From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: Re: U.S. Bill of Rights today
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 15:35:13 GMT

>>	Establishment: Statement by the President (who is sworn to uphold
>>		       the Constitution) that atheists aren't citizens or
>>		       patriots; this is a Christian nation.

When George Bush said that, he was not yet the president of USA, so it
wouldn't seem to me that he has broken his oath to uphold the
Constitution with this statement, in any case.

>The Supreme Court:
>
>    No purpose of action against religion can be imputed to any
>    legislation, state or national, because this is a religious people.  
>    This is historically true.  From the discovery of this continent 
>    to the present hour, there is a single voice making this 
>    affirmation....These are not individual sayings, declarations of 
>    private persons: they are organic utterances; they speak the voice 
>    of the entire people....These, and many other matters which might 
>    be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass 
>    of organic utterances that THIS IS A CHRISTIAN NATION.
>         Church of the Holy Trinity v. U.S.; 465,471 (1892).

At first I intended to respond that this seems bullshit rationalizing
for tyranny of the majority against freedom of religion and against
the 1st amendment.

Then I though it is rhetoric to turn people for tyranny of the
majority and against freedom of religion, freedom of expression and
the 1st amendment (though I don't know whether the Supreme Court used
it for rationalizing a decision or whether it was just chatter).

On the other hand it could be viewed as a very cynical (or practical?)
comment from a Supreme Court which decided to bend for the opinion of
the majority instead of upholding the Constitution.

Or, it could just be that the Supreme Court acknowledges that religion
is a powerful tool to use to unite the nation (and unreligious people
a good enemy for the same purpose), and feels that the Founding
Fathers felt this way too and wrote the Constitution to support this
and thus the Supreme Court was doing it's job just fine, which would
be a bit unlucky for people of other religions than Christianity and
such.

In any case, if the comment is anything else but empty chatter, the
decision is violating civil liberties in my book - but with some
interpretations it _is_ perfectly Constitutional.

I am not qualified to say which would be the most accurate
interpretation.  Any opinions?

>John Witherspoon, a president of Princeton who trained one third
>of the Founding Fathers and also signed the Declaration:
>
>    What follows from this?  That he is the best friend to American
>    liberty, who is most sincere and active in promoting true and
>    undefiled religion, and who sets himself with the greatest firmness
>    to bear down profanity and immorality of every kind.  Whoever is
>    an avowed enemy of God, I scruple not [would not hesitate] to call
>    him AN ENEMY TO HIS COUNTRY.
>         John Witherspoon, The Works of the Rev. John Witherspoon
>         (Philadelphia: William W. Woodard, 1802), Vol. VI, p.414.

Again, any of the above interpretations would apply.

>The Supreme Court of Mass.:
>
>    [The First Amendment] embraces all who believe in the existence of
>    God, as well...as Christians of every denomination....THIS 
>    PROVISION DOES NOT EXTEND TO ATHEISTS, because they do not believe
>    in God or religion; and therefore...their sentiments and professions,
>    whatever they may be, cannot be called religious sentiments and 
>    professions.
>	 Commonwealth v. Abner Kneeland; 37 Mass. (20 Pick) 206,233,234
>	 (Sup.Ct.Mass. 1838)

I don't see the relevance of this, would need more information -
besides, the decision seems very strange - does the decision claim
that "shall make no law [ ... ] respecting an establishment of
religion" doesn't mean that people with religions can't have "better"
protection than people without religions?

>The intent of the First Amendment was to prohibit the U.S. government
>from establishing one Christian denomination as the national denomination.
>This is what they had been fleeing from in England where the national
>denomination had been Catholic, Anglican, and Protestant.  They did not 
>intend to protect other religions.  They also did not prevent religious 
>involvment in government, on the contrary, they wanted to encourage it.

Hmm, this is an interesting interpretation, which if true certainly
would take some of _my_ respect away from the U.S. Constitution.
Perhaps just as well, reminding that most things are not perfect ;-)

>All of the cases you cite are a result of the Supreme Court wrongfully
>applying the 14th Amendment to the other amendments.  Since that time,
>the Supreme Court has assumed more and more power.  They now determine
>the constitutionality of laws and they create laws themselves through
>"judicial orders."  This was never intended.
>
>    You seem...to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all
>    constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and
>    one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy....
>    The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal.
>	 Thomas Jefferson, 1820.
>
>    The germ of dissolution of our federal government is in...the
>    federal judiciary; an irresponsible body, (for impeachment is
>    scarcely a scare-crow,) working like gravity by night and by
>    day, gaining a little to-day and a little to-morrow, and 
>    advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of 
>    jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped from the States.
>	 Thomas Jefferson, 1821.
>
>    As the courts are generally the last in making the decision
>    [on laws], it results to them, by refusing or not refusing to
>    execute a law, to stamp it with its final character.  This makes
>    the Judiciary dept paramount in fact to the Legislature, which
>    was never intended, and can never be proper.
>	 James Madison, 1788.

>So what it comes down to is this; in order to reverse the Court's
>encroachment on your rights, you have to reverse the decision in
>Everson v. Board of Education, 1947, where the Court began this 
>mess.  Of course this would have to include the so called "separation 
>of church and state," and given your support of polygamy, pornography, 
>Satanism, and drugs, I doubt you are willing to do that.  This is
>probably a "Catch 22" for you as the two are inseparable but you 
>have to make a choice - do you want what the Founding Fathers 
>intended or not?

;-).  Again, an interesting point - I don't think that I am convinced
of all your claims of the intentions of the writers of the U.S.
Constitution quite yet, and I don't know what individual the "you"
used here refers to and in my book it hardly is relevant, but thanks
for providing a great deal of information to ponder.

//Jyrki
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution