PART 2:
Third, they would treat religious views merely as special cases of
ordinary  views  about  any  number  of  philosophical  questions,
including metaphysics.  They would advocate freedom of expression,
press,  and assembly.  Therefore they would deny to government any
power to make laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion.  But
there is already such a clause in the Constitution.  No difference
there, either.
There simply isn't any psychologically credible alternative to the
existing  Constitution  for any society of atheists which respects
democracy, free expression, and so on.
Do  you  imagine  that  a  society of atheists would give power to
the government to establish religion?  Give me a break.
Do you imagine that such a society would put god  and/or  religion
into the main body of the Constitution?  You have to be kidding.
Do  you  imagine  that  these atheists would favour rejecting free
exercise?  Not if they advocated democracy and free expression.
BE:
-It is well to remember that some of  the  strongest  defenders  of
-those  clauses  in  recent  decades,  defenders who have won suits
-based on them all the way up to and including the Supreme Court of
-the United States, have been  atheists,  agnostics,  Jews,  and  a
-whole  range  of  others  who were never, by similarity of belief,
-involved in the formation or amendment of the Constitution.
>In  a  perfect  world with perfect people, I would agree with you,
>but it is not perfect and I  just  do  not  have  faith  in  human
>morality  to expect a group of people that believe in "the word of
>God" and have faith in it to honor the court system.
Well, I don't think the world  is  perfect  either.   But  I  have
studied  American constitutional law on the subject of religion at
some length.  I can tell you that the Supreme Court of the  United
States  has  been far more consistent on the interpretation of the
religion clauses of 1st Amendment than  in  other  areas,  through
"liberal"  as  well as "conservative" periods ever since the Court
first established  in  1940  and  1947  that  those  clauses  were
incorporated by the due process clause of the 14th Amendment.
You  can  talk  about  the  Warren  Court,  the  Burger Court, the
Rehnquist Court.  Every one of the decisions of those three courts
on the subject of the Religion Clauses has been broadly consistent
with all the other decisions.  Some  of  the  most  important  and
sweeping  decisions  on the Establishment Clause in fact have been
made by the Rehnquist Court, which people think is  "conservative"
(i.e.   pro-religion).  In 1968, the Court struck down an Arkansas
statute that would have  prohibited  the  teaching  of  evolution.
That  happened  in  the  Warren  years  ("liberal"--tending toward
anti-religion).   In  1987,  the  Court  struck  down  Louisiana's
Balanced  Treatment  Act,  which if affirmed would have meant that
teachers would have to teach  Creationism  along  with  Evolution.
This  was  done  by the Burger Court ("moderate to conservative").
In 1994, the  Court  struck  down  a  statute  which  permitted  a
publicly  funded  institution  to  arrange  for a public prayer at
graduation ceremonies (Establishment Clause violation).  This  was
done by the Rehnquist Court ("conservative").
There  is  no  evidence  supporting  the   contention   that   the
composition  of  the  high  court  has  made any difference to the
nature of its decisions on  the  interpretation  of  the  religion
clauses of the Constitution.
No evidence at all.
BE:
-The narrow issue about Rigor's  question  is  about  the  existing
-state  of constitutional law in the United States.  And that issue
-has already been dealt with  and  apparently  settled:  Under  the
-existing consitution, Rigor's lawsuit would almost certainly fail.
>Judgements  based on the constitution can and have been overturned
>by judgements by higher courts based on the  constitution.   Those
>words can be bent an twisted to help any case.
We're  already  talking,  as  above,  about  decisions made at the
highest level.
BE:
-But the broader issue is rooted  even  more  firmly  on  far  more
-general  considerations,  such  as,  in a generally democratic and
-secular society, whether changing the Religion Clauses would  ever
-be supported by a population differently composed.
>Say, composed primarily of atheists?  You can count on it.  "It is
>illogical to assume that any situation will remain a constant".
No,  I  don't  think  so.   See   discussion   above   about   the
psychologically  credible desires which the Founders of the United
States would probably have, if every  one  of  them  had  been  an
atheist.
Bob
--- PCBoard (R) v15.3 (OS/2) 5
---------------