-=> Quoting Robert Plett to David Hartung <=-
 DH> RP> When the founders expressed concern about religious establishments 
y
 DH> RP> the federal government, it was particular Christian sects, or what
 DH> RP> today we call denominations that concerned them - they didn't want a
 DH> RP> federally mandated Christian denomination.  To them, impartiality
 DH> RP> between other faiths, and/or a lack of belief in God, and 
Christianity,
 DH> RP> was out of the question - Christianity was the faith of the nation, 
and
 DH> RP> they based our laws on that premise and that foundation, and not 
ust
 DH> RP> assumed, but intended that would always be so.
 
 DH> Do you believe that this should still be our approach, especially
 DH> given the wide variety of religious practice in our country?
 RP> Absolutely!
 Do you believe that those who follow non Christian faiths don't enjoy
 equal protection under our law?
 DH> Robert, this is an interesting line of thought here.  If we were to
 DH> return to a strict, literal interpretation of the Constitution,
 DH> there would be no establishment restriction at the state level.
 RP> To the extent there is one now is due the Supreme Court's erroneous
 RP> application of the 14th Amendment in a manner never conceived of by
 RP> those who wrote it, and the spineless failure of the states to resist,
 RP> and the spineless failure of Congress to discipline and correct the
 RP> Court.  As Fob James, I think it was, said, in the early days of this
 RP> republic the Court wouldn't have dared such distortion of the
 RP> Constitution, knowing they'd likely find themselves jailed if they
 RP> tried.
 RP> In point of fact, the states withdrew from such establishments fairly
 RP> early on, despite having, and knowing they had, the Constitutional
 RP> right to those establishments.  Our forebears were strong Bible
 RP> believing Christians, but they generally despised church hierachys.
 
 In the early days of our republic, the people generally wanted as
 little government as was possible, a conviction I would like to see us
 return to.
 DH> While I am certain I would not want each state to establish a
 DH> religion, it might almost be worth it, just to see the ACLU have a
 DH> cow!
 RP> Whether any state does that is up to the people of that state.  For
 RP> you and me, if we don't want such, then it's up to us, by our
 RP> forefathers' design, to involve ourselves in such questions in our own
 RP> states. However, it's none of your business or mine, whether Utah, for
 RP> example, is Mormon or not.  |-)
 Question, suppose the State of Oklahoma were to make Shinto the
 official State religion, how would you react?
 david.hartung@mcione.com
 Ilks of Metropolitan Walls/LENS
 Proud member of White House Enemies database
... Wanna scare a cat lover? Poop in the kitty litter box!
___ Blue Wave/386 v2.21 [NR]
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/Wildcat5! v2.0
---------------