From: vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu ()
Subject: Re: Soul of the Republican Party
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 05:15:15 GMT

popec@unkaphaed.gbdata.com (William C. Barwell) writes:


[Lotsa stuff deleted which ain't relevant]


>mvp@netcom.com (Mike Van Pelt) writes:

>of Babtists, the Danbury Babtists, jefferson uses the phrase "Wall of 
>seperation".  He makes it very clear that there is to be a STRONG wall of 
>seperation between Church and State.

>When Jefferson was president, one Rev. Millar, wrote to ask him to 
>institue an oficial day of prayer, which Jefferson refused.  Rev. Millar 
>then wrote again to ask him to institute an UNOFFICAL day of prayer, 
>which Jefferson pointedly refused.

>  "I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the 
>Constitution from meddlim=ng with reigous institutions, their doctrines, 
>discipline or exercises.  This rresults not only from the provision that 
>no law shall be made respecting the establishment, or free exercise of 
>religion,....
>  But it is only proposed that I recommend not prescribe a day of fasting 
>and prayer.  That is, I should indirectly assume to the United States an 
>authority over religous exercises, which the Constitution has directly 
>precluded them from..."

>You could imagine what Jefferson would say about prayer in public 
>schools, or Creches on government property, or what he would say about 
>the pious legeal frauds that declare such creches as 'secular' rather 
>than religous as some courts have done.

>Remember, Jefferson was one of the two men most responsible for there 
>being a first amandment, and actually wrote the final version of that 
>amendment.  HE definitly is the one person that knows what it meant and 
>how strongly it was to apply.

>If anything, the first amendment has definitely been stepped on by our 
>politicians in the last half century. 
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Amen to this.... for example.. Roe v Wade which created whole new
constitutional rights.



>We need to go back to following the Constitution, not subverting it for 
>the benifit of right winged evangelicals and the like.

Are we to understand then that you approve of Robert Bork's beliefs that
ONLY the strict interpretation of the Constitution should be the doctrine by 
which questions of this sort put before the Supreme Court are decided?
Your STRONG emphasis on Jefferson's INTENT would seem to suggest this to me.

Please tell us where you stand on the right to privacy, the right to bear
arms, the right to abortion, the right of free speech and the right to
practice a religion of one's choice.

Another good question for you: I have heard the argument that the framer's
intent would give everybody the right to ride a horse (or in our day a car).
This right is not, however, in the Bill of Rights, and it is considered a 
civil liberty.  Is it your contention that this is in fact a right?

The other deceptive failure of your contentions is that Jefferson was the
Lone Wolf on this.  Regardless of who wrote the actual text, the Bill of
Rights was approved by many people, and it is their interpretations that are 
relevant.

To quote William J. Brennan, Jr. regarding the interpretation of the
Constitution and the Bill of Rights-- "The act of intepretation must be
undertaken with full consciousness that it is, in a very real sense, the
_community's_interpretation_ that is sought [underline added]... the Justices
must render constitutional interpretations which are perceived as legitimate."
Extending this doctrine (written by the King Liberal himself), Jefferson's
opinions are irrelevant.  The community interpretation would support
the free exercise of religion in public places, etc..

Sorry this jumps around so much, I'm not in a literary mood.


>Pope Charles   SubGenius Pope Of Houston.     Just a patriot, that's all.

>--
>popec@unkaphaed.gbdata.com (William C. Barwell)
>Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy, Houston, TX, (713) 943-2728
>After December 31, (713) 481-3763
>1200/2400/9600/14400 v.32bis/v.42bis


Edward Simmonds



----------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Stupid obligatory sig to satisfy Tony Zugates                            -
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-                                                                          -
-  My opinions are my own but are, of course, completely correct           -
-                                                                          -
----------------------------------------------------------------------------