Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    When I read what I excerpted in the base note last night, it suddenly 
    dawned on me that perhaps the basis for much of our internal struggles 
    in this country today, and probably in the past, have to do with 
    both our interpretation of democracy and our underlying assumptions 
    about human nature.  
    
    But what did the original authors believe?
    
    If you agree, as Ms. Diamond asserts, that the authors of democracy 
    believed that human nature is essentially good, that seems to me to 
    fly in the face of what some Christian religions teach -- that human 
    nature is essentially bad, i.e., sinful.
    
    Perhaps the moral struggle today we see between the religious (or 
    spiritual) Left and Right constellates around this very question 
    about our essential assumptions of democracy and human nature.
    
    Perhaps the more accurate question is "was democracy founded upon 
    'liberal' or 'conservative' Christian principles?"
    
    Karen

I don't know about democracy (or republicanism since we live
in a republic), but communism is based on the inherent goodness
of people.

I would say that any form of government that was ruled by
the selfless would be successful and any form of government
ruled by the selfish would be unsuccessful.  It is true,
however, that the checks of balances of some governments
give those in power more difficulty in achieving their own
selfish ends than others.  Democracy as practiced in the
U.S. is an example of this (as contrasted with the communism
that exists in Red China).

Personally, I'm still waiting for the theocracy.

Collis

    
    
    > democracy support the idea of original sin
    
      Yepp! Because women sinned first, has often been the (unconscious)
    justification for keeping you in the kitchen, barefoot, and pregnant!
    
    Get me a beer Karen :-) :-)
    David

    You're all wet, David.  Yepp, that's a puddle of beer 
    you're sittin' in.
    
    
    ...Ahhh, it's miller time. 
    
    Karen

re Note 541.2 by PACKED::COLLIS::JACKSON:

> I don't know about democracy (or republicanism since we live
> in a republic), but communism is based on the inherent goodness
> of people.
  
        I just consulted several dictionaries, including an
        unabridged, and in one the definition of the two terms
        "republic" and "democracy" is essentially identical, and in
        the others the only difference is that "republic" implies
        rule by representatives whereas "democracy" implies rule
        either by direct vote or by representatives.

        Bob

        (Of course, dictionaries are published by "the press" and
        everyone knows that the press are extreme left-wing liberals,
        intent upon the destruction of Americanism, right? :-} )

    
    
    Karen,
    
     Don't hold back, whatever is on your mind just say it:-)thats good
    just get it out:-)
    
    you realize I am joking,I hope :-)
    
    David

I believe that the system of checks and balances which are rather involved support
the notion that people's nature is less than completely good. Likewise the Bill of
Rights would be largely unneeded if people were good by nature.

		Alfred

Re:  democracies and republics

Indeed, the dictionary I have in my office does nothing to
distinguish between the two either.

I have heard literally dozens of times that democracies
are governments where the people have a direct vote (such
as a town meeting) and that republics are governments
where the people have an indirect vote through representatives.

I suspect that this distinction existed years ago (even in
dictionaries), but that the technical meanings of the terms
have been jumbled over the years.  I sincerely doubt that
we have two very different words that have always meant the
same thing.

Collis

re Note 541.8 by PACKED::COLLIS::JACKSON:

> I have heard literally dozens of times that democracies
> are governments where the people have a direct vote (such
> as a town meeting) and that republics are governments
> where the people have an indirect vote through representatives.
  
        I wish I had access to the full Oxford English Dictionary
        (over a dozen volumes) -- it gives most words' meanings over
        time since the earliest known usage in English or earlier.

        Although it does nothing to settle this issue:  I have heard
        what you wrote above literally dozens of times myself. 
        However, that distinction is always made in highly
        politically charged partisan debates.

        Like most of the quotes attributed to President Lincoln in
        Reagan's Republican convention speech, this may be one of
        those things that exist in popular culture (like "urban
        myths") but actually has little basis in fact.

        Bob

re: Note 541.7 by Alfred "Radical Centralist" 

>I believe that the system of checks and balances which are rather involved
>support the notion that people's nature is less than completely good. 

Alfred, I agree that humans are less than completely good, which has a 
different focus than saying that people are "more than completely bad".

It reminds me of two different ways to administer a system of justice.  One 
extreme would be to free 99 guilty people, so one innocent person wouldn't be
imprisoned.  Another extreme would be to imprison 99 innocent people so that
one guilty person wouldn't go free.  Each has a different focus.

>Likewise the Bill of Rights would be largely unneeded if people were good 
>by nature. 

I recall that Thomas Jefferson was opposed to the Bill of Rights.  I think his 
argument was that if one delineated what "rights" one has, it would be easy to 
assume that one has those rights and *no others*.  Perhaps it has caused more 
difficulty than we know.

Peace,

Jim

re Note 541.10 by 27958::KIRK:

> I recall that Thomas Jefferson was opposed to the Bill of Rights.  I think his 
> argument was that if one delineated what "rights" one has, it would be easy to 
> assume that one has those rights and *no others*.  Perhaps it has caused more 
> difficulty than we know.
  
        The above dispute is the reason the 9th amendment to the Bill
        of Rights was added -- it literally says that even those
        rights that are not mentioned in the constitution are to be
        protected.

        This is one reason why a right to privacy, even if it isn't
        mentioned explicitly in the Constitutional, is
        constitutionally protected.

        Of course, we still have debates about what is and is not
        included in a right to privacy, or even if such a right
        exists at all (the 9th amendment doesn't settle the argument
        of whether a particular thing is a right at all, for example;
        but if it exists, it is protected).

        Thus I am glad that we have some rights that are spelled out,
        even if it does tend to give them more prominence than other
        rights that are, nevertheless, constitutionally guaranteed.

        Bob

    I pretty much agree with you, Alfred.  
    
    I don't feel human nature is _completely_ good either, nor do I feel 
    the authors of American democracy believed that.   I do suspect they 
    believed human nature to be _essentially_ good, (as do I), rather than
    essentially bad.
    
    The more I think of it, the more I feel that this is the foundational 
    line of demarcation between "right" and "left" ideology in this 
    country.  Generally speaking, it seems evident that the right distrusts 
    and condemns human nature, while the left affirms and elevates it.  
    Personally, I feel the more complete truth about human nature lies 
    somewhere between the two poles.
    
    I also wonder if Diamond's characterization of either side's attributes 
    in .0 is a fair and accurate one...?
    
    > If people are essentially bad, they need to be controlled, 
    > corrected, and kept under surveillance.  It is wise to be guarded, 
    > suspicious, and continuously controlling.  On the other hand, if 
    > people are basically good, it is safe and meaningful to trust their 
    > development and to provide education for them, to expect them to 
    > unfold naturally, and to express their gifts.
    
    When you have such a deep division in ideology as we have today, 
    don't both sides seek to control, correct, and keep the other side 
    under surveillance?  Both sides, as well, seek to educate people, and 
    I suspect the right would argue that they encourage people to 
    "express their gifts," as much as the left.  
    
    Regardless, the argument between these two sides, seems to boil 
    down to two points:  
    
    o  what the "correct" way is to encourage people to "unfold 
       naturally" and reflect goodness in their lives and society;  
    
    o  and whether goodness is "inherent" (God-given) at birth, simply in 
       the divine act of being born, or if it must be "inherited"  
       (God-given) along the way by religious instruction and practice.  
    
    Me, (granted, as one who leans more to the left, :-) ) I feel that 
    American democracy was authored based upon a more "liberal" 
    interpretation of Christian principles.
    
    I also feel that many, (most?) "Right-wingers" feel as you do, 
    Collis.  They're committed to transform our democracy to a theocracy.
    
    Karen

>    I also feel that many, (most?) "Right-wingers" feel as you do, 
>    Collis.  They're committed to transform our democracy to a theocracy.
    
    I don't know about Collis but most people I know who are waiting
    for a theocracy are waiting for Jesus to come back and set it up. 
    
    			Alfred

Re:  .12, .14

Indeed, Alfred, I wait for Jesus to setup the theocracy.

I have no desire to turn the U.S.A into a theocracy (nor
is that a common desire of conservative Christians).  We'd
just mess it up.  Instead, I would rather than individual
Americans submit voluntarily to the Lordship of Jesus Christ.

Collis

    I apologize about mis-stating your intentions, Collis.  
    I stand corrected. 
    
    But help me understand this.  If it is not a common desire 
    of conservative Christians to establish a theocracy, then what 
    form of government are groups like the Christian Coalition pouring 
    their energy into?  Why work so hard at trying to place their
    members into public office?  To me, they obviously and vehemently 
    object to the ways American democracy is progressing.
    
    Thanks,
    
    Karen  

   Re The "goodness" of mankind

   Many conservative christians hold to a doctrine of the gift of 
   "Common Grace" which God has given to mankind in general, this is 
   not "Sanctifying Grace" which God gives for salvation, but includes
   social and familial love, administration of laws and governments, 
   etc, this gift is given down to the level of the individual (the
   conscience - for instance). These elements within Common Grace are 
   not native to mankind and without them, the world would be in a 
   constant state of anarchy, given over to his "fallen" nature.
   They are given for the protection of society and can be overthrow
   by both individuals and societies. Such conservative christians
   would say to you that hold to the "goodness" of mankind that you 
   have actually viewed the activity of the Common Grace Gifts and 
   mistaken them for something which is native to humanity.

   Re 541.16 Theocracy

   There are "right-wing" groups who want to establish "a" theocracy,
   or rather convert/renovate the Constitution into a theocratic charter,
   but of course only God can do that. See note 525 "judeo-christian".
   
               Hank

> To me, they obviously and vehemently 
>    object to the ways American democracy is progressing.

	No more so than Bill Clinton is. It's not the way American democracy
	is progressing that people object to. It's specific things that
	it is doing. This is common among *all* people. I doubt that there
	is anyone in America that wouldn't change something that the 
	government is doing.

			Alfred

Re:  541.16
    
  >If it is not a common desire of conservative Christians to establish 
  >a theocracy, then what form of government are groups like the Christian 
  >Coalition pouring their energy into?

I'm not familiar with the name Christian Coalition.  Which group
is this?

  >Why work so hard at trying to place their members into public office?

It seems to me that many special interest groups very much want their
members in public office.  Simply because they are Christians does not
mean that they necessarily want to change the form of government.

I want people in public office who will uphold the moral laws that
God has given to us.  This does not mean I want a theocracy - a
republic is a good choice for this nation.  I do not say that other
voices cannot disagree with me and attempt to elect those who choose
to rebel against God's laws and wish to defy them.  There will be
judgment on this land when (unfortunately not if) that happens, as
is obvious by the problems we face today which are mostly of our
own making by disagreeing God's laws.

However, I have no desire to make Christianity a state religion.  If
anything, this would be a step backwards for the church.  However,
neither do I wish to make the state totally irreligious in the name
of not creating a state religion.  There is a vast difference in my
opinion between allowing religious symbols and *establishing* (not
even promoting is constitutionally outlawed) a state religion.  Europe 
in the 1600s showed us what state religions were.

  >To me, they obviously and vehemently object to the ways American 
  >democracy is progressing.

Who doesn't?  America is a land of protest.  I think you'll find that
(whoever this group is) that there is much about America that they
cherish - but they focus on the parts they want changed.
    
Because we live in a republic, I have a vote.  I vote (essentially)
to support the morals that God has revealed in the Bible.  This does
not mean that I (or others) are attempting to establish a theocracy.
I can support these Biblical morals and live in a monarchy, democracy,
communist regime, fascism or whatever.  Admittedly, I would want to
change some of those governments since they explicitly reject God,
but I would not wish to change *any* of them into a theocracy.  I
believe only God can establish a theocracy, not us, and that it will
fail just like any other government we establish.  (It is true that
some governments fail better than others, but they all fail.)

