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.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (53146)	7/18/2002 5:10:34 AM
From: Solon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

The fact that the issue may be differently interpreted does not weigh on the matter, nor does it confound my opinion in any way. The logic must be assailed on its own merits in order to vitiate what I have asserted. I do not believe it can be successfully argued that the lemon test is not a logical and compelling test of the separation between church and state; nor do I think it may reasonably be argued that "one nation UNDER God" could ever hope to pass this test of constitutionality. Having said that...of course I recognize that people may decide to interpret the Constitution differently. This axiomatic premise dos not touch my argument in any way. You already know my opinion. I think the establishment clause has been interpreted in a way that is cogent, and beneficial to the People...and that is condign to the preservation of those very rights and freedoms which formed the basis of the Republic. I think the lemon test is unassailable in its logic, and that the findings of the 9th Court are intellectually unassailable--unless in conjunction with a lessening of integrity...or a disavowal of the test in question. This (again) is not to suggest that there are any rational limits to which partisan interests may be held in "interpreting" the Constitution. Perhaps "God" includes the plural; perhaps it includes the feminine (Goddess)...and the plural of that...yada, yada, yada. Certainly, Tim, one can reasonably argue whether the wall of separation was intended to be concrete or plywood. Truthfully, there were probably those who were comfortable with some crossover. But I am speaking of the logic of the current understanding...not the logic which may be relevant to any partisan interpretation which may be forthcoming. "but despite that Canadian democracy seems healthy enough to me" This misses the point. The first few Presidents were contemptuous of democracy as a case of "mob rule". Fortunately, they had the public good at heart. Democracy, in the absence of rights and freedoms is simply a poker hand. The fact that the mob is benevolent from time to time is simply irrelevant.