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: jbe who wrote (41696)	6/24/1999 1:42:00 AM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

I still think the reason that the founders left their documents open to amendment and interpretation was that they wanted our government to reflect our intent, not theirs. What the founding fathers wanted, and why, is less important than what we want, and why.

To: jbe who wrote (41696)	6/24/1999 6:38:00 AM
From: nihil	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

I think it is quite clear that almost everyone (in 1789) except Madison wanted the Constitution to be neutral toward establishment, neither denying States the right to establish religion (which most of them did) or permitting Congress to establish religion for the nation. That is why the wording is "make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." This was intended to take Congress out of the religion business altogether, without influencing the States actions in any way. Madison was an extremist on the issue and introduced a bill for an amendment that would have restricted or prevented the states from establishing religion. He of course had already campaigned for Virginia's law affecting religious liberty. Some good sources are in Amar, The Bill of Rights, 1998, Yale.

To: jbe who wrote (41696)	6/24/1999 12:05:00 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

No, haven't read those. You obviously have more time to pursue your non-work interests than I do! <g> I agree that the point was to separate church and state, for whichever reason you chose. BUT, I don't know of ANY view (heh heh -- an indirect challenge to you to spend hours trying to dig up a suitable quotation -- always a pleasure to give you pleasure) that suggested that the purpose was to protect athists or atheism. It was not a matter of "whether" religion but "which" religion. Now go prove me wrong!