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.

Technology Stocks : Amazon.com, Inc. (AMZN) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: craig crawford who wrote (139953)	2/27/2002 2:25:28 PM
From: craig crawford	Respond to of 164684

The amendment deals with what Congress shall not do. During the amendment process Congress turned down wording that went as follows: "The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of 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 any pretext, abridged." That wording was challenged by congressmen who wanted assurance that state and local aid to religion would not be banned. James Madison eased their fears by noting that the prohibition was only on national “establishment” -- the federal government requiring everyone to support financially a particular denomination. States and communities could do what they wanted. Legislators wanted to make sure that the amendment clearly instructed Congress to keep its nose out of religious matters, so that people would be free to pursue their interests through both private action and state legislation. The House of Representatives initially voted for wording introduced by Representative Samuel Livermore of New Hampshire (a state in which residents paid town taxes to support churches). Congress, according to the House version of the first amendment, was to make “no laws touching religion, or infringing the rights of conscience." Restrictions on laws touching religion were to apply to Congress only; Livermore wanted to insure that Congress would not interfere with local and state denominational support. When the Senate got its hands on the proposed amendment, it agreed with the House position that state and local folks could do whatever they wanted, but went further. The Senate’s wording suggested that the federal government could financially support churches and church schools, as long as it would "make no law establishing articles of faith or a mode of worship or prohibiting the free exercise of religion." The final compromise wording was what is now familiar to us, and bears repeating: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." (“Respecting,” incidentally, means “concerning.”)There was nothing about gagging teachers in the classroom or speakers at state-funded activities. There was nothing about taking down crosses or keeping counselors from spreading God’s counsel. The goal was freedom for religion, not freedom from religion. As Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story wrote in 1833, the first amendment allowed Christianity even “to receive encouragement from the state, so far as was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience, and the freedom of religious worship." Only by abandoning the plain meaning of the text and the history behind it, can latter-day Constitution-twisters find in the amendment a map of the naked public square. It’s now two centuries since George Washington left the presidency, in 1797. He declared in his farewell address that "of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.” We need that understanding today. All of us can improve our behavior in two ways. The best way, I believe, is through faith in Christ, because that changes our hearts -- our “dispositions,” to use Washington’s term -- and not just our external behaviors. But if that change does not occur, far better for a country to have its citizens adhering to the habits promoted by any code of morality that emphasizes work, marriage, and family, rather than a search for immediate gratification. The founding fathers would be aghast at court rulings that make our part of the world safe only for moral anarchy.