Collis

    Collis, perhaps I could better understand your views of what
    constitutes a theocracy if you clarified something for me.  Can you
    identify any specific actions that you personally consider immoral and
    a violation of your understanding of God's will, but which you also
    would would not wish to make illegal or otherwise restrict through the
    legal system?

    -- Mike

    Collis, Alfred,
    
    Yes, surely, everyone has aspects of the government they would seek 
    to change.  This will probably always be the case, and no doubt, 
    should be.  
    
    My intent in starting this note was to better understand what the 
    basic ideological difference is between America's "right" and "left" 
    body politic.  As I mentioned a few times (in agreement with Diamond 
    in .0,) I suspect it is that one side views human nature as 
    essentially good and trustful, and the other, as essentially bad 
    and untrustworthy.  
    
    Imo, articulating the foundational division between the two sides is 
    extremely helpful.  From there individuals from both sides could 
    choose to identify areas of common ground and ways to work together 
    to achieve the goals therein.  From our differences we may learn more 
    about ourselves and human nature.  We may learn that some of our 
    differences are, in fact, misunderstandings and/or unconscious 
    projections of attributes in ourselves we find unacceptable.  Then 
    again, there will be subjects upon which we just plain disagree.  
    
    But seeking understanding, to me, is a most worthy endeavor.  It's 
    ridiculously easy to create conflict and enemies.  Our world is built 
    upon it.  Don't you think God would be pleased to see people 
    sincerely attempting to bridge differences and create ways to work 
    hand in hand with those they consider(ed) "enemies?"  If we don't do 
    this, then, imo, we have failed miserably to carry on Christ's mission 
    to establish God's kingdom on earth.
    
    My other intention was to explore and listen to others ideas about 
    which Christian perspective American democracy was authored upon - 
    liberal or conservative, and why.  (Or can it even be culled apart 
    that cleanly?)
    
    Discussing theocratic movements and other potential changes is an 
    interesting and timely topic, to say the least!  I'm trying to better 
    understand what the Religious Right's agenda is, (beyond my own 
    assumptions and political propaganda, if possible) and what they're 
    seeking to do, civically and governmentally.  
    
    So, is theocracy an accurate name for the Religious Right's goal?  
    Perhaps not.  Is Jesus the only one who can truly establish a 
    theocracy?  Perhaps so.  The American Heritage dictionary, fwiw, 
    indicates otherwise: 
    
       Theocracy:  Government by a god regarded as the ruling power 
    		   or by officials claiming divine sanction.
    
    Thanks,
    Karen

>    My intent in starting this note was to better understand what the 
>    basic ideological difference is between America's "right" and "left" 
>    body politic. 

	I do not think the ideological difference is based on religion. I
	also don't think it may be based on believing if people are basically
	good or evil. Though both of those elements may come into play.

	For example, anti-discrimination laws seem to be based on the idea
	that if the law doesn't force people to not discriminate that their
	natural inclination would be to discriminate. So looking at that one
	could conclude that people on the "left", who have pushed most of
	these laws, assume people are bad. Also take gun control. On the left
	are proposed laws to take guns away from people. ie "They can't be
	trusted with them." On the right there is the assumption that people
	can be trusted with them so let the have them.

	Actually now that I think about it the difference between left and
	right often is the difference between making people do things and
	preventing them from doing things. Taking discrimination laws again.
	These laws often force people to hire people they might not otherwise
	hire. While laws on the right, take prohibition, prevent people from
	doing things, drinking. Over simplified to be sure and you can no
	doubt find counter examples. But this, off the top of my head while
	reading your note, seems to ring true.

	And other issue is individual judgement v colective judgement. On the
	left is the idea that the collective group should decide what is best.
	On the right is the primacy of the individual to make up their own mind.
	Again over simplified and counter examples abound. I think the 
	search for common cause for left/right differences is hopeless. Though
	interesting. :-)

> I'm trying to better 
>    understand what the Religious Right's agenda is, (beyond my own 
>    assumptions and political propaganda, if possible) and what they're 
>    seeking to do, civically and governmentally.  
	
	Wish I could help but I haven't a clue. I concider myself in the
	middle. I don't understand anyone. :-)

>   Is Jesus the only one who can truly establish a 
>    theocracy?  Perhaps so.  The American Heritage dictionary, fwiw, 
>    indicates otherwise: 
>    
>       Theocracy:  Government by a god regarded as the ruling power 
>    		   or by officials claiming divine sanction.
 
	There are a number of governments I would concider theocratic by
	that definition. Few, if any, Christian. Perhaps this would not
	be a good time to bring up "True Christian Theocracy?" :-)

			Alfred   

Collis .19,

Christian Coalition is Pat Robertson's vehicle for political activism, which
has essentially replaced Falwell's Moral Majority.
See note 497.2, 497.87, 497.90, & 497.98-99.

Peace,
Richard

    The Christian Coalition is not a replacement for Moral Majority.  It is
    a new political organization that if focus on religious freedom and
    bias against Christians at the state and local level.

    .24 is mostly right.  The Christian Coalition is a political
    organization.  Unlike other political organizations, it is
    tax-exempt.
    
    To hear Robertson tell it, it is yet another organization Robertson
    founded, The American Center for Law and Justice, which is focused
    on religious freedom and bias against Christians.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    It is "right" not mostly right.  Political organizations like nearly
    all non-profits are tax exempt.  The exception is for organizations
    which attempt to influence legislation.
    
    The American Center for Law and Justice is not a grass roots
    organization but a foundation that providing legal assistance to
    defendants in religious freedom cases.

    The Christian Coalition sent $20,000 to bolster proponents of Measure 9
    in Oregon.  I guess that's not considered attempting to influence
    legislation.
    
    Richard
    

    
    Contributions to Christian Coalition are not tax deductible.
    
    jeff

Re:  541.20

  >Collis, perhaps I could better understand your views of what
  >constitutes a theocracy if you clarified something for me.  Can you
  >identify any specific actions that you personally consider immoral and
  >a violation of your understanding of God's will, but which you also
  >would would not wish to make illegal or otherwise restrict through the
  >legal system?

Restrict is rather broad since many things can appropriately be
restricted (at the far edges).  In terms of making illegal, I'll
state two areas in the U.S.A. today that I personally
am not attempting to change (and am not aware that others are
attempting to change, although I could obviously be ignorant):

  - worshipping another god
  - legal penalties for fornication/adultery

Since religion and sex are two of the biggest issues addressed in
Biblical theocracy, I think that not changing the way that society deals 
with these two issues clearly puts it outside of a theocracy.

Collis

RE: .0 Basenote....

		The basic premis that people are good or evil is flawed
within the framework of society.  Extremes have historically been proved
to be inaccurate and even detrimental to the maturation process of the
individual.  While it is true that individuals can and do reside at various
points within the spectrum of good and evil, the society as a whole has 
balanced out to the approximate center of the question at hand.  Altruism
is a very rare commodity for any government to inculcate within their society's
overall aim.  

		The Church has attempted to take this issue to the individual,
hoping that if all are convinced, the society will embrace good.  Unfortunately
the human condition is one that does not hold to exact strictures.  Some will
even take extreme positions, convinced that they are the only ones that are
correct.  Many desire a nice neat little package that they can "grab and hold"
to keep them safe within their religious beliefs.  Calvinism is a very good
example.  Most desire a formula for survival.



Dave

    Gee, Alfred .22,
    
    You've got some good points there.  I've got to think on them longer. 
    I may have more in common with the right-wingers than I thought.
    
    Thanks, I think. 
    
    ;-) :-)
    
    Karen  

    I'm under the impression, primarily through media coverage, that the 
    Christian Coalition's primary purpose is to "influence" legislation at 
    the state and local level, not simply to address issues of religious 
    freedom and bias against Christians.     
    
    Is there another side to the story, or agenda of the Coalition, I haven't 
    heard?  Or is their agenda being "distorted" by the media?
    
    Karen

    Last night channels 5 and 30 in Colorado Springs did a report on
    Ammendment 2 and had one of the leaders of the Christian Coalition who
    is funding the Ammendment.  I thought it was interesting that he freely
    admitted that their goal was "to legislate morals".
    
    Nanci

In article <541.33-921029-125410@valuing_diffs.christian-perspective>, [email protected] (The time is now!) writes:

>    Last night channels 5 and 30 in Colorado Springs did a report on
>    Ammendment 2 and had one of the leaders of the Christian Coalition who
>    is funding the Ammendment.  I thought it was interesting that he freely
>    admitted that their goal was "to legislate morals".
>    
>    Nanci

Nanci,
	I thought the purpose of ALL legislation was to "legislate morals" 
and it is rather a question of whose morals are legislated.  I may be
wrong, but the only time you aren't legislating morals is if there are
no laws.  Am I missing something here?


---
Paul		[email protected]
Gordon		[email protected]
Loptson		clt::ferwerda
Ferwerda	Tel (603) 881 2221



			

[posted by Notes-News gateway]

    There is a difference between how someone thinks about <sub-group> and 
    how the government dictates that <sub-group> will be treated by the
    general public.  The first is passive and it is the right of every 
    person under our current laws to think anything about anyone that they
    want to.  The second is a translation of those thoughts into action
    which then infringes on the personal rights of those who belong to
    <sub-group>.  
    
    In this case, if Ammendment 2 is defeated nothing will be taken away from
    the sponsors of the bill.  Their personal rights remain the same.  They
    can think whatever they want in regard to the homosexual community.  If  
    Ammendment 2 passes, under the new law, rights WILL be taken away from 
    members of the homosexual community.  They will ahve no legal recourse
    if they are denied housing or jobs because of their sexual orientation.
    
    Nanci

    
    
    Nancy,
    
     not quite the whole enchilida. If 2 failed then legislation could be
    passed that in effect grants special privledges to gays. Accordingly,
    what two did is analagous to preventive medicine..(gosh I hope I used
    my big word for the day correctly:-) )))))
    
    
    David

    David,
    
    	Maybe you can tell me, since nobody else has been able to --
    what special privileges??  Do blacks get special privileges?  Do
    Hispanics get special privileges?  Do the handicapped get special
    privileges?  Do women get special privileges?  What are these special
    privileges that so many are afraid gays might seize?
    
    	I remember back in the '60's a bunch of people thought the blacks
    were going to overrun the whites and take over the country.  I strongly
    suspect that the same kinds of irrational fears have been stirred up
    in the hearts of a majority of Colorado voters.
    
    Richard

    
    
    Richard,
    
     > maybe you can tell me
    
     Silly question, of course I can :-) Special privledges I allude to
    are.
    
      1.) Hiring quotas( not actual quotas, they are called guidelines)
      2.) Affirmative Action Appointees...
      3.) Preffered admissions at colleges across the U.S.A.
      
    
    David  
    
    

    Gosh, David.  If that's all Amendment 2 encompassed, I might have
    voted "yes" myself.
    
    I don't favor quotas and I don't know anybody who does.  Unfortunately,
    Amendment 2 doesn't contain itself to that.
    
    Rather, Amendment 2 says that you may be terminated from your
    employment *without the possibility of legal recourse* on the basis
    of which gender you're attracted to.
    
    Amendment 2 says that you may be refused hotel accommodation
    *without the possibility of legal recourse* on the basis of which
    gender you're attracted to.
    
    Amendment 2 says that you may be refused service at a lunch counter
    *without the possibility of legal recourse* on the basis of which
    gender you're attracted to.
    
    When I was 10 years old, I had the pleasure of meeting Jerry Lewis.
    He was staying at the Arizona Biltmore.  He would have preferred to
    stay at another hotel closer to where he was working, but that
    establishment didn't accept Jewish clientele.  He was quite bitter
    about it.  And who could blame him?
    
    Richard

    
    
    Richard,
    
    
      I believe Ammendment 2 limited itself to saying
    
      " No laws may be passed that grant gays Special privledges"
    
     No I am assuming that from this you extrapolate the notion that a
    hotel owner may discriminate against gays because there is no law
    saying he can't. This does not mean that Amendment 2 has direct verbage
    stating " Yo Howard Johnsons can jsut say no". If I am wrong, and there
    is direct verbage(as you suggest) then I will personally collect 100 
    sigs toward the repealing(sp) of Ammenment 2...
    
    David

Let's read it again, David.  It's worded much more cleverly than the Oregon
bill was.
================================================================================
Be It Enacted by the People of the State of Colorado:

Article 2. of the Colorado Constitution is amended by the addition of
Sec. 30, which shall state as follows:

NO PROTECTION STATUS BASED ON HOMOSEXUAL, LESBIAN OR BISEXUAL ORIENTATION.
Neither the State of Colorado, through any of its branches or departments,
^^^^^^^     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^(including the courts^^^^^^^^)
nor any of its agencies, political subdivisions, municipalities or school
districts, shall enact, adopt, or enforce any statute, regulation, ordinance
or policy whereby homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual orientation, conduct,
                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
practices or relationships shall constitute or otherwise be the basis of,
or entitle any person or class of persons to have or claim any minority
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^                     
status, quota preferences, protected status or claim of discrimination.
                                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This Section of the Constitution shall be in all respects self-executing.
================================================================================
David,

What this says in plain English is "If you are discriminated against simply
because your sexual orientation is other than heterosexual, the law will not
even consider the legitimacy of your claim."

Perhaps changing it a little bit will better demonstrate:

"Neither the State of Colorado, through any of its branches or departments,
nor any of its agencies, political subdivisions, municipalities or school
districts, shall enact, adopt, or enforce any statute, regulation, ordinance
or policy whereby adult Caucasian males shall constitute or otherwise be the
basis of, or entitle any person or class of persons to have or claim any
minority status, quota preferences, protected status or claim of
discrimination."

This bill, if passed would effectively squelch any and all possibility of
an adult white man ever claiming reverse discrimination, and I would *not*
vote for it.  Yes, white males are not protected by law, but neither are
they *denied* protection by law, which Amendment 2 effectively does.

And all I did was change the "who."  It's not hard to slip in Jew or some
other classification of persons.  (Now that I think of it, I might have
voted for it if it had been targeted at lawyers! ]B^} )

Richard

    In 1670, William Penn and William Mead were arrested and tried in
    England for publicly preaching Quaker "heresy".  Penn's spirited
    defense in court led to his acquittal by the jury.  The judge would not
    accept this verdict, and ordered them to return a guilty verdict
    instead.  They went back, considered the case, and still declared Penn
    not guilty.   The irate judge told them, "Gentlemen, you shall not be
    dismissed till we have a verdict the court will accept and you shall be
    locked up without meat, drink, fire and tobacco."  Penn called out to
    the jury, "You are Englishmen; mind you privilege, give not away your
    right."  The jury foreman replied, "Nor will we ever do it." 

    The jury was eventually thrown into Newgate jail and fined, but they
    still held firm.  They then sued the judge for illegal imprisonment,
    and a bench of 12 judges (headed by the Lord Chief Justice) ruled in
    the jury's favor, thus establishing an important precedent in English
    and American law--the independence of the jury.

    It is fascinating to read the transcript of the court proceedings,
    which were recorded by an unknown individual present at the trial.  In
    the following reply, I will include a few passages from this
    transcript.

    -- Mike

    (I apologize in advance for the length of this note.  I have tried to
    edit this down to just a few interesting passages.  -- Mike}

    PENN.  I affirm I have broken no law, nor am I guilty of the indictment
    that is laid to my charge.  And to the end the Bench, the jury, and
    myself, with these that hear us, may have a more direct understanding
    of this procedure, I desire you would let me know by what law it is you
    prosecute me, and upon what law you ground my indictment.

    RECORDER:  Upon the common law.

    PENN: Where is that common law?

    RECORDER: You must not think that I am able to run up so many years and
    over so many adjudged cases which we call common law to answer your
    curiosity.

    PENN: This answer, I am sure, is very short of my question, for if it
    be common, it should not be so hard to produce.

    RECORDER: Sir, will you plead to your indictment?

    PENN:  Shall I plead to an indictment that hath no foundation in law? 
    If it contain that law you say I have broken, why should you decline to
    produce that law, since it will be impossible for the jury to determine
    or agree to bring in their verdict who have not the law produced by
    which they should measure the truth of this indictment, and the guilt
    or contrary of my fact.

    RECORDER: You are a saucy fellow.  Speak to the indictment.

    PENN: I say it is my place to speak to matter of law.  I am arraigned a
    prisoner; my liberty, which is next to life itself, is now concerned;
    you are many mouths and ears against me, and if I must not be allowed
    to make the best of my case, it is hard.  I say again, unless you show
    me and the people the law you ground your indictment upon, I shall take
    it for granted your proceedings are merely arbitrary.  [At this time
    several upon the bench urged hard upon the prisoner to bear him
    down.]...

    MAYOR: Take him away, take him away; turn him into the bail-dock.

    PENN: These are but so many vain exclamations.  Is this justice or true
    judgment?  Must I therefore be taken away because I plead for the
    fundamental laws of England?  However, this I leave upon your
    consciences, who are of the jury and my sole judges, that if these
    ancient fundamental laws, which relate to liberty and property, and are
    not limited to particular persuasions in matters of religion, must not
    be indispensably maintained and observed, who can say he hath right to
    the coat upon his back?  Certainly our liberties are openly to be
    invaded, our wives to be ravished, our children slaved, our families
    ruined, and our estates led away in triumph by every sturdy beggar and
    malicious informer as their trophies, but our pretended forfeits for
    conscience' sake.  The Lord of heaven and earth will be judge between
    us in this matter....

    [The jury, having been exhorted to deliver a verdict of guilty, refused
    four times to do so, though they were kept all night without food,
    drink, or heat.]

    RECORDER: What is to the purpose?  I say I will have a verdict. [And
    speaking to Edward Bushel, said:] You are a factious fellow.  I will
    set a mark upon you, and whilst I have any thing to do in the city, I
    will have an eye upon you.

    MAYOR: Have you no more wit than to be led by such a pitiful fellow?  I
    will cut his nose.

    PENN: It is intolerable that my jury should be thus menaced.  Is this
    according to the fundamental laws?  Are not they my proper judges by
    the Great Charter of England?  What hope is there of ever having
    justice done when juries are threatened and their verdicts rejected?  I
    am concerned to speak and grieved to see such arbitrary proceedings. 
    Did not the Lieutenant of the Tower render one of them worse than a
    felon?  And do you not plainly seem to condemn such for factious
    fellows who answer not to your ends?  Unhappy are those juries who are
    threatened to be fined and starved and ruined if they give not in
    verdicts contrary to their consciences.

    RECORDER: My Lord, you must take a course with that same fellow.

    MAYOR: Stop his mouth, jailer; bring fetters and stake him to the ground.

    PENN:  Do your pleasure; I matter not your fetters.

    RECORDER: Till now I never understood the reason of the policy and
    prudence of the Spaniards in suffering the Inquisition among them.  And
    certainly it will never be well with us till something like the Spanish
    Inquisition be in England....

    PENN: I demand my liberty, being freed by jury.

    MAYOR: No, you are in for your fines.

    PENN: Fines for what?

    MAYOR: Contempt of the Court.

    PENN: I ask if it be according to the fundamental laws of England that
    any Englishmen should be fined or amerced but by the judgment of his
    peers or jury, since it expressly contradicts the Fourteenth and
    Twenty-ninth Chapters of the Great Charter of England, which say no
    freeman ought to be amerced but by the oath of good and lawful men of
    the vicinage?

    RECORDER: Take him away, take him away, take him out of the Court.

    PENN: I can never urge the fundamental laws of England but you cry,
    take him away, take him away.  But 'tis no wonder, since the Spanish
    Inquisition hath so great a place in the Recorder's heart.  God
    Almighty, who is just, will judge you all for these things.