From: Jim Choate <ravage@EINSTEIN.ssz.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 23:56:53 +0800
To: cypherpunks@EINSTEIN.ssz.com (Cypherpunks Distributed Remailer)
Subject: Re: Democracy... (fwd)
Message-ID: <199809160522.AAA03680@einstein.ssz.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text



Forwarded message:

> Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 23:09:03 -0500
> From: Jaeger <Jaeger@hempseed.com>
> Subject: Re: Democracy...

> and the meaning is not that church
> shouldn't have an effect on the state.

Agreed.

  The state CAN support one
> religion over another.

If we are speaking of 'the state' as the 'federal government' then *no* it
can't support any religion because it isn't authorized to address those
issues under any venue, make no law means just that, make no law - whether
for or against religion is irrelevant. This country is blind in respect to
religion and the cornucopia of individual actions via the 9th & 10th.

Now if you are speaking of 'the state' as the individual 50 states,
regulated within the confines of their own 50 individual constitutions, as
directed per the 10th then you are correct - provided the state constitution
gives the state government the duty (governments don't have rights) to regulate
religion, the fact is most don't.

If there is no individual state regulation then the limitations of religion
fall upon individual discretion. Whether the religion promoted going to
heaven, smoking good ganja, or rapeing babies is irrelevant as to the
ability of the state to engage in prior restraint - they can't. Since most
local jurisdictions have laws against murder, rape, child molestation, etc.
under their individual charters and representative system there is really no
reason to a priori regulate such activities at any higher level than localy.
It isn't the act that we should worry about, it's the consequences to others
after the fact. If an act doesn't effect another person or their property
directly then there is no legitimate reason to interfere with their actions.

Constitutionaly the federal government should be blind to my actions as an
individual unless I'm crossing a state line, work for the federal
government, legal action, or have a treasury issue.

>  In context, the phrase simply explains that the
> government can't make laws that RESTRICT religious practice or doctrinal
> issues.

Bullshit. There is NO way to reasonably accept this as a legitimate
interpretation of the 1st & 10th.

>  The state CAN make laws that encourage the practice of any one
> particular religion, as long as the laws do not RESTRICT the PRACTICE of
> other religions.  Making people uncomfortable isn't a constitutional
> reason to overturn a law.

No. Niether the spirit or the letter of the issue allows such sweeping
generalizations. In fact it fails for the same reason that mass searches
fail strict Constitutional interpretation, the Constitution directs that
probable cause is required *IN EACH CASE* to be handled individualy, there
is no stipulation where individual probable cause may be bypassed. Just
because you do it to everyone, while you can't do it to anyone, legitimizes
it. If you can't rape an individual you can't rape 10 people. The same
applies to religion, the federal government can't make a law respecting a
religion because it can't even define religion. Now if you can't support any
religion you certainly can't support an individual religