X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 4 Sep 1992 01:11:00 EST
From:         JCOCURUL@DREW.BITNET
Subject:      Re: democratic platform

In article <tfilt315884@drew.edu>, Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET> writes
   :
>
>                          And why isn't forcing anti-abortion taxpayers
>                          to fund something that violates their most
>                          deeply held moral beliefs every bit as much
>                          "forcing" (somebody's) views on them?  Are
>                          we not, on pain of prison, required to pay
>                          taxes?
>
perhaps Christian Scientists shouldn't pay for medical costs they
don't believe in, liberals and libertarians on the upkeep of all those
police officer time breaking various liberties or killing adults by
electricity which seems to me more offensive than destroying 7 week
embryos.  Paying for things doesn't mean you accept them, but not
allowing you to do things or forcing you to do things (i.e. give
birth) does force one to accept it in your life.

>
>                                     "Separation of church and state"
>                                     does not appear in the Constitution.
>                                     The wording in the First Amendment
>                                     means that there is to be no
>                                     *established* *church* (as in
>                                     Church of England.)  The Founders
>                                     created a state founded on
>                                     Christian principles, not secular
>                                     ones (for that, see the French
>                                     Revolution, not the American one.)
>                                     Whether that has obtained is a
>                                     question for another time.  None-
>                                     theless, if quoting the
>                                     Constitution, one ought to read
>                                     it first.

1) the first amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting
religion", not talk of established churches.  Allowing the state to
fund all religions was three times voted down as was languaage
refering to just preventing established churches.  Madison was against
funding military chaplains, days of thanksgiving, and surely more
than an established church.  All the way back to Roger Willaims do we
hear about the separation of church and state like not saying "so help
me God" in court oaths show the far ends of such separation.

2) the deists like Benjamin Franklin would be surprised to hear the
state was founded on Christian principles; the vague nature God that
the Declaration of Independence speaks of surely is a far cry from a
Christian God, more of a deistic one to show reason comes from a
higher source, not a God that interacts such as the Christian
idealogy.  Many of the founders were religious and most saw themselves
on the side of the angels, but it goes a bit far to say all were
Christians.

3) very good idea about reading historical documents.

       -Joe
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU