From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Limiting religious speech
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 00:12:24 GMT

aultj@rpi.edu (Jim Ault) writes:

[...]
>If you want another example of hostility toward Christianity, how
>about a preacher who, two weeks ago, was arrested and put in jail for
>six months without being accused or charged with a crime, and without
>a jury trial, for preaching the gospel on a public sidewalk?  A judge
>in Houston did this almost singlehandedly, and flatly refused to let
>another judge be involved in the case.
[...]

Can you give us references, names, or less impartial accounts of this
case? Could it be that the preacher was in contempt of court for
violating an anti-harassment constraining order?

[...]
>I believe that the many people who want to remove every mention of God
>from our the face of government (and by extension, from everyone and
>everything that receives public funds, which lately is almost
>everyone) are denying the history of our country, and ignoring the
>wishes of the people that you yourself say are overwhelmingly
>Christian.  

Not everywhere. Not in Hawaii. Not in all cities. In Utah the
overwhelming number of people are of a particular Christian sect, the
Mormons, that you likely disagree with. How would you feel if you
lived in Salt Lake City and the courthouse was engraved with words
from the Book of the Mormon? How would you feel if you lived in a
non-majority Christian city and the courthouse said "Jesus was a
fraud".

>
>Does it ever occur to anyone on this side of the "establishment of
>religion" debate that the first amendment says "Congress shall make no
>law..." ? Which law has Congress passed to "establish" a religion?

The Constitution doesn't say "Congress shall make no law establishing
a religion". It says "Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;".

The author of the First Amendment, Madison, believed in what he called
"'perfect separation' between religion and government. He said
repeatedly that religion would flourish more freely without the aid of
government because the power of government to aid religion necessarily
implied the power of government to suppress religion. ... In his own
state of Virginia, Madison opposed a 1984 tax bill that would have
subsidized religion _without preference_. ... The proposal for a
general, nonpreferential tax for supporting religion failed, and two
years later, the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom completely
separated church and state.
 [Also,] when the Senate was originally considering the First
Amendment, it _defeated_ three motions that would have changed its
language to prohibit laws that established 'one religious sect or
society in preference to others.' ...
 Finally, ... When the First Amendment was enacted _no_ state had an
established state church or supported one religion over another. ...
What 'establishment of religion' meant in America in 1791 was
precisely nonpreferential aid. When the First Amendment prohibited the
federal government from establishing religion, it was undoubtedly
these nonpreferential establishments that the framers had in mind."
  [_Visions of Freedom_ by Ira Glasser, p. 75 (btw, a great book).]

>How is it that every public school teacher has been elevated to the
>level of Congress whenever they happen to mention God on school
>grounds?

Because of the 14th Amendment Public schools teachers act under the
authority of Congress.

>Some more things to think about:
>
>How is it that the author of phrase "separation between church and
>state" (which is NOT found in the Constitution or the Declaration),
>Thomas Jefferson, who, when he served as a schoolmaster, saw fit to
>approve and heartily recommend the Bible for use in all public schools? 

Which public schools? When?

In any case, Jefferson wasn't Christian. He re-wrote the New Testament
removing all references to the divinity of Jesus. How would you feel
if a teacher at your local school started to use the Jefferson Bible
as a required text?
 
>Could it be that the understanding of that phrase, which is so
>commonly used today, is not really what Jefferson meant?

No.

- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Xref: sparky alt.censorship:7340 soc.culture.african.american:9158 alt.activism:15851 misc.legal:16844 soc.culture.usa:7065 oh.general:488