Salutatio Bob!
22-Apr-98, Bob Eyer wrote to Richard Meic
          Subject: Perfection Revisited
 BE> PART 2:
 BE> Third, they would treat religious views merely as special cases of
 BE> ordinary  views  about  any  number  of  philosophical  questions,
 BE> including metaphysics.  They would advocate freedom of expression,
 BE> press,  and assembly.  Therefore they would deny to government any
 BE> power to make laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion.  But
 BE> there is already such a clause in the Constitution.  No difference
 BE> there, either.
 BE> There simply isn't any psychologically credible alternative to the
 BE> existing  Constitution  for any society of atheists which respects
 BE> democracy, free expression, and so on.
 BE> Do  you  imagine  that  a  society of atheists would give power to
 BE> the government to establish religion?  Give me a break.
 BE> Do you imagine that such a society would put god  and/or  religion
 BE> into the main body of the Constitution?  You have to be kidding.
 BE> Do  you  imagine  that  these atheists would favour rejecting free
 BE> exercise?  Not if they advocated democracy and free expression.
I do not see where you are intending to go with this "no difference
there" stuff.  I am simply pointing out that the theist's beliefs (to
the theist) are more important than what humans have written down on
paper.  The word of god must be spread, and if such an action by Riggor
succeeded it would not be good for the church.
 BE> >In  a  perfect  world with perfect people, I would agree with
 BE> you, >but it is not perfect and I  just  do  not  have  faith  in
 BE> human >morality  to expect a group of people that believe in "the
 BE> word of >God" and have faith in it to honor the court system.
 BE> Well, I don't think the world  is  perfect  either.   But  I  have
 BE> studied  American constitutional law on the subject of religion at
 BE> some length.  I can tell you that the Supreme Court of the  United
 BE> States  has  been far more consistent on the interpretation of the
 BE> religion clauses of 1st Amendment than  in  other  areas,  through
 BE> "liberal"  as  well as "conservative" periods ever since the Court
 BE> first established  in  1940  and  1947  that  those  clauses  were
 BE> incorporated by the due process clause of the 14th Amendment.
[...]
 BE> No,  I  don't  think  so.   See   discussion   above   about   the
 BE> psychologically  credible desires which the Founders of the United
 BE> States would probably have, if every  one  of  them  had  been  an
 BE> atheist.
                                               
That was a very good bunch of info, BUT not what my original statement 
was all about.
I never mentioned the constitution in my original statement, that was
something you artfully dragged me into.  I was mentioning simple human
nature, of which you still ignore.  I will not argue your country's
constitution, or such and such a highly publicized case(s).  We are
talking about one man's legal action against a church/religion,... an
action that would be crushed right away by the predominantly theist
population.  THAT was my only statement, and THAT is all I intend to
discuss.  I hate politics, it is that simple.
              
PS: you will find that I often argue human nature, human failings, and 
the like, not politics nor constitution.  Ask any regular in here.
Don't pull that stunt again. 
 Dicere...
 email address (vrmeic@nucleus.com)
Richard Meic
--- Terminate 5.00/Pro 
---------------