Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    Richard:
    
    Ya know...Planned Parenthood is notorious for distributing, in my mind, 
    obscene literature and pictorials in there moot attempt to try and curb
    the spread of AIDS.  I mean really pathetic stuff Richard and I've seen
    it.
    
    Now here's an organization the is subsidized by the Federal Government.
    In other words, we have no choiuce...we have to pay for it Richard. 
    Then you have Focus on the Family pushing there agenda.  It may be
    distasteful to you but at least you don't have to subsidize it.
    
    Now I ask you, which situation do you find more disgusting?  I choose
    A.
    
    -Jack

Planned Parenthood is subsidized by our tax dollars.

So is Jerry Falwell. So is Pat Robertson. So is every tax exempt
christian activist organization.

So which are you opposed to funding?

My answer is all of the above.

TTom

    When you say subsidized, are you saying they receive stipends from the
    federal government like planned parenthood does...or are you merely
    pointing out they are tax exempt?  In other words, saving money on
    taxes doesn't mean the are subsidized.  It merely means that the
    government does not extort from them what was theirs in the first
    place!
    
    -Jack

    
    It's not quite the same.  Not putting money in the govt's hands (as in
    charitable contributions) is different than putting money in the govt.
    hands and having the govt. hand it out.
    
    jeff

These are 2 different things that end up with the same result. Namely,
we all pay more taxes without very little say in the matter, both in the
amount we have to pay and where the money goes after we pay.

I don't have any first hand knowledge of Falwell or Robertson in terms of
how they run their businesses. However, having been in the tax exempt
business myself, I continuously applied for and often got direct
government money. I would assume that Jerry and Pat try to get as much as
they can, themselves.

In this case, then, these are not different. Your tax dollars go to these
just like they go to Planned Parenthood.

TTom

    
    I assure you that Falwell and Robertson don't get a dime from the
    Federal govt - you know, the separation of church and state fallacy.
    
    jeff

Sorry Jeff,

But I would be willing to bet the ranch on at least Falwell.

He runs Liberty University and I doubt it very much if he refuses to go
after the federal money that is available to higher education.

I went to several Catholic schools and they reached for every dime they
for which they were eligible. 

Federal funds are available to private and parochial schools under a
variety of grants. What's precluded by the first amendment, at least
according to contemporary interpretations, is prior funding.

As the ruling involving UVa and funding a Christian magazine shows, this
line, which has always vague, has become even less clear.

But, like I said, I don't have inside information, just going on what
I've seen at other private/parochial schools.

TTom

    
    I don't know either about the schools.  But its really not fair, imo,
    to equate govt money to an accredited school on whose governing body
    Falwell sits, for example, to Federal entitlements such as Planned
    Parenthood.
    
    jeff

    	Yet another FOTF/Dobson bashing topic.
    
    	Sigh.

    .1  Jack,
    
    I never said Focus on the Family, the Christian Coalition, or any
    other organization has no right to take a stand, or even to spend
    big money to influence public opinion or the political process.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

Jeff,

I'm not trying to make the case that these situations are the same. They
aren't.

They're similar in that there is direct federal money, and not just tax
savings. Of course the case can be made that the taxes saved by the 
non-profit organizations is added to each of our bills. Obviously, that
includes any non-profit organization and is not limited to religious
groups.

TTom

>In this case, then, these are not different. Your tax dollars go to these
>just like they go to Planned Parenthood.

  If they're not the same, Tom, why make this statement?
    
    jeff

>  If they're not the same, Tom, why make this statement?

While the organizations are different, they both receive direct money
from the government.

TTom

Focus is in my neighborhood. They don't pay taxes, yet they use the
infrastructure (roads, sewers, police, etc.). They bring more people into 
the district which use the schools. My taxes do go to support their tax 
exempt status, and my taxes are higher as a result of their status. 
I do subsidize them, it is simply less direct than direct 
government funding, and I get equal lack of choice in either 
arena. (Actually Focus is simply the largest of dozens of tax exempt 
religious organizations in my area). 

I'm not against this per se. Actually I would like to see a modification 
made to all non-profit tax exempt organizations. I would like to see them 
pay for the local burdens they create, through property taxes for example, 
while being exempt from other taxes to the extent that they can show direct 
charity, i.e. helping of people. I do not believe that organizations should 
be tax exempt simply for pushing whatever agenda they may have while being 
non-profit.
--------------
.6 BENSON

    Federal govt - you know, the separation of church and state fallacy.

And what fallacy is this, pray tell?

Steve

 ZZ   And what fallacy is this, pray tell?
    
    The freedom from religion as opposed to the freedom of religion.
    
    The separation issue was to deter government from having state funded
    churches...meaning your money goes directly toward the funding of
    churches.  
    
    -Jack

    
    The modern fallacy that the U.S. Govt must maintain a wall of
    separation from religion.  The statement is nowhere in the Constitution
    and the context from which it comes has nothing to do with the way it
    is commonly used today which is to prevent *Christian* public
    expression.  There is tons of evidence to counter the fallacy and you
    now see the U.S. Supreme Court beginning deliberately to address this
    issue and concluding in favor of public support and expression of
    religion.
    
    jeff

re Note 1125.16 by USAT05::BENSON:

        If you don't believe in "separation of church and state",
        then I assume you must believe in the opposite "joining of
        church and state".

        In that case, please be specific:  what church or churches
        would be joined in what state functions in what way?  Would
        this apply to all religious groups?

        Bob

    Speaking for myself, I believe the state should have no law interfering
    with church organizations, how they worship, who they hire, how much
    they bring in, who they minister to, etc.  I believe that schools for
    example, should not hinder the use of property for the purposes of
    Bible Studies, prayer meetings, etc....to THOSE who wish to
    participate.  I do not believe the church has the right to
    prosthyletize their beliefs on those who do not wish to take part.
    
    This is why a few months ago I suggested that the schools should ooffer
    theology classes to students who wish to take them...taught by
    voluntary ministers and pastors who really have a burden for children. 
    Consequently, Glen Silva poo pood the idea as he felt it should be
    taught not by ministers but by those who don't have a special interest
    in that particular belief.  In other words, he wanted to regulate it.
    
    -Jack

    
    .16 Bob,
    
    I agree with the Constitution's view and that of its Framers.
    
    jeff

re Note 1125.19 by USAT05::BENSON:

>     .16 Bob,
>     
>     I agree with the Constitution's view and that of its Framers.
>     
>     jeff
  
        Well, then, you must know what that is!

        Please describe how church and state should be joined -- if
        they shouldn't be joined, then they would be separated (and
        all I know is that you *don't* believe in that).

        Bob

      <<< Note 1125.14 by TINCUP::inwo.cxo.dec.com::Bittrolff "Spoon!" >>>

>Focus is in my neighborhood. They don't pay taxes, yet they use the
>infrastructure (roads, sewers, police, etc.). They bring more people into 
>the district which use the schools. My taxes do go to support their tax 
>exempt status, and my taxes are higher as a result of their status. 
    
    	I disagree with much of this.  
    
    	Yes, the organization does not pay municipal taxes, but they
    	*do* pay for some of their municipal usage -- water, sewage for
    	example.  FOTF also payed for some of the infrastructure that YOU
    	use -- namely the improvements to the road system immediately
    	adjoining their property.  And yes, they have brought in a slew
    	of new people to town who all use services, but each of them
    	pays taxes for those services, and the presence of that influx
    	has broadened the tax and economic base of this town so that your
    	home is much more valuable today than it was 5 years ago.
    
    	And I don't see how you can attribute their presence to your
    	higher taxes. (Curiously, my taxes haven't risen in the 6 years
    	I've been paying taxes here, so I can say that their presence 
    	has not caused my taxes to rise -- unless you want to argue that
    	my taxes would have otherwisw dropped...)  In fact, the presence
    	of FOTF has broadened the tax base, allowing municipal tax 
    	needs to be spread among more people.  Not only has there been
    	an increase in the local economy because of the spending done
    	by those several thousand new people, but also because of the
    	secondary economic effects to support their spending (ie, more
    	gas stations, barbers, pizza shops, florists, etc., were built
    	to accommodate the spending needs of these new arrivals, and
    	to a limited degree even more new arrivals were needed to staff
    	those stores and services.)  FOTF was one of many cogs in the
    	machinery that revitalized this area's economy over the last 5
    	years.
    
>I do subsidize them, it is simply less direct than direct 
>government funding, and I get equal lack of choice in either 
>arena. (Actually Focus is simply the largest of dozens of tax exempt 
>religious organizations in my area). 
    
    	The cumulative effect of these organizations has been to increase
    	employment and economic growth in the region.  You miss the forest
    	for the trees!
    

>        Well, then, you must know what that is!

>        Please describe how church and state should be joined -- if
>        they shouldn't be joined, then they would be separated (and
>        all I know is that you *don't* believe in that).

>        Bob
    
    	First off, I disagree that joined and separated are appropriate
    ideas for the relationship between religion and govt.  It is clear that
    the intent of the Framers was that there could not be a "Church of
    U.S.A." such as the Church of England where the state controlled
    religion and religious expression.  However, the govt. should support 
    and encourage religion (particularly the Christian religion).
    
    This is generally enough direction to guide the relationship, imo.
    
    Canada has an interesting relation to religion, supporting religious
    schools and institutions without controlling them.
    
    jeff

.19, .22 benson

So, Jeff, which of the framers are you personal
friends with, that told you what they meant?

    religion and religious expression.  However, the govt. should support 
    and encourage religion (particularly the Christian religion).

I believe it is *exactly* this type of relationship that the framers tried so
hard to prohibit. Which of the framers told you that this is what they meant?

BTW, there is a topic for this, we should probably move over there to continue 
this...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
.21 Oppelt

Joe, by your reasoning, then, would you advocate that
we shouldn't tax *any* business? 

The effect of increasing costs are not necessarily reflected by tax increases.
They could also be reflected in declining services. The schools in D20 (like
everywhere else) have been cutting some services that were formerly available.

As nearly as I can tell, the only road system they paid for is currently
used *only* to allow access to FotF itself. In those situations the developer 
normally pays for the installation, it is the upkeep that comes out of the 
general fund, which they don't pay into. 

I am not saying that there are not secondary benefits, my only point is that I 
am subsidizing them to some extent because they do not pay taxes. 

>So, Jeff, which of the framers are you personal
>friends with, that told you what they meant?
    
    Hi Steve,
    
    I don't know why you're asking this question.  There is a tremendous
    amount of information concerning the Framer's intent, found in their
    writings. 
    
    Are you suggesting that we cannot know what they intended?  If so, on
    what basis do you draw this conclusion?  
    
    
    jeff
    

    I would suggest that we can develop an understanding of what several 
    individual Framers intended based on their writings, but that we can 
    not extrapolate from individual opinions a specific interpretation of 
    the Constitution.
    
    After all, not all of the Framers agreed.  There was intense debate 
    on numerous issues.  Whose writings do you use to decide proper intent?
    
    And what of ratification?  Does it matter what the several states
    thought they were ratifying?  How are we to know?  Eight of the
    thirteen didn't keep records.
    
    I find the whole notion of "original intent" curious.  The only 
    extensive documentation of the proceedings of the Constitutional 
    Convention itself were written by James Madison and those weren't even 
    made public until 1840.  One would think that if the Framers *intended*
    the Constitution be interpreted in light of their deliberations they
    would have recorded everything that went on during those four, hot
    months in 1787 and left explicit instructions.   
    
    /Greg
    

.24 Benson

Jeff,

First, I apologize for the tone of my note yesterday, I had a bad hair 
day... :^)

What I meant was that like most similar things, it is open to 
interpretation. I have read extensively through the writings of the 
influential people in the debates of the day, and have come up with a 
different viewpoint than you have. I suspect that we could take the same 
document, such as Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists in which the 
phrase 'separation of church and state' was coined, and not agree on his 
meaning.

As you know, there are also contradictory documents that abound out there. 
The debate was heated and long, the actions taken by individuals in the 
government of the time varied and contradictory. To be able to say 200 
years later that you *know* exactly what they meant struck me as arrogant, 
hence the sarcastic tone of the note. Particularly since I have done 
extensive research in this area and disagree with your conclusion by about 
180 degrees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
.25 Schuler

Greg,

Right on. The end document was a delicate comprimise of many different 
positions. Unfortunately it too is open to interpretation in several key 
areas. It is in those places that we tend to examine the writings of the 
participants in an attempt to determine what they were getting at. 

Steve
Steve

    
    Hi Steve,
    
    Thanks for the apology - no problem.
    
    If we cannot know what the intent was we have no chance for
    understanding what was written and why.  This is an odd way to look at the
    world, imo.  Interpretation may be slightly different but there's a
    problem when conclusions are contradictory.  I believe that when all
    things are considered its fairly easy to understand the intent of the
    words in the Constitution.
    
    jeff

      <<< Note 1125.23 by TINCUP::inwo.cxo.dec.com::Bittrolff "Spoon!" >>>

> Joe, by your reasoning, then, would you advocate that
> we shouldn't tax *any* business? 
    
    	I don't think that my reasoning suggested that.  All I was
    	doing was questioning your claim that the presence of FOTF
    	has raised your taxes.  And you still haven't shown that 
    	your taxes are higher because of it.
    
    	(Curiously, I have argued elsewhere that corporations in general
    	shouldn't pay INCOME taxes -- different from real estate taxes 
    	-- but that is a rathole for another place and another time!)
    
>The effect of increasing costs are not necessarily reflected by tax increases.
>They could also be reflected in declining services. The schools in D20 (like
>everywhere else) have been cutting some services that were formerly available.
    
    	Again, the tax-exempt presence of FOTF has NOTHING to do with 
    	any declines in D20 services.  The D20 problems you describe
    	are a function of overcrowding, and all of the families that
    	contribute to that overcrowding pay real estate taxes (or rent,
    	which pays the landlord's real estate taxes...)  Maybe FOTF 
    	brought in those families, but so did MCI and lots of other
    	companies.
    
    	To be fair, FOTF is a DRAWING CARD for economic growth in this
    	city.  The city features them when pitching woo to other companies
    	to relocate here.  Were they such an economic albatross (or any of 
    	the  multitude of religious organizations here), I'd doubt that the
    	city would be featuring them, nor pursuing more of them.

>As nearly as I can tell, the only road system they paid for is currently
>used *only* to allow access to FotF itself. 

    	And the whole widening of the intersection there on 83 (or is it 
    	85, I always get them mixed up...)
    
>I am not saying that there are not secondary benefits, my only point is that I 
>am subsidizing them to some extent because they do not pay taxes. 
    
    	Likewise the Boy Scouts (they have an office on Uintah) and the
    	Salvation army and Goodwill outfits throughout town, and any
    	other non-profit entity around.  Why do you single out FOTF?
    
    	"To some extent."  True, were they paying real estate taxes your
    	marginal tax rate might be lower.  What I'm pointing out is the
    	benefits you are overlooking, and those benefits far outweigh
    	your marginal tax rate.

.28 Oppelt

> Joe, by your reasoning, then, would you advocate that
> we shouldn't tax *any* business? 
    
        I don't think that my reasoning suggested that.  All I was
        doing was questioning your claim that the presence of FOTF
        has raised your taxes.  

Your reasoning was that FotF contributed to the economy basically by employing 
people that contributed, broadening the tax base. The same can be said for 
*any* company.

	And you still haven't shown that your taxes are higher because of it.

I don't believe that they are, the various tax limitation bills have seen to 
that. However, in my neighborhood (Briargate) there are probably dozens of 
religious and non-profit organizations. If these organizations use services 
(police, fire, roads, etc.) that they do not contribute toward then either the
price goes up or the quality goes down. Again, I'm not necessarily against 
this practice, it depends on the organization, but economically this is 
undeniable.

        to relocate here.  Were they such an economic albatross (or any of 
        the  multitude of religious organizations here), I'd doubt that the
        city would be featuring them, nor pursuing more of them.

Joe, you're missing my point, see the previous paragraph.

        And the whole widening of the intersection there on 83 (or is it 
        85, I always get them mixed up...)

They paid for that? If so, why? Nobody that visits focus will use that stretch
of road to get there, it is out of the way no matter what direction you come 
from... BTW, I always get them mixed up too...

        Likewise the Boy Scouts (they have an office on Uintah) and the
        Salvation army and Goodwill outfits throughout town, and any
        other non-profit entity around.  Why do you single out FOTF?

