From: holzman@fnalno.fnal.gov (Daniel B. Holzman)
Subject: Re:      Response to Kai/values and the Constitution
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Lab
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 23:50:46 GMT
X-Posted-From: fnalno.fnal.gov
X-Posted-Through: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <POLITICS%92091111440094@OHSTVMA.IRCC.OHIO-STATE.EDU>,         
Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET> writes:
> Kai:
> 
> Interesting choice of historical events, since they are all Catholic
> (except the Roman Empire, which persecuted the Christians, and I have
> no idea what it was doing in there).  

At the end of the Roman empire, Chrstianity was the established religion. 
Jews, Heretics, and Pagans were denied various rights, and faced certain
penalties.  Intrestingly, it was the Christian Roman Empire that finally fell
apart.

On another point, the Inquisition (not simple the Spanish Inquisition, but the
entire process) was perpetrated by Protestants as well as Catholics. 
Protestant England didn't repeal the last of the anti-Witchcraft laws until
1951.

> Indeed, if we look at the great schisms in
> history, the rebels do not reject the ethic--only the institutions and
> their power.  Luther did not reject Christ--he rejected the Catholic
> Church, and for many of the events you mention.  Furthermore, I would
> add that the result of the Protestant Reformation was a reformation of
> the Catholic church and a revolution that birthed the Protestant church.
> Both were changed for the better by the experience and are not comparable
> to the Church of the Middle Ages. 

The Protestant Church... which brought us the Salem Witch trials.
 
> Furthermore, it is the very basic nature of the Judeo-Christian ethic
> that makes it a worthy foundation on which society can build.  Its tenets
> are shared by the majority of Americans and are, explicitly or implicitly,
> enshrined in the Constitution.

Where in the Bible is the establishment of a state religion forbidden?  The
Catholics and Anglicans seem to disagree with you on that point.

> Why does this matter?  Well, it matters because the Constitution is
> written for a people who are not, as Madison put it, "angels."  Our
> democratic republic was designed in the full knowledge that private
> morality and public morality are always going to be different in practice,
> since human beings tend toward sin (or "bad," if you will).  The system
> of checks and balances was set up because of this distrust of the natural
> instincts of human beings to abuse power.  Public morality *must* be of a
> higher, more idealistic order than private morality for the democratic
> republic to function properly.  This system can only work for a people
> that values self-control over self-expression.

That does not, however, mean that it is *your* ideals which should be
considered "higher" and enshrined as public morality.  The Founder's distrust
of people who wish to enshrine their own religion as public morality is
*exactly* why they passed the First Amendment.

-- 
Daniel B. Holzman                    | Eight Words the Witch's Rede Fufill:
HOLZMAN@FNAL.BITNET                  | An It Harm None, Do What You Will
HOLZMAN@FNALC.FNAL.GOV.INTERNET      |
                                     | All Acts of Love and Pleasure are
Love doesn't subtract,               | Her Rituals
   it multiplies    - Heinlein       |
                                     | Speak the Word.
Disclaimer:  Fermilab's far too large to have an opinion, let alone mine.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU