Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Philosopher who wrote (41566)	6/24/1999 1:17:00 AM
From: jbe	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 108807

Re: Separation of Church & State and the Founders' Intent Christopher, you cite Lawrence Tribe, in support (I think) of your contention that the Founders were not at one in seeking "separation of church and state" (as opposed to simply "keeping the state from establishing any given religion"). He identifies three views: the evangelical view, which was to protect the churches against worldly corruption (interesting that here the purpose was to protect the churches, not to protect the state!); the Jeffersonian view, to safeguard secular interests against ecclaistical depredations and incursions; and the Madisonian view, to advance both religious and secular interests by diffusing and decentralizing power so as to asure competition among sects rather than dominance by any one. I presume that the typical representative of the first view is supposed to be Roger Williams. Does it really matter whether Williams, Jefferson, and Madison approached the same position from three different angles (if in fact they did)? The point is that all three of them did concur on the need to erect a "wall of separation" between church and state, as I noted in the following two posts: #reply-10227321 #reply-10242772 I'm not equipped to argue with Lawrence Tribe, or with any other legal scholar, for that matter. But legal scholars of course can disagree with one another. I have seen rave reviews of the following books, which I have not read. Are you familiar with any of them? Isaac Kramnick, R. Laurence Moore: The Godless Constitution : The Case Against Religious Correctness New. Kramnick is Professor of Government at Cornell, has written widely on the "intent" of the Founding Fathers. Leo Pfeffer: Church, State, and Freedom The late Leo Pfeffer was a practicing lawyer, as well as a scholar. having argued many cases before the Supreme Court (and winning most of them). Derek H. Davis: Original Intent Dr. Davis is director of studies at the Institute of Church-State Studies at Baylor University, and editor of its journal ("Journal of Church and State"). Leonard W. Levi: The Establishment Clause Then there are some excellent specialized journals (which I have had the opportunity to take a peek -- but no more than a peek -- at): The Journal of Law and Religion Journal of Church and State Incidentally, I don't think that all your examples really demonstrate practical "accomodationism." For example, all sorts of non-profit organizations get tax breaks, including religious ones. (But what happens with the tele-evangelists who turn religion into a profit-making activity? The Pat Robertsons as well as the Jim Bakkers???) Churches also constitute a component in civil society, as they notably did during the civil rights movement; thus, I do not regard the collaboration of the feds with local churches involved in the struggle against segregation to be a case of church-state "accomodationism." Joan