Absolutely. If you look at the thread you'll see that it was talking about 
subsidizing (direct vs. indirect) of non-profits, and that the title of the 
note is FotF. What I said is true for any non-taxed organization.

        "To some extent."  True, were they paying real estate taxes your
        marginal tax rate might be lower.  What I'm pointing out is the
        benefits you are overlooking, and those benefits far outweigh
        your marginal tax rate.

(Joe, you must be in D11 :^)

Benefits? Oh, you must mean:

        any declines in D20 services.  The D20 problems you describe
        are a function of overcrowding, and all of the families that
        contribute to that overcrowding pay real estate taxes (or rent,
        which pays the landlord's real estate taxes...)  Maybe FOTF 
        brought in those families, but so did MCI and lots of other
        companies.

:^)

Steve

.22, .27 Benson

    problem when conclusions are contradictory.  I believe that when all
    things are considered its fairly easy to understand the intent of the
    words in the Constitution.
-------
    religion and religious expression.  However, the govt. should support 
    and encourage religion (particularly the Christian religion).

Jeff, 

Where in the Constitution do you see support for the above? That is what I 
was primarily reacting to.

Steve

re Note 1125.27 by USAT05::BENSON:

>     If we cannot know what the intent was we have no chance for
>     understanding what was written and why.  This is an odd way to look at the
>     world, imo.  Interpretation may be slightly different but there's a
>     problem when conclusions are contradictory.  I believe that when all
>     things are considered its fairly easy to understand the intent of the
>     words in the Constitution.
  
        It should come as no surprise to me that members of the
        religious right would view the Constitution in much the same
        way as they view the Bible -- as a kind of holy writ handed
        down by divine (or divinely-inspired) authors which must be
        understood as the author intended and not as a working
        document in the context of time.

        However, we have a *much* better understanding of the
        Constitution than the framers had -- we have the *experience*
        of seeing it work (and, in some cases, fail to work) over 200
        years.  To me, the importance of original intent *pales* in
        comparison to simply looking at how it works -- it is also
        the only way in which we can understand the relationship of
        the Constitution and issues which just didn't exist 200 years
        ago.

        (I personally believe that the Bible should be read in much
        the same way -- we can tell which parts are more valuable as
        guides from nearly 2000 years of experience -- we can also
        tell which parts mislead or inspire bad results.  On the
        other hand, I do think original intent is more important in
        the Bible, especially with Jesus' words.)

        Bob

| <<< Note 1125.6 by USAT05::BENSON "Eternal Weltanschauung" >>>


| I assure you that Falwell and Robertson don't get a dime from the
| Federal govt - you know, the separation of church and state fallacy.

	If they don't have to claim their empires to the tax man, then I think
the government is giving them plenty.


Glen

    re: .23
    
    Here's a few excerpts for your enjoyment...
    
    
    No free government now exists in the world unless where Christianity is
    acknowledged, and is the religion of the country...It's foundations are
    broad and strong, and deep...it's the purest system of morality, the
    auxiliary, and the only stable support of all human laws...Christianity
    is part of the common law.
    
    				-Updegraph v. Commonwealth, 1826
    
    
    "The religion which has introduced civil liberty, is the religion on
    Christ and his apostles, which enjoins humility, piety and benevolence;
    whicih acknowledges in every person a brother, or a sister, and a
    citizen with equal rights.  This is genuine Christianity, and to this
    we owe our free consitutions of government."
    
    				-Noah Webster
    
    
    From Article III (Northwest Ordinance) : Religion, morality, and knowledge,
    being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind,
    schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.
    
    
    From Article VIII, Section 3 of the November 1, 1802 Ohio constitution:
    
    Religion, morality, and knowledge being essentially necessary to good
    government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of
    instruction shall forever be encouraged by legislative provision.
    
    
    From Article IX, Section 16, of the 1817 Mississippi constituion:
    
    Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government,
    the preservation of liberty and the happiness of mankind, schools and
    the means of education shall be forever ecouraged in this state.
    
    
    From Article I, SEction 4 of the June 12, 1875  Nebraska consitution:
    
    Religion, morality, and knowledge, however, being essential to good
    government, it shall be the duty of the legislature to pass suitable
    laws...to encourage schools and the means of instruction.
    
    
    To put this into perspective a bit, the term "religion" was defined a
    bit more specifically than it is defined today.  From the Webster's
    (original) dictionary, 1828: 
    
    RELIGION. Includes a belief in the being and perfections of God, in teh
    revelation of his will to man, and in man's obligation to obey his
    commands, in a state of reward and punishment, and in man's
    accountableness to God; and also true godliness or peity of life, with
    the practice of all moral duties...the practice of moral duties without
    a belief in a divine lawgiver, and without reference to his will or
    commands, is not religion.
    
    
    
    "It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great
    nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on
    religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ!"
    
    					-Patrick Henry

    re: .25
    
    The original intent is obvious by the plain language used in the
    finished document.  It's high time we quit ignoring the obvious and
    began to adhere to the common law of the land.  A good start would be
    to reign in an unconstitutionally large federal government, then we can
    go about tossing out unconstitutional law (this would take a good bit
    of time to do, unfortunately).
    
    
    -steve

    re: .31
    
    No offense intended, but.... BALONEY!
    
    Our current government, as is, shows us only too well that we have NO
    CLUE what the intent of the Constitution was.  Our ensuing problems,
    coupled with the many writings of warning from the FF (warning of the
    very problems that come with giving a general government too much
    power), show beyond a doubt that they knew very well what they were
    doing- moreso than any lawmaker today, it seems (which shows that we
    have learned little from our own history).  They had the benefit of seeing
    first hand the corruption of a large, domineering government, and the
    effects that had on the various aspects of life (economics and freedom,
    to name two specifically).
    
    
    -steve 

	For those who don't already know, Steve Leech is the only living
Founding Father. :-)


Glen

    .36
    
    You must know him from elsewhere, Glen.  I did a "dir/auth=leech/all"
    and didn't find any entries before August 7 of this year.
    
    Richard
    

    RE: .34
    
    Of what need are Constitutional scholars & historians, then?  Of lawyers 
    and Judges?
    
    If it is all so obvious and common, that is.
    
    
    Here's a question:  Is there a constitutional right to privacy?
    
    It should be plain from reading the Constitution, no?   We should
    easily be able to determine which local, state and federal laws
    unconstitutionally violate this right if it exists, correct?
    
    /Greg

| <<< Note 1125.37 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE "Ps. 85.10" >>>


| You must know him from elsewhere, Glen.  I did a "dir/auth=leech/all"
| and didn't find any entries before August 7 of this year.

	Richard... you have to look at the Constitution. His signature is on
it! :-)

    re: .37
    
    Quite correct. 

re: .38    
    
>    Here's a question:  Is there a constitutional right to privacy?
 
    The Constitution does not define rights and privileges of being a US
    citizen.  The BoR enumerates a *few* of our inalienable rights (ones that
    are given us from the Creator- see DoI), matter-of-factly stating that
    "government" has not right to infringe upon them.  Our rights do not
    come from the Constitution, they come from the Creator.  The
    Consitution is a document that strictly outlines the government's
    purpose and design, purposely limiting federal powers to specifically
    designated items.
    
    There is no need for the BoR, technically, as there is no power granted
    the federal government to limit freedoms of its citizens.  Many FF
    thought that by listing specific (the most important) rights via
    Amendment would open the door to limiting other God-given rights not
    listed (thus the inclusion of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments in the
    final draft of what is now called the BoR- to sooth the sensibilities
    of those who did not want any specific listing of protected freedoms).
    
    Our view of the federal government is so far off the beaten path of
    what was intended, that we can't see the forest for the trees any more. 
    There ARE NO constitutional rights at all, though a very few of our
    inalenable rights are specifically listed for protection (from the
    federal government).  The "right to privacy" is not found in the BoR at
    all (but perhaps is implied in the Third & Fourth Amendments indirectly), 
    but is a God-given right that is not infringable by a federal
    government legally, as *legally* the government has no authority via
    the Constitution to infringe upon the personal privacy of its citizens.
       
>    It should be plain from reading the Constitution, no?   We should
>    easily be able to determine which local, state and federal laws
>    unconstitutionally violate this right if it exists, correct?
 
    Perhaps, if the judges really cared to follow the constitution, rather
    than modern (containing much that is unconsitutional, IMO) precedent in 
    law.
    
       
    -steve

.Leech

steve,

from .41
    citizen.  The BoR enumerates a *few* of our inalienable rights (ones     
    that are given us from the Creator- see DoI), matter-of-factly stating 

Come on steve, the Bill of Rights was not linked to the Declaration of 
Independence, and have nothing to do with a creator. You are the one that 
claims the document should stand on its own, let it. This is pretty weak.

Your next two paragraphs show a pretty good understanding of the general 
concepts, you just go off the deep end when you try to maintain they meant 
to build religion (specifically Christianity) into the structure of the 
government. I even agree that we have drifted far from the intent of the 
Constitution, the power of the federal govt. today would not please the 
drafters. 

    all (but perhaps is implied in the Third & Fourth 
    Amendments indirectly), 
    but is a God-given right that is not infringable by a federal
    government legally, as *legally* the government has no authority via
    the Constitution to infringe upon the personal privacy of its citizens.

This is a reach. Where in the Constitution does it make *any* reference to 
God-Given rights? For that matter, where in the Bible is the right to 
privacy discussed?

    Perhaps, if the judges really cared to follow the constitution, rather
    than modern (containing much that is unconsitutional, IMO) precedent in 
    law.

Judges, being human, err from time to time on both sides. The hope is that 
over time it balances out. But as pointed out, when applied to specific 
instances even the Constitution, like the Bible, can be pretty murky and 
open to vastly different interpretations.

BTW, what was your point in the quotes you included in .33? You seem to 
have done enough research (unless you're just getting your info from the RR 
sources) to realize that I could match you quote for quote. The fact of the 
matter is that there was vigorous debate around the role of religion in the 
government, the final ratified version conspicuously lacks any verbage that 
would back your claim that they intended a Christian based government, 
although it would have been absurdly easy to do so.

Steve

re: .42 
    
>Come on steve, the Bill of Rights was not linked to the Declaration of 
>Independence, and have nothing to do with a creator. 
    
    Au contraire, it does indeed have links to the DoI, which is most
    definitely a co-founding document in the eyes of the FF.  I suggest you
    read it and some of the many commentaries from the FF regarding the
    subject of human rights (you really need look no farther than the DoI to
    determine where the FF thought human rights originate from, but the
    extraneous writings can do nothing but confirm this).
    
>    You are the one that 
>claims the document should stand on its own, let it. This is pretty weak.

    It's not weak at all.  The Constitution DOES NOT define human rights-
    even those mentioned in the BoR- it merely defines the government
    structure, it's powers, and specifically mentions (unnecessarily)
    certain rights (within the BoR) that it cannot infringe upon.
    
>Your next two paragraphs show a pretty good understanding of the general 
>concepts, you just go off the deep end when you try to maintain they meant 
>to build religion (specifically Christianity) into the structure of the 
>government. 
    
    I maintain nothing of the sort.  I think you are confusing two
    different arguments.  The Constitution is silent- either for or against
    religion- other than stating (via the First Amendment) that Congress
    cannot establish a state religion. By the definition they used at
    the time, we could easily replace 'religion' with 'denomination' for
    better understanding.  By doing this word replacement, we can also shed
    a bit more light on the letter by Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists,
    which is the letter that "separation of church and state" originally
    came from (and used wrongly in the 1947 SCOTUS ruling of Everson v. the
    Board of Education- the beginning of the new interpretation era).
    
>    I even agree that we have drifted far from the intent of the 
>Constitution, the power of the federal govt. today would not please the 
>drafters. 

    I imagine this could be listed as an understatement of great
    proportions.  8^)  I think they would be utterly aghast at what we've
    allowed to happen to this nation.
    
>This is a reach. Where in the Constitution does it make *any* reference to 
>God-Given rights? 
    
    You have to understand more than just the Constitution when it comes to
    the subject of rights.  The Constitution, as drafted and ratified, was
    completely silent on the issue of human rights.  The BoR was not added
    until a few years later   (which is why they are Amendments to
    the Constitution, rather than a part of the text).  The DoI states it
    quite well, that they considered human rights to have been ordained by
    the Creator, and unassailable by government.  Because of this belief,
    and the fact that England walked all over such rights, they drafted the
    DoI (this is significantly simplified, but I don't have time to draft
    a thesis on this) and fought the War of Independence.
    
    You cannot ignore this statement of purpose, the reasons for
    establishing the United States, from the Constitution, which is the
    governmental design that fulfills that purpose.  Both are founding 
    documents of equal value (well, that was the way it was viewed THEN, 
    according to my research).
    
>BTW, what was your point in the quotes you included in .33? 
    
    The point is that Christianity, up until recent generations, has always
    been supported by government as a necessity for continued freedom.  It
    was never intended to be included in the Constitution, as there is
    little point in doing so.  The Constitution is intended to outline a form 
    of government.  That form of government was never intended to be a
    theocracy, but a republic.  There is a difference between claiming we
    are intended to be a theocracy (making Christian part of the government), 
    and claiming that as a nation, we have always supported a system of
    morality recognized to be beneficial to the well-being of the nation. 
    I think this is where the confusion orignates- 'support of' does not
    equate to 'establishment'.  
    
    
    -steve                      

    I realize FF is supposed to be shorthand for "founding fathers."  We've
    been educated by Jack Martin.
    
    Nevertheless, "french fries" keep coming to mind. :-}
    
    Richard
    

    8^)
    
    Also, "FF" is not to be confused with "form feed".

re Note 1125.41 by CSOA1::LEECH:

>     Our view of the federal government is so far off the beaten path of
>     what was intended, that we can't see the forest for the trees any more. 

        Well, at least you're warning us. :-}

>     There ARE NO constitutional rights at all, though a very few of our

        Tell that to the NRA!

> >    It should be plain from reading the Constitution, no?   We should
> >    easily be able to determine which local, state and federal laws
> >    unconstitutionally violate this right if it exists, correct?
>  
>     Perhaps, if the judges really cared to follow the constitution, rather
>     than modern (containing much that is unconsitutional, IMO) precedent in 
>     law.
  
        But according to your impeccable presentation, Steve, rights
        are not found in the Constitution (or, at least, shouldn't
        be)!  It would be *all* precedent!

        Bob

	 RE: .1 Jeff.

	> ... and along with other serious consequences, the believer is always
	> stunted in their spiritual growth by the unbelieving partner.

	You're reply contained no 'IMO' or 'I believes'

	I am a non-Christian and am happily married to a "good Catholic" for
	close to 30 years. I resent any suggestion that I have in any way
	stunted her spiritual growth or that other "serious consequences" 
	have arisen from our relatioship.

	In fact, the contrary is true. Through me she has learned to love and
	appreciate the Bible and has gained insight into many of the texts
	which were previously a mystery to her. Where she felt doubt, she
	has taken her problems -- encouraged to do so by me -- to her priest
	and has found her previous faith solidified.

	We have gone hand-in-hand through many difficulties over the years
	and have both grown as a result. And I would wager that I feature
	more often in her prayers than your average run-of-the-mill Christian
	husband of a Christian wife.

	In Austria, at least, proportionally about 8 time more un-mixed 
	marriages go down the drain than mixed. But I admit, the "mixed"
	sample may be too small to be significant.

	By the way, you, and several others, seem to equate non-Christian
	with non-believer. I am never quite sure if this confusion arises
	from arrogance, sufferance or ignorance or some intermedi-ance, but
	they are most definately not synonymous: I am a case in point.
	
	1127.14

	> The state of marriage does not change the condition of the 
	> unbeliever who is by definition unrighteous and lawless.

	Well at least you have made it clear -- to me -- which "ance" is
	to be applied to you. Your later (.23) explanation, putting it all
	down to the Bible, is not worth a mite to those who do not accept
	it as being the unerring word of God. In my scheme of things, I am
	neither unrighteous nor lawless. IMO, you came closer to lawlessness
	by this slander, than I have been for many a long day.
	
	By the way, unbeliever is again a different term, not synonymous
	with either non-believer or non-Christian. It should surprise noone
	that the Christian world is in such chaos when some of their most
	ardent supporters are not even sure who they are persecuting.

	Greetings, Derek.

    re: .46 by LGP30::FLEISCHER
    
>>     There ARE NO constitutional rights at all, though a very few of our

>        Tell that to the NRA!

    I think they know.  Since there IS a Second Amendment, though, they
    may as well use it.  Remember, the Second only guarantees an
    inalienable right, it does not define it nor does it meant that this 
    right is being based on the Constitution (i.e. granted by the
    Constitution).  
    
    Personally, I think the use of the term "Constitutional right" is
    disengenuous, as it seems to presuppose that said right is granted by
    the Constitution, which it is not. 
    
    Judging by the infringments I'm seeing on all the BoR, I imagine it was
    best that they specifically enumerated a few of our inalienable rights. 
    At least there is documentation usable in court to fight for said
    rights.  If they had not been written in, I imagine we would be living
    in a police state by now.  When there is clear language that protects
    certain rights within our founding documents, it takes a much greater
    period of time to wean said rights from the people.
    
    Not that we are really under the Constitution any more.  Only public
    opinion keeps what few rights we still have from being stripped from us
    (but that's another discussion).
    
>>     Perhaps, if the judges really cared to follow the constitution, rather
>>     than modern (containing much that is unconsitutional, IMO) precedent in 
>>     law.
  
>        But according to your impeccable presentation, Steve, rights
>        are not found in the Constitution (or, at least, shouldn't
>        be)!  It would be *all* precedent!

    Whether they should have been included or not is beside the point.  The
    fact that they ARE, and the fact that much modern precedent has no
    basis in the clear meaning of the BoR, IS the point I was trying to
    make.
    
    Of course, I was also talking about the many laws that grant the fedgov
    confiscatory and redistribution powers that it was never granted in the
    text of the Constitution, as well as other similar laws that are far
    from constitutional.
    
    
    -steve                

.43

    subject of human rights (you really need look no farther than the DoI to
    determine where the FF thought human rights originate from, but the
    extraneous writings can do nothing but confirm this).

I have read, extensively. There is no doubt that most FF were secularly 
deficient, but they still
wrote a blueprint for government was and is a secular document. Trying to make 
your case for a 
religious based government by pulling in another document was, and is, bogus.

    It's not weak at all.  The Constitution DOES NOT define human rights-
    even those mentioned in the BoR- it merely defines the government
    structure, it's powers, and specifically mentions (unnecessarily)
    certain rights (within the BoR) that it cannot infringe upon.

Perhaps it does not define human rights (although I could argue the point), 
but it most definitely defines citizens rights. What is your point here?

[
>to build religion (specifically Christianity) into the structure of the 
>government. 
    I maintain nothing of the sort.  I think you are confusing two
]
Good. I take this to mean that you believe that government should stay out of 
religion, and vice versa.

    cannot establish a state religion. By the definition they used at
    the time, we could easily replace 'religion' with 'denomination' for
    better understanding.  By doing this word replacement, we can also shed

I disagree on your redefinition of the word religion, although this is a 
common claim of the RR. 

    came from (and used wrongly in the 1947 SCOTUS ruling of Everson v. the
    Board of Education- the beginning of the new interpretation era).

As I break it down, we are now in the third interpretation era. The first was 
just after the introduction of the BoR, the second went from the mid-1800's to 
around 1947 (as you point out), the third is now. In my opinion, the current 
interpretations are much more closely aligned to those that came out just 
after the BoR was introduced, when the FF's themselves were influencing the 
decisions.

    until a few years later   (which is why they are Amendments to
    the Constitution, rather than a part of the text).  The DoI states it
    quite well, that they considered human rights to have been ordained by
    the Creator, and unassailable by government.  Because of this belief,

You keep harping on the DoI. We are discussing the Constitution. You are the 
one that said that it should be measured on what is in it (note .34).

    You have to understand more than just the Constitution when it comes to
    the subject of rights.  The Constitution, as drafted and ratified, was

I think we are discussing two different things. You are discussing rights, I 
am discussing the role of government in religion, and religion in government.

    You cannot ignore this statement of purpose, the reasons for
    establishing the United States, from the Constitution, which is the
    governmental design that fulfills that purpose.  Both are founding 

But as a design document the Constitution purposely left religion out of it, 
and later explicitly excluded it (the first amendment). 

    The point is that Christianity, up until recent generations, has always
    been supported by government as a necessity for continued freedom.  It

No. Christianity may have been supported by individuals within the government. 
Even though the predominant religion of the day was Christian based, they 
realized that for true freedom the government and religion had to be kept 
separate. They saw firsthand what happened when it wasn't.

    and claiming that as a nation, we have always supported a system of
    morality recognized to be beneficial to the well-being of the nation. 

The morality that has been enforced (through law) is supposed to be secular. A 
system of morality does not have to be based on religion.

    I think this is where the confusion orignates- 'support of' does not
    equate to 'establishment'.  

This kind of depends on what you mean by support of. And which religions are 
eligible for this support. Would you please elaborate? (I suspect our views 
may be closer than I had originally thought).

Steve

re: 1125.49 
     
>I have read, extensively. There is no doubt that most FF were secularly 
>deficient, but they still
>wrote a blueprint for government was and is a secular document. Trying to make 
>your case for a 
>religious based government by pulling in another document was, and is, bogus.

    Once again, you have mistaken my argument.  There is a distinct
    difference between having a religious-based government (which would at
    least border on a theocracy) and having a government that supports a
    system of morality that is in the best interest of the people (and
    being a predominantly Christian nation with predominantly Christian
    FFs- who predominately believed that such a system of morality was a
    NECESSITY for continuing as a free nation- it is not hard to see why
    Christianity was our chosen system of morality).
    
