be denied an interpreter because he attends
	a Catholic school?
	  Tough questions.  To answer them, the Supreme Court must make one
	more stab at interpreting a part of the First Amendment that forbids
	any law "respecting an establishment of religion".  Over the years,
	this inscrutable provision has tied the court into unrecognizable
	knots.
	  This time the court must focus on two cases that were argued in
	February.  It was oral argument in the grand tradition.  One case came
	from New York, the other from Arizona.
	  The first case arose in December 1988 in Center Moriches, a small
	town on Long Island.  John Steigerwald, pastor of Lamb's Chapel, an
	evangelical Christian church, applied to the local school district for
	permission to use school facilities.
	  He wanted to show a film, "Turn Your Heart Toward Home", that
	emphasizes a religious view of keeping families together.  He proposed
	to offer programs one evening a week for five weeks.  They would be
	open to the public without charge.
	  Local school authorities refused permission.  State law permits use
	of school facilities for holding social, civic and recreational
	meetings and entertainments, and "other uses pertaining to the welfare
	of the community."  By regulation, local authorites have interpreted
	this to ban any church-sponsored functions at all.
	  In the past, the township has made school facilities after hours to a
	labor union, a choral society, a dance school and a kennel club.  The
	Salvation Army has conducted programs.  Cub Scouts and Brownies have
	met in vacant classrooms.  Some users, such as "Committee on the Busing
	Vote", have been plainly political.
	  Justice John Paul Stevens had a question at oral argument: If the
	policy prohibits programs that praise religion, what about programs
	that denounce religion?  Could the local atheist society use a
	classroom?  Counsel for the school district thought probably, yes, your
	honor.
	  Stevens persisted: Could there be a debate between an atheist and a
	minister?  Counsel said he had not given that any thought.  Justice
	Clarence Thomas, who ordinarily is silent as a sphinx, suddenly
	erupted: What about a program that featured one minister and 10
	atheists?  Would the presence of even one minister in such
	circumstances create a danger of an "establishment of religion"?
	  Justice Antonin Scalia asked if a communist group could show a movie.
	Counsel scrambled to evade the question.  Chief Justice William
	Rehnquist rebuked the lawyer: "If you're asked a hypotheticakl
	question, you really must try to answer it."
	  What about a program advocating free love?  Is it only the Christian
	view of family solidarity that cannot be heard?  The school's counsel
	was happy to escape when his half-hour ran out.
	  The high court turned immediately to the case of young James Zobrest.
	A federal program funnels more than $2 billion a year for the
	educational needs of handicapped children.
	  Jim is profoundly deaf.  His devoutly Catholic family wanted him to
	attend Salpointe Catholic High School near Tuscon, Ariz.  In 1987 they
	asked that Pima County provide a sign language interpreter for him.
	  The county refused.  Officials conceded that if Jim went to a public
	school, or to a non-sectarian private school, and interpreter would be
	provided for him.  But to provide an interpreter in a Catholic school,
	they said, would impermissibly advance the cause of religion.  It would
	entangle church and state in ways the Constitution forbids.
	  Counsel for the Zobrest family argued that a professional interpreter
	is not a teacher or an authority figure.  An interpreter for the deaf
	is more like a hearing aid.
	  Scalia wondered if the employment of an interpreter is any greater
	threat of creating an establishment of religion than the employment of
	a school bus driver.  Counsel for the school district there is a large
	difference: The bus driver would not be saying in Jim's eart that Jesus
	Christ is the son of God.
	  My guess is that Lamb's Chapel will win the New York case.  The First
	Amendment's protection of free speech requires, at the very least, that
	ministers be given the same opportunity as atheists to speak in a
	school house.
	  The case of Jim Zobrest is more difficult, but I believe he too will
	prevail.  hard to say.  We will have answers by the end of term in
	June.

        I really do agree with the conservatives who say that the
        "separation of church and state" decisions have gone way too
        far.  If citizens' groups in general can make use of a public
        program or facility, then religious groups shouldn't be denied
        that access they would otherwise have.

        On the other hand, I deeply believe that the original
        decisions, in particular the school prayer decisions, were
        correct and appropriate.  There is no way in this pluralistic
        society that a meaningful, yet religion-neutral prayer could
        ever be chosen or composed.  Leading citizens in prayer is
        something that the government just should not be allowed to
        do.

        Bob

    I really hope that these decisions finally end the concept that
    religion contaminates "ordinary" speech and assembly rights, we get
    back to religious freedom.

    It's nowhere.  The phrase was coined by Jefferson and plucked from its
    context to imply that the Constitution imposes on Congress and by
    extension of the 14th Amendment to the states a hostility (ie
    the maintenance of "separation") that is neither constitutional or
    Jeffersonian.

    The spin on separation of Church and State is an advocacy of the
    cleansing of religious speech, action, and thought from public life.
    Unless and until religion is suppressed and exterminated, there will be
    a lingering "establishment of religion" in our culture.

    The plan is to push religion into buildings owned by religious groups
    and then confiscate the assets of religious groups by litigation,
    regulation, and taxation.  Freedom _from_ religion is the goal of the
    new fascists.

     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.

Re: .84  Bob F.

>        I really do agree with the conservatives who say that the
>        "separation of church and state" decisions have gone way too
>        far.  If citizens' groups in general can make use of a public
>        program or facility, then religious groups shouldn't be denied
>        that access they would otherwise have.

I can go along with that.  The slippery slope, though, is what if
religious groups used the school facilities every single night, locking
out other groups, and this happened all over the country.  Wouldn't this
amount to the establishment of a religion?  There would have to be some
way to ensure that all religious and anti-religious groups (atheists,
Jews, Moslems etc.) had equal access.

Re: .87  Patrick

>    The plan is to push religion into buildings owned by religious groups
>    and then confiscate the assets of religious groups by litigation,
>    regulation, and taxation.  Freedom _from_ religion is the goal of the
>    new fascists.

Who told you that?  It was supposed to be a secret. :-)

				-- Bob

As a 'religiously imapaired' person, I agree that the church should be allowed
to show the film in the school as long as other groups get to do their thing and
as long as the conditions are the same for all.

I don't agree that the interpreter should be assigned, but I also don't think 
that public money should be used for an interpreter for a non-sectarian private
school, either. If someone wants to send their children to a private school
that's OK, but no public money should be used to support it. Given that the
money would be used for a non-religious private school I agree that it should
also be used for the catholic school.

re .87

I totally agree with the ideas of separation of church and state, but I don't
consider myself a fascist, and I have no interest in freedom from religion. Do
you really believe that there is a high level governmental attempt to do this?

Steve

    Actually, the old Fascists didn't try to get rid of the church as much
    as they tried to install a "national" church.  It's amazing how people
    forget these kinds of details while hurling about emotionally loaded
    allegations of "Fascism."
    
    Richard
    

        RE: .83 I just now had a chance to read this reply in full. By
    coincidence last night I finished reading a book, "Turning Right",
    about the Supreme Court. Recently I also read a book jointly written
    by former NYC mayor Ed Koch and Cardinal O'Connor that covered lots
    of separation of church and state issues.

    In the two questions raised in .83 the "right" answers seem easy and 
    clear to me. I can, however, see how their not so clear to others. In
    the case of allowing the church to show films, clearly a public
    building should be available to all regardless of political or
    religious purposes if it is available to any. If the building could
    be used to anti-religious meetings, as council for the schools says
    they could, to not allow religious use would clearly be an active
    act of prohibiting the free exercise of religion. It could also be
    viewed as establishing athesism as a state religion.

    The second case is easier and harder. It's harder in that the Court in
    the past has ruled that special needs education can not take place in
    private schools. In NYC this means that the city has rented space near
    private schools or put trailers in the streets outside of them so that
    the City could provide services to the students in those schools. So
    Starie Decises (SP?) would suggest that the interpreter would be turned
    down. However, the Court has changed since that earlier ruling so 
    there is hope that justice will prevail. The question then becomes one
    of "if a student is entitled under the law to interpreter is he only
    entitled to one if he attends a government run school?" I would say
    no. The bus driver analogy is a good one. Lots of parochial school
    children are dropped off by a government run bus. Does anyone see that
    as government endorsement of religion? Of course not. All school
    students are dropped off regardless of the type of school and no 
    endorsement is implicitly or explicitly given. The idea that the 
    interpreter is talking into his ear is an endorsement is absurd. Deaf
    people are fully aware that an interpreter is just relaying a message
    not giving one of their own. If fact if a deaf person even suspected
    that the interpreter was filtering in significant personal editorial
    I doubt they'd use that interpreter. 
    
    I wouldn't put money on the outcome of either case but I hope the
    school districts lose both.
    
    			Alfred

Alfred,

In the case where public busses are dropping off kids at private schools, does
the private school pay the school district?

Steve

    >In the case where public busses are dropping off kids at private schools, does
>the private school pay the school district?

    No. But of course the parents do pay taxes that support the buses. In
    the three states I've looked into this the public schools all pick up
    and deliver students in their town/district to any school (public or
    private) in the town/district.  Students from outside the town/district
    are responsible for their own transportation.

    			Alfred

And the answer is...

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that if a school allows some community
groups to use school property after hours it must also allow religious
groups the same access to school property.  It also let stand appeals
court rulings from three states that allowed student-led prayers at
graduation ceremonies.  (The Court had previous disallowed clergy-led
prayers.)  The Court has not yet ruled on the case of a school district
providing an interpreter for a deaf child at a religious school.

Based on the flawed arguments of the school district in the first case I'm
not surprised that the Supreme Court ruled the way it did.  How can it be
legal for a school to allow groups that advocate atheism to meet on school
property but not groups that advocate religion?  If anything, the school
district's argument should have been that the school should be neutral
towards religion, so that both atheistic and religious groups should have
been excluded.

The Court's new theory on church/state separation seems to be that it's OK
for outside groups (the church that wanted to show movies with a religious
theme, the students who wanted to pray at graduation ceremonies) to do so
on government property.  It's when the government itself is promoting or
discouraging religion that a problem arises.

The cases that were decided all involved activities that were voluntary on
the part of the students: no one has to attend the religious films after
school hours, and (presumably) no one has to attend the graduation
ceremonies.  The Court didn't say whether student-led prayers would be
permissible during school hours.  I would guess that this would be illegal
because school attendance is mandatory.  The Court may have to rule on
this in a future case, though, because some religious groups seem to think
that the Supreme Court has opened the door to student-led school prayer.

				-- Bob

    >> ...some religious groups seem to think that the Supreme Court has
    opened the door to student-led school prayer"
    
    What a odd way to characterize right to free speech. 
    
    ...some religious groups seem to think that the Supreme Court has
    opened the door to student-led school political speech...
    
    The Supreme Court was clear: protected speech doesn't become
    unprotected once the topic is religion.
    
    A 30-second prayer led by a 17-year-old isn't Congress establishing
    religion.
                               

Re: 96 Patrick

>    A 30-second prayer led by a 17-year-old isn't Congress establishing
>    religion.
                               
It is, in my opinion, if other students are compelled to listen to it.
But it remains to be seen how the Supreme Court will rule on this.


				-- Bob

    In your opinion, is a 30-second political speech led by a 17-year-old
    at an assembly where attendence is compelled unconstitutional?
    
    Does protected speech become unprotected when the topic is religion?

Re: .98  Patrick

>    In your opinion, is a 30-second political speech led by a 17-year-old
>    at an assembly where attendence is compelled unconstitutional?
    
No.  There is no constitutional separation of government and politics.  If
the school authorities allow the student to make a political speech that's
OK from a constitutional point of view.

>    Does protected speech become unprotected when the topic is religion?

Is the 17-year-old student's speech "protected speech"?  The student is
subject to the authority of the school.  If he (or she) wanted to make a
political speech and the principal wouldn't let him, what recourse would
the student have?

Since attendance at the assembly is compulsorary, I think it would be
illegal for the school to allow the 17-year-old to make a speech, sermon
or prayer advocating a religious position.

				-- Bob

    Of course, student speech is protected speech.  The principal asks:

    "John, what's your topic?" "Magic Johnson and his contribution to the
    struggle against AIDS."  Good.

    "Mary, what's your topic?" "Radical feminism and the Lesbian struggle."
    Good.

    "Paul, what's your topic?" "Christian Evangelization and the struggle
    for salvation" Sorry, that's the establishment of religion and
    prohibited by the establishment clause and not protected by the free
    speech clause.
    
    It is exactly this sort of construction that the Supreme Court calls an
    abridgement of the free speech clause.

So if the student's topic is "The Positive Aspects Of Snorting Cocaine"
there isn't anything the principal can do about it?

				-- Bob

The Supreme Court has just ruled that the chirstian group that publishes
a magazine at UVa has a right, just like the other groups, to get state
funds. The school argued unsuccessfully that this violated the church and
state separation. The group claimed that other student groups got money,
including other religious groups, so they should be eligible.

TTom

    
    This is good news.  It is unConstitutional to prohibit funds going to
    Christianity while allowing funds to other religions.  I'm encouraged
    with some recent Supreme Court rulings in this area.
    
    jeff

	I agree with Jeff. If other religions are getting money, then
Christianity, in this case, should get money. If no other religions were
getting money, then I would say that would also have to apply to Christianity.


Glen

    Now, how does this apply to a private school run by the church that
    gets state funds?  Wouldn't that have been a violation of the
    separation issue...if you go by UVA's logic?
    
    The Citadel is a private military school that does receive government
    funding so private schools do get funds.
    
    -Jack

You gots yourself into a real quagmire there Jack.

A church run school can receive federal grants for specific activities.
There is little or no control on these grants allowing the school to
actually divert the money to publish about anything it wants.

When you get ferderal money, you are told how it is that the government
knows you spent the money properly. For a research grant, all you need to
do is publish something. No one comes back and makes you prove that all
the money was spent for research.

