Google| Subject | Re: OT: For those who Doubt |
| From | Katherine Tredwell |
| Date | 10/08/2001 04:00 (10/07/2001 21:00) |
| Message-ID | <3BC108AB.BAD5AE0C@ou.edu> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | alt.fan.tolkien |
| Follows | the softrat |
| Followups | Russ (45m) Russ (45m) > Katherine Tredwell |
the softrat wrote:
the softratPresumably because it's not the Legislative Branch.
On Sun, 07 Oct 2001 17:14:57 -0500, Katherine Tredwell <ktredwell@ou.edu>wrote:Katherine Tredwellthe softrat
Funny thing about the Constitution: it doesn't say that mixing religion and government is acceptable if the government has determined the proper theology.
It 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; ...."
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.Fourteenth Amendment. (If you disagree with the basis for interpreting it that way, though, don't expect me to justify it.)
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'.)Must be a rhetorical question, but just in case: they have decided that abridgement of rights is acceptable under certain circumstances. I don't know the source; would it go back to the "clear and present danger" bit?
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'.Originally it referred to the concept of an "established church," one that was state-endorsed and supported by taxes. Based on reference to the "wall of separation of church and state" in the Federalist Papers, courts have subsequently used their judicial power of interpretation to determine that the intent of the First Amendment was to draw as clear a line as possible between the two and to avoid any possible implication of state support for particular religious views--a not unreasonable interpretation, in my view, given the Founders' sensitivity to the potential damages of religious dissention such as happened during the Reformation. I might add that in their day, some sort of belief in a single "God" went nearly without question. Today it is necessary to consider whether the intent described above would apply to endorsement of monotheism as being alienating to the tens of thousands of pagans who are citizens. (Note the word "consider.")
Do I get to stay?
(I offered that merely to allow you to judge whether I am truly constitutionally utterly clueless. I do not wish to get involved in a thread
about whether the courts' interpretation is actually valid. Hence my use of less formal words like "mixing"; I was addressing issues of sentimentality rather than the legitimacy of the very concept of the ACLU challenge.)
[...]
Katherine Tredwell
Would my opinion cease to matter if I thought the words and actions of
It is relevant, however, to my reason for involvement in the thread: you do not need to be an atheist or a foreigner to be offended by the proclamation "God Bless America." I was addressing posters who appear to be disgusted because they think the ACLU's suit is a frivolity that does not concern the real feelings of real people. I am not interested in a debate over interpretations of the Constitution.Jesus teach that faith is a separate thing from government and should be kept that way?the softrat
Not relevant to the church-state issue.
See above.Katherine Tredwellthe softrat
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...)Lucky for you I don't think that, and you won't have to trot out more examples.
Katherine Tredwell
10/06/2001-
