From: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Subject: Re: OCA Initiative (was: Family values defined)
Reply-To: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Organization: St. Elizabeth Hospital, Youngstown, OH
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 20:41:45 GMT


In a previous article, topcat!tom@tredysvr.tredydev.unisys.com (Tom Albrecht) says:

>ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller) writes:
>
>> In the United States, it is unimportant what god says when concidering action
>> of government  (see the first ammendment).
>
>This is atheist propaganda, not American jurisprudence.

No, this is the United States Constitution.  Read the afore-mentioned first
ammendment.  I suggest you read it.

>
>> Funny...our founding fathers WROTE the constitution.  Now, if the founding 
>> fathers felt the bible was important to governmental policy, why did they
>> bother placing the religion clause in the first ammendment?
>
>I hate to tell you this, Kelley, but nowhere does the Constitution prohibit
>the Bible from being the basis of our civil laws.

Given.  But by extrapolation, basing civil law on biblical law would be an
endorsement of the bible as a legal entity, which, according to the first
ammendment, is unconstitutional.

>  In fact, most of the laws
>on the books of the various states at the time of the writing of the
>Constitution were taken directly from the Bible ... and none of them were
>declared unconstitutional as a result of the adoption of the 1st Amendment.
>

Again, given, but those laws have validity in a secular context.  "Thou shall
not kill" goes beyond any religious context in our law.  We don't have laws
against murder because it's concidered "sinful" by the government, but because
murder is a serious infraction of the victim's rights.

If, on the other hand, there were laws on the state books like some of the 
Hebrew dietary law, which have ONLY signifigence in religious law, they would
be removed as unconstitutional.

I challange you to find any law on the book of any state which you concider
based on biblical law or principal which does not have a completely secular
reason for being.

>But then again they don't teach that fact in school anymore, now do they?
>

I couldn't say.  I've been out of school for many years.

>> In all the above, I see no justification for government stepping into the
>> realm of religion.  You have not made the point that either the bible or
>> the founding fathers intended the biblical law to be concidered in our form
>> of government.
>
>Read the documents for yourself.  Or is this a case of, "I've made up my
>mind so don't confuse me with the facts."
>

Not at all, but again I ask, if the founding fathers intended our civil laws
to be == religious law, why was the religious prohibition placed in the 
constitution?

>> If you are interested, I have a list of quotations from the founding fathers
>> concerning religion in general, complete with sourses.  i'd be happy to post
>> them if you would like.
>
>I'd rather you posted the legal statutes from the commonwealth of
>Massachusetts, for example.  Or any other set of state laws on the books
>in 1787. You might also want to share the underlying basis for those laws.
>The ratification process for many of the state constitutions are available.
>

In other words, you already know that the founding fathers were, for the most
part, anti-religion in government, and instead fall back on laws which were on
the books before the Constitution was radified...



>--
>Tom Albrecht
>
-- 
*...your Friendly Neighborhood Atheist  //  Newsflash from the Vatican: *
*      the KelleyMan:Kelley L. Miller  //  "Easter has been cancelled...*    
*                  ae642@yfn.ysu.edu  //  Someone found the body...."   *
****************Know God...No peace.  No God...Know peace.***************
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc