Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

I tend to agree, Dave.  I personally find attempts at applying pure
emperical analysis or sterile scientific logic to matters of faith
and spirituality unsatisfying at best.

This is not to say that I believe there is no place for reason in
such matters.  To the contrary, I believe it's important to ask and
seek answers to the question: "What does reason say?"  But I believe
other questions also must be asked.

Shalom,
Richard

        To continue upon what Richard was saying:  I believe that the
        true role of reason in dealing with matters of faith is to
        clarify the nature of our faith and to expose our
        assumptions.  Reason never discovers substitutes for faith;
        however it may take individuals (as well as whole schools of
        thought) to starting points which they (but not necessarily
        others) regard as unassailably true.

        Bob

    re: .0
    
    Faith, to me, is simply trust.  I trust God, I trust that the Bible is
    His word to mankind.
    
    Now, this does not mean that I have abandoned all reason.  On the
    contrary, I am continually discovering that the Bible is trustworthy-
    confirmations of this truth are obvious to any who pay even a
    little bit of attention to what's going on around them.
    
    Human reasoning, like human logic, is not perfect.  We are creatures
    affected by many things that can alter our perceptions and world view. 
    Because we are incapable of perfect logic or reasoning, we need
    something to anchor us- something that does not change with
    circumstance.  I have found that the Bible is such an anchor.
    
    In the (not too distant) past, America was well anchored in the Bible. 
    As we toss this aside for our humanistic reasoning and logic, we are
    finding out just what John Adams was talking about when he said, "Our
    Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.  It is
    wholly inadequate to the government of any other."  I see humanism as
    the end result to unguided human reason.  
    
    There is nothing wrong with reason and logic- they are very useful
    tools.  What we need to be careful about is puting our complete trust
    in our own reasoning ability. 
    
    
    -steve 

re Note 1145.3 by CSOA1::LEECH:

>     In the (not too distant) past, America was well anchored in the Bible. 
>     As we toss this aside for our humanistic reasoning and logic, we are

        Of course one could read this same chain of events as proving
        that the "anchor" you so proudly proclaim was incapable of
        holding.  Perhaps we didn't "toss it aside", but it came
        loose as we came to understand the lawlessness that did
        flourish while we were supposedly "anchored".

        Bob

    re: . 4
    
    An anchor is only useful if you USE it.  When you stop using the
    anchor, it should be clear that the boat will drift.  Where the boat 
    ends up is the pointer which tells us whether it was a good idea to
    cut the line and let the boat drift about on its own.
    
    
    -steve

| <<< Note 1145.3 by CSOA1::LEECH "Dia do bheatha." >>>


| Faith, to me, is simply trust.  I trust God, I trust that the Bible is
| His word to mankind.

	I have to agree with two thirds of what you said above. It is a matter
of trust. People should trust God. But that is where *I* believe the trust
should end. If a person tries to sell you a car, who do you trust, the
salesperson, or do you pray to God? If you just got the brakes fixed on your
car and are driving away, who do you trust, the person who fixed them or that
God had them fixed correctly? When you need some guidance and you open the
Bible, who do you trust for getting you to the part of Scripture that is going
to help? Just the Bible itself, or Him? Through Him I believe everything is
possible. 



Glen

    Apparently (and please correct me if I'm wrong) the trust is placed in
    the Bible unconditionally (a leap of faith?) and all that it contains
    is therefor accepted as the truth.  As I mentioned back in .0, I've had
    this discussion before when the unconditional acceptance of the Bible was
    also mentioned.  To that, I would ask about explaining it's apparent 
    contradictions and giving credence to it's many fantastic stories.  The
    answer would either be that symbolism was being used (don't take the
    Bible literally) or that the meaning escapes the reader, but that
    doesn't change the fact that it's the truth. And then I would go about
    asking more questions... challenging interpretation, meaning, etc.. .
    And again, each question would be avoided with statements which would
    spawn more questions.
    
    What would finally result was something along the lines of what was
    mentioned in an earlier reply.  The statement would be on of accepting
    the Bible followed by a realization that it "works", therefor it must
    be true, correct, right, divinely inspired.  But I'm sure there are
    Moslems who say the same thing about the Koran, or Hindus about the
    Upanishads.  
    
    And so I shrug my shoulders again, having not been satisfied with the
    rationale behind accepting the Bible.  What I "DO" know is that I have
    the ability to reason.  If I was "created" by a divine being, then I 
    should use this gift in my search for the truth.  If that's the case,
    then reason tells me that the Bible contains much truth and wisdom. 
    But it also contains much which is irrational and subject to question.
    The Koran contains much truth and wisdom along with the irrational. 
    Add to those the philosophies of Plato, Nietche, Confucius and Modern
    Science, etc... .  From what I can see, the truth is all around, in
    many writtings and philosophies.  It's just a matter of plucking out
    the truth from  the untrue and the noise.
    
    -dave
    
    

.7

>    And so I shrug my shoulders again, having not been satisfied with the
>    rationale behind accepting the Bible.  What I "DO" know is that I have
>    the ability to reason.  If I was "created" by a divine being, then I 
>    should use this gift in my search for the truth.  If that's the case,
>    then reason tells me that the Bible contains much truth and wisdom. 
>    But it also contains much which is irrational and subject to question.

You'll find little argument on this from me, Dave.

Shalom,
Richard

    DAve,
    
    I second what Richard says. 
    
    We women and men were created in the image of God, God gave each one of
    us a human brain so that we could make rational decisions for
    ourselves.
    
    I find it fascinating that our most brilliant scientist are beginning
    to understand that even in science, not everything is predictable. 
    There is an non rational element everywhere.
    
    The existence of the non rational, does in no way negate the power of
    the ration.
    
                                 Patricia
    
                                Patricia

    
    I recall a quote from "The Power Of Myth", a transcript of interviews
    with Joseph Campbell by Bill Moyers.  It went something like this:
    
    Campbell: "Some time ago, I met up with a Catholic priest, and the 
    conversation went like this:
    
    Priest:  "Are you Catholic, Mr. Campbell?"
    Campbell: "I was once, Father."
    Priest:  "Do you believe in a Personal God?"
    Campbell: "No Father, I do not."
    Priest:  "I guess that if you can't prove the existence of a Personal
    God, then you can't believe in one."
    Campbell: "Father, if the existence of a Personal God could be proved,
    then what would be the value of faith?"
    Priest:  "It's been nice talking with you, Mr. Campbell."
    
    I always liked that one.  Campbell then goes on at some other point in
    the interview and when asked about faith by Bill Moyers, he replied, "I
    don't have to have faith - I have experience!"  (;^)
    
    Cindy
                 

    I prefer to think of the Bible as a sail rather than an anchor. 
    I can use it to move through life rather than have it tied around my
    neck.
    
    Eric

    If you want to use reason (this is NOT a challenge), read the New 
    Testement and see if you can find any contradictions. Thats what I
    did. 

    Who says that the Bible is broken because it has contradictions within
    it?
    
    

    re .11
    
    Eric,
    
    I like your metaphor!
    
                                  Patricia

| <<< Note 1145.13 by POWDML::FLANAGAN "let your light shine" >>>


| Who says that the Bible is broken because it has contradictions within it?

	It takes away it's inerrency claim.

.12
>>    If you want to use reason (this is NOT a challenge), read the New
>>    Testement and see if you can find any contradictions. Thats what I
>>    did.

I believe many of the contradictions are rooted in the differences between
Gospels.  At times it seems like the disciples didn't get their story
straight.



.13
>>    Who says that the Bible is broken because it has contradictions within
>>    it?

Not broken, but loses credibility when viewed on the basis of sending a
single clear message.  The more consistent and believable a thing is, the
easier it is to accept it.


I'm reading a book called "The Gospel according to Jesus".  I'll get the
author's name tomorrow.  Anyway, he (the author) believes that the Bible 
was added to, subtracted from, modified, exaggerated and edited so much over 
the years by so many people, that the truth has been obscured and must 
somehow be "extracted" and "separated" out from all the artificial chaff.  
T.Jefferson undertook the same sort of task in the latter years of his life.  
And this author is building on that work.  In the Forward, he sites many 
stark contradictions of message in the New Testament and uses these to 
justify his undertaking.  Most notable were the contradictions between the 
"flavor" of Jesus portrayed in the Gospels vs some of the teachings of the 
early Christians after the death of Jesus (there's a name for those guys, 
Paul, and all them, but the verbal pigeonhole escapes me at this time).  The
author claims that it's possible to identify most of the human editing,
remove it and reconstruct the Bible in a "truer" form.


-dave

    Dave.
    
    My point is that the Bible is not a single unified whole and ought not
    to be read as if it were.
    
    Each of the separate writings ought to be studied for its own
    individual contribution.  Each contains a message from a particular
    perspective aimed at a particular community.  The writers never thought
    they were writing History.  They wrote sacred literature and it should
    be viewed as sacred literature.
    
    Understanding the differences and the nuances of the differences tells
    the discerned reader a whole lot about the individual theology of the
    author of the book.  
    
    Just as each individual in this conference has a slightly different
    theology and slightly different Christian Perspective, so did each
    individual writer of the New Testament.
    
    The problem is not with the source.  The problem is with people trying
    to  interpret the source for that which it is not.  Each of us can use
    our rational facilities to determine what the Bible truly is and how it
    can be use to help each of us in our faith journeys.
    
    I really like Eric's metaphor as the sail that guides the ship and not
    the anchor.

Faith and trust is a good way to look at it.   Faith is rooted in 
what we trust in.

So, how do we decide what to trust?  Here is where reason
helps.  Not in us sitting down and deciding what makes sense
to us (we may be uninformed or ignorant of other points of
view), but in using our minds and working hard to dig out 
solid evidence, and using reason to put pieces together.  There
is quite a bit of evidence, historical and textual, that supports
the authority of the Bible.   There is quite a bit of work that has 
been done to debunk the argument of Biblical contradictions.
(That conversation usually stops when someone is asked to 
name 3, and explain the contradiction, and to be willing to sit 
down and examine them).

In the end, though, reason can't get us completely satisfied.
We have to act on imperfect information.  But, we do that daily.
I don't know that my car was fixed, and that the brakes will stop it
when I need it to, because I can't see into the future and know the 
result.  But, the evidence is:  the car was designed to stop.  It 
stopped in the past.  The mechanics are trained to fix brakes, and
the parts they used are designed to work as advertised.  Other 
parts and other repairs they have done have worked as expected
(or I'd take my car elsewhere).   So, based on reason and evidence
I decide to trust these brakes to stop me this time.  This is a step
of faith.

    It's more accurate to think of the Bible not as a book, but as a
    library.
    
    And like many other libraries, the Bible contains many kinds of
    literature:  poetry, wisdom, history, essays, collected letters,
    moral message stories, visions, allegories, a genre called "gospel,"
    etc..
    
    Some will tell you the Bible is a homogenous whole, but I think they
    are doing it and you a disservice by doing so.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard

    Richard,
    
    I agree with you.  It is a tremendous disservice to the Bible to
    promote it as a unified whole.  Most of the richness and beauty of the
    Bible is lost when it is promoted as a unified whole because the
    contributions of the thousands of people involved in the oral
    traditions through the recording and editing is made invisable and
    lost and the nature of God's revelation is obscured.
    
    Even in that first 11 chapters of genesis seeing the threads of the two
    traditions and tracing the mythology to the ancient near east and
    beginning to understand what is the real difference between Ancient
    Judaism and the other near eastern religions was an exciting and
    beautiful study.
    
                                   patricia

    re .19
    
    Good note, Richard.
    
    Eric

    Then it's not a good anchor because it can get dragged around in any
    direction my any new interpreter.
    
    And it's not a good sail because it's so loosely woven and so full of
    holes that a strong wind tears it and passes right through.  
    
    (my "devil's advocate" stab at the metaphor game.  Something to keep
    the conversation alive)
                                                              
    -dave

>    I agree with you.  It is a tremendous disservice to the Bible to
>    promote it as a unified whole.  Most of the richness and beauty of the
>    Bible is lost when it is promoted as a unified whole because the
>    contributions of the thousands of people involved in the oral
>    traditions through the recording and editing is made invisable and
>    lost and the nature of God's revelation is obscured.
    
    
    Ahhh, the voice of an 'enlightened' liberal. 
    Step 1: Find some small way to discredit the bible. Cuts down on the
            study time. 
    
    
    
    

    Re:  sail metaphor.
    
    The bible as it is provides a wonderful sturdy sail.
    
    The wind that powers it is the Holy Spirit!.
    
    
    I didn't see that connection to the metaphor until your question, so
    your question was valuable.
    
                              Patricia

    I'm not discrediting the Bible.  I am learning to truly appreciate and love
    the Bible.
    
    I don't understand how the study time would be cut down by
    acknowledging that there are thousands of story tellers, authors, and
    editors involved in the creation of the Bible.  Actually since I am
    acknowledging a more complex development process, the study time might in
    fact be expanded. 

    .26
    
    It actually takes more time and effort to learn about the Bible,
    its historical intricacies and development, rather than confining
    oneself solely to it.
    
    Richard
    

    
    Someone in another topic mentioned not liking my 'typical male attitude'
    statement that I made *deliberately* to make a point, which was finally
    taken.
    
    I happen to be on the liberal end of the spectrum when it comes to
    religion, and I resent these kinds of stereotypical comments as follows.  
    
    Cindy
    
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        <<< LGP30::DKA300:[NOTES$LIBRARY]CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE.NOTE;2 >>>
                 -< Discussions from a Christian Perspective >-
================================================================================
Note 1145.23                      Faith/Reason?                         23 of 27
CSC32::KUHN                                          15 lines  28-SEP-1995 19:59
                          -< Can U spot the liberal? >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>    I agree with you.  It is a tremendous disservice to the Bible to
>    promote it as a unified whole.  Most of the richness and beauty of the
>    Bible is lost when it is promoted as a unified whole because the
>    contributions of the thousands of people involved in the oral
>    traditions through the recording and editing is made invisable and
>    lost and the nature of God's revelation is obscured.
    
    
    Ahhh, the voice of an 'enlightened' liberal. 
    Step 1: Find some small way to discredit the bible. Cuts down on the
            study time.

re .0


not having read any of the replies to this topic yet, i would say that
faith and reason are the two sides of the very same coin and are as 
complementary to eachother as are day and night.

faith covers what reason cannot (yet) reach. faith is grounded on hope 
and reason is grounded on doubt. faith is tied to the individual and 
hardly communicable, reason is the exact opposite.

i also think that in life, a balance between faith and reason should be 
sought (see also 389.16), a life wholly centred on faith is irrational
and potentially damaging whilst a life centered on reason only is dry
and uneventful.

if you doubt that there should be any place left for faith then try to 
remember how it was when you first fell in love - how much did faith, 
and how much did reason have to do with you then? ;-)




andreas.

.3, .5 CSOA1::LEECH

    In the (not too distant) past, America was well anchored in the Bible. 
    As we toss this aside for our humanistic reasoning and logic, we are
    finding out just what John Adams was talking about when he said, "Our
    Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.  It is
    wholly inadequate to the government of any other."  I see humanism as
    the end result to unguided human reason.  

This implies that you believe that 'unguided human reason' is accountable for 
today's problems, which in turn implies that you believe that a reasonable 
person would claim that today's problems are a reasonable state of affairs?
 
You say that you believe that the constitution can't work except under the 
guise of religion? It appears to me that many of the problems we see today are 
more closely related to a lack of personal responsibility than to a lack of 
religion, and no, the two are NOT synonomous.

I am constantly amazed at your inability to realize that you can have good 
people (by any definition that you care to propose save one) that are NOT 
religious. BTW, I see religion as the end result of unbounded human 
superstition.

Steve

To the base note,

I began participating in this conference in order to get a better 
understanding of why intelligent people buy into this stuff despite the 
fact that I (as another intelligent person) can see no *rational* basis for 
doing so. 

I believe that I have begun to understand, and the answer is faith. There 
are no arguments that I consider logical to support belief. In the end, 
just as you have found, it comes down to faith. 

Although I'm sure that there are as many reasons for faith as there are 
people that have it, there seems to be a few general categories that people 
fall into:

1. Those that were taught to believe ('It's true because I say so')
2. Those that had a 'need' to believe (the 'God shaped hole')
3. Those that had some sort of physical (or mental) experience that they 
   could explain by believing ('Spoke to me')

Although I'm sure that there are some, I have yet to meet anyone that 
started with an open mind (not pre-disposed) and believed because 
observable facts left them no choice...

Steve

    
    Re.30
    
    The quote from .3/.5 'America was well anchored in the Bible' is 
    interesting.  Patricia, perhaps you can provide more insight here, 
    however I believe that John Adams was actually a Unitarian, and 
    not a Christian at all.  Therefore to assume that he was referring 
    to the Christian Bible, and that 'religion = Christian' when making 
    that statement, is, in fact, incorrect.
    
    Cindy

    John Adams would not have espoused to the practices of intolerance
    today that is practiced.  John Adams would have been a staunch opponent
    of the ACLU.
    
    -Jack

    
    Re.31
    
    Steve,
    
    I am intrigued by your 3rd 'category', since by your definition I seem
    to fall into it.
    
    My own direct experiences, I did not find, came from any pre-disposed 
    belief or from observing undeniable external 'facts'.  If anything, 
    these experiences completely shattered what had previously been both my
    logical and scientific observations/conclusions as taught in western
    science (I was an engineering science major), and any residual 'faith' 
    or beliefs I had dictated/taught to me as a child by the western
    Christian religion (I was raised Baptist, Episcopalian, and Methodist).  
    
    Cindy  
                                                 

    
    > I believe that John Adams was actually a Unitarian,

    And Thomas Jefferson was a Deist. The founders were certainly
    Christians in my book, but I'm not sure they would past muster with
    todays Fundamentalist litmus test.

    Eric

    Perhaps not.  However, they were proponents of the freedom of religion. 
    Not the freedom from religion.
    
    -Jack

    
    > Not the freedom from religion.

    Actually, yes they did. They proposed that I be free from a state
    sanctioned religion.
    
    Eric

Cindy,

By definition, your experience is (I assume) intensely personal, and would 
not transfer to another. Therefor, unless one experiences something along 
these lines it is incomprehensible to them (or at least to me). That is why 
I can't really argue with this type of belief, although I can't imagine a 
real world experience that would cause me to believe.

Steve

    Perhaps not.  However, they were proponents of the freedom of religion. 
    Not the freedom from religion.

Jack, 

Do you believe that our freedoms do not include the right to be free from 
religion, if that is what one chooses?

Steve

    
    Re.38
    
    Steve,
    
    Time is short, so this will be brief - more later.  
                               
    I relate my experiences to the taste of a strawberry.  Nothing I say 
    or do could convince you to believe that it tastes as I describe it, 
    however if you yourself tasted it, then there would be no need for 
    'belief or faith', since then the experience would be a shared one. 
    Then if you shared a strawberry with others to taste, they would then
    have a similiar experience.   
    
    Cindy

    re: .39
    
    There is a difference between choosing not to participate in religion,
    and forcing religion out of all things public by law.
    
    One is your constitutional right (you do not have to participate in
    any religion), one is not.
    
    It gets even hairier when you realize that making laws that regulate
    religion are against the Constitution, via the First.  "Congress shall
    make no law" has been ignored for far too long.
    
    
    -steve

    
    > There is a difference between choosing not to participate in religion,
    > and forcing religion out of all things public by law.

    No one is suggesting that religion be forced out of all things public.
    Public accommodations, such as hotels and restaurants, and places open
    to the public from grocery stores to art galleries are certainly free to
    profess and display and promote whatever religious views they wish.
    Public, governmental establishments and their agents are not.

    If the freedom to choose not to participate in a religion means that I
    must choose not to participate in public school or governmental
    activities, then the line has been crossed.
    
    Eric 

 ZZ   Do you believe that our freedoms do not include the right to be free
 ZZ   from religion, if that is what one chooses?
    
    No.  I believe that is clearly the intent of the 1st Ammendment.  We
    are to be free to worship as we choose...or not worship at all.  The
    state should have no say in this.  My contention is as Steve said...the
    making of laws prohibiting the freedom to worship.  I agree with Eric
    but at the same time, I have seen restrictions sorely abused.
    
    -Jack

	Jack, if the state had no say in the matter at all, then the curches
would be paying taxes. 



Glen

 ZZ   Jack, if the state had no say in the matter at all, then the
 ZZ   curches would be paying taxes. 
    
    Specify.  A church like any other non profit organization is made up of
    individuals who are already taxpayers.  Furthermore, a church is not a
    business just as ACT UP is not a business.  Even further still, the
    government sees the non taxation of a church as more beneficial since
    churches defray the cost of welfare and the like.  Non profit being
    taxed would be detrimental to the welfare of this country.
    
    -Jack

    re: .42
    
>    Public, governmental establishments and their agents are not.

    This is not correct, at least not according to the First.  You have to
    first take "establishment of religion" completely out of context in
    order to rationalise what has been done in the Courts in recent years.
    [much of which, btw, is being reversed as it has no constitutional
    ground to stand on]
    
>    If the freedom to choose not to participate in a religion means that I
>    must choose not to participate in public school or governmental
>    activities, then the line has been crossed.
 
    I think you may have a skewed idea of what "participating in a
    religion" entails.  A cross displayed on a courthouse is not "an
    establishment of religion".  *Voluntary* prayer in school is not "an
    establishment of religion".  
    
    What has been done over the last few decades is to establish a new
    "freedom" (the irony is killing me on this one)- freedom FROM religion,
    which is certainly not written into the First.  
    
    There is a big difference between "freedom FROM religion" and "freedom not
    to participate in a religion".
    
    
    -steve

	Thank you for your answer Jack. And I agree with it 100%. But you see,
your answer also shows that the government is involved already. If you want
total exclusion from the government, then churches pay taxes. If you want to
pick and choose, then you can see where the problems that people have are.


Glen

.40

Cindy, 

Good analogy, that is what I was trying to convey. Now keep in mind that one 
person may taste a strawberry and love it, the next might hate it, or even be 
killed by it if they happen to be allergic. Same experience, different 
interpretations.

Steve

    No Glen:
    
    It was the PEOPLE who put the restriction of taxation for the churches.
    The government didn't get involved as nice guys who said, "Well....we
    won't tax you guys."  No no no...it was the people who said, YOU
    Washington...will not tax us.
    
    -Jack

.41
    There is a difference between choosing not to participate in religion,
    and forcing religion out of all things public by law.

I don't think the problem is with public expressions, it is with government 
sponsored public expressions. Eric says it well in .42

    One is your constitutional right (you do not have to participate in
    any religion), one is not.

Well, this is open to interpretation...

    It gets even hairier when you realize that making laws that regulate
    religion are against the Constitution, via the First.  "Congress shall
    make no law" has been ignored for far too long.

This also applies to pro-religion laws.

.46

    This is not correct, at least not according to the First.  You have to
    first take "establishment of religion" completely out of context in
    order to rationalise what has been done in the Courts in recent years.
    [much of which, btw, is being reversed as it has no constitutional
    ground to stand on]

Or your interpretation of the first. If you look back over court decisions, 
you will see that they ebb and flow in both directions around their 
interpretations of the first amendment, and I trust they will continue to 
do so. The decisions of recent years is just another swing in the pendulum, 
it has little to do with constitutional ground to stand on.

    I think you may have a skewed idea of what "participating in a
    religion" entails.  A cross displayed on a courthouse is not "an
    establishment of religion".  *Voluntary* prayer in school is not "an
    establishment of religion".  

What about the practice of taking an oath on a bible within that 
courthouse? I believe that you can also make an argument that a displayed 
cross establishes a christian religion for that building. Both invoke a 
particular brand of religious belief and put an official stamp of approval 
(which is *not* extended to other religions) on it. 
Using a classroom for voluntary prayer would be OK, prayer read over the PA 
system each morning by a student is not.

I believe that your understanding of the principle of the separation of 
church and state is skewed.

Steve

	Jack, can you prove what you just said? That it was the people? 

    Glen:
    
    Surprise surprise.  I believe it is the Declaration of Independence
    which states that the government will be of the people, for the people,
    and by the people.  The big prostitution arena you and I have been
    exposed to all our lives WAS NOT the intent of the founding fathers.
    
    -Jack

    
    RE .46

    >> Public, governmental establishments and their agents are not.

    > This is not correct, at least not according to the First.  You have to
    > first take "establishment of religion" completely out of context in
    > order to rationalise what has been done in the Courts in recent years.
    > [much of which, btw, is being reversed as it has no constitutional
    > ground to stand on]

    Now let me get this right, the Supreme Court and I are twisted, but you
    carry the banner of supreme constitutional knowledge? I'll mention
    you're name to Bill next time he's hunting for a nominee. :^)

    The courts, to my knowledge, have not overturned laws as much as they
    have ruled against over zealous school boards and principals. I stand
    by my assertion that the government and its agents may not
    constitutionally promote a particular religious view.

    >> If the freedom to choose not to participate in a religion means that I
    >> must choose not to participate in public school or governmental
    >> activities, then the line has been crossed.
 
    > I think you may have a skewed idea of what "participating in a
    > religion" entails.  A cross displayed on a courthouse is not "an
    > establishment of religion".  *Voluntary* prayer in school is not "an
    > establishment of religion".  

    I must not have made myself clear. Student's are not agents of the
    government, and therefore can pray to their heart's content (to the
    same extent as voluntary singing is allowed, for example). a teacher or
    administrator may not conduct a prayer service during normal school
    time.

    > A cross displayed on a courthouse is not "an establishment of
    > religion". 

    Tell it to a Jew. I would not not support the display of religious
    icons on the courthouse, however I would not remove historical
    architectural features.

    > There is a big difference between "freedom FROM religion" and
    > "freedom not to participate in a religion".

    The first amendment does not say that I have the freedom not to
    participate in government sponsored religious activities. It says I
    will be free FROM government sponsored religious activities. So it's
    true, the first amendment doesn't provide for a religious free society
    or culture,... only a religious free government. A distinction I think
    you miss.

    Eric
                                    

    
    Re.48
    
    Steve,
    
    Now this is getting interesting!  Indeed, I agree with you.
    
    My experiences in this area - with the exception of one or two - are
    not terribly personal, so I share them openly.  
    
    I was just thinking though, to create a new topic and move our
    discussion there so that the other folks might continue on continuing
    on here...(;^)  So, will create a new note for 'spiritual experiences',
    and feel free to repost your earlier note if you'd like.
    
    Cindy 

| <<< Note 1145.52 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal" >>>

| Surprise surprise. I believe it is the Declaration of Independence which 
| states that the government will be of the people, for the people, and by the 
| people.  

	Jack Martin, I know what it says, but I am asking you who was it that
came up with churches not paying taxes? Was it a people thing, or a government
thing. 



Glen

    Exactly my point.  It was a people thing because the People IS the
    government.  The instiutional government of today can work with the
    church but the government should never have a vested interest in the
    church.  In fact, I believe government should acquiesce more to the
    church than the church should ever acquiesce to the government.
    
    -Jack

    Glen:
    
    Just to affirm where I am coming from, I believe Corporations should
    pay absolutely no taxes...never mind the churches.  Fine to the payroll
    taxes but that is it!  The government has absolutely no business for
    penalizing corporations because they have the audacity to maintain the
    economy and create jobs.
    
    -Jack

	Jack, if people is the government, then when you say you want
government to leave you alone, you're really asking the people to leave you
alone, right?

	I think it should be even across the board. Everyone pays taxes. Look
at the religious groups that hide behind the no tax clause. Too many are making
a fortune while paying no taxes. And they have about as much to do with
religion that a mattress would. 


Glen

    ZZZ        I think it should be even across the board.
    
    So you believe in the concept of state sanctioned churches.  I'm quite
    surprised actually.
    
    I see your point though and believe that a church should have to fit
    within the parameters of a definition.
    
    -Jack

re Note 1145.57 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN:

>     Just to affirm where I am coming from, I believe Corporations should
>     pay absolutely no taxes...never mind the churches.  Fine to the payroll
>     taxes but that is it!  The government has absolutely no business for
>     penalizing corporations because they have the audacity to maintain the
>     economy and create jobs.
  
        I know that it is common these days to equate taxes with
        "penalizing" or punishment, but please explain a few things
        to me.  Do you consider all taxes, by definition, to be
        "penalizing" or punishment?

        If the government has "absolutely no business for penalizing
        corporations because they have the audacity to maintain the
        economy and create jobs", is it not just as reasonable to say
        that the government has "absolutely no business for
        penalizing individuals because they have the audacity to earn
        an income or spend money or buy imports or ..."?

        And if both are reasonable, that would seem to say that there
        should be no taxes; zero, zip, nada.  If only one of the
        above is reasonable, how do you draw the distinction?

        Bob

Note 1145.56

>    It was a people thing because the People IS the
>    government.

In other words, and as Pogo might say, "We IS Caesar."

Richard

    Bob:
    
    Corporate taxes are paid for by the patrons, the corporations take this
    into account when setting prices for goods and services.
    
    It is constitutional for the congress to levy taxes.  This however is
    double taxation.
    
    -Jack

re Note 1145.63 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN:

>     Corporate taxes are paid for by the patrons, the corporations take this
>     into account when setting prices for goods and services.
>     
>     It is constitutional for the congress to levy taxes.  This however is
>     double taxation.
  
        So in your view corporations wouldn't be penalized by
        taxation if individuals weren't taxed, right?

        Bob

    My point is this.
    
    1. Taxation of corporations stymies economic growth, stunts the ability
    to expand, stunts the ability to employ, raises the price of goods and
    services, ferrets money to beaurocracy instead of things like Research
    and Development.  The private sector is the backbone of the country.
    
    2. Users of goods and services ultimately defray the cost of taxes by
    paying higher prices for goods and services.  This means less
    consumption and competitively weaker in the global economy.
    
    The government would incur higher receipts by a higher GNP.  As long as
    the government interferes with commerce in this way, they will not
    incur the monies needed to run the country.
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 1145.60 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal" >>>

| ZZZ        I think it should be even across the board.

| So you believe in the concept of state sanctioned churches.  I'm quite
| surprised actually.

	Huh? Where do you get that?




Glen

| <<< Note 1145.65 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal" >>>


| The government would incur higher receipts by a higher GNP. As long as the 
| government interferes with commerce in this way, they will not incur the 
| monies needed to run the country.

	The country is of the people though. That must mean the people don't
want the country to have the monies needed to run it, right Jack?

ZZ    The country is of the people though. That must mean the people
ZZ    don't want the country to have the monies needed to run it, right Jack?
    
    Apparently; or there is always that other theory.  Without a poor or
    lower class, the democrats have lost a major portion of their
    constituency.
    
    -Jack

re: Note 1145.50  
    
>I don't think the problem is with public expressions, it is with government 
>sponsored public expressions. Eric says it well in .42

    How is passing out religious tracts in a public-owned park government
    sponsored religion?  How is a cross on a building a government
    sponsored religion?  How is teaching the truth about history in
    classrooms a government sponsored religion? (the Pilgrims did NOT give
    thanks to the Indians, but to God- this is just *one* example of
    altering history books to exclude any and all mention of God, even
    though such mention is needed for a factual representation of history)

>Or your interpretation of the first. If you look back over court decisions, 
>you will see that they ebb and flow in both directions around their 
>interpretations of the first amendment, and I trust they will continue to 
>do so. The decisions of recent years is just another swing in the pendulum, 
>it has little to do with constitutional ground to stand on.

    I agree with this.  However, if you really look at your statement
    above, perhaps you will see the obvious problem.  The First Amendment
    should not be open to re-interpretation due to political/social
    climate.  It means what it means- its meaning does not change every few
    decades.  It means the very same thing now as it did when it was
    written.  Unfortunately, some of the words in it have varied meanings
    today- more reason to look up the historical context of those words
    (something I do not see happening in modern SCOTUS).  

>I believe that you can also make an argument that a displayed 
>cross establishes a christian religion for that building. 
    
    And if it does?  So what.  Let the community decide if they wish to
    publically approve of Christianity.  It's their building.  However,
    a cross is certainly not setting up any specific denomination as THE
    religion of the building.  Generic Christianity has been promoted since
    this nation began.  
    
    Perhaps we should chisel off the scriptures carved into all the buildings 
    in DC?  I guess those who wrote the Constitution didn't realize what 
    "an establishment of religion" meant, else they would certainly not have 
    allowed such engravings, nor crosses on buildings, nor prayer in
    schools, nor Bible reading in schools, nor would they go on record as
    saying that Christianity should be promoted since it is the surest
    support of good government.
    
>    Both invoke a 
>particular brand of religious belief and put an official stamp of approval 
>(which is *not* extended to other religions) on it. 
    
    Other religions (at least within this nation) outside Judaism have
    never been looked upon as something to support/promote.  Our herritage
    is uniquely Christian, so this should not come as a big surprise. 
    However, I would more than be willing to allow other religions to put
    up thier own signs on public buildings- as long as the town supports
    it.  This should be a local decision.
    
    You see, unless the government forced all public (or even just all
    federal) buildings to recognise a specific religion, then you have no
    "establisment of religion".  Localities may do what they like- the
    government cannot intrude in this via the First ("Congress shall make
    no law").
    
>I believe that your understanding of the principle of the separation of 
>church and state is skewed.

    I'm sure it looks that way to you.  In actuality, I am portraying it as
    closely as I can in original intent and meaning.  I do not let 
    modern SCOTUS influence sway me when discussing it, nor do I succumb to
    the wrongfully used "separation of church and state" doctrine of this
    modern era.  
    
    I've said it before, and I'll say it again: my views are historical,
    not necessarily how the Constitution is used today.  I am a firm
    believer in using the Constitution as written.  Obviously, there are
    many Constitutional issues of this day, as nearly all of our BoR is
    under attack in one way or another.  I believe that if we will look at
    the Constitution from the proper historical context, we will see that
    much of our law is at odds with the Constitution.  In fact, our
    government is very much out of line with this founding document.
    
    We do a lot of lip-service about the Constitution today, but we haven't
    actually followed it in long time.  If we had, our government would be
    1/30 its current size, we would not be in debt, nor would we be
    subjects to the elite who tax us as will.
    
    We don't even know what freedom is in this day and age. 
    
    
    -steve

.69

    How is passing out religious tracts in a public-owned park government
    sponsored religion?  

It isn't. Individuals have always been free to state their views in public 
places. 

    How is a cross on a building a government sponsored religion?  

It implies a governmental seal of approval for christianity. Would you 
object to a star of David? How about a pitchfork held by a certain cloven 
footed joker? This *is* a religious symbol, and it has no place on a 
government building.

    How is teaching the truth about history in
    classrooms a government sponsored religion? (the Pilgrims did NOT give
    thanks to the Indians, but to God- this is just *one* example of
    altering history books to exclude any and all mention of God, even
    though such mention is needed for a factual representation of history)

History should be taught as history, in those places where God figured into 
it he should be included. Teaching the facts, in history or evolution, is 
not government sponsored religion.

About the amendments not being open to interpretation, I would agree with 
you, but they were not written clearly enough allow this. You can see 
different interpretations being given in the courts even while the authors 
were alive, why should it be different now?

    And if it does?  So what.  Let the community decide if they wish to
    publically approve of Christianity.  It's their building.  However,
    a cross is certainly not setting up any specific denomination as THE
    religion of the building.  Generic Christianity has been promoted since
    this nation began.  

Ah, now we get to the crux of the issue. You like the cross because you 
agree with it. Look, steve, I know that you know what you are talking about 
around the Constitution, look at it again. It was designed to protect 
citizens from the tyranny of the majority, among other things. The framers, 
during the debate around the writing of the document (along with the 
history of the debates around various state constitutions, laws, etc.) 
decided that religion was an issue that could not be fairly decided by the 
goverment, it is a deeply personal issue. In their opinion the only fair 
way was to keep the government out of it, to allow each individual citizen 
to find God (or not) in their own way. You *know* that many of the early 
immigrants came here fleeing religious persecution. You *know* that many of 
these oppressed people then set up systems here that were even more 
oppressive than those they fled. The founding fathers knew this also. They 
realized that it is human nature to do so, and took steps to make it 
difficult for the government to set up systems that would act in this way. 
I believe that letting the government be a little bit religious is a whole 
lot like being a little bit pregnant. People being what they are, it won't 
stop there. A cross on a courthouse has no purpose other than for you, as a 
Christian, to say "See, the government endorses MY religion above yours." 
In this case it is about power, not religion. Put the crosses on the 
churches, where they belong, and leave them out of the government that 
represents us all, Christian, Jew, Muslim and atheist, alike. 

It becomes clear, steve, that you advocate the establishment of an official 
state religion, where all religions are equal, but some are more equal than 
others. Where have I heard that phrase before...

To be continued...

Steve

. 69

    Other religions (at least within this nation) outside Judaism have
    never been looked upon as something to support/promote.  

So, then, are they something to repress?

    Our herritage
    is uniquely Christian, so this should not come as a big surprise. 

Our heritage may be predominately christian, but it is hardly uniquely so.

    However, I would more than be willing to allow other religions to put
    up thier own signs on public buildings- as long as the town supports
    it.  This should be a local decision.

Gee, steve, thanks. This is a very brave thing to say when you are in the 
majority. Is it also a local decision to segregate schools? Force blacks to 
the back of the bus? Again, part of the Constitution is designed to protect 
us from the tyranny of the majority. That is why our government was created 
as a Constitutional Republic, it is NOT a democracy. Your agenda is 
becoming clearer.

    You see, unless the government forced all public (or even just all
    federal) buildings to recognise a specific religion, then you have no
    "establisment of religion".  

And what is the locality that chooses the official religion for the federal 
government?

    Localities may do what they like- the
    government cannot intrude in this via the First ("Congress shall make
    no law").

No, the cannot. Actually, most state constitutions have provisions similar 
to the first amendment that would prohibit this. And how does this apply to 
federal buildings? Can a town declare itself Muslim and force all to pay 
taxes to support that church?

    I'm sure it looks that way to you.  In actuality, I am portraying it as
    closely as I can in original intent and meaning.  

I've read a lot about the period, the authors, the debates, I believe that 
you have badly missed the real meaning behind it.

    the wrongfully used "separation of church and state" doctrine of this
    modern era.  

steve, I'm sure then that you have read the letter to the Danbury baptists 
by Jefferson in which that phrase was first used. How can you so badly 
misread it? (But then, I've seen some incredibly twisted interpretations of 
the bible, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised).

I agree that the constitution is far too widely ignored. One of the areas 
that is being ignored, however, is in the enforcement of the establishment 
cause of the first amendment, based on the writings of the people of the 
time that helped to create it. 

Just for curiosity sake, to what degree would you like to see Christianity 
intertwined with the government?

Steve

    
    1145.69 is why I fear the religious right. More specifically, why I
    fear the religious right in the form of political action groups. [Not
    that Steve supports any of them, but he does share their publicly
    stated sentiments.] Unsupported accusations of systemic disregard for
    the Constitution, claims of wholesale religious persecution, and a
    narrowly informed view of history; all hallmarks of the religious
    right's "the sky is falling" religio-political lament. 

    Steve B. did a good job of addressing the points raised. I just want to
    address the following: 

    > The First Amendment should not be open to re-interpretation due to
    > political/social climate.

    When questions arise regarding the interpretation of the Constitution,
    it is subject to interpretive review by the Supreme Court. That's their
    job. The Constitution was meant to be an evolving, refining document,
    hence the amendments themselves. If the Constitution, including the
    amendments, were not open for interpretation and modification, then
    blacks would be slaves, women wouldn't vote, and I couldn't have a beer
    with my pizza. 

    Eric

	Eric, talk about a note that says a lot. Thanks for posting it. I
couldn't agree with you more!

                  <<< Note 1145.55 by BIGQ::SILVA "Diablo" >>>

>	who was it that
>came up with churches not paying taxes? Was it a people thing, or a government
>thing. 

	See Ezra 7:24
    
    	And see Isaiah 33:22 for the model for our three branches of govt.

                  <<< Note 1145.59 by BIGQ::SILVA "Diablo" >>>

>	Look
>at the religious groups that hide behind the no tax clause. Too many are making
>a fortune while paying no taxes. And they have about as much to do with
>religion that a mattress would. 
    
    	This I agree with 100%  If they're non-profit, let them keep their
    	taxes.

>	I think it should be even across the board. Everyone pays taxes.
    
    	Regarding corporations, in the end, Glen, you pay their taxes.
    	When you buy any good or service from a business, the price of
    	that item has already been inflated to account for their taxes.
    	Thus you and I and all consumers are paying the corporate taxes 
    	in the long run anyway.  IMO, it's better that all taxes be borne
    	directly by the consumer instead of masked from them through
    	corporate taxation, so that then they can see what they are
    	really paying.

      <<< Note 1145.70 by TINCUP::inwo.cxo.dec.com::Bittrolff "Spoon!" >>>

>    How is a cross on a building a government sponsored religion?  
>
>It implies a governmental seal of approval for christianity. Would you 
>object to a star of David? How about a pitchfork held by a certain cloven 
>footed joker? This *is* a religious symbol, and it has no place on a 
>government building.

    	Many government building already have such things.  They are called
    	gargoyles.

    re: .70
    
>It isn't. Individuals have always been free to state their views in public 
>places. 

    No, they haven't, and aren't.  But the pendulum is correcting this.
    
|    How is a cross on a building a government sponsored religion?  

>It implies a governmental seal of approval for christianity. 
    
    Even if I agreed with you here (and I don't), so what?  As long as the 
    government is not forcing crosses to be put on public buildings, there is 
    no problem with the First.  NOTHING is established, only generically
    recognised.
    
>    Would you 
>object to a star of David? How about a pitchfork held by a certain cloven 
>footed joker? This *is* a religious symbol, and it has no place on a 
>government building.
    
    Actually, no.  It is up to the community as to what adorns their
    buildings- whether it be religious or not.  The federal government has
    no business telling anyone what to, or what not to, adorn their
    buildings with.

>History should be taught as history, in those places where God figured into 
>it he should be included. 
    
    Agreed.
    
>    Teaching the facts, in history or evolution, is 
>not government sponsored religion.

    Agreed.  This is not the way SCOTUS looks at the "establishment" clause, 
    though- at least in regards to history (evolutionary doctrine is left
    alone).  Well, I should qualify this with: modern SCOTUS rulings. 
    
>About the amendments not being open to interpretation, I would agree with 
>you, but they were not written clearly enough allow this. You can see 
>different interpretations being given in the courts even while the authors 
>were alive, why should it be different now?

    I've read parts of cases that made such attempts, but in general, early
    SCOTUS was very consistent in their interpretations.  
    
    I disagree that they were not written clearly enough.   

>Ah, now we get to the crux of the issue. You like the cross because you 
>agree with it. 
    
    Actually, you have missed the mark with this comment.  As I said above,
    if a community wanted to erect a satanic symbol and put it on their
    courthouse, they that's up to them; and I definitely disagree with
    satanism.  However, in truth, satanism is NOT protected by the First. 
    I've posted the definition of "religion" in here before- as the word
    was used in the days of the FF.  Satanism does not qualify as a
    "religion" under the definition they used.
    
>    Look, steve, I know that you know what you are talking about 
>around the Constitution, look at it again. It was designed to protect 
>citizens from the tyranny of the majority, among other things. The framers, 
>during the debate around the writing of the document (along with the 
>history of the debates around various state constitutions, laws, etc.) 
>decided that religion was an issue that could not be fairly decided by the 
>goverment, it is a deeply personal issue. In their opinion the only fair 
>way was to keep the government out of it, to allow each individual citizen 
>to find God (or not) in their own way. 
    
    I agree.  Then explain to me how the government can tell a community
    that they cannot hang a cross from their courthouse.  Seems like they
    are butting in where a) they don't belong, b) where there is no problem
    locally, that is in need of their attention.
    
>    You *know* that many of the early 
>immigrants came here fleeing religious persecution. You *know* that many of 
>these oppressed people then set up systems here that were even more 
>oppressive than those they fled.  The founding fathers knew this also. They 
>realized that it is human nature to do so, and took steps to make it 
>difficult for the government to set up systems that would act in this way.
    
    Not that I agree with the generic "oppression" comment (it is not
    important enough to go into details with, here), but the only thing the
    "establishment" clause was meant to do is keep the federal government
    from recognizing a specific denomination (at the time, other religions
    outside of general Christianity were of no concern in this regard) as
    THE GOVERNMENT SANCTIONED denomination of the United States.
     
>I believe that letting the government be a little bit religious is a whole 
>lot like being a little bit pregnant. People being what they are, it won't 
>stop there. 
    
    This is the WHOLE point of the "establishment" clause.  To keep things
    in check.  The government is free to recognise Christianity in general-
    early SCOTUS rulings go on record as saying we are a "Christian
    Nation".  Many of our FF go on record to say that religion and morality
    should be encouraged by government, as it is the best way to support
    good government.
    
    What the government cannot do is establish any particular way of
    worship as THE only way.  If you want a definition of "establishment of
    religion", I recommend doing a study of the Church of England during
    the 17-18th centuries.
    
>    A cross on a courthouse has no purpose other than for you, as a 
>Christian, to say "See, the government endorses MY religion above yours."
    
    Actually, the government seems to be going out of its way to endorse
    atheism.  
    
    I disagree with your statement above.  First of all, it is likely that
    the federal government had nothing to do with the cross being put on
    the building.  If it had *forced* them to put a cross on the building,
    then I would be with you in denouncing this.  Second, I could care less
    if the government endorses my religion or not.  
     
>In this case it is about power, not religion. 
    
    You are partly right.  Government has been stretching muscles that it
    cannot lawfully use.  If I were you, I'd be more afraid of the
    government making such rulings against religion, than I would be at the
    idea of a theocracy (the scare tactics in this area are amusing,
    since the Constitution would not allow such a thing to happen...oh, but
    wait, we don't follow it anyway, do we...hmmm)
    
>    Put the crosses on the 
>churches, where they belong, and leave them out of the government that 
>represents us all, Christian, Jew, Muslim and atheist, alike. 

    It isn't about representation, it is about respecting our herritage. 
    It is about a Christian nation recognising what ideals made us the
    greatest nation on earth, the ideals that are necessary to the support
    of good government.  It is not too amazing to me that as we get farther
    and farther away from these ideals, the more government and social
    problems we have.
    
>It becomes clear, steve, that you advocate the establishment of an official 
>state religion, where all religions are equal, but some are more equal than 
>others. Where have I heard that phrase before...

    You need to clean off your glasses then.  I'm merely parroting
    historical context of the First.  Obviously, intent is of little
    interest in todays' agenda-laden Courts, so this is but a mental
    exercise.  It's a shame that you cannot see past your own biases to
    understand what it is I'm really doing in this discussion.  I'm not
    trying to advocate anything, but merely give a bit of historical
    context that I found quite enlightening (and hard to believe at first-
    to say the least...hard to believe because I had a hard time believing
    that SCOTUS could be so far off base in certain rulings).
    
    
    -steve
                                     

    re: .71
    
>Gee, steve, thanks. This is a very brave thing to say when you are in the 
>majority. 
    
    I'm a follower of Jesus.  I am most definitely NOT in the majority. 
    From the looks of current events in this nation, I would seem to be in
    a very small minority.
    
>    Again, part of the Constitution is designed to protect 
>us from the tyranny of the majority. That is why our government was created 
>as a Constitutional Republic, it is NOT a democracy. 
    
    You confuse federal government with local government.  Local
    governments are supposed to have autonomy, not be federal lackeys.  The
    feds are supposed to stay out of local business unless constitutional
    issues come up.  Of course, this too is a historical view, and is quite
    a bit off of modern reality, but it's nice to dream.
    
>    Your agenda is becoming clearer.

    I find your continual accusations in this quite curious.  I have no
    agenda but to reveal the Constitution in historical context.  Since we
    are discussing the First, religion inevitably comes into play.
    
    If there is any agenda, it is to uphold the intent of the constitution,
    and not play word games with it.  If we do not wish to follow it as it
    is, I suggest having a Constitutional Convention to make some changes. 
    Until this is done, we cannot allow reinterpretations of our BoR or the
    Constitution itself (against intent) and still call ourselves a
    Constitutional Republic (and in truth, we are not today, but that's
    another story).
    
>And what is the locality that chooses the official religion for the federal 
>government?

    Your question is based in illogic.  The federal government can have no
    religion per se, which is decidedly different from *supporting*
    religion (and I don't mean monetarily supporting churches and such,
    either) for its own benefit and the benefit of the population.
    
    Erecting a cross and putting it on a courthouse is hardly pinning a
    religion on the federal government as a whole- it is more indictive of
    showing the beliefs of the locals.  
    
>Can a town declare itself Muslim and force all to pay 
>taxes to support that church?

    I think you are going to extremes now.  Forced taxation to support a
    church is a whole new ballgame, and would indeed be establishing a
    religion- at least locally (I still would not call it establishing a
    national religion, which is what "an establishment of religion" of the
    First refers to).
    
>I've read a lot about the period, the authors, the debates, I believe that 
>you have badly missed the real meaning behind it.

    Well, I've read quite a lot myself, and I think you are missing some
    very key points when looking at the Constitution as a whole.
    
    There, now that we both agree that the other has badly missed the real
    meaning, we can move on.  8^)
    
>steve, I'm sure then that you have read the letter to the Danbury baptists 
>by Jefferson in which that phrase was first used. How can you so badly 
>misread it? (But then, I've seen some incredibly twisted interpretations of 
>the bible, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised).

    Yes, as a matter of fact, I have read it.  Nice of you to tell me how
    badly I misread it.  8^P  Of course, I have old SCOTUS on my side in my
    readin of it- while you have modern SCOTUS' (mis-)interpretation of the
    letter.  8^)  
    
    Yes, that's right.  1947 Everson v. Board of Education was NOT the
    first attempt to misuse this letter.  Let me enlighten you on another,
    earlier case- Reynolds v. United States, 1878.
    
    Basically, it was a case in which Mormons claimed that the First
    Amendment's "free exercise of religion" promise and the "separation of
    church and state" principle (as used in Jefferson's letter) should keep
    the United States government from making laws prohibiting their
    "religious" exercise of polygamy.  Using Jefferson's letter, the Court
    showed that while the government was NOT free to interfere with opinion
    on religion, which is what frequently distinguishes one denomination
    from another, it was responsible to enforce civil laws according to
    general Christian standards.  In other words, separation of church and
    state referred pertained to denominational differences, not to basic
    Christian principles.  Therefore, and on that basis, the court ruled
    that the Mormon practice of polygamy and bigamy was a violation of the
    Constitution because it was a violation of basic Christian principles.
    
    This is a far cry from our perspective on the Constitution today, which
    is a separation of basic religious principles from public arenas-
    which came about not too long after Everson v. Board of Education.
    
>I agree that the constitution is far too widely ignored. One of the areas 
>that is being ignored, however, is in the enforcement of the establishment 
>cause of the first amendment, based on the writings of the people of the 
>time that helped to create it. 

    I strongly disagree.  The Courts, for the last 30 years, have gone out
    of their way to wipe all aspects of religion from public arenas- ALL
    DUE TO THEIR MISUSE OF THE "ESTABLISHMENT" CLAUSE.  No wonder
    historical rulings and modern rulings do not compliment each other as
    they should, but rather have changed the entire meaning of the First
    over time.
    
>Just for curiosity sake, to what degree would you like to see Christianity 
>intertwined with the government?

    This question shows me that you misunderstand my notes entirely.
    
    
    -steve

                         
    Re.70
    
    >How is passing out religious tracts in a public-owned park
    >government sponsored religion?
    
    >It isn't. Individuals have always been free to state their views in
    >public places.
    
    Yes, and fortunately for us too!
    
    I remember being down in Boston a while ago, on the Common with a
    certain Indian friend from another continent who is also known for
    being on the irreverent side, and there was this hellfire-and-
    brimstone-type preacher doing his thing in a very loud voice.  At 
    one point he mentioned something about sheep, and my friend and I 
    turned to each other simultaneously and went "Baaaaa!!!!"  
    
    You kinda had to be there, I guess...(;^)
    
    Cindy

    re: .72
    
>    1145.69 is why I fear the religious right. More specifically, why I
>    fear the religious right in the form of political action groups. [Not
>    that Steve supports any of them, but he does share their publicly
>    stated sentiments.] 
    
    Perhaps you aren't reading my note neutrally?
    
>    Unsupported accusations of systemic disregard for
>    the Constitution, 
    
    This is a given, my friend.  If you cannot see Constitutional abuses
    far and wide, you need to open your eyes.  What kind of examples would
    you like me to post?  I'll be happy to substanciate my claims, though I
    admit I did not think that the general claims really needed to be
    explained.
    
>    claims of wholesale religious persecution, 
    
    Wrong.  Claims of misinterpreting the First, definitely.
    
>    and a narrowly informed view of history; 
    
    Of course, since I do not support your view, I must be uninformed.  
    Sigh.
    
>    all hallmarks of the religious
>    right's "the sky is falling" religio-political lament. 

    I suppose you feel everything is fine and dandy?  FWIW, I'm only
    participating in this discussion as an exercise.  I fully realise that
    we are not going back to the intent behind the Constitution, and that
    what I post does not resemble modern reality or mentality. 

>    > The First Amendment should not be open to re-interpretation due to
>    > political/social climate.

>    When questions arise regarding the interpretation of the Constitution,
>    it is subject to interpretive review by the Supreme Court. That's their
>    job. The Constitution was meant to be an evolving, refining document,
    
    The Constitution was NOT meant to be "an evolving, refining document". 
    It was meant to be an outline for government, and more importantly, a
    LIMITUS to government power.  However, the option of amending it was
    left open for unforseen future issues.  This in no way means that
    SCOTUS is given the power to re-define or re-interpret the
    Constitution.  The intent was to remain the same, the only thing SCOTUS
    could do was interpret law, using the Constitution as the interpreting
    filter.  
    
>    hence the amendments themselves. If the Constitution, including the
>    amendments, were not open for interpretation and modification, then
>    blacks would be slaves, 
    
    Nonsense.  The Constitution is silent on the issue of slavery.  It was
    an Amendment that officially freed the slaves- not a re-interpretation
    of the Constitution itself.
    
>    women wouldn't vote, 
    
    Same as above.
    
>    and I couldn't have a beer with my pizza. 

    Actually, prohibition came via an Amendment (which should have never
    passed Constitutional muster, IMO).  It was repealed, and rightly so. 
    It was, however, NOT re-interpreted.
    
    Are you for re-interpreting the BoR?  Do you understand that the BoR
    have nothing to do with our freedoms?  The freedoms are inalienable,
    and are not bestowed upon us by any human doctrine.  All the BoR do is
    tell uncle sam to keep his hand off...and we can see just how well that
    is working today.
    
    
    -steve

    > Using Jefferson's letter, the Court showed that while the government 
    > was NOT free to interfere with opinion on religion, which is what 
    > frequently distinguishes one denomination
    > from another, it was responsible to enforce civil laws according to
    > general Christian standards.  In other words, separation of church
    > and state referred pertained to denominational differences, not to
    > basic Christian principles.  Therefore, and on that basis, the court
    > ruled that the Mormon practice of polygamy and bigamy was a violation of
    > the Constitution because it was a violation of basic Christian
    > principles.
    
    Who's version of "general Christian standards" and "basic Christian 
    principles" are the justices of today to follow?
    
    What if the justice isn't Christian?
    
    Does it matter?
    
    /Greg

            
    > Perhaps you aren't reading my note neutrally?

    Because I think it overstates the social/political situation? I take it
    that to be 'neutral' means to agree with your views.

    Gasps of amazement, and incredulous remarks, about my 'blindness' do
    not dissuade me from my belief that you exaggerate the constitutional
    crisis.
    
    >> claims of wholesale religious persecution, 
    
    > Wrong.  Claims of misinterpreting the First, definitely.
    
    ...which results in the persecution of religion, as you described.
    
    I apologize for saying you were narrowly informed. I meant to say that
    you narrowly interpret original intent.
    
    > I suppose you feel everything is fine and dandy?
    
    I do not operate in a binary universe. I do not understand the idea
    that there are only two options: the sky is falling, and find and
    dandy.
    
    Rather than get into a lengthy debate regarding interpretation versus
    re-interpretation and Supreme Court rulings versus amendments, let me
    just say that over time we have re-interpreted the particulars of the
    Constitution in an effort to keep with the spirit of the Constitution
    in an evolving society. We have re-interpreted the "life or limb" test
    for double jeopardy. We have re-interpreted what is considered "cruel
    and unusual" punishment. So to, I think, we need to re-examine the term
    "establish" when used with religion-state issues, as we see a greater
    diversity in the religious base of our citizenry.

    Eric 

re Note 1145.77 by CSOA1::LEECH:

>     re: .70
> ...    
> >    Would you 
> >object to a star of David? How about a pitchfork held by a certain cloven 
> >footed joker? This *is* a religious symbol, and it has no place on a 
> >government building.
>     
>     Actually, no.  It is up to the community as to what adorns their
>     buildings- whether it be religious or not.  The federal government has
>     no business telling anyone what to, or what not to, adorn their
>     buildings with.

        This kind of thing scares it -- if thins kind of logic is
        followed, it is clear that there will be sizable groups of
        people in the coming century who live in this country, and
        are even citizens, yet will feel that large parts of the
        country are truly alien to them.  Will it go even farther,
        will they find that activities that they quite legitimately
        do in one area will get them into legal trouble in another?

        Yes, I know that you could say that this is the way things
        appear today to many people.  The difference is government
        sponsorship of the wedge that divides, of the difference that
        makes other Americans feel like aliens.


> >About the amendments not being open to interpretation, I would agree with 
> >you, but they were not written clearly enough allow this. You can see 
> >different interpretations being given in the courts even while the authors 
> >were alive, why should it be different now?
> 
>     I've read parts of cases that made such attempts, but in general, early
>     SCOTUS was very consistent in their interpretations.  
>     
>     I disagree that they were not written clearly enough.   

        Then there is disagreement about those amendments -- case
        closed!  (You can never win an argument about a claim that
        there is no disagreement by disagreeing!!)


>     Actually, you have missed the mark with this comment.  As I said above,
>     if a community wanted to erect a satanic symbol and put it on their
>     courthouse, they that's up to them; and I definitely disagree with
>     satanism.  However, in truth, satanism is NOT protected by the First. 
>     I've posted the definition of "religion" in here before- as the word
>     was used in the days of the FF.  Satanism does not qualify as a
>     "religion" under the definition they used.
  
        I wonder if Christianity would qualify -- after all, you can
        quote many proponents of Christianity who say that
        "Christianity is not a religion, but a relationship".  My
        point is that if you start narrowing the definition of what
        is protected (or widening the definition of what government
        activities are allowed) even (some, at least) Christians will
        run into trouble sooner or later.  (Perhaps just Catholics 
        -- after all, our country was founded on discrimination
        against Catholics, right?)


>     I agree.  Then explain to me how the government can tell a community
>     that they cannot hang a cross from their courthouse.  Seems like they
>     are butting in where a) they don't belong, b) where there is no problem
>     locally, that is in need of their attention.
  
        See the above.  A local community, by how it does things and
        treats people within its borders, can indeed change the
        meaning of American citizenship at large by how it treats
        other American citizens traveling within or moving into its
        borders.

        Besides, it isn't the "government" telling a local community
        what to do, it is the representative of the people of the
        entire nation telling the local community.  I really do
        believe that this is a government of the people.

    
>     This is the WHOLE point of the "establishment" clause.  To keep things
>     in check.  The government is free to recognise Christianity in general-
>     early SCOTUS rulings go on record as saying we are a "Christian
>     Nation".  Many of our FF go on record to say that religion and morality
>     should be encouraged by government, as it is the best way to support
>     good government.
>     
>     What the government cannot do is establish any particular way of
>     worship as THE only way.  If you want a definition of "establishment of
>     religion", I recommend doing a study of the Church of England during
>     the 17-18th centuries.
  
        You know, Steve, that there are times that I'm tempted to
        agree with you that the early founders may have had as
        limited a vision as yours, that religious freedom is
        established merely by not establishing a state church.  I'm
        sure that at least some of the contemporaries of the true
        visionaries who established our nation had an understanding
        as limited as yours.

        But I do not consider them to be the only founders of this
        nation or of our constitutional form of government.  There
        are founders in every generation (for example, the supreme
        court of Brown vs. Board of Education) whose vision continues
        to seek the ideals of the first founders while having the
        benefit of seeing how things are working out and what
        challenges are now faced.

        I have very little to say, and I certainly wouldn't want to
        try to convince, people like you who would repeal the last
        200 years.  Religious freedom is MUCH, MUCH more than simply
        the absence of a state-sanctioned church.


> >    Put the crosses on the 
> >churches, where they belong, and leave them out of the government that 
> >represents us all, Christian, Jew, Muslim and atheist, alike. 
> 
>     It isn't about representation, it is about respecting our herritage. 

        I believe that government's role in "respecting our
        heritage" is to let citizens, individually and collectively,
        be free to "respect our heritage" in the way they see fit. 
        There are aspects of heritage in the south, for example,
        which black groups might wish to respect differently than
        white groups.  Should the local government simply take a poll
        and see whose view of what is important in heritage should be
        officially respected?  Or should the local government simply
        try to officially respect all the views, even if in
        fundamental conflict?  Or should government just stay out of
        it, and fix the roads and investigate crimes?


>     It is about a Christian nation recognising what ideals made us the
>     greatest nation on earth, the ideals that are necessary to the support
>     of good government.  It is not too amazing to me that as we get farther
>     and farther away from these ideals, the more government and social
>     problems we have.

        I think that the fundamental conservative lie is that the
        nation has more problems, and more lawlessness, now than at
        some point in the not too distant past.  There were
        incredible problems of discrimination, on sex, race, and
        religion.  There were great abuses of corporate power, and
        arrogant disregard for the harm done to the general welfare
        by the actions of individuals and industry.

        The great fear that people like me have of people like you
        taking power is that your 200-year (or even 50-year) rollback
        would bring all those problems back.

        I'd rather see us fixing the problems that we now have than
        simply saying that the way to fix the remaining problems is
        just to stop fixing the ones we've already begun to fix!

        Bob

    re: .82
    
    
    You are agreeing with me and you don't even realise it.  8^)
    
    We HAVE reinterpreted the Constitution as you say.  This is the whole
    point.  If you can reinterpret one part of it, who's to say that pretty
    soon the whole thing will be changed?  If you can change definitions at
    will, what's to keep us from reinterpreting the Second (oops, bad
    example there, we've already pretty much killed that one)...err, First
    (wait, that one has changed too)....uhm, I mean the Fourth (oh no, that
    one has been under reconstruction as well)...how about the uhm Tenth
    (never mind, that one has been ignored for decades)....uhm, I give up. 
    
    [do you see where this is going?]
    
    The difference between you and I, is that I feel that in order to
    continue as a Constitutional Republic, that we have to follow the
    intended meaning of our founding document.  Start playing around with
    it and you end up with a lot of problems- like erosion of our rights,
    for one example.
    
    If we want to change the document (and I'm not talking Amendments,
    either, as Amendments should not contradict the intent of the
    Constitution), then I suggest we stop the pretense of following it and
    have a Constitutional Convention.  At least this would be intellectually
    honest.  However, I would expect such a move would only seal off any
    opportunity to get government back under control (the fact that we have
    lost control of the government points to some pretty grave
    Constitutional difficulties in itself).
    
    
    -steve

    re: .83
    
>        This kind of thing scares it -- if thins kind of logic is
>        followed, it is clear that there will be sizable groups of
>        people in the coming century who live in this country, and
>        are even citizens, yet will feel that large parts of the
>        country are truly alien to them.

    We are looking at things from different perspectives here.  I'm looking at 
    the perspective from a historical view, while you are looking at it from a 
    modern view.  While you are placing sensitivities on par with Amendments 
    (there is not Amendment that states "everyone must feel welcome everywhere 
    in the nation- all rights are dependent upon every group feeling welcome and
    valued"), I do no such thing.  I also do not share your opinion as
    stated above.
      
>        Yes, I know that you could say that this is the way things
>        appear today to many people.  The difference is government
>        sponsorship of the wedge that divides, of the difference that
>        makes other Americans feel like aliens.

    Once again you are forgetting my perspective.  In order to understand
    what I'm trying to get across, you have to look at things from a
    different angle.  You are too caught up in the sensitivies argument of
    our modern era.  Support of Christian values does not equate to
    "government sponsorship of the wedge that divides", and quite frankly,
    had we been founded by those who subscribed to a different general
    religion, it is doubtful that we would have begun as a free nation
    which allows freedom of worship.
  
|>     I disagree that they were not written clearly enough.   

>        Then there is disagreement about those amendments -- case
>        closed!  (You can never win an argument about a claim that
>        there is no disagreement by disagreeing!!)

    Stop playing silly logic games with me.  If you do a historical study
    of the BoR, you will find that there is a clear meaning to each
    Amendment.  You can't see this because you have been indoctrinated into
    the "varying interpretation" and  "living document" trap.  This
    mentality tells you that it is okay that the SCOTUS has re-interpreted
    (by rulings) pretty much the whole BoR (rather than allow historical
    intent to guide thier rulings), because we are a growing changing
    society.  If you will just follow this logic to the end conclusion, you
    may be able to detect the problems inherant in this philosophy.
    
    In effect, this is rule by judicial fiat.
    
  
>        I wonder if Christianity would qualify -- after all, you can
>        quote many proponents of Christianity who say that
>        "Christianity is not a religion, but a relationship".  
    
    Decide for yourself.  I've reposted the definition from the first
    Webster's dictionary, below:
    
    RELIGION.  Includes a belief in the being and perfections of God, in
    the 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 piety of life, with
    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.
    
    
>        My point is that if you start narrowing the definition of what
>        is protected 
    
    That's just it, I'm not narrowing ANYTHING.  This is the original
    definition of religion, as our FF used the term.  It is our modern
    society that has expanded what encompasses religion.  By merely
    redefining the term, we have established special protections for ALL
    religions- some of which were condemned by our FF (like Satanism).
    
>        See the above.  A local community, by how it does things and
>        treats people within its borders, can indeed change the
>        meaning of American citizenship at large by how it treats
>        other American citizens traveling within or moving into its
>        borders.

    Change the meaning of American citizenship??  You are back on your
    sensitivities bandwagon, here.  I'm not interested (for the sake of
    this discussion) in sensitivity arguments (and I'm not saying there is
    no merit to them).  We are discussing the First Amendment, which is not
    about sensitivities in the least- it is about LIMITATIONS ON
    GOVERNMENT.  
    
    The entire Bill of Rights is about what the (federal) GOVERNMENT may not do
    ("Congress shall make no law..."), not about what citizens or
    communities may not do.  By erecting a cross on a government building,
    the citizens of that community are not denying anyone else practice of
    religion, merely acknowledging generic Christianity- just as our FF
    did, just as early government did, just as SCOTUS did up into the early
    20th century.
    
    If a community was denying, by law or fiat, others of varying religions
    the freedom to practice their religion, THEN the federal government
    could step in and do something.  
    
>        Besides, it isn't the "government" telling a local community
>        what to do, it is the representative of the people of the
>        entire nation telling the local community.  I really do
>        believe that this is a government of the people.

    The FF did not share your view in this matter.  In fact, this was one
    of the things that they feared most- a federal government that would
    perpetually butt in and tell the locals how to run their affairs, when
    no one's rights are being infringed.
   
>        You know, Steve, that there are times that I'm tempted to
>        agree with you that the early founders may have had as
>        limited a vision as yours, that religious freedom is
>        established merely by not establishing a state church.  
    
    
    First things first.  This is not MY vision.  I'm merely telling you how
    it was, as closely as I can relate from my studies of this era- 
    particularly of the Constitution.  
    
    Second, I fail to see why you find this as being a "limited vision". 
    Quite simply, less government intrusion equals more freedom.  More
    government intrusion equals less freedom.  Simplistic perhaps, but this
    is generally true.
    
    Third, the First Amendment does not establish nor define religious 
    freedom, it merely recognizes it as being one inalienable freedom/right
    THAT GOVERNMENT MUST NOT INFRINGE UPON.
    
>        I have very little to say, and I certainly wouldn't want to
>        try to convince, people like you who would repeal the last
>        200 years.  Religious freedom is MUCH, MUCH more than simply
>        the absence of a state-sanctioned church.

    You read too much into the First.  You have to keep in mind that the
    BoR is all about limitations on (federal) GOVERNMENT.  It is not 
    unintentional that the First begins with "Congress shall make no law..".
    
    Tell me how this applies to a cross on a government building.  If
    Congress had made a law that all public building must have a cross,
    then I'd agree that this is unconstitutional, but there is no such law.
    It takes a LAW to establish a government religion. 
    
    The best way to insure freedom of religion (as our FF well knew) was to
    keep the government from making any laws concerning it. 
    
>        I believe that government's role in "respecting our
>        heritage" is to let citizens, individually and collectively,
>        be free to "respect our heritage" in the way they see fit. 
    
    Then you agree with me that the cross should be allowed to stay, then. 
    
>        There are aspects of heritage in the south, for example,
>        which black groups might wish to respect differently than
>        white groups.  Should the local government simply take a poll
>        and see whose view of what is important in heritage should be
>        officially respected?  Or should the local government simply
>        try to officially respect all the views, even if in
>        fundamental conflict?  Or should government just stay out of
>        it, and fix the roads and investigate crimes?

    The federal government should stay out of it entirely- UNLESS there are
    issues in which some people's Constitutional rights are being infringed 
    by local government.  
    
>        I think that the fundamental conservative lie is that the
>        nation has more problems, and more lawlessness, now than at
>        some point in the not too distant past.  
    
    I think this can be demonstrated with statistics very convincingly-
    even taking for granted that statistics do not tell the whole story.
    Of course, this depends on which problems you concentrate on. 
    
    However, limiting this back to the subject at hand (Constitution), I
    feel that we have many more problems in the latter half of this
    century, than there was in the first half.  
    
>        The great fear that people like me have of people like you
>        taking power is that your 200-year (or even 50-year) rollback
>        would bring all those problems back.

    Oh boy! I am a feared individual.  {insert diabolical laughter} 
    
    This is illogical.  Why must we ignore the real advances we've
    made over the last 50 years?  Why does reintroducing things that DID
    work well 50 years ago equate to bringing back all the bad luggage as
    well?  
    
>        I'd rather see us fixing the problems that we now have than
>        simply saying that the way to fix the remaining problems is
>        just to stop fixing the ones we've already begun to fix!

    Ignoring the fact that my parse-o-meter just broke...  8^)
    
    I'd like to fix our problems, too, so I agree with you.  What I don't
    agree with you about is ignoring things that have already proven to be
    effective at reducing the very problems we wish to fix. 
    
    To be honest, I see some of our supposed fixes as only making things
    worse.  I think we need a different approach than simply reintroducing
    failed concepts over and over again.
    
    
    -steve                                

.76

Gargoyles are a religious symbol? Not according to my dictionary and probably 
not according to 95% of the people on the street, neither of which can be said 
for the Cross.

Steve

.77 Leech

>It isn't. Individuals have always been free to state their views in 
public 
>places. 

    No, they haven't, and aren't.  But the pendulum is correcting this.

There will always be isolated incidents of suppression, as well as 
incidents of blatant state support. Are you maintaining that there is a 
systematic attempt by the state to deny freedom of speech based on 
religion? 
================
|    How is a cross on a building a government sponsored religion?  

>It implies a governmental seal of approval for christianity. 
    
    Even if I agreed with you here (and I don't), so what?  As long as the 
    government is not forcing crosses to be put on public buildings, there         
is no problem with the First. NOTHING is established, only generically
    recognised.

You just don't get it. Our government is NOT a democracy. The majority 
does NOT rule in all cases. The idea is to allow all citizens, regardless 
of 
their belief, to participate in the government and to protect them from 
the tyranny of the majority. Religious freedom is a cornerstone of this 
country. When the government recognizes a religion by placing a symbol on 
a governmental building, or whatever, it disenfranchises (to some extent) 
those that do not practice that religion. The only reason to push for your 
symbol on a public building is as a power play, to have the government 
validate *your* religion, it has NO other effect. 

Steve, if the local government is allowed to recognize a given sect as the 
official religion for an area, how long would it be before the country 
divides itself into christian, mormon, muslim, jewish, black, white, etc. 
towns? This is a recipe for the disintegration of the U.S. in general.

    However, in truth, satanism is NOT protected by the First. 
    I've posted the definition of "religion" in here before- as the word
    was used in the days of the FF.  Satanism does not qualify as a
    "religion" under the definition they used.

I see. Would you please supply a pointer to your definition? Interesting 
strategy, yell loudly about freedom of religion, and then come up with a 
definition that includes only yours. I've read about a very similar 
strategy in 'Animal Farm'.

    I agree.  Then explain to me how the government can tell a community

I have. In the same way that they cannot hang a no blacks allowed banner. 
It is obvious that as long as your agenda is pushed, you don't much care 
whose rights you trample. 

    from recognizing a specific denomination (at the time, other religions
    outside of general Christianity were of no concern in this regard) as
    THE GOVERNMENT SANCTIONED denomination of the United States.

This implies, then, that you believe that the government is completely 
free to recognize christianity as the one true religion, just not a 
particular sect, correct?

    This is the WHOLE point of the "establishment" clause.  To keep things
    in check.  The government is free to recognise Christianity in 
general-
    early SCOTUS rulings go on record as saying we are a "Christian
    Nation".  Many of our FF go on record to say that religion and 
morality
    should be encouraged by government, as it is the best way to support
    good government.

There is also an officially recognized treaty that states, specifically, 
that we are *NOT* a christian nation. 

    What the government cannot do is establish any particular way of
    worship as THE only way.  

But it can specify a 'preferred' way?

    Actually, the government seems to be going out of its way to endorse
    atheism.  

Really? I hadn't noticed. What do you have that backs this up? I must 
still 'swear on a bible' in court, my money says that I trust in god, my 
pledge of allegience includes my pledge to god, etc.

    I disagree with your statement above.  First of all, it is likely that
    the federal government had nothing to do with the cross being put on
    the building.  

Then how did it get there? Did god make it appear? (Actually, if that 
happened I would need to rethink some things).

    You are partly right.  Government has been stretching muscles that it
    cannot lawfully use.  If I were you, I'd be more afraid of the
    government making such rulings against religion, than I would be at 

I am alarmed by governmental excess in all areas, including any cases of 
religious repression.

    It isn't about representation, it is about respecting our herritage. 
    It is about a Christian nation recognising what ideals made us the
    greatest nation on earth, the ideals that are necessary to the support
    of good government.  

It is about pushing your own views on other people. Our heritage is that 
our government does not push a particular religion. Placing religious 
symbols on government buildings sullies that heritage.

    exercise.  It's a shame that you cannot see past your own biases to
    understand what it is I'm really doing in this discussion.  I'm not
    trying to advocate anything, but merely give a bit of historical
    context that I found quite enlightening (and hard to believe at first-
    to say the least...hard to believe because I had a hard time believing
    that SCOTUS could be so far off base in certain rulings).

I've also read the history, and have reached a different conclusion. 
Granted, we all pass things through our personal filter. What you appear 
to be doing in this discussion is to promote the view that the founding 
fathers founded an officially christian nation. Have you read extensively 
of Madison and Jefferson? I would be real interested in how you have 
reached your conclusions based on their writings. 

Steve

.78
    I'm a follower of Jesus.  I am most definitely NOT in the majority. 
    From the looks of current events in this nation, I would seem to be in
    a very small minority.

I wish you guys would make up your minds. In one note you tell me 95% of 
the country is Christian, in the next you say that you are a very small 
minority.

    You confuse federal government with local government.  Local
    governments are supposed to have autonomy, not be federal lackeys.  The
    feds are supposed to stay out of local business unless constitutional
    issues come up. 

Exactly. We are discussing a constitutional issue.

    If there is any agenda, it is to uphold the intent of the constitution,
    and not play word games with it.  

Agreed. Can you begin to understand, though, that not everybody agrees with 
your reading of the document?

    Your question is based in illogic.  The federal government can have no
    religion per se, which is decidedly different from *supporting*
    religion (and I don't mean monetarily supporting churches and such,
    either) for its own benefit and the benefit of the population.

Then in your view the government can support religion (can it support only 
specific religions) as long as it isn't religious? 

    religion- at least locally (I still would not call it establishing a
    national religion, which is what "an establishment of religion" of the
    First refers to).

So in your opinion this would be legal, as long as it is local?

    Yes, that's right.  1947 Everson v. Board of Education was NOT the
    first attempt to misuse this letter.  Let me enlighten you on another,
    earlier case- Reynolds v. United States, 1878.

I'm familiar with Reynolds, many scholars see this ruling as an aberration 
based on abhorence of the religious practices of the Mormons. 
Interestingly, I believe that the if the case came up today it would fail 
the guidelines in the RFRA. I have trouble seeing polygamy as infringing on 
a 'compelling governmental interest'. It was also in one the middle of one 
of the pendulums swings towards a non secular government.

Steve

<<< Note 1145.83 by LGP30::FLEISCHER "without vision the people perish (DTN 297-5780, MRO2-3/E8)" >>>

>        it is clear that there will be sizable groups of
>        people in the coming century who live in this country, and
>        are even citizens, yet will feel that large parts of the
>        country are truly alien to them.  
    
    	Large parts of this country are alien to me right now.  In
    	particular much of the urbanized areas on both coasts.  The
    	change in that direction is what encouraged me to consider
    	my relocation to Colorado 7 years ago.
    
    	Also the tenor of this society truly would be alien to someone
    	transported here from the 1800's.  I'm not talking about the
    	techniligical changes, but the moral, legal and ethical changes.
    	I'd bet that someone from the past as recent as our grandparents
    	would be astonded.

    <<< Note 1145.86 by TINCUP::inwo.cxo.dec.com::Bittrolff "Spoon!" >>>

>Gargoyles are a religious symbol? Not according to my dictionary and probably 
>not according to 95% of the people on the street, neither of which can be said 
>for the Cross.

    	No, I didn't say that they were necessarily religious symbols.
    	But they often are cloven-hoofed creatures as you asked about.

    	And I think that you overestimate the religious symbolism of
    	the cross.  Ask the Madonna generation about it.  

    	And if the cross really is a religious symbol of 95% of the
    	population, I don't see why that significant majority cannot
    	therefore benefit from it being displayed on a public building.
    	Spare me the lame argument about tyranny of the majority.  
    	Public purging of Christian decorations amounts to tyranny
    	of the minority.  We can allow public funding of the DESECRATION
    	of the cross -- and not just a cross as a nice geometric design
    	but a deliberate depiction of the crucifix with Christ hanging
    	on it -- if we can allow for such desecration, doesn't that
    	amount to the opposite of the establishment of religion?  Dosn't
    	that equally violate the fabled separation of Church and State?

    
    
    Joe,
    
    It is indeed disenheartening to watch a place you grew up in become
    alien to you. The changes in Colorado in general, and C Springs in
    particular from a tolerant stew to the "new Bible belt" as one church
    is now calling the Springs are definitely not conducive to the
    live-and-let-live attitudes of the west I grew up in. 
    
    All I can hope for is that the altitude will affect the attitudes in
    the next generation and things can get back to quiet tolerance of one's
    neighbor, no matter how outlandish their belief structures.  
    
    meg

.85

    Stop playing silly logic games with me.  If you do a historical study
    of the BoR, you will find that there is a clear meaning to each
    Amendment.  You can't see this because you have been indoctrinated into
    the "varying interpretation" and  "living document" trap.  This

O.K. steve, show me the support for your assertions in the words of those 
that wrote them, Jefferson in this case. I'll make it easier, you can limit 
your support to the only the establishment clause of the first. 

Steve

.90

        And I think that you overestimate the religious symbolism of
        the cross.  Ask the Madonna generation about it.  

My point is that 95% of the population recognize the cross as a symbol of 
Christianity.

        And if the cross really is a religious symbol of 95% of the
        population, I don't see why that significant majority cannot
        therefore benefit from it being displayed on a public building.

I didn't say it was a symbol of 95%, only that 95% would recognize it.

What benefit do you get from it's display, Joe, other than the smugness 
that goes with having your viewpoint in a highly personal matter being 
officially recognized by the State?

        Spare me the lame argument about tyranny of the majority.  

It's only considered lame by the tyrants. Ask the slaves how lame it is. 
Ask women before the vote how lame it is.

        Public purging of Christian decorations amounts to tyranny
        of the minority.  We can allow public funding of the DESECRATION

What public purging are you talking about? You can go more that 2 blocks in 
this town without running into a cross. On private property there is no 
problem. It is only the tacit raising of one religion above the others, by 
the State, that is at issue here.

        We can allow public funding of the DESECRATION
        of the cross -- and not just a cross as a nice geometric design
        but a deliberate depiction of the crucifix with Christ hanging
        on it -- if we can allow for such desecration, doesn't that
        amount to the opposite of the establishment of religion?  

For the record, I also object to the use of public funds for that type of 
exhibit.

        Dosn't that equally violate the fabled separation of Church and 
        State?

Yes, because I see it as a publically funded display of a religious 
opinion. It should be stopped just as surely as the crosses on publically 
funded buildings. BTW, Jefferson (amoung others) would object to your 
calling the separation a fable, he devoted large periods of his life to the 
principle.

Steve

.91

meg,

I hope for the same, but I'm not holding my breath...

Steve

    Steve:
    
 ZZ   Yes, because I see it as a publically funded display of a religious 
 ZZ   opinion. It should be stopped just as surely as the crosses on
 ZZ   publically funded buildings. 
    
    I brought this up in another conference so what the heck.  The
    Washington Monument is a clear religious symbol of a phallyce, used in
    Baal Worship in Babylon.  Should we tear it down?
    
    -Jack

    From the Supreme Court decision Everson v. Board of Education,
    1947. But Steve L. already discredited this court as
    constitutional ninnies.

    ---------------------------------------------------------
    The movement toward this end reached its dramatic climax in
    Virginia in 1785-86 when the Virginia legislative body was about
    to renew Virginia's tax levy for the support of the established
    church. Thomas Jeffer- [*12] son and James Madison led the fight
    against this tax. Madison wrote his great Memorial and
    Remonstrance against the law.(11) In it, he eloquently argued that
    a true religion did not need the support of law; that no person,
    either believer or non-believer, should be taxed to support a
    religious institution of any kind; that the best interest of a
    society required that the minds of men always be wholly free; and
    that cruel persecutions were the inevitable result of
    government-established religions. Madison's Remonstrance received
    strong support throughout Virginia,(12) and the Assembly postponed
    consideration of the proposed tax measure until its next session.
    When the proposal came up for consideration at that session, it
    not only died in committee, but the Assembly enacted the famous
    "Virginia Bill for Religious Liberty" originally written by Thomas
    Jefferson.(13) The preamble to that Bill stated among other things
    that 

         "Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all
         attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or
         burthens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to
         beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are [*13] a
         departure from the plan of the Holy author of our
         religion, who being Lord both of body and mind, yet
         chose not to propagate it by coercions on either . . .;
         that to compel a man to furnish contribution of money
         for the propagation of opinions which he dis-believes,
         is sinful and tyrannical; that even the forcing him to
         support this or that teacher of his own religious
         persuasion, is depriving him of the comfortable liberty
         of giving his contributions to the particular pastor,
         whose morals he would make his pattern . . . ." 

    And the statute itself enacted 

         "That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support
         any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever,
         nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or
         burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise
         suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief .
         . . ."(14) 
    ----------------------------------------------------------

    I believe this shows Jefferson supported a much broader
    understanding of estabishment 210 years ago, than Steve Leech does
    today.

    and Jefferson was the first, although by no means the last,
    presidential candidate where certain people tried to proclaim the end
    of the earth and god forsaking the country if he were elected, simply
    because of this belief.  
    
    meg

    
    > The Washington Monument is a clear religious symbol of a phallyce, used
    > in Baal Worship in Babylon.  Should we tear it down?

    ... or cover it with a giant fig leaf. :^)

    Speaking personally, and pragmatically, I do not support the defacement
    of destruction of architecturally historic constructions that bear
    religious symbols. However, calling the Washington Monument a
    Babylonian religious symbol is like calling a four-way intersection a
    Christian symbol... pure phallusy, er fallacy. 

    There are symbols that are both religious and secular -- the dove as a
    symbol of peace, for example. I'd throw in gargoyles and obelisks as
    well.
    
    Eric

re Note 1145.90 by CSC32::J_OPPELT:

>     	Spare me the lame argument about tyranny of the majority.  
  
        It's a lame argument only to those who would practice it.

        Bob

    Faithless Snarf!

.95

Jack,

No, I doubt many would recognize it as such. I even looked up phallyce, 
being unfamiliar with the word, but could not find it in my dictionary.

I would not advocate the tearing down of anything, including State 
buildings with crosses or other religious symbols on them, Eric says it 
will in .98.
---------------------------------------
.100

    Faithless Snarf!

What is Snarf, and what does it mean for it to be faithless?

Steve

re Note 1145.101 by TINCUP::inwo.cxo.dec.com::Bittrolff:

> No, I doubt many would recognize it as such. I even looked up phallyce, 
> being unfamiliar with the word, but could not find it in my dictionary.
  
        You're probably using one of those modern, revisionist
        dictionaries (published during the past 200 years).

        Bob

    
    > You're probably using one of those modern, revisionist dictionaries
    > (published during the past 200 years).
                                                                
    ... or relying on Jack to spell naughty words correctly. :^)

    It's phallus

    A Phallyce is a term to mean the male anatony or member.  Those
    Babylonians were a veril lot!! :-)

    Actually, the spelling might be wrong!!!!

    and I thought it was fallic.  

    re: .87
    
>Our government is NOT a democracy. The majority 
>does NOT rule in all cases. 
    
    You are confusing federal government with local government.  Local
    governments are very close to a democracy.  We all can vote on local
    issues, the majority winning out in all cases.  While it isn't a true
    democracy in all aspects, it is much closer to one than the federal
    government.  
    
>    The idea is to allow all citizens, regardless 
>of their belief, to participate in the government and to protect them from 
>the tyranny of the majority. 
    
    So now we have a tyranny of the minority.  See what happens when we
    forget how things are supposed to work?
    
>    Religious freedom is a cornerstone of this 
>country. When the government recognizes a religion by placing a symbol on 
>a governmental building, 
    
    The government did not place the symbol there, nor did it say a symbol
    must be put there.  Those who built it (that community) decided to put
    it there.  They do not need federal approval for this, nor should the
    federal government be allowed to force its will on this community in
    this particular case- especially since there is NO PROBLEM being
    created (not that this gives them the right, it just underlines to me
    how silly the whole thing is).  
    
>    or whatever, it disenfranchises (to some extent) 
>those that do not practice that religion. 
    
    Tough noogies.  If you are so easily offended, move elsewhere.  I
    realize this is very blunt, but I grow weary of this nation's
    super-sensitivity on such silly issues.  There is nothing in the
    Constitution about neutering everything so's not to offend anyone of
    one of the thousands of variations of faiths.
    
>    The only reason to push for your 
>symbol on a public building is as a power play, to have the government 
>validate *your* religion, it has NO other effect. 

    You start with a failed premise, here.  NO ONE IS PUSHING this.  The
    cross was there already.  It had been there for quite a while, from
    what I gather.  All the "pushing" is being done from the other side of
    the issue.  The "pushing" is to remove all things remotely religious
    from public arenas.  
    
    May as well tear down all those buildings in DC that have Bible
    passages engraved on them, eh?   Hope you have a lot of demolition
    equipment, because there's more than a few. 
    
    
>Steve, if the local government is allowed to recognize a given sect as the 
>official religion for an area, how long would it be before the country 
>divides itself into christian, mormon, muslim, jewish, black, white, etc. 
>towns? This is a recipe for the disintegration of the U.S. in general.

    One word: multiculturalism.  I see the very things mentioned above
    happening, not due to silent symbols on a building, but due to the
    multicultural PC agenda.  This segregation that is government sponsored in
    many ways.  
    
>I see. Would you please supply a pointer to your definition? Interesting 
>strategy, yell loudly about freedom of religion, and then come up with a 
>definition that includes only yours. I've read about a very similar 
>strategy in 'Animal Farm'.

    If you haven't read the definition, how do you know it only includes my
    religion?  (see my last entry a few notes back)
    
>I have. In the same way that they cannot hang a no blacks allowed banner.
    
    Nope, this don't cut it.  We have an Amendment that makes blacks
    citizens, so the Constitution does not allow such segregation.
    
    Try again.
     
>It is obvious that as long as your agenda is pushed, you don't much care 
>whose rights you trample. 

    I've said more than once that this discussion is a mental exercise to
    me.  The only agenda I have is to inform people the best I can of
    original Constitutional intent.  Do with it as you like.
    
    If you wish to spin it as my agenda to trample people's rights, then
    perhaps I should end this exercise.  I do not wish to offend, nor do I
    wish to constantly correct misrepresentations of my view, it takes too
    much time and effort away from the meat of this discussion.
    
>This implies, then, that you believe that the government is completely 
>free to recognize christianity as the one true religion, just not a 
>particular sect, correct?

    Correct, for the most part.  It can recognise Christianity- whether it
    can say that this is the ONE TRUE religion...well, I think that's
    taking what I said to the other extreme.  As far as "establishment of
    religion" goes, what you say above about not being able to establish
    one sect as THE nationally recognised sect; that much is true.
    
>There is also an officially recognized treaty that states, specifically, 
>that we are *NOT* a christian nation. 

    Early SCOTUS disagrees with you here, but I'm open for new information. 
    What treaty do you speak of?
    
>But it can specify a 'preferred' way?

    Government cannot dictate or specify a way to worship, if this is what
    you are getting at.  Congress can make no law regarding religion (the
    reason this is so confusing these days is the way we define "religion"
    today, vs. how it was defined in the days that the BoR was penned).  

>Really? I hadn't noticed. What do you have that backs this up? I must 
>still 'swear on a bible' in court, my money says that I trust in god, my 
>pledge of allegience includes my pledge to god, etc.

    We no longer have the pledge of allegience anymore.  'Swear on the
    Bible' is a tradition from another time...a time when this was enough
    to get people to tell the truth in court.  Swearing on the Bible was
    not something to be taken lightly.  Today, it is relatively meaningless
    for most (judgeing by how much lying is going on in courts of law).
    
    This actually backs up my argument, if you will think about it. 
    
    As far as becoming an atheistic nation...well, that would take a bit of
    time to answer.  Let's just say that we are moving this way by default. 
    Since we no longer have a firm grasp on the First, we end up with quite
    a nice mess on our hands (prayer in schools, Bible reading in schools,
    hanging the ten commendments in schools, crosses on public buildings,
    etc.).  The end result is that we do away with all religion (well, all
    the obvious ones anyway) in public arenas- wala, atheistic nation.
    
    There is no such thing as being free of religion.  Even atheism is
    considered a religion by SCOTUS, as is secular humanism.
    
>It is about pushing your own views on other people. 
    
    How so, unless government itself forces a particular religion on you? 
    
>    Our heritage is that 
>our government does not push a particular religion. Placing religious 
>symbols on government buildings sullies that heritage.

    Tell that to those who built many government buildings in DC (you know,
    the old ones with all the scriptures on them). 
    
    Government doesn't push anything (except atheism by default in modern
    America).  It cannot Consitutionally push anything, nor deny free
    expression (crosses on buildings) that harms no one, and recognises our
    herritage.
    
I've also read the history, and have reached a different conclusion. 
Granted, we all pass things through our personal filter. What you appear 
to be doing in this discussion is to promote the view that the founding 
fathers founded an officially christian nation.
    
    Officially?  Officially, the government itself has no religion.  This
    does not mean that government did not recognise that we were founded on
    Christian principles and that support of these principles were
    essential to good government and happiness of the people.
    
    
    -steve

    
    Gentle reminder - conference etiquette states that notes should be kept
    to under 100 lines.

    	re .91
    
    	I contend that you weren't paying attention when you thought
    	it was a "tolerant stew".  Or if it ever was such a stew
    	for a while, it was only a temporary anomaly from the traditional
    	character of this place.  We are recapturing the moral backbone
    	that defined our history.  Sorry if you are unable to deal
    	with that.

    	re .96
    
    	This was the very first time that the Supreme Court chose
    	to interpret things in this manner.  It was the beginning
    	of the slide that continues today.

<<< Note 1145.99 by LGP30::FLEISCHER "without vision the people perish (DTN 297-5780, MRO2-3/E8)" >>>

>>     	Spare me the lame argument about tyranny of the majority.  
>  
>        It's a lame argument only to those who would practice it.

    
    	It is a being practiced only per your assertion.

    
    > This was the very first time that the Supreme Court chose to interpret
    > things in this manner.

    This case cited earlier decisions to buttress its judgment, so I'm not
    sure your statement is exactly true. Even so, so what?

    Eric

    re: .88
    
>I wish you guys would make up your minds. In one note you tell me 95% of 
>the country is Christian, in the next you say that you are a very small 
>minority.

    You are mistaken.  I have never used such a figure in this, or any
    other, forum.  Besides, you missed my qualifier.
    
    FWIW, many claim to be Christian, but not all who claim His namesake
    are His followers.
    
>Agreed. Can you begin to understand, though, that not everybody agrees with 
>your reading of the document?

    This is all too obvious.  In fact, I said earlier that my views are
    historical in intent, and that we have reinterpreted it from said
    original intent.  This is what this entire string has been about,
    actually.
    
>Then in your view the government can support religion (can it support only 
>specific religions) as long as it isn't religious? 

    From a historical perspective, we *were* a Christian nation.  Not 100%
    of the population was Christian, but most of it.  From this
    perspective, what religion do you think government supported?
    
    Much of the confusion come from two very simple things.  One,
    "religion" is much more encompasing a term today, than in the time of
    the FF.  Two, there is much more diversity of religion today. 
    
>I'm familiar with Reynolds, many scholars see this ruling as an aberration 
>based on abhorence of the religious practices of the Mormons.
    
    It was a case study on the mindset of early SCOTUS, as to what exactly
    they felt was protected by the First.  I look at the earlier SCOTUS
    rulings because I'm looking at things from historical eyes- which is
    the best way to find original intent.  By today's definitions and
    Constitutional opinion, yes, this case was an aberration.  In its day,
    it does not stand alone- many similar rulings can be found (I can list
    one or two others, if you like).
    
    Whether you or I agree with the original intent (most of us would not,
    as we grow up believing differently) is not the issue.  The issue is
    WHAT IS the original intent...and that is all I'm trying to point out,
    to the best of my knowledge.
      
>Interestingly, I believe that the if the case came up today it would fail 
>the guidelines in the RFRA. 
    
    Today it might.  But today's Constitutional views is not the issue I am
    discussing.
    
>    I have trouble seeing polygamy as infringing on 
>a 'compelling governmental interest'. 
    
    I disagree.  Redefining what makes a "family" is most definitely a
    governmental interest from  more than one reason.  You have tax laws,
    which is the first problem that comes to mind, as well as divorce and
    custody laws, etc.  
    
    In fact, there is much more reason for the government to get involved
    in your example, than in the cross issue.
    
    
    -steve

    re: .96
    
    I fail to see how you arrived at your conclusion.  

    Joe,
    
    Since you migrated here from another state, it doesn't surprise me that
    you are less than familiar with the history of this state.  Yes I am
    aware that Palmer was a strict Methodist, but even so, he was also a
    far more tolerant person than the organizations moving in purport to
    be.  This was one of the first states to grant sufferage to women, now
    t appears to be in the forefront of people trying to remove rights from
    identifiable groups.  What a shame.
    
    meg
    
    

    Here's a few interesting drafts of the First that give a general idea
    of the consistent direction, as well as more insight to the meaning of
    the First- particularly the "establishment" clause.  Keep in mind the
    definition of "religion" I supplied earlier- it is supported here.  It
    will also shed a bit of light on their intent.
    
    June 8 (1789).  Initial proposals of James Madison. 
    
    "The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account or religious
    belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor
    shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on
    any pretext infringed."
    
    
    August 15.  House Select Committee.
    
    "No religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of
    conscience be infringed."
    
    August 20.  Fisher AMes of MAss. moved that the following language be
    adopted by the House, and it was agreed:
    
    "Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or to prevent the
    free exercise thereof, or to infringe the rights of conscience."
    
    Septempber 3.  Several versions proposed...
    
    "Congress shall not make any law infringing the rights of conscience,
    or establishing any religious sect or society."
    
    "Congress shall make no law establishing any particular denomination or
    religion in preference ot another, or prohibiting the free exercise
    thereof, nor shall the rights of conscience be infringed."
    
    "Congress shall make no law establishing one religious society in
    preference to others, or to infringe on the rights of conscience."
    
    "Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or prohibiting the
    free exercise thereof."
    
    
    September 9.
    
    "Congress shall make no law establishing articles of faith or a mode of
    worship, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion."
    
    
    As you see, "religion" is used interchangably with "religious sect",
    "religious society" and "particular denomination".
    
    
    When drafting the First Amendment, members of Congress looked to
    precedent in their own state's constitution.  Here are a few examples:
    
    Massachusetts, 1780.  Part I, Article II.
    It is the right, as well as duty, of all men in society, publicly, an
    dat stated seasons, to worship the Supreme Being, the Great Creator and
    Preserver of the Universe.  And no subject shall be hurt, molested, or
    restrained, in his person, liberty, or estate, for worshiping God in
    the manner and season, most agreable to the dictates of his own
    conscience.
    
    Article III.
    And every denomination of Christians demeaning themselves peacably, and
    as good subjects of the commonwealth, shall be equally under the
    protection of the law: And no subordination of any one sect or
    denomination to another, shall ever be established by law.
    
    
    New Hampshire, 1783, 1792.  Part One. Article I, Section V.
    Every individual has a natural and unalienable right to worship God
    according to the dictates of his own conscience, and reason...
    
    ArticleI, Section VI.
    And every denomination of Christians demeaning themselves quietly, and
    as good subjects of the state, shall be equally under the protection of
    the law:  And no subordination of any one sect or denomination to
    another, shall ever be established by law.
    
    
    South Carolina, 1778.  Article XXXVIII.
    That all persons and religious societies, who acknowledge that there is
    one God, and a future state of rewards and punishment, and that God is
    publicly to be worshipped, shall be freely tolerated... That all
    denominations of Christian..in this state, demeaning themselves
    peacably and faithfully, shall enjoy equal religious and civil
    privileges.
    

    re: .115
    
    >... remove rights from identifiable groups ...
    
    
    ????

    For example, a woman who is a police officer in Colorado was demoted
    when her boss found out she was a lesbian.  Is this what you believe
    "No" to Ammendment 2 will prevent?
    
    Again, just add sexual orientation to the current EEOC law!
    
    

    
    "We hold these truths to be self evident - that all men are created
    equal."
    
    But this didn't apply to women, children, and African Americans.
    
    Cindy

    "We hold these truths to be self evindent - that all men are created
    equal."
    
    
    But some are more equal than others!
    
    One of the paradoxes of American History is that the man who penned
    those wonderful words was a slave owner.
    
    Another piece of historic trivia, is that Abigail Adams, sitting at
    home taking charge of running the household in the absence of her
    husband John, sent a letter to John Adams reminding him to
    
    "Not forget the ladies"
    
                                   Patricia

    
    Never heard that one about Abigail before - thanks Patricia!  (;^)
    
    Cindy

  ZZZ     But some are more equal than others!
    
    Not to rathole but it appears our society in regards to reproductive
    matters (abortion) fall into the same trap as our forefathers.  
    
    Apparently certain persons aren't afforded the same rights simply
    because they aren't mentioned in the Constitution.
    
    -Jack

   <<< Note 1145.112 by HURON::MYERS "He literally meant it figuratively" >>>

>    > This was the very first time that the Supreme Court chose to interpret
>    > things in this manner.
>
>    This case cited earlier decisions to buttress its judgment, so I'm not
>    sure your statement is exactly true. Even so, so what?

    	The 1947 Everson vs Board of Education ruling was the very first
    	time that the Supreme Court declared that the "wall" was intended
    	to "protect" Government from religion.  They stated:  "The first
    	amendment has erected a wall between church and state.  That wall
    	must be kept high and impregnable."
    
    	Until this ruling the word from the Supreme Court was consistently
    	of the nature, "The wall is to protect church from government, but
    	Christian principles are never to be separated from Government"
    	(Reynolds vs U.S 1878.  In that ruling they quoted Jefferson's
    	famous letter in its entirety, so there is little room for arguing
    	that they were misquoting him or taking him out of context.)
    
    	I repeat.  Everson vs BoE 1947 was the first time that the Supreme
    	Court chose to interpret the First Amendment this way.
    
    	Here is another SCOTUS ruling to mull over:
    
    	Our laws and out institutions must necessarily be based upon and
    	embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind.  It is impossible
    	that it should be otherwise; and in theis sense and to this extent
    	our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian.
    
    	Church of the Holy Trinity vs U.S. 1892,  in which they quoted 87
    	historical precedents to support this statement.

   <<< Note 1145.115 by CSC32::M_EVANS "nothing's going to bring him back" >>>

>    Joe,
>    
>    Since you migrated here from another state, it doesn't surprise me that
>    you are less than familiar with the history of this state.  Yes I am
>    aware that Palmer was a strict Methodist, but even so, he was also a
>    far more tolerant person than the organizations moving in purport to
>    be.  
    
    	The history of this state did not start at your birth (if you are 
    	claiming to be a native.)  Relative to the founding of this state
    	-- and specifically this city -- your first-hand history here is 
    	as limited as mine.  Your interpretation of Palmer's "tolerance"
    	is mere wishful thinking.  
    
>    This was one of the first states to grant sufferage to women, now
>    t appears to be in the forefront of people trying to remove rights from
>    identifiable groups.  What a shame.
    
    	Again, more wishful interpretation.

        re .123

    Thanks for the elaboration, Joe. Your earlier one sentence quip didn't
    make it clear.

    Eric

Re: .123 Joe

Thank goodness the Supreme Court finally saw the light in 1947.  I'm glad
I'm not living in the 19th century.

				-- Bob

    
    > "We hold these truths to be self evident - that all men are created
    > equal."

    These words are from that great piece of rhetoric called the
    Declaration of Independence and have no bearing in law. Eleven years
    later when the Constitution was established, you'll note that gender
    has been removed and the word 'person' is used and not man or men.

    Of course slavery is implicitly accepted, African or otherwise...

    Eric

    
    Re the "wall"

    It's interesting to note that the influx of Catholics in the late 19
    and early 20 centuries was perhaps the what brought this whole
    church/state thing to a head. The wall protected Protestants from what
    they called "Popery," and Catholics from institutionalized anti
    catholic sentiments.

    Eric

    	re .126

    	Right Bob.  The light.

    	Now the light that they see says, "If portions of the the New
    	Testament were read, they could be, and have been, psychologically
    	harmful to the child."  (Stated without precedent in Abington vs 
    	Schempp, 1963.)  
    
    	Or, "It is unconstitutional for a student to pray aloud."
    
    	(Reed vs Van Hoven, 1965)
    
    	More "light" says, "If posted copies of the 10 Commandments are
    	to have any effect at all, it will be to induce the school
    	children to read, meditate upon, perhaps to venerate and obey, 
    	the commandments.  This is not a permissible objective."
    
    	(Stone vs Graham, 1980)  
    	
    	Heaven forbid that kids follow the 10 Commandments!  This is not
    	a permissible objective!
    
    	Yes, now we see the light!

re Note 1145.124 by CSC32::J_OPPELT:

>     	The history of this state did not start at your birth (if you are 
>     	claiming to be a native.)  Relative to the founding of this state
>     	-- and specifically this city -- your first-hand history here is 
>     	as limited as mine.  

        Perhaps she watches "Dr. Quinn, Medicine Woman"?  (Although,
        as a native of Massachusetts, Dr. Quinn is immediately
        suspect. :-)

        Bob

Joe,

I certainly do think it should be unconstitutional to post a copy of the
ten commandments in a public school.  Commandment one: "You shall have no
other gods before me."  Sounds like establishment of religion to me!

				-- Bob

    	Gee, Bob, that sounds like rule #1 for just about any religion!
    
    	So which religion is being established by that?
    
    	Why should this historic piece of literature be denied in our
    	educational institutions?

Re: .132 Joe

>    	So which religion is being established by that?
    
If we were living in Israel I'd say that Judaism was being established,
but since this is the United States I think it's clear that Christianity is
the religion that is being established.

>    	Why should this historic piece of literature be denied in our
>    	educational institutions?

If it were presented purely as literature, without an implied endorsement
by the school, I wouldn't have a problem with it.  For example, in a
comparative religion class it might appear along with texts from other
religions.

				-- Bob

    Joe,
    
    I am well awarte of the history of this State.  It was required
    reading, both in School and with my parents.  Yes I am painfully aware
    of the destruction of the Arapaho, the near destruction of the Cheyenne
    and the impoverishment and attempted genocide regarding the Utes, both
    Mountain and Southern tribes, by people who claimed to be Christyian
    god-fearing men.  
    
    Women's suffereage was one of the articles in the constitution of this
    state, beginning only with school-board elections and working up from
    there.  
    
    Colorado was one of the first states to accept the Nissai when other
    states were "interring" them in awful concentration camps.  Colorado
    even tolerated the influx of Irish and Chinese from the railroads,
    unlike our neighbor to the north, (interesting massacre up there)  The
    state had successfully integrated several southwaestern culture in the
    process of growing into a fine state, unfortunately a fine enough one
    that some outsiders wish to bring their ideas of what the state should
    be and force that mold onto the rest of us.  
     
    Dr. Quinn is neither historically, nor locationally correct, but I
    don't expect much better from hollywood, give me "All Creatures Great
    and Small" any Saturday night.  

    	Sounds like a real "tolerant stew" that you were previously
    	extolling...

    re: .126
    
    So, all previous SCOTUS rulings on this issue were wrong?  All 82 precedents
    (there are probably more), dating back to the days of the FF?  I guess
    those guys who lived in that very era just didn't understand the 
    Consitution.  
    
    I've got a question for you.  Why do courts use precedent in cases?  If 
    you answer this honestly, you will realize how silly your statement sounds.
    
    "Seeing the light" is a very interesting use of verbiage- especially
    since, in this case, it means "inventing a new meaning the First Amendment"
    (as well as Jefferson's letter).
    
    
    
    -steve                     

    re: .127
    
    You are incorrect.  The Declaration of Independence DOES indeed have a
    bearing in law.  Our FF go on record as stating that it is a
    co-founding document- the very intent and reason (even conscience)
    behind the Constitution.
    
    
    -steve

Re: .136 Steve

>    So, all previous SCOTUS rulings on this issue were wrong? 
>    All 82 precedents
>    (there are probably more), dating back to the days of the FF?  I guess
>    those guys who lived in that very era just didn't understand the 
>    Consitution.  
    
I don't think the precendents were wrong, just misguided.  They were
enforcing a less enlightened view of the Constitution.

Many infamous ruling of the Supreme Court, such as the Dredd Scott
decision, Plessy vs. Ferguson, etc. were perfectly valid in terms of
interpreting the original intent of the Founding Fathers and in upholding
precendent.  They just happened to be immoral by present day standards.

>    I've got a question for you.  Why do courts use precedent in cases?

In order to provide a stable base of law, so that courts render consistent
verdicts.

There is a lot to be said for upholding precendents, so that people know
what to expect from the court system.  But when the precendent is a bad
one, upholding it becomes an impediment to progress.  That's when it
becomes time for the Court to break with precedent by writing a landmark
decision, such as Brown vs. Board of Education.

If the Court never broke with precedent the Constitution would become an
instrument of oppression, chaining us to the morality of the 18th and 19th
centuries, and eventually it would become necessary for us to throw it away
and write a new one.  But by changing with the times the Constitution has
survived, and with it the Republic.

				-- Bob

    
    re .137

    Nonetheless, it is not legislation. You cannot bring litigation based
    on a violation of your Declaration of Independence rights. It is
    rhetoric and not law, no matter how special or foundational it is.

    Eric

    
    Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there
    be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of
    blind-folded fear.
    
    		Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), 
    		U.S. president. Letter, 10 Aug. 1787.
    
    
                    

    
    Good one, Eric!

    re: .138 (Bob)
    
    
>I don't think the precendents were wrong, just misguided.  They were
>enforcing a less enlightened view of the Constitution.

    Less enlightened?  They enforced ORIGINAL INTENT.  Modern courts have
    clearly interpreted the First in ways never intended- THIS IS WRONG! 
    If you wish to make changes to the Constitution, you do not do this by
    a rule of 9 (Judicial fiat), you do so with a new Amendment.
    
    The SC had no right to completely ignore intent, which they are bound
    by law to uphold. 
    
>Many infamous ruling of the Supreme Court, such as the Dredd Scott
>decision, Plessy vs. Ferguson, etc. were perfectly valid in terms of
>interpreting the original intent of the Founding Fathers and in upholding
>precendent.  They just happened to be immoral by present day standards.

    I beg to differ.  Dredd Scott was not an example of a good ruling- with
    regards to intent.  Separate but equal was not the intent behind the
    Fourteenth Amendment.  This was more of a social ruling, IMO, just like
    Everson v. Board of Education.
    
    As with anything else, SCOTUS is not perfect.  They have their bad
    examples, too.  However, off-handedly dismissing 82 (probably more)
    precedents stretching 150 years of SCOTUS history (all complementing
    each other) is another thing altogether.  We have bad examples of
    SCOTUS ruling before 1947, to be sure, but they are rather isolated
    (with regards to having precedent for such a ruling) and
    are usually overturned at a later date.
    
>In order to provide a stable base of law, so that courts render consistent
>verdicts.

    Right.  And by ignoring all precedent, what is the court doing when it
    makes a ruling?  How about if it not only ignores much precedent, but
    actually rules the exact opposite of all that precedent?  
    
>There is a lot to be said for upholding precendents, so that people know
>what to expect from the court system.  But when the precendent is a bad
>one, upholding it becomes an impediment to progress.  
    
    If you are dealing with 150 years of consistent precedent in a given
    constitutional interpretation, I wonder how such precedent can be
    considered 'bad'.  I would say that it is consistent in interpreting
    the original intent, and that overturning/ignoring it is wrong.
    
    If problems arise due to original intent, then this is grounds for
    looking at a new Amendment to expand upon the original; there are never
    grounds to ignore the original intent and reinterpret it due to social
    change.  By doing this, you end up with no consistency in law, which
    is THE cause of all of our current First Amendment problems.
    
>    That's when it
>becomes time for the Court to break with precedent by writing a landmark
>decision, such as Brown vs. Board of Education.

    No, this is never acceptable.  This is the lie that we have been
    conditioned to swallow, though.  The SC cannot reinterpret Amendments
    or the text of the Constitution.  The SC can only make a ruling BASED
    ON THE INTENT AND MEANING (which is clarified via consistent
    precedent- if not clear, then perhaps a landmark ruling is in order-
    I'll give you that much) OF THE CONSTITUTION.
    
    Slavery was abolished via Amendment, not by reinterpreting another part
    of the Constitution.  Women were given the right to vote by Amendment,
    not by reinterpretation of the Constitution.  When the Constitution is
    silent, or existing Amendments do not cover what is needed, this is
    grounds for a new Amendment.  
    
    When an existing Amendment is not silent, and has clear and numerous 
    precedent backing up its intent, it cannot be ignored by SCOTUS- the
    intent must filter the ruling, not vice-versa.
    
    By allowing the SC to reinterpret Amendments, we give them far more
    power than they were ever intended to have.  Basically, you have a
    very small group of non-elected officials creating law by
    reinterpreting the Consitution.  Creating law is solely the job of
    Congress (I realize that they do not 'create' legislation, but the end
    result is the same).
    
>If the Court never broke with precedent the Constitution would become an
>instrument of oppression, chaining us to the morality of the 18th and 19th
>centuries, 
    
    The Constitution is not a document that is used *against* the people-
    it *cannot* be a tool for oppression, if its intent is followed.  The BoR 
    is a statement of what GOVERNMENT CANNOT DO- it has nothing to
    do with the people, nothing!  It is a guarantee that government will
    not usurp specific rights deemed important enough to list (many thought
    that listing any specific rights in this way was asking for a
    limitation on unalienable rights not listed).
    
>    and eventually it would become necessary for us to throw it away
>and write a new one.  But by changing with the times the Constitution has
>survived, and with it the Republic.

    The way to change the Constitution is with Amendments.  This option was
    left open by our FF to cover future issues that the Constitution was
    silent on.  I repeat (again and again, since I feel this is a very
    important point), you cannot change the Constitution by reinterpreting
    it!  You can only legally change it by amending it (not that this
    little fact has stopped SCOTUS from doing so).
    
    
    -steve

Re: .142 Steve

>>I don't think the precendents were wrong, just misguided.  They were
>>enforcing a less enlightened view of the Constitution.
>
>    Less enlightened?  They enforced ORIGINAL INTENT.

I realize that you believe that the Constitution should be interpreted
based on Original Intent, but this is *not* what I believe.  I do not wish
to be governed according to the political philosophy of the 18th century,
which allowed white men to enslave black men, which allowed men to
dominate women, which allowed rich men to dominate poor men.

I believe the Constitution should be interpreted in the light of present
day conceptions of liberty and justice.

>    Right.  And by ignoring all precedent, what is the court doing when it
>    makes a ruling?  How about if it not only ignores much precedent, but
>    actually rules the exact opposite of all that precedent?  
    
When the court rules exactly the opposite of a bad precedent, it's called
"progress".

>>    That's when it
>>becomes time for the Court to break with precedent by writing a landmark
>>decision, such as Brown vs. Board of Education.
>
>    No, this is never acceptable.  This is the lie that we have been
>    conditioned to swallow, though.

That's where we disagree, Steve.

>    The Constitution is not a document that is used *against* the people-
>    it *cannot* be a tool for oppression, if its intent is followed.

The Constitution allowed the white man to continue to enslave the black
man.  That was its intent.  Even after slavery was abolished and the 14th
amendment supposedly guaranteed all citizens the equal protection of the
law, it allowed the white man to continue to discriminate against and
subjugate the black man.  That was the original intent of the 14th
amendment.  Fortunately, the present day Supreme Court doesn't consider
itself bound to interpret the 14th amendment in accordance with its original
intent.

>    I repeat (again and again, since I feel this is a very
>    important point), you cannot change the Constitution by reinterpreting
>    it!  You can only legally change it by amending it (not that this
>    little fact has stopped SCOTUS from doing so).
    
Again, this is where we disagree.  The Supreme Court has been given the
power to interpret the Constitution, and fortunately it has used this
power to reinterpret the Constitution to allow us to progress from the
political philosophies of the 18th and 19th centuries.

				-- Bob

    I've commented in here before on the issue of original intent.

    I consider the "doctrine" a dangerous fiction.

    First of all, I don't believe it is possible to know with precision the 
    intent of the Framers.   We have the private letters of many delegates 
    to the Constitutional convention.  I think it is sheer lunacy to
    attempt to derive from these letters the *inferred* intent of ONE Framer 
    (based on present day understanding of that period in history) and claim 
    it as ironclad proof a constitutional issue ought to be interpreted in one 
    way or another.   

    We have the public writings of a subset of these men and we have extensive 
    documents from only a handful.   From these documents we can see that
    the Framers themselves disagreed on many important points such as the 
    meaning of the ex post facto clause and whether the Congress could 
    establish a National Bank.  How are judges of today to derive the original 
    intent of a general Constitutional provision that never commanded unanimity 
    among the very people who wrote it?  Never mind the general public who
    probably didn't even understand it!


    There was NO OFFICIAL RECORD of the convention itself.  The most extensive
    notes we have were Madison's, and they weren't even published until 1840.

    If the Framers wanted posterity to interpret their work in light
    of their original intent, why did they not provide us with what must 
    have been the most compelling arguments in support of their points of 
    view?  Those made while the document itself was being drafted?

    For fifty three years, SCOTUS has NO public record of the convention
    to turn to for an understanding of what the Framers wanted.  


    Finally, I find this talk about looking at things from "a historical
    perspective" highly amusing.   Just who's historical perspective does
    one use?  That of a child?  A mother?  A landed merchant, sailor,
    slave, prostitute, King or preacher?  Where does this arrogant belief 
    that we can *KNOW* the generic reality of a past age (or, for that
    matter, our own age) come from?  People seem to think they can look at 
    the world through the astoundingly narrow and limited means at their 
    disposal (how much TV, radio and news can you *REALLY* absorb - and how 
    much of that is representative?) and make sweeping statements about common 
    ideas and thoughts and standards of behavior.   I find it a ridiculous 
    notion.  The world we do not observe directly (which is itself colored 
    heavily by our own experience and education) is reported to us by a tiny
    fragment of society.  A fragment that is surprising homogeneous.  Our
    history is presented to us by an even smaller fragment.

    This is not to say that history should be ignored, that sociological
    studies are worthless or that polls are a waste of time.  However I
    would submit that no one in this debate here in this notesfile is
    sufficiently acquainted with either 18th Century American History or
    Constitutional Law to patronize us with "historical" accounts of the
    "intent" of the Framers or the revolutionary public at large.

    re: .143 (Bob)
    
>I realize that you believe that the Constitution should be interpreted
>based on Original Intent, but this is *not* what I believe.  I do not wish
>to be governed according to the political philosophy of the 18th century,
>which allowed white men to enslave black men, which allowed men to
>dominate women, which allowed rich men to dominate poor men.

    The Constitution did not allow, nor did it forbid such things.  The
    Thirteenth Amendment freed the slaves- it was brought on by social
    change.  The Ninteenth Amendment recognised the rights of women to vote
    in elections- it was brought on by social change.
    
    When the Constitution was written, slavery had been a reality for some
    time; and the right to vote was reserved for free men only.  This was
    the social climate of the time, and was so ingrained that it took 
    Amendments to the Consitution to change things (and to change the
    meaning of the wording of the Constitution from "free men" to citizen-
    with regards to voting, and recognision of rights and civil liberties).
    
    Social change brought on these Amendments- and good Amendments they
    are.  However, the Constitution itself is not to blame for these past
    ills.  It was created to be amendable for such future changes.
    
    This is a far cry from changing the Constitution's intent by judicial
    fiat, rather than properly altering it via amendment. 
    
>I believe the Constitution should be interpreted in the light of present
>day conceptions of liberty and justice.

    I disagree.  If you wish to change the meaning, you need to properly
    amend it.  You simply cannot have consistent law any other way.
    
>>    Right.  And by ignoring all precedent, what is the court doing when it
>>    makes a ruling?  How about if it not only ignores much precedent, but
>>    actually rules the exact opposite of all that precedent?  
    
>When the court rules exactly the opposite of a bad precedent, it's called
>"progress".

    You call it 'progress', I call it 'unconstitutional'- it is ignoring
    the most basic precepts of the Consitution.  Without realizing it, you
    are supporting rule by judiciary (since you allow them to filter their
    own social agenda into the Constitution, rather than letting the
    Constitution filter their ruling).
    
>The Constitution allowed the white man to continue to enslave the black
>man.  That was its intent.  
    
    You are wrong.  The Constitution is rather silent on this, other than
    to state that voting was restricted to 'free men'.
    
    It was the social climate of that day that allowed slavery to continue. 
    The Constitution was made amendable, and if they had *wanted* to amend
    it to free the slaves, they could have done so.  Freeing the slaves
    could not happen until the social climate was right for such an
    amendment to pass.
    
    To blame the Constitution for slavery is rather simplistic.  There's no
    doubt that many at the time (maybe most) wanted to insure that
    "property rights" (which included slaves) were not infringed by
    government.  In general, I agree with them (however, their definition
    of property extends farther than mine- to include people), but to broad
    brush the Consitution as a cause or insurace to slavery is quite
    revisionistic.  
    
>    Even after slavery was abolished and the 14th
>amendment supposedly guaranteed all citizens the equal protection of the
>law, it allowed the white man to continue to discriminate against and
>subjugate the black man.  That was the original intent of the 14th
>amendment.  Fortunately, the present day Supreme Court doesn't consider
>itself bound to interpret the 14th amendment in accordance with its original
>intent.

    I'm not sure where to even start on this one.  You seem to start out
    okay (equal protection), but then you jump to the 14th *allowing*
    discrimination.  The 14th did not *allow* discrimination- it is written
    very plainly regarding "equal protection under the law". 
    
    Discrimination was allowed by the social structure, which could not change
    over night.  Even Amendments can only do so much when social climate is
    leaning towards the opposite direction (a good example is how the Second
    Amendment is being ignored by Congress, who is writing unconstitutional 
    limitations on the Second into law).
    
>Again, this is where we disagree.  The Supreme Court has been given the
>power to interpret the Constitution, and fortunately it has used this
>power to reinterpret the Constitution to allow us to progress from the
>political philosophies of the 18th and 19th centuries.

    The Supreme Court has no such power.  Read Article III of the
    Constitution (which is the outline of the powers of the judicial
    branch).  You will find no such granted power.
    
    Its rulings are to be based on the Constitution, as written.  They DO NOT 
    have the freedom to reinterpret it at will. 
    
    As a final comment, the philosophies of the 18th and 19th centuries,
    though not perfect, certainly left us with the best form of government
    in the world.  Because the philosophy was not perfect, you seem to be
    willing to toss the whole thing (throwing out the baby with the
    bathwater syndrome) in favor of 'free judicial interpretation'.
    
    The Constitution is a balanced document.  You cannot allow the balance
    of powers to be thrown so completely out of whack and expect things to
    run smoothly.  Our First Amendment problems of today are only the tip
    of the iceberg, and it is all due to this very imbalance.
    
    
                                                
    -steve

    re: .145
    
    
    You believe that original intent cannot be known.  I disagree.  If it
    cannot be known, why bother with the Consitution at all?  
    
    You have a defeatist attitude, IMO.  Though we may not be able to pin
    down each and every facet to the Nth degree of accuracy, in most cases
    regarding the BoR, we have A LOT of precedent to go on.  This is the
    very reason why Courts use precedent- TO KNOW BETTER THE INTENT OF SAID
    LAW (no yelling- this is for emphasis).
    
    What we are discussing in this string is not some vague law that could
    go one way or the other.  We are talking about an Amendment which has
    been consistently interpreted for 150 years; then, out of the blue, it
    is reinterpreted 180 degrees, ignoring 82+ (possibly hundreds) previous
    rulings.  This is wrong.  This is not how the balance of powes works. 
    This is not a judicial power.  This is not constitutional.  People
    don't seem to get the big picture, here, nor do they seem to understand
    the consequences.
    
    
    -steve 

    RE: .147

    > If it cannot be known, why bother with the Constitution at all?  

    We don't need to invent an original intent in order to interpret
    the words in the Constitution as they are understood today.  In
    fact, the debates that rage today on Constitutional matters should
    be proof enough of the fallacy of understanding an *original* intent.

    I do not suggest precedent be ignored.  On the contrary, I think the
    role of precedent is disregarded in many cases by the very people
    supporting original intent doctrine.  They whine about "legislating
    from the bench" when that is precisely what judges have done for
    centuries, using precedent along the way to establish a sense of
    continuity and maintain a reasonably stable legal environment.

    However, this does not preclude the judiciary from responding to
    the needs of the society it serves.  Consider a theoretical mistake
    of the court in a world in which original intent is known.  The
    unconstitutional mistake has only a minor impact at first but over
    the years a huge edifice is constructed around it.  Jump to present
    day.  You and your original intent cohorts get their way and the
    court agrees to obey O.I. doctrine.  Someone challenges the mistake
    made in years past.  Now the court has a choice.  Overturn the 
    mistake and topple the edifice, causing panic and disaster across
    the land, or fall under the influence of the current state of
    affairs and make a political decision that upholding the past
    decision is in the best interests of the nation.

    The edifice I speak of could be paper money in the U.S.  Some believe
    its existence is in violation of the original intent of the Framers.

    It might interest you to know the Supreme Court has declared
    Unconstitutional fewer than 100 acts of Congress.  The court does
    not ignore precedent and the Constitution when it makes decisions.
    It *has* clearly made mistakes and handed down bad decisions, but I
    firmly reject the notion the correct path is to grasp at some Grand
    past understanding (which I infer from your arguments would lead us
    into a legal, ethical and moral Eden).


    /Greg
    

    re: .148
    
>    We don't need to invent an original intent in order to interpret
>    the words in the Constitution as they are understood today.  In
>    fact, the debates that rage today on Constitutional matters should
>    be proof enough of the fallacy of understanding an *original* intent.

    If I am right, and original intent (in the case of the First) has been
    ignored for 50 years, then your example above has little bearing on
    this issue, and offers no "proof" or support for your claim.
    When original intent is a variable, it is no wonder that debates
    continually rage on- there is simply nothing concrete to grasp.
    
>    I do not suggest precedent be ignored.  
    
    Then explain why you agree with Everson v. Board of Education.  They
    ignored ALL precedent completely, their ruling was 180 degrees off of
    all previous rulings.  And we are not talking one or two questionable
    previous rulings, we are talking about many consistent rulings (82 was
    a number given earlier in this string- and that was just backing for a
    ruling in the late 1800's, which also used the Jefferson letter).
    
>    However, this does not preclude the judiciary from responding to
>    the needs of the society it serves.  
    
    The judiciary has one job- to make rulings based on the *intent* of the
    Constitution.  They must filter their ruling with the Constitution, not
    the other way around.  This is very basic stuff.
    
>    Consider a theoretical mistake
>    of the court in a world in which original intent is known.  The
>    unconstitutional mistake has only a minor impact at first but over
>    the years a huge edifice is constructed around it.  Jump to present
>    day.  You and your original intent cohorts get their way and the
>    court agrees to obey O.I. doctrine.  Someone challenges the mistake
>    made in years past.  Now the court has a choice.  Overturn the 
>    mistake and topple the edifice, causing panic and disaster across
>    the land, or fall under the influence of the current state of
>    affairs and make a political decision that upholding the past
>    decision is in the best interests of the nation.

    I disagree.  You suggest that perpetrating a lie is a proper course of
    action.  You are using an extremist edge ("causing panic and disaster
    across the land") to rationalize using situational ethics.  In the big
    picture, this is the VERY thing that has crippled our freedoms by
    allowing government to become the monstrosity it is today.
    
    Look at New Deal (ruled unconstitutional by SCOTUS before being
    eventually passed -- which is another story).  Rather than looking at
    the Constitutional limitations of government, SCOTUS ruled to set aside 
    such limitations (a power they do no have, but that's yet another subject) 
    and pass unconstitutional programs- all in the name of "emergency".
    
    The irony is that New Deal was not the big help it was supposed to be,
    it was WWII that got us out of the depression, not social programs. 
    The legacy continues on today, boosted by Great Society and similar
    government enlarging programs.
    
    I cannot support ANY unconstitutional programs/rulings for reasons of
    "emergency", and I will continue to condemn past SCOTUS (and Congress)
    for unconstitutional legislation/rulings.
    
>    The edifice I speak of could be paper money in the U.S.  Some believe
>    its existence is in violation of the original intent of the Framers.

    The entire banking system today, is scam and in violation of everything 
    the FF stood for.  Lincoln was very outspoken in denouncing the idea of a
    centralized banking structure.  Many FF went on record as stating that
    a centralized bank would be a very BAD idea (what did they fear?).
    
    It isn't a matter of paper money, it was a matter of who controls the
    banking structure.  The government, and only the government, has the
    constitutional power to coin money.  They do not, however, have the
    power to control the banking system of America (and in actuality, they
    do not- the Federal Rerserve does, and it is not a governmental
    authority).  When talking paper money, I think the issue is what
    *backs* said money (yet another subject 8^)).
    
    We could get into the federal reserve act and such, but that's fodder
    for another topic.  The federal reserve system, however, is the answer
    to what the FF and Abe Lincoln feared could happen.
     
>    It might interest you to know the Supreme Court has declared
>    Unconstitutional fewer than 100 acts of Congress.  The court does
>    not ignore precedent and the Constitution when it makes decisions.
    
    Not all the time, no.  
    
    But for the record, in regards to modern rulings on the "establishment" 
    clause of the First (after 1947), all the SCOTUS rulings I've looked at 
    do not go back farther than the 1947 Everson v. Board of Education in
    precedent.  So while, in this instance, they are not ignoring *some* 
    precedent, they are still ignoring a great majority of it, and are
    missing the intent.
    
>    It *has* clearly made mistakes and handed down bad decisions, but I
>    firmly reject the notion the correct path is to grasp at some Grand
>    past understanding 
    
    If you care about the Constitution, then you have to understand its
    intent.  If you wish to rule on it properly, you have to know what it
    means.  I submit to you that if you allow original intent to be changed
    by the bench, rather than changed via amendment, then you are doing the
    document, and this nation, a big disservice.  Not only that, but you
    open the courts up to "varied" interpretations syndrome (which we are
    experiencing today)- which can only end up with a Constitution that has
    no teeth, and is no longer a solid document on which to base
    government.
    
    If not original intent, who's word shall we take on it?  Who is going
    to rule?  The bench? (9 unelected, unaccountable officials)  In this
    situation, the people no longer have any power.  Anything they try to
    accomplish via Congress can be ruled down at will by SCOTUS.  This is
    NOT the balance of power Created by our FF.  
    
    -steve

    This seems nearly pointless....
    
    Who's original intent do we follow?
    
    Jefferson's?  Madison's?   
    
    Do you honestly believe there was one, dominant view for
    each and every point in the Constitution?  What of all the
    dissenting voices?   What of the huge percentage of the population
    that was never heard from because non-whites, non-Christians and
    women were not included in the deliberations?
    
    How can you possibly want to defer to 18th century concepts of
    justice and equality?
    
    /Greg

    <--- this has already been answered.