Intersetingly enough, a lot of these monies require the purchase of
capital equipment, like PCs and printers, which can be used after the
grant for other uses.

re: the Citadel.

Notre Dame, Georgetown, and Fordham also receive federal money. Bunches
of it.

TTom

    Actually the federal government has a number of auditors who go around
    and audit the recipients of the grant money to make sure it was spent
    as it was suppose to be spent.
    
    Like all audits, not 100% of the expenditures are audited, but there
    are controls in place to make sure the moneys are spent as intended.
    
    (I can't help thinking like an auditor!  I'm in Finance!  ;-))

I was speaking of my experiences with getting grants from the Feds. I ran
a private, non-profit, tax-exempt, corporation a while back.

It's true that there is variable accounting with grants. However, a great
many of them have little or no strings to them. A good example is a
feasability study. The feds give these away in about every field. We got
them for eduation, treatment, etc. What you do is write up a paper that
make recommendations to the government on what they should do. You don't
actually do anything. As long as we published our "findings" in the
manner described, no one really looked into how the money ws spent. In
fack, I used feasability study grants to hire staff. In no way was this
illegal of otherwise against the rules, as long as I published the study
that was funded.

TTom

1145.107

NOTE: I'm moving the replies for this thread to this topic as it seems more 
appropriate than where it currently resides.

    You are confusing federal government with local government.  Local
    governments are very close to a democracy.  We all can vote on local
    issues, the majority winning out in all cases.  While it isn't a true
    democracy in all aspects, it is much closer to one than the federal
    government.  

Not true. Everyplace that I've lived we vote for a council, which then 
makes the decisions. We do have the ability to vote directly on local 
issues, and often do. Even in this case, however, the majority does not 
necessarily rule. Witness the current path of Colorado's amendment 2. In 
short, the majority rules locally but not if it conflicts with the 
Constitution.

    So now we have a tyranny of the minority.  See what happens when we
    forget how things are supposed to work?

What tyranny of the minority? I think that not allowing the government to 
promote a particular religion, thereby disenfranchising those that do not 
adhere to that religion, is hardly tyranny. 

    The government did not place the symbol there, nor did it say a symbol
    [...]

Huh? Someone put the symbol there, I seriously doubt it was voted on. So 
the architect decided? The mason? Does it make a difference whether the 
building is federal or local government? 

    created (not that this gives them the right, it just underlines to me
    how silly the whole thing is).  

Steve, it isn't silly. Symbols are important. Otherwise you wouldn't be 
upset when someone desecrates a cross, or burns a flag. You may say that it 
has no impact, but like it or not it does send a message, and the message 
is that all religions are equal but this is more equal than others. 

    Tough noogies.  If you are so easily offended, move elsewhere.  I
    realize this is very blunt, but I grow weary of this nation's
    super-sensitivity on such silly issues.  There is nothing in the

Ah, the response of someone in the majority. Does this also apply to the 
things you argue against in here, such as giving our sovereignty away to 
the U.N., or is that 'different'?

    You start with a failed premise, here.  NO ONE IS PUSHING this.  The
    cross was there already.  It had been there for quite a while, from
    what I gather.  All the "pushing" is being done from the other side of

Are you talking about a specific case? I was arguing against religious 
symbols on government buildings in general. If you want to talk about a 
specific case I would need more data, as I have already said that I don't 
advocate the removal of already existing buildings. 

    If you haven't read the definition, how do you know it only includes my
    religion?  (see my last entry a few notes back)

I did see that definition, thank you. I understand what you are saying, but 
it doesn't wash. For example, the blacks were freed, but as you pointed out 
nothing in the Constitution changed. What did change then? It was the 
definition of 'the people' to include them. Definitions change all the 
time, and people need to respond to it. 

    I've said more than once that this discussion is a mental exercise to
    me.  The only agenda I have is to inform people the best I can of
    original Constitutional intent.  Do with it as you like.

Fair enough, I will go under the assumption that you have no personal 
'stake' in this.

    Correct, for the most part.  It can recognise Christianity- whether it

Could it recognize a religion other than Christianity?

    Early SCOTUS disagrees with you here, but I'm open for new information. 
    What treaty do you speak of?

I will post the details tomorrow, but basically it was a treaty with 
Tripoli. The not a Christian nation clause was inserted to allay the fears 
of the Islamic government with whom the treaty was signed.

This is getting long, so I will continue in the next note.

Steve

1145.107
Part 2

    We no longer have the pledge of allegience anymore.  'Swear on the
    Bible' is a tradition from another time...a time when this was enough
    to get people to tell the truth in court.  Swearing on the Bible was
    not something to be taken lightly.  Today, it is relatively meaningless
    for most (judgeing by how much lying is going on in courts of law).

They still pledge in the Springs, and they still swear on a Bible in many, 
although not all, courtrooms.

    etc.).  The end result is that we do away with all religion (well, all
    the obvious ones anyway) in public arenas- wala, atheistic nation.

You keep saying that, but I don't think it is true. There is an attempt to 
eliminate *State sponsored religion*, but not religion in public places. I 
will grant that there are excesses on both sides, but that there is no 
systemic attack that I can detect on religion per se, only an attempt to 
keep the government neutral. To me this means that if a group wants to 
display a religious icon in a public park, fine, (as long as *any* group 
can do the same). But for the state to purchase and maintain a creche, for 
example, with public funds, is over the line. 

    There is no such thing as being free of religion.  Even atheism is
    considered a religion by SCOTUS, as is secular humanism.

But not according to your definition and not according to today's 
dictionary definition either.

>It is about pushing your own views on other people. 
    
    How so, unless government itself forces a particular religion on you? 

I despair of explaining this terms that make sense to you. When George Bush 
was running for president he was quoted as saying that in his opinion 
atheists could be neither patriots nor citizens (paraphrased, I don't have 
the exact quote but I can get it). This was from a person that would soon 
be our president. Can you understand how that might make me nervous? Can 
you understand that a cross on a courtroom might have the same affect on me 
or someone of another religion? Would you find it a silly thing to speak 
out against if our pledge said "One nation, without God", or the 
inscriptions over a courtroom door stated "All religion is but a myth, so 
act not under fear of god but under the Dignity of Man". (For the record, 
both of these would violate government neutrality of religious belief, in 
my opinion). Neither would force anything upon you, but both would have the 
government denigrating your most deeply held beliefs. Would this be a silly 
thing to argue about?

More later...

Steve

re Note 425.110 by TINCUP::inwo.cxo.dec.com::Bittrolff:

> Neither would force anything upon you, but both would have the 
> government denigrating your most deeply held beliefs. Would this be a silly 
> thing to argue about?

        Steve,

        The other Steve is firmly on the record as being against
        modern sensitivity nonsense -- government could denigrate his
        most deeply held beliefs all it wants and he wouldn't care.

        Bob

    re: .111
    
    
    SCOTUS, in 1962, has already done this.  I do care, but there's little
    I can do about it.  I do try to educate people not to blindly accept
    judicial fiat- especially when 90-100% of precedent is ignored (90%
    today, 100% in Everson v. Board of Education - with regards to the
    First).
    
    If denigrating my beliefs was Constitutional- according to original
    intent- then no, I would not be arguing the issue since I would have no
    legal legs to stand on. 
    
    It is obvious to me that the original intent of the First is not being
    followed- even vaguely.  If you are so upset by the original intent of
    the "establishment" clause being 'government approved/established 
    denomination', why not change it via Amendment?  At least this would be
    intellectually honest.  If we wish to be more inclusive and sensitive,
    this would be the way to go.  Playing word games that do not resemble
    orginal intent is not only dishonest, but it sets an absolutely
    frightening precedent- any one of our rights can be reinterpreted at
    any given time, if historical precedent is ignored (as it is with the
    First).
    
    I would not be against expanding the First Amendment in such a way, if
    the truth be known.  This nation's religious face has changed quite a
    lot since the days of the FF, so I can understand wanting to be more
    inclusive.  What I cannot accept, nor will I, is the judicial
    REinterpretations that have happened- changes that fly in the face of
    150 years of precedent that clearly defines the original intent of the
    First.
    
    I guess many simply do not realise the danger in such
    reinterpretations, and it's doubtful that they will- even when all
    their rights are finally stripped from them.  The BoR will still be
    there, but as a "living" document, it will not resemble what was
    written 200+ years ago in intent or meaning.
    
    
    -steve 

    
    Your arguments regarding an extremely narrow view of original intent
    are uncompelling. My reading of Jefferson and Madison, among others,
    leads me to believe that the original intent was to protect citizens'
    "rights of conscience", to use their words; a much broader view than
    you suggest. Your suggestion that it is constitutional for the
    government to institutionalize religious icons, texts and ideas, so
    long as it isn't give a denominational name, is something I don't feel
    is supported by the architects of our government.

    Actually, I'm beginning to see things your way.... I think the abrasive
    and self righteous accusations of intellectual dishonesty, an my being
    a manipulator of words, and my downright unAmerica views, are what
    finally brought me around.  :^)

    Eric

.112

First, to follow up from yesterday.

Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli, signed in 1797, reads:

"As the Government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on 
the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against 
the law, religion or tranquility of Musselmen; and as the states never have 
entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mohometan nation, it 
is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinion 
shall ever produce an interruption of harmony existing between the two 
countries."

This was approved by President John Adams, Secretary of State Timothy 
Pickering, and ratified without a single word of dissent in the Senate. 
=========================
    If denigrating my beliefs was Constitutional- according to original
    intent- then no, I would not be arguing the issue since I would have no
    legal legs to stand on. 

But the point of this argument is that I don't believe that you have a 
legal leg to stand on today, I believe you are missing the intent of the 
framers.

It is generally acknowledged that Thomas Jefferson is responsible for the 
Bill of Rights, although there were obviously others heavily involved. For 
this reason I am looking for intent mostly in his words. Here are some of 
the things I find.

First is the famous letter to Nehemiah Dodge and the Danbury Baptists. (I 
don't reproduce it here, as it is well known, although I can upon request). 
I know that many believe this is a one-way separation, but this is not what 
he wrote. He did not talk about a wall of protection for the church, he 
talked about a wall of separation. His intent here was clearly (to me) to 
protect each from the other. A 'one way wall' is a useless concept, for 
clearly if you allow the church into the affairs of state (which is what a 
one way wall would permit) you have no separation at all.

Secondly, take these passages from his own autobiography concerning the 
debate around the language for religious freedom. I can provide pointers to 
the entire document. Although I have provided only small sections I have 
attempted to include enough to maintain the context, but I understand you 
may want to see for yourself.

(Speaking about the debate to eliminate church taxes and heresy laws):
"The petitions were referred to the commee of the whole house on the state 
of the country; and after desperate contests in that committee, almost 
daily from the 11th of Octob. to the 5th of December, we prevailed so far
only as to repeal the laws which rendered criminal the maintenance of any 
religious opinions, the forbearance of repairing to church, or the exercise 
of any mode of worship: and further, to exempt dissenters from 
contributions to the support of the established church; and to suspend, 
only until the next session levies on the members of that church for the 
salaries of their own incumbents. For although the majority of our citizens 
were dissenters, as has been observed, a majority of the legislature were 
churchmen. Among these however were some reasonable and liberal men, who 
enabled us, on some points,to obtain feeble majorities."

The line about the majority of the people being dissenters (from the 
established church, not necessarily from religion in general) while the 
majority of the legislatures are churchmen fighting to keep taxation rights 
is telling, and something that Jefferson doesn't forget. It took 3 years of 
debate to finally declare it illegal to require that people pay a mandatory 
tax to their church of choice, and to put down the establishment of the 
Anglican (where are they today?) Church.

Discussing the debate that eventually led to the first amendment, he wrote:

"The bill for establishing religious freedom, the principles of which had, 
to a certain degree, been enacted before, I had drawn in all the latitude 
of reason & right. It still met with opposition; but, with some mutilations 
in the preamble, it was finally passed; and a singular proposition proved 
that it's protection of opinion was meant to be universal. Where the
preamble declares that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy 
author of our religion, an amendment was proposed, by inserting the word 
"Jesus Christ," so that it should read "a departure from the plan of Jesus 
Christ, the holy author of our religion." The insertion was rejected by a 
great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle 
of it's protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, 
the Hindoo, and infidel of every denomination."

They had more than ample opportunity to declare that this was a Christian 
nation, officially, in our Constitution. In every case in which the attempt 
was made it was defeated however. Why? I think that it is spelled out 
pretty clearly in the last sentence.

    It is obvious to me that the original intent of the First is not being
    followed- even vaguely.  

O.K., Steve, in the context of this discussion what do you believe to be 
the intent of the first?

Steve

    The intent of the first, as I see it, is as I've been saying all
    along- TO KEEP GOVERNMENT FROM MEDDLING WITH RELIGION (forced taxation
    for churches- even if you have a choice of *which* church to give to,
    is still meddling, IMO, and not on par with the intent of the first,
    nor the idea behind true religious freedom).
    
    It's that simple.  There is no way, in any shape or form, that ANY
    part of the BoR was intended to protect the government from anything. 
    The entire BoR is specifically penned to RESTRAIN THE GENERAL (federal)
    GOVERNMENT, ending with an exclamation point to that effect (see the
    Tenth Amendment).
    
    The First is a limitation on government- "Congress shall make no
    law...".  The First is not intended to protect government- government
    needs no such protection.  The Constitution defines the powers and
    balances quite clearly; it defines the form of government and how it is
    to work.  Everything else outside of this is in the realm of the
    people.  People vote on who they wish to represent them (who shares
    their views and concerns) to make law/run the government.  This is
    where the rubber meets the road.  The is how government evolves with
    social change.
    
    If the people wish to elect only Christian leaders, then that's their
    perogative.  If they wish to uphold morals and values they deem
    necessary to good government and the well being of the people, then
    they may do this- providing that such laws pass constitutional muster.
    (and it is Congress' job to insure that created legislation is in line
    with the Consitution- a job that they have ignored for more than 80
    years).
    
    The "wall" that Jefferson was talking about is a one-way wall.  A
    two-way wall is not only NOT necessary, but goes against the very idea
    behind the BoR.
    
    
    -steve 

re Note 425.115 by CSOA1::LEECH:

>     It's that simple.  There is no way, in any shape or form, that ANY
>     part of the BoR was intended to protect the government from anything. 

        About this, you are right.  The reason for a "wall of
        separation" is *not* to protect the government, but to
        protect the people whose lives that government inevitably
        influences, including people in minorities, including
        minority religions.

        The reason why I would want a wall of separation between the
        Islamic religion (as an example) and the governments
        (federal, state, and local) under which I live is not because
        Islam is bad for government but because I don't want
        explicitly Islamic influence on my life conveyed via the
        actions of government.

        And, to be consistent and fair, if I don't want Islamic
        influence on my life conveyed via the actions of government,
        then I believe that my Islamic neighbors have the same right
        to be free of explicitly Christian influences conveyed to
        them by those same governments.

        (I am *not* talking about Christians, or Muslims,
        participating in government and in legislating and enforcing
        laws in the light of their moral beliefs.  I'm talking about
        officially proclaimed explicitly religious symbols, texts,
        and activities.)


>     The entire BoR is specifically penned to RESTRAIN THE GENERAL (federal)
>     GOVERNMENT, ending with an exclamation point to that effect (see the
>     Tenth Amendment).
  
        There is no restraint if there is no wall (a two-way wall). 
        If churches can meddle in the affairs of citizens who are not
        their members merely by meddling in government, then such
        meddling is a church or churches acting with the power of
        government.  This needs to be restrained and I am confident
        that this is included in the restraint of the first
        amendment.


>     The "wall" that Jefferson was talking about is a one-way wall.  A
>     two-way wall is not only NOT necessary, but goes against the very idea
>     behind the BoR.
  
        A one-way wall is no wall at all.

        Bob

re Note 1145.146 by CSOA1::LEECH:

> >The Constitution allowed the white man to continue to enslave the black
> >man.  That was its intent.  
>     
>     You are wrong.  The Constitution is rather silent on this, 

        I think that this is what most reasonable people mean by
        "allow" (and it was a good deal more than silent, since it
        gave a formula for how much of a free person a slave was
        worth in apportionment).

        What's strange, here, Steve, is that when it's convenient you
        abandon "original intent" for simply a literal (even if
        flawed) reading.  The founders, and in particular Jefferson,
        clearly intended the Constitution to allow slavery (since
        many of the founders owned slaves, and many of the states
        that ratified the Constitution and the BoR allowed slavery). 
        It is clear that Jefferson either did not intend the stirring
        words of the Declaration of Independence to apply to slaves,
        or was a hypocrite of the highest order on the issue of human
        rights (where's that Lord, liar, or lunatic argument again?).

        No, the problem is that "original intent" is a flawed basis
        for constitutional interpretation.


>     Its rulings are to be based on the Constitution, as written.  They DO NOT 
>     have the freedom to reinterpret it at will. 
  
        Steve, you are so close to the truth, yet you deny it.  There
        is no "as written" apart from interpretation.  A court that
        cannot interpret cannot determine what is written.  If they
        cannot be trusted to read the text as it stands, but must
        resort to some higher source that contains the "original
        intent", then they cannot be trusted to interpret the
        documents of "original intent", either.

        (Or, to put it another way, if they cannot be trusted to
        judge the application of the constitution using their own
        frame of mind, why do you think that their efforts to
        understand using the mindset of people long dead, many of
        whom never wrote on this subject, will yield any better law?)

        The reason the court does not function as you so dearly wish
        is that it cannot;  "original intent" is empty rhetoric, its
        magic is a sham.  People who proclaim that it can be done, or
        that they or their appointees will judge by "original
        intent", are charlatans.


>     Our First Amendment problems of today are only the tip
>     of the iceberg, and it is all due to this very imbalance.
    
        Well, Steve, some of us think that the First Amendment is in
        as fine a shape as it has ever been, and that the only
        significant threat to it may come from certain proposed
        Constitutional Amendments.

        Bob

.115    
	It's that simple.  There is no way, in any shape or form, that 	ANY 	
	part of the BoR was intended to protect the government from 			
	anything. 

Based upon my readings, I strongly disagree. I don't know that protect is 
the proper word, but the intent was clearly to keep the government out of 
religion *and* to keep religion out of the government.  Obviously many 
believed that Christian principles were important to good government, but 
the majority clearly believed that good government must remain independant 
of undue religious influence.     

	The entire BoR is specifically penned to RESTRAIN THE GENERAL 					
	(federal) GOVERNMENT, ending with an exclamation point to that 				
	effect (see the Tenth Amendment).

Again I disagree. Although it has the effect of restraining the government, 
it was written to spell out the rights of the people. Once more I quote 
from Jefferson's autobiography:

"This Convention met at Philadelphia on the 25th. of May '87. It sate with 
closed doors and kept all it's proceedings secret, until it's dissolution 
on the 17th. of September, when the results of their labors were published 
all together. I received a copy early in November, and read and 
contemplated it's provisions with great satisfaction. As not a member of 
the Convention however, nor probably a single citizen of the Union, had 
approved it in all it's parts, so I too found articles which I thought 
objectionable. The absence of express declarations ensuring freedom of 
religion, freedom of the press, freedom of the person under the 
uninterrupted protection of the Habeas corpus, & trial by jury in civil as 
well as in criminal cases excited my jealousy; and the re-eligibility of 
the President for life, I quite disapproved."

Nowhere does he mention the restraint of the government, but rather the 
freedoms of the people. I agree that the amendments limit the governement, 
but this was not the basic reason for penning the BoR.     

	If the people wish to elect only Christian leaders, then that's 				
	their perogative. If they wish to uphold morals and values they 					
	deem necessary to good government and the well being of the 				
	people, then they may do this- providing that such laws pass 				
	constitutional muster.

Absolutely.

	The "wall" that Jefferson was talking about is a one-way wall.  			
	A two-way wall is not only NOT necessary, but goes against the 			
	very idea behind the BoR.

In this statement you are simply wrong. Think about it. They wanted to 
protect citizens from repression, whether it be by government or religion, 
while allowing the people the freedom to worship as they wished. A one way 
wall would allow religion to control the government. This was the 
arrangement they were trying to avoid, it had failed too often in the past. 
According to your one way wall theory a tax to support churches in general 
could be levied as long as the proceeds were spread among all religions, 
despite your comment to the contrary. What would prevent it? This clearly 
is not what they had in mind.

Steve	

.117

        It is clear that Jefferson either did not intend the stirring
        words of the Declaration of Independence to apply to slaves,
        or was a hypocrite of the highest order on the issue of human
        rights (where's that Lord, liar, or lunatic argument again?).

To be fair, Jefferson did push for the abolition of slavery, but only 
suceeded in making it illegal to *import* new slaves. As he put it:

"In 1769, I became a member of the legislature by the choice of the county 
in which I live, & continued in that until it was closed by the revolution. 
I made one effort in that body for the permission of the emancipation of 
slaves, which was rejected: and indeed, during the regal government, 
nothing liberal could expect success."

and

"The clause too, reprobating the enslaving the inhabitants of Africa, was 
struck out in complaisance to South Carolina and Georgia, who had never 
attempted to restrain the importation of slaves, and who on the contrary 
still wished to continue it."

and from the original manuscript of the DoI (it was removed from the final 
copy)

"He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it's most 
sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who 
never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another 
hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. 
This piratical warfare, the opprobium of INFIDEL powers, is the warfare of 
the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. Determined to keep open a market where 
MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for 
suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this
execrable commerce. And that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact 
of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms 
among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by 
murdering the people on whom he also obtruded them: thus paying off former 
crimes committed against the LIBERTIES of one people, with crimes which he 
urges them to commit against the LIVES of another." 

and finally

"The first establishment in Virginia which became permanent was made in 
1607. I have found no mention of negroes in the colony until about 1650. 
The first brought here as slaves were by a Dutch ship; after which the 
English commenced the trade and continued it until the revolutionary war. 
That suspended, ipso facto, their further importation for the present, and 
the business of the war pressing constantly on the legislature, this 
subject was not acted on finally until the year 78. when I brought in a 
bill to prevent their further importation. This passed without opposition, 
and stopped the increase of the evil by importation, leaving to future 
efforts its final eradication."

Steve

re Note 425.119 by TINCUP::inwo.cxo.dec.com::Bittrolff:

>                       -< Jefferson *was* anti-slavery... >-
  
        Did he free his own slaves (while he was arguing for the
        emancipation of others)?

        Bob

.120
        Did he free his own slaves (while he was arguing for the
        emancipation of others)?

Nope. And that is a contradiction.

However, without excusing him, and without going into a discourse on the 
economy of the south at the time, to have freed his slaves unilaterally 
would have been tantamount to giving up his income his estate and his 
position in society.

Steve

re Note 425.121 by TINCUP::inwo.cxo.dec.com::Bittrolff:

> .120
>         Did he free his own slaves (while he was arguing for the
>         emancipation of others)?
> 
> Nope. And that is a contradiction.
> 
> However, without excusing him, and without going into a discourse on the 
> economy of the south at the time, to have freed his slaves unilaterally 
> would have been tantamount to giving up his income his estate and his 
> position in society.
  
        I certainly didn't intend to demean Jefferson personally; 
        I admire him and his work tremendously, and feel an enormous
        debt of gratitude.

        My point was (and I could have made it without coming across
        as an unwarranted personal attack on Jefferson) is that what
        was literally written by these people, and what their
        intentions as shown by their actions, may have differed
        greatly.  When I honor the Declaration of Independence, I
        really don't think of it as being a certain set of intentions
        on the part of Jefferson.  I think of it as a set of words
        that I too agree to, words about which, in some cosmic sense,
        I could say "Wish I'd thought of that."

        The written expression really is separate from the intent of
        the author (although they obviously do have a relationship
        in time).

        Words that are truly eternal are so because for each
        generation they say the right thing, as read by each
        generation.

        When I read "Congress shall make no law respecting an
        establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
        thereof", I guess I really do not care that much how it was
        understood 200 years ago, even by those who wrote it.  To me
        it is clear that it defines a principle of government that
        applies to all levels, not just the Federal, of refraining
        from the promotion of any particular religious practices or
        texts.  To me it is clear that the eternal truth in these
        words is that while I, and the majority, may value the
        Christian religion highly, we do not promote it through
        government.

        Just as we had the contradiction of Jefferson owning slaves,
        yet working and writing for their freedom, it is
        understandable that the practice of religious separation in
        the earlier days of the U.S. might appear to contradict
        global principles as set forth in the Constitution.  However,
        I do not believe that the global principle is diminished by
        that.

        Many of the principles of the founders were ideals that were
        approached only gradually by the new nation.  We are still
        approaching some of them.  The approach isn't wrong;  in fact
        it is the best way to honor the noble intent of the founders.

        Bob

    re: .117 (Bob)
    
>        I think that this is what most reasonable people mean by
>        "allow" (and it was a good deal more than silent, since it
>        gave a formula for how much of a free person a slave was
>        worth in apportionment).

    It allowed slavery by default.  I'm merely taking you to task for
    trashing the entire document due to this fact.  The whole purpose of
    this document was not to perpetuate slavery, which is the impression
    you give me in your comments.
    
>        What's strange, here, Steve, is that when it's convenient you
>        abandon "original intent" for simply a literal (even if
>        flawed) reading.  
    
    I've abandoned nothing.  I've said the Constitution (in its original
    form) is rather silent on the slavery issue.  There is no "intent" one
    way or the other in the original (thus the 13th and 14th Amendments
    were added down the road, as social changes demanded).
    
>    The founders, and in particular Jefferson,
>        clearly intended the Constitution to allow slavery (since
>        many of the founders owned slaves, and many of the states
>        that ratified the Constitution and the BoR allowed slavery).
    
    In that day, the social conditions were not right for outlawing slavery.  
    They did not intend to use the Constitution, at that
    time, to try to free the slaves.  The Constitution would not have been
    ratified (due to more than one issue) if this was pushed.
     
>        It is clear that Jefferson either did not intend the stirring
>        words of the Declaration of Independence to apply to slaves,
>        or was a hypocrite of the highest order on the issue of human
>        rights (where's that Lord, liar, or lunatic argument again?).
    
    How do you know this?  Maybe he did, maybe he didn't.  The DoI was used
    as a battle cry for equal rights throughout our history- particularly
    in the Civil War era.  
  
>        There is no "as written" apart from interpretation.  A court that
>        cannot interpret cannot determine what is written.  
    
    You are playing word games, now. 
    
>        If they cannot be trusted to read the text as it stands, but must
>        resort to some higher source that contains the "original
>        intent", then they cannot be trusted to interpret the
>        documents of "original intent", either.

    Higher source?  What are you talking about?  Intent, even considering
    the time span (and word evolution over this period), can still be 
    determined by *precedent*.  The more precedent you have from earlier 
    courts that is consistent, the more clear the meaning.
    
>        (Or, to put it another way, if they cannot be trusted to
>        judge the application of the constitution using their own
>        frame of mind, why do you think that their efforts to
>        understand using the mindset of people long dead, many of
>        whom never wrote on this subject, will yield any better law?)

    What does 'frame of mind' have to do with it?  Words have meaning. 
    Sentences have meaning.  If words change over time to mean something
    different, then we need to look to the past to see how the words were
    used so we know the original intent.
    
    You are complicating this way too much.  The Constitution is NOT a
    complicated document. 
    
>        The reason the court does not function as you so dearly wish
>        is that it cannot;  "original intent" is empty rhetoric, its
>        magic is a sham.  
    
    So, what you are telling me is that there was never any intent of any
    kind to the Constitution?  That the Constitution is so vague and
    generic that is should be changable as time goes on via the whims of
    9 unelected, unaccountable officials?  Nice balance of power, that.
    (and the balance of power scenario is due to the fact that corruption
    does exist, but it can be better kept in check with checks and
    balances).
    
>    People who proclaim that it can be done, or
>        that they or their appointees will judge by "original
>        intent", are charlatans.

    Words have meaning.  The charlatans are the ones saying that the FF had
    no specific intentions when they penned and signed the Constitution.

>        Well, Steve, some of us think that the First Amendment is in
>        as fine a shape as it has ever been, 
    
    Fine.  I disagree with this completely, but you knew that already.  8^)
    Fact is, it doesn't matter what you and I think, the Constitution is
    dead, anyway.  This is just a mental exercise for me. 
    
    
    -steve

re Note 425.123 by CSOA1::LEECH:

>     Higher source?  What are you talking about?  Intent, even considering
>     the time span (and word evolution over this period), can still be 
>     determined by *precedent*.  The more precedent you have from earlier 
>     courts that is consistent, the more clear the meaning.
  
        I'm sorry, Steve, I completely misunderstood that when you
        use the phrase "original intent" you merely mean to refer to
        precedent.  I thought you meant "try to figure out what the
        founders meant in 1789 through an examination of their
        writings, and try to judge things as they would have judged
        them."  I thought you were saying words to the effect that
        recent precedent is useless; that the only good precedent is
        a dead precedent. :-}

        Precedent is fine with me; that's how courts generally
        work, anyway.  Most of the time it's OK (an atrocity, in my
        opinion, could not be justified merely on precedent, so I
        don't consider precedent absolute).

        But you must realize that precedent over the span of
        centuries will result in judgments that may be quite
        different from the judgments that the first courts would
        have made.  Your seem to think this is proof that the
        original document is dead.  I see it as proof that the
        original document is vibrantly alive!

        Bob

    re: .124 (Bob)
    
>        I'm sorry, Steve, I completely misunderstood that when you
>        use the phrase "original intent" you merely mean to refer to
>        precedent.  I thought you meant "try to figure out what the
>        founders meant in 1789 through an examination of their
>        writings, and try to judge things as they would have judged
>        them."  
    
    No, that *me* who's trying to look at things from a historical
    perspective.  8^)   Sorry if I confused you.
    
>    I thought you were saying words to the effect that
>        recent precedent is useless; that the only good precedent is
>        a dead precedent. :-}

    Not at all.  My main complaints come from Everson v. Board of
    Education, in which SCOTUS *ignored all* precedent (and there was a lot
    of it- all consistent) and created a new meaning for the First.  
    
    When looking at the "establishment" clause today, the only precedent we
    have for this interpretation began in 1947- all cases regarding this
    after 1947 used this case as precedent (and so on), even though it was
    an obviously bad ruling.  This is what I am denouncing.  
    
    If you wish to change the nature of the First, you can, but this
    requires and amendment.  The reason for this is because you need a 2/3
    vote from Congress to create pass an amendment, which is one of those
    checks and balances.

>        But you must realize that precedent over the span of
>        centuries will result in judgments that may be quite
>        different from the judgments that the first courts would
>        have made.  
    
    Why?  If they have precedent that shows clear meaning/intent, why would
    they rule differently...unless they are padding an agenda?
    
>    Your seem to think this is proof that the
>        original document is dead.  I see it as proof that the
>        original document is vibrantly alive!

    It is dead for more than one reason.  This is only a side issue.  Look
    in the Constitution on Executive Orders, Admiralty Laws, as well as in
    Article 1, Section 8 and 10 for starters.  Then when you are done with
    this study, then do some digging into whether or not we are still
    in an official "state of emergency" that was declared long ago, and
    what such a declared state does to the Constitution.
    
    (I'm not going to point out anything here- nor argue my discoveries. 
    I'd rather you look into these things yourself, you may be fascinated by 
    what you find.)
    
    The Federal Reserve Act (and I think this is one of the most bogus acts
    ever passed- under bogus conditions) does not give Congress authority to 
    pass off its duty of printing money to another, non-government
    "contractor".  The gold standard cannot legally be repealed by an "act".  
    Both of these issues are clearly defined in the Constitution, and to 
    change it an amendment is required (no "act" is above the law of the land- 
    the Constitution, therefore, such an act would only have legal authority 
    *if* the law of the land is changed to accomodate it, or *if* the law
    of the land was silent regarding it).
    
    We're so far away from actively following the Constitution that I would
    find it laughable, if it weren't so downright depressing.
    
    
    -steve 

re Note 425.125 by CSOA1::LEECH:

>     The Federal Reserve Act (and I think this is one of the most bogus acts
>     ever passed- under bogus conditions) does not give Congress authority to 
>     pass off its duty of printing money to another, non-government
>     "contractor".  

        Members of congress have to run the printing presses
        themselves?

        Bob

steve,

I did some research over the weekend looking for the precedents that were 
overturned in Everson. I couldn't find them. So, specifically,

1. What is it in Everson that you object to? (You'll need to be specific, 
if possible. Like most SCOTUS decisions this was multi-faceted with the 
Justices jumping from one side to the other for various parts of the 
decision).

2. What precedents, specifically, were overturned?

3. Can you provide a pointer to specific cases in which these precedents 
were set? This isn't necessary unless you have them handy, I can try to 
find them again if you don't.

On a side note, the overturning of precedents is not necessarily incorrect. 
The 'separate but equal' interpretation of 14 was fairly entrenched as a 
precedent before being overturned in Brown. Most people agree (although I 
do not know your view on this) that this was the correct decision.

Steve

    re: .127
    
>1. What is it in Everson that you object to? (You'll need to be specific, 
>if possible.
    
    The Everson ruling used, for the first time ever, the 14th Amendment as
    a tool to apply the First Amendment *against* the states.  I find this
    usage quite strange considering a) the 14th, ratified in 1868 was
    ratified to guarantee that recently emancipated slaves would have civil
    rights in all states; b) it has nothing to do with religion; c) the
    nature of Amendments- particulary the BoR- is to ensure freedoms, not
    to remove them.
    
    The Everson ruling created the "separation of church and state" phrase
    that we hear so much about.  It is a unique ruling that uses an
    amendment that provides citizenship to x-slaves to prohibit religious
    activity in the schools or public affairs of any state.
    
>2. What precedents, specifically, were overturned?

    It would be easier to simply state that previous to the Everson ruling,
    the First was never used to forbid any religious practices in public. 
    It is a strange ruling that uses the First to prohibit that which is
    not supposed to be prohibited *by the very wording of said amendment*.
    
>3. Can you provide a pointer to specific cases in which these precedents 
>were set? This isn't necessary unless you have them handy, I can try to 
>find them again if you don't.

    I can list a few rulings that go on record as supporting a different
    view of the First (and of the 14th in one or two of them).
    
    Davis v. Beason, 1889  SCOTUS
    Runkel v. Winemiller, 1799 (Supreme Court of Maryland)
    Vidal v. Girard's Executors, 1844  SCOTUS
    Updegraph v. The Commonwealth, 1824 (SC of Pennsylvania - perhaps not
       directly related, but it is an interesting view on law of the land
       and the First Amendment)
    Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 1892  SCOTUS  (this ruling
       certainly disagrees with Everson in implication)
    
    These should do for now.
    
>On a side note, the overturning of precedents is not necessarily incorrect. 
>The 'separate but equal' interpretation of 14 was fairly entrenched as a 
>precedent before being overturned in Brown. Most people agree (although I 
>do not know your view on this) that this was the correct decision.
    
    I can see how the "separate but equal" interpretation was legally used 
    previous to the Brown ruling, even if by today's standards, I think
    "separate but equal" is "wrong" (wrong = ethically, rather than
    legally, in this instance).
    
    What I disagree with is having the SCOTUS do the law changing, rather
    than Congress.  It's a matter of 'I agree with the end result, but not
    the methods used to get there'.  Congress was the one who should have
    been adding an "equality" Amendment to the Constitution to change the
    meaning and application of "citizen" within the context of law.  
    
    The 14th was intended to give civil rights to former slaves, which the 
    13th did not do.  Civil rights did not always encompass things like voting 
    (thus the 15th and 19th Amendments) and other things we take for granted 
    as being a part of "equality" amoung citizens, today.
    
    I disagree with the Court being the one who changes law.  Law should
    not be "interpreted differently" to get a different result, it must be
    changed legally.  Even if I agree with the end result of certain
    changes created by SCOTUS, it does not mean that such changes were
    rightfully implimented under the Constitution.
    
    
    
    -steve

re Note 425.128 by CSOA1::LEECH:

>     The Everson ruling created the "separation of church and state" phrase
>     that we hear so much about.  It is a unique ruling that uses an
>     amendment that provides citizenship to x-slaves to prohibit religious
>     activity in the schools or public affairs of any state.
  
        I really find it strange that you (or anyone else) think that
        it makes sense to have "religious activity" incorporated into
        the official activities of public schools and government in
        general.  Perhaps it's because I'm a Catholic -- I just can't
        imagine a Mass being conducted as part of a public school
        convocation, for example, or a Rosary.  Perhaps it seems more
        "natural" to someone from Protestant background -- in part
        because Protestant forms of activity were, in fact, commonly
        incorporated in governmental activity during our nation's
        past.

        If you want to appeal to what our nation did in the past, you
        are appealing not to bland generic prayers and periods of
        silence, but Protestant prayer, Protestant teaching.  Perhaps
        to you it seems reasonable;  to me it does not.


>     It would be easier to simply state that previous to the Everson ruling,
>     the First was never used to forbid any religious practices in public. 
>     It is a strange ruling that uses the First to prohibit that which is
>     not supposed to be prohibited *by the very wording of said amendment*.

        It also seems strange to me to claim that if religious
        activity isn't incorporated into governmental activities then
        the religious freedom of people is infringed.  As I indicated
        above, *my* kind of religious activity has never been in our
        public schools, yet I don't feel less free in my religious
        practice because of it.  I have plenty of time and place to
        practice my religion, thank you.


>     What I disagree with is having the SCOTUS do the law changing, rather
>     than Congress.  It's a matter of 'I agree with the end result, but not
>     the methods used to get there'.  Congress was the one who should have
>     been adding an "equality" Amendment to the Constitution to change the
>     meaning and application of "citizen" within the context of law.  
  
        You know, there's more than the above way of viewing such a
        change.  While I see how you could say that the Court was
        doing what Congress should have done, it is equally true that
        the Court was simply saying that the Court (and its inferior
        courts) had been wrong before, and were simply correcting the
        Court's error.  I prefer an institution that can admit that
        it had been wrong, and that it can correct, rather than one
        with robotic adherence to precedent, right or wrong.  Perhaps
        you don't.


>     I disagree with the Court being the one who changes law.  Law should
>     not be "interpreted differently" to get a different result, it must be
>     changed legally.  Even if I agree with the end result of certain
>     changes created by SCOTUS, it does not mean that such changes were
>     rightfully implimented under the Constitution.
  
        So you really do believe that once the court makes a mistake,
        and especially if it persists in that mistake, then a future
        court cannot recognize and correct that?

        Bob

Note 425.129  (LGP30::FLEISCHER)
      
>        I really find it strange that you (or anyone else) think that
>        it makes sense to have "religious activity" incorporated into
>        the official activities of public schools and government in
>        general.  
    
    You're missing the point.  Up until Everson, there was no precedent to 
    limit religious freedom in public arenas-- our own FF thought teaching
    basic Christian principles in schools was not only a good idea, but a
    necessity to ensure good government and the happiness of the people.
    
    For instance, prior to Engel v. Vitale (1962), there had been over 340
    years of recorded history in this country that allowed
    non-denominational prayer in schools- 170 of those years under the
    First Amendment.  Using the Everson ruling for precedent, our religious
    freedoms were restricted by this ruling- which is an odd use of the
    First Amendment, considering that it was meant to guarantee freedoms,
    not take them away.
    
>        It also seems strange to me to claim that if religious
>        activity isn't incorporated into governmental activities then
>        the religious freedom of people is infringed.  
    
    Once again, you've missed the point.  The people WANTED to continue
    having generic prayer in schools.  What they wanted was infringed by
    a government who is supposed to keep its hand off religion.  It isn't
    about incorporating religion into government, it is about using the
    First to strip away that which had been legally done for 340 years (170
    years under the First).  It is about limiting religion that was already
    a part of public life- using an amendment that is supposed to protect
    rights, rather than limit them.

>        You know, there's more than the above way of viewing such a
>        change.  While I see how you could say that the Court was
>        doing what Congress should have done, it is equally true that
>        the Court was simply saying that the Court (and its inferior
>        courts) had been wrong before, and were simply correcting the
>        Court's error.  
    
    But under strict interpretation of law, previous rulings were not
    "wrong".  If they were, the right to vote would not have required an
    amendment.  It would have been much better for Congress to approve an 
    amendment to fix the inconsistencies, rather than leave it to the Court- 
    this is the way the Constitution is supposed to work.
    
>    I prefer an institution that can admit that
>        it had been wrong, and that it can correct, rather than one
>        with robotic adherence to precedent, right or wrong.  Perhaps
>        you don't.
    
    Correcting a bad ruling is one thing.  But how do we determine if it is
    bad?  Precedent.  Ignoring all precedent and creating a new meaning of
    an amendment is not within the powers of SCOTUS.  This is what happened
    in 1947.
    
>        So you really do believe that once the court makes a mistake,
>        and especially if it persists in that mistake, then a future
>        court cannot recognize and correct that?

    One can only hope.   The longer the mistake goes unchecked, the more
    ingrained that particular judical rule becomes.  There are a few times
    in history that both Congress and the President ignored SCOTUS' ruling. 
    This too is one of those "checks and balances", though it hasn't been
    used in quite some time.
    
    
    -steve