DH> DH> allow other groups), making Christianity a public policy? Both of 
these
DH> DH> refer to actions of the ACLU, which have had the effect of limiting
DH> DH> the expression of Christianity as compared to the rest of society.
DH> KK> Only in the context of government institutions.
DH> Simple fact, the ACLU has sought to deny Christian groups the same
DH> access that other groups enjoy, and this denial is in itself,
DH> unconstitutional.
I would have to have more information to have an opinion about this.
DH> DH> RP>I thouroughly enjoyed the reaction of that town in New Jersey to 
ACLU
DH> DH> RP>court suits - they removed the Christmas displays and replaced 
hem
DH>with
DH> DH> RP>signs quoting the New Jersey Constitution preamble, which speaks 
of G
DH> DH> RP>from beginning to end.  Another sign indicates the town will 
continue
DH> DH> RP>its fight to restore religious freedom and once again proudly 
display
DH> DH> RP>the emblems of the season on public grounds as has so long been 
he
DH> DH> RP>tradition of this nation.
DH> KK> If the town contained any Buddhists, Zoroastrians, Moslems, or 
avajo,
DH> KK> what do you think would happen if _they_ tried that?
DH> My understanding is that they had displays from several religions, but
DH> that Christianity was singled out.
I'd like to hear more about that.  In any case, Zoroastrianism is
extremely unlikely, anytime soon, to pose a threat to the separation
of church and state, whereas there are some Christian groups (perhaps
represented here by Mr Plett) who have stated in so many words that
the federal government should be Christian in nature.
DH> DH> I know of no law passed in my lifetime which has established
DH> DH> Christianity as the state faith.
DH> KK> Why do the words 'de facto' spring to mind?
DH> Please explain.
A majority of religious Americans are Christian.  If Zoroastrians even
exist in this country, and they have something like our Ten Commandments,
we are not likely to see that document on the wall in courthouses
anytime soon.
DH> DH> I seem to recall having read somewhere(perhaps the two Roberts know 
f
DH> DH> this) that the way to bring about a socialist state, one must first
DH> DH> destroy the existing legal system,by bringing about a state of 
anarchy.
DH> KK> That's Communism you're talking about -- violent revolution,
DH> KK> dictatorship of the proletariat, etc.  When I finally got around to
DH> KK> reading about Marx, I couldn't believe he could be so incredibly 
aive
DH> KK> as to think that "when the state has withered away, the people will
DH> KK> enjoy a new freedom."  Even in the 30s, the Soviets demonstrated that
DH> KK> it was the people who withered away and the state that enjoyed a new
DH> KK> freedom.
DH> In the context of history, it was Socialism which the Soviet Union was
DH> actively trying to export, and the destruction of the existing system
DH> was their first step.
In Russia after 1917, the Bolsheviks considered socialism (Menshevism)
to be as evil as capitalism, because they considered it to be a
half-assed solution.
DH> DH> The resulting disorder would be so great, that the people would be
DH> DH> willing to give up much or all of their liberty in order to restore
DH> DH> law and order.
Like the "War on Drugs," for example.
 * SLMR 2.1a *  Did that gesture mean your team is number one?
--- PCBoard (R) v15.4/M 5 Beta
(1:301/45)
---------------