Google| Subject | Re: OT: For those who Doubt |
| From | the softrat |
| Date | 10/08/2001 02:33 (10/07/2001 17:33) |
| Message-ID | <ufr1st8f4jq8jcjaltn035crfd9ikuc1bp@4ax.com> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | alt.fan.tolkien |
| Follows | Katherine Tredwell |
| Followups | Katherine Tredwell (1h & 26m) Russ (1h & 37m) Russ (1h & 37m) |
On Sun, 07 Oct 2001 17:14:57 -0500, Katherine Tredwell <ktredwell@ou.edu>wrote:
Katherine TredwellIt doesn't say that it is unacceptable either. Actually it says nothing about 'mixing' religion and government, restricting Congress only: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ...."
Funny thing about the Constitution: it doesn't say that mixing religion and government is acceptable if the government has determined the proper theology.
How the courts can find that the Executive Branch and/or the various states may not make such a law or regulation is a mystery to me. Furthermore the courts actions do 'prohibit the free exercise thereof'. Why are the courts allowed to do this? (Note: 'Atheism' may be a personal philosophy, but it has never been construed as a 'religion'.)
If you do not know what the legal phrase 'establishment of religion' means, I suggest that you stay out of the argument. It does not mean 'mixing'.
I personally believe that the courts are way out of line on this issue and that the ACLU, as usual, has constructed and is constructing 'rights' out of smoke, mirrors, and personal prejudice.
Would my opinion cease to matter if I thought the words and actions of Jesus teach that faith is a separate thing from government and should be kept that way?Not relevant to the church-state issue.
For that matter, would it cease to matter if I were an atheist? Despite the dismissive comments that have been made on this thread, nonbelieving children go to school too.Not relevant to the church-state issue.
Putting up a sign, any sign, is not the 'establishment of religion' either. It is a free speech issue if anything. (I do not think that 'reading' and 'writing' is 'speech' either.) Really it is not a constitutional issue no matter what the courts and the ACLU think.. It is an issue of personal philosophy. And if you believe that ANY personal philosophy is acceptable, I refer you to Osama ben Ladin, Charles Manson, and Pol Pot. (There *are* others...)
Katherine TredwellHave a nice day!
the softrat "He who rubs owls" mailto:softrat@pobox.com -- I don't have a solution, but I admire the problem
10/06/2001-
