From: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Bush Vetoes Stupid Education Reform Bill
Date: 21 Nov 92 15:04:16 GMT
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Distribution: tx
Organization: Los Tejanos SCUBA Club and Beer Joint, Austin, Tejas

In article <1992Nov19.164721.37405@watson.ibm.com> johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti) writes:
>John F. Haugh II (jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org) wrote:
>: The 1st Amendment says that Congress may not make any law with regard to
>: setting up any religion and it may not prohibit its free exercise.  That
>: means it may not support religion, and it may not oppose religion.
>
>Allowing religious groups to meet on school property is a support of religion.

No.  This is no more "support of religion" than handing out condoms on
school property is a "support of sex" or allowing cigarettes to be sold
in this country is a "support of smoking".

If the chess club can meet, the Jesus club should be able to meet as
well.  If the chess club cannot meet, the Jesus club should not be able
to meet either.  This shows the state as a disinterested party (which is
different than "interested" or "uninterested").

>They can "mutter" whatever they want.  The school is not obligated to provide
>facilities with which the "muttering" takes place, and in fact is obligated
>NOT to, by the establishment clause.

	Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
	religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Let's look at that establishment clause.  It says that Congress shall make
no law - not some laws, or a few laws, or only laws you agree with, but NO
laws - respecting - not supporting or opposing, but "with regard to" - an
establishment of religion - not holding meetings and random times or in
unused buildings or off the clock, but an organized group or force for
carrying on public business.

What the various state and federal lawmakers have done is make a law with
regard to organized religious groups.  It doesn't matter that it is a law
which opposes religious groups - they are prohibited from making ANY law.
The 14th Amendment then makes it clear that NO ONE ELSE can make any law
which infringes on the rights citizens enjoy under the Constitution.  So
even state and local governments are prohibited from making ordinances.

This is really the right way to look at it.  A city can completely ignore
the religious message that is being presented and just set up a waiting
list for use of the town square.  One year in advance, anyone who wants to
erect a display can put their name on the list, pay the fee if there is
one, and then use the square for their organizations purpose.  If the
Austin Jews for Jesus want to put up a big menorah and manger scene, good
for them.  If Austin Atheists against Jesus want to erect a big sign that
says "Just say NO to mythology", wonderful.

But I suspect you wouldn't stand for that either since you'd then have to
worry about 51 other weeks when some group might sneak a religious message
into your life.

>Equal access compromised the establishment clause.  It is no accident that
>the establishment clause comes before the free exercise clause in the wording
>of the amendment.

The ordering of clauses in the amendment is accidental at best.  There is
no wording indicating that the establishment clause somehow has more power
than the exercise clause.  "Or" does not mean "what comes first is more
significant than what came second".  Equal access (which is a farce, there
is no "equal access" while teachers are being fired for reading books
during their free time) pretends to make the state be a disinterested
party in the allocation of school resources.
-- 
John F. Haugh II                  [  TSAKC  ] !'s: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151           [ DoF #17 ]        @'s: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org
[ITSABOYITSABOYITSABOYITSABOYITSABOYITSABOYITSABOYITSABOYITSABOYITSABOYITSABOY]
Newsgroups: tx.politics