Salutatio Bob!
22-Apr-98, Bob Eyer wrote to Richard Meic
          Subject: Perfection Revisited
 BE> BE: -Are  you  suggesting  here  that  the  American  constitution
 BE>  has -nothing  to  say  here?
 BE> >No. > >In  the  courts such an action against a well established
 BE> religion >will fail simply because the judge/jury would view it
 BE> as  a  free >choice.  Not that difficult to do if that judge/jury
 BE> are primarily >theists. > >Perhaps  if he had an atheist
 BE> judge/jury the court would then rule >in favor of him based on
 BE> some other clause in the constitution.
 BE> Well, to make this argument  at  least  credible,  you'd  have  to
 BE> suggest  one.   
     
I am not an American, I do not make a habit of reading your 
constitution, If you insist you will have to wait a loooong time for me 
to read it in it's entirety.
 BE> If  you're  saying that the courts just make it up
 BE> as they  go,  you're  implying  the  Constitution  doesn't  really
 BE> matter, contrary to your "No" response above.
                           
I am saying that the decision would be made based on the religious 
beliefs of the judge/jury.  You seem a wee bit naive and perhaps a bit 
too trustworthy of your sacred constitution.  Is this so?
 BE> >Y'see, in the court system it is all a matter of  what
 BE> judge/jury >you get and what lawyer you have.  The constitution
 BE> fights itself, >and  in  a  case  such  as  this  it  all  falls
 BE> down to what the >judge/jury decides
 BE> In  a  case  like  Rigor's  the jury would be involved only at the
 BE> trial level, and he would almost certainly have to open  his  case
 BE> in  a  state  court, since a federal district court would probably
 BE> rule that it did not have original jurisdiction to handle  a  suit
 BE> about   torts.    Remember  Rigor's  suit  seeks  damages  against
 BE> churches for circulating  the  idea  of  perfection.   This  is  a
 BE> tort case.
Quote the pertinent text from Rigor's original post and show me that 
this is what he meant.  From what I gathered, he wanted the church to 
take responsibility for screwing with people's minds and his subsequent 
break-up with his girlfriend. 
 BE> But all the significant action on his suit would have  nothing  to
 BE> do  with  the jury, since it would be at the appellate level.  The
 BE> arguments would be solely about the Constitution.
                             
And you demand that personal religious beliefs play absolutely no role 
at all?  Be realistic, your country's system is not that perfect.
 BE> >- and take a  wild  guess  what  that  decision >would  be  if
 BE> the  judge and jury are primarily theists who would >likely feel
 BE> that their faith is being tested or is  in  danger  in >some  way.
 BE>   Still  not convinced?  What would a theist believe is >more
 BE> important, faith in "God" or faith in the constitution?
 BE> You're  still  confining  your  argument  to the trial level.  But
 BE> okay, even at the trial level there would be jury selection.   And
 BE> counsel  for  the  respondent Church would almost certainly strike
 BE> out any candidate who  was  an  atheist,  while  counsel  for  the
 BE> applicant would eliminate all the candidates who were theists.
 BE> The  only  jurors  would  would  survive  jury  selection would be
 BE> agnostics or positivists.
Perhaps they too would be struck out for some reason or other, leaving
none.  So it would rest on the decision of a judge... either that or the
jury selection would go on forever.
 BE> BE: -I really doubt that the  unwinnable  nature  of  Rigor's
 BE> proposed -lawsuit  has  anything  to  do  with  the  power
 BE> distribution  of -religious and non-religious groups.
 BE> >Explain why you doubt this.  I have explained why I do not doubt
 BE> it.
 BE> See below
 BE> BE: -Although it is true  that  the  Free  Exercise  and
 BE> Establishment -clauses of the Constitution were originally put
 BE> there by Baptists, -Methodists  and  American Protestant
 BE> Episcopalians, I really doubt -that, all other things being equal,
 BE> those clauses would have  read -any  differently  if  they  had
 BE> been put into the Constitution by -atheists and agnostics.
 BE> >Explain why.
 BE> Suppose all Americans in 1787-1789 were atheists  (in  the  narrow
 BE> dictionary sense: an atheist is a person who believes that gods do
 BE> not exist, or who denies the existence of gods).
 BE> Based on psychologically credible  assumptions,  what  would  they
 BE> prefer  on  the  subject  of religion in the Constitution?  First,
 BE> they would not want any reference to religion in the main body  of
 BE> the  Constitution.   In fact, there is no actual such reference in
 BE> it, so there is no difference there.
Again I have not had the occasion to read your country's constitution,
so I would have to ask an impartial individual to confirm.
 BE> Second,  they  would  be  opposed  to  any  government  effort  to
 BE> establish religion.   Therefore,  they  would  advocate  a  clause
 BE> denying   to   government   power   to  make  laws  respecting  an
 BE> establishment of religion.  Such a clause already  exists  in  the
 BE> Constitution.  No difference there, either.
As above.
This is all fine and dandy, but you keep forgetting basic theist nature.
"The constitution is far less important than God".  Also remember that
your politicians and judges are not the most honorable people in your
country and they would (if offered enough) be persuaded to judge a
certain way.
 BE> Continued ...
 Dicere...
 email address (vrmeic@nucleus.com)
Richard Meic
--- Terminate 5.00/Pro 
---------------