>Perhaps it does not define human rights (although I could argue the point), 
>but it most definitely defines citizens rights. What is your point here?

    There is no difference between citizens' rights and human rights.  
    What is enumerated (which is certainly not an exhaustive list, only
    those thought to deserve specific mention) in the BoR are pre-existing
    rights that cannot be infringed by the government.  The Constitution
    has NOTHING to do with citizens and rights, but has everything to do
    with outlining governmental powers and duties (and limitations, of
    course).  The BoR is a government-limiting document, not an outline of
    citizens' rights, nor a definition of such.
    
>Good. I take this to mean that you believe that government should stay out of 
>religion, and vice versa.

    For the most part, yes.  I think we may look at the above analysis in
    differing ways, however.
    
>I disagree on your redefinition of the word religion, although this is a 
>common claim of the RR. 

    Actually, modern dictionaries have redefined the term, not me.  I've 
    posted the original usage from the first Webster's dictionary (a few
    notes back), which backs up my usage.  Words evolve in strange ways, 
    sometimes, which tend to obfusicate original intent/meaning.
    
>In my opinion, the current 
>interpretations are much more closely aligned to those that came out just 
>after the BoR was introduced, when the FF's themselves were influencing the 
>decisions.

    I disagree.  I think we are currently way off the beaten track, though
    current court rulings are starting to compensate for the religious
    discrimination that has been taking place over the last 30 years. 
    A temporary respite, most probably, but it beats a blank.
    
    What confuses the entire issue is the federal tax $ stawman.  But
    that's another debate.  
    
>You keep harping on the DoI. We are discussing the Constitution. You are the 
>one that said that it should be measured on what is in it (note .34).

    But you have shot off into another realm altogether, when you brought
    up the "rights" issue.  Since human rights are not defined in the
    Constitution, nor listed exhaustively in the BoR, we have to look 
    elsewhere to see what the FF thought about human rights.  Where better
    to look, but in another founding document (which is closely related to
    the Constitution).
    
>But as a design document the Constitution purposely left religion out of it, 
>and later explicitly excluded it (the first amendment). 

    I've said as much already.  The Constitution may be Christian-inspired,
    but it is religion-neutral in its text.  
    
    I'm not sure what your intended meaning is by "and later explicitly
    excluded it (the first amendment)", so I'll not comment on that part.
    
>Christianity may have been supported by individuals within the government. 
    
    It WAS supported by individuals within the government, and there was no
    conflict with the Constitution in doing this.  The Constitution, as we
    both agree, is religion neutral.  John Jay (first Chief Justice of the 
    United States Supreme Court- for those who don't know) is quoted as
    saying:
    
    "Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it
    is the duty of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for
    their rulers."
    
    Since the Constitution is a government outline ONLY, if you wish a
    moral laws to be put in place and kept for the well-being of society, you 
    must elect those who share this belief.
    
>Even though the predominant religion of the day was Christian based, they 
>realized that for true freedom the government and religion had to be kept 
>separate. They saw firsthand what happened when it wasn't.

    Almost correct.  For true freedom, they knew that religion had to be
    protected from the government.  There is nothing in the Constitution
    that separates religion and government.  The only thing you will find
    is the First Amendment, which is a GOVERNMENT LIMITATION.  "Congress
    shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
    prohibiting the free exercise thereof;".  This simply says Congress
    CANNOT establish a "state"-religion (like the one in England at the
    time); Congress CANNOT make a law prohibiting the free exercise of 
    religion (and remember the historical definition of "religion").  
    
    "Congress CANNOT" is the key.  This has nothing to do with citizens at all,
    but merely a limitation on lawmaking powers that Congress must heed.  
    Freedom of religion is an inalienable right granted by the Creator; not 
    Congress, not the BoR, not the Constitution, not any human being or any 
    government.  This is the basis for the concept of 'inalienable' rights.
    
>The morality that has been enforced (through law) is supposed to be secular. A 
>system of morality does not have to be based on religion.

    All morality originates from a "religious" source of one kind or
    another (and obviously, given our herritage, ours is based on
    Christianity).  You cannot separate completely morality from religion. 
    
    I've read nothing from the FF that state they feel that all laws should be
    secular in nature.  Some obviousely are (safety laws), some obviously
    are not (law regarding adultery and bigamy).  The FF were clear that the 
    morality of this nation was based on Christianity, and that all effort 
    should be made to keep this system of morality BECAUSE IT WORKS, and is 
    in the best interest of this nation.
    
>This kind of depends on what you mean by support of. And which religions are 
>eligible for this support. Would you please elaborate? (I suspect our views 
>may be closer than I had originally thought).

    Support does not equate to monetary handouts, as most folks view the
    term today.  Our current confiscatory tax and redistribution system is 
    not only conter-productive and power-leeching, it is unconstitutional. 
    Therefore, this kind of support is NOT what the FF were talking about.

    I've already posted quotes that show what kind of support they thought
    was necessary to insure the well-being of society.  Has to do with
    teaching morality in schools and learning institutions.  There are
    other ways to "promote" morality/religion, as well, though like the
    above, it had everything to do with community and state, and little to
    do with the general government.
    
    Abe Lincoln stated that (paraphrased from memory) "the philosophy of the 
    schoolroom in one generation will be the philosophy of government in the 
    next".                               
    
    
    
    -steve

        This whole issue of whether there are rights that are not
        written down in constitutional documents reminds me of the
        talk of "natural law" that comes up from time to time.

        It appears simply to be another way of claiming that
        something is true without having to give solid evidence for
        its truth.

        Bob