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 : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Edscharp who wrote (33372)	12/23/2003 12:42:43 AM
From: lurqer	Respond to of 89467

I'm not a constitutional scholar Nor am I. A Jeffersonian letter usually comes up in such a discussion. As you would expect, there is considerable disagreement about its interpretation. pbs.org Just adding to the confusion. lurqer

To: Edscharp who wrote (33372)	12/23/2003 10:05:05 AM
From: yard_man	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

>>The practice of supporting religion in this manner led to persecution of tens of thousands of people<< no, that's spin -- you have it backwards!! it was the government establishment of a specific religion which resulted in the persecution of folks who desired to practice other than the "established" religion. The emphasis was clearly on keeping governments out of the hair of folks who wanted to worship as they were so convicted to worship. This is much different than the recent day interpretation of interfering with the free exercise of one's beliefs to prevent someone else from being offended. As a Christian, today, I could reasonably argue that the state is out to set up it's own religion: secular humanism and to the extent that I am precluded from the exercise of my beliefs (I'll be the first to admit -- the infringements I am talking about here are small right now -- but all such things start small -- first you can't have a benediction at a high school graduation -- next year, there is another area where one can't freely express their beliefs and drip-drip-drip ...) But moreover, if government is composed of individuals who hold various religious beliefs -- it is simply not possible, nor is it advisable to try to separate their views from informing their participation in government. E.G. Someone who is a Christian may be adamantly against abortion, or against pornography -- or against the use of tobacco -- or believe that stealing is wrong -- Someone who does not acknowledge any God based on some other principle, may be for or against any of the above Each should have the freedom to participate in government to the extent that they are able. There is nothing wrong at all with someone who is religious having their views influence and inform their participation. The founding fathers did not "take off" their beliefs when they founded this nation -- What we do want to preclude is "state sponsorship" of religion. I disagree with Bush's initiative in this regard and think all religious organizations would be well adivsed not to take any funding whatsoever from the state. What the founding fathers clearly wanted to preclude was state organization of religion -- either governments establishment or governments preclusion of the exercise of religious belief. At some pt those who are zealously anti-God or anti-spiritual will probably try to remove the founding fathers appeal to their own beliefs which informed their thinking concerning how government was to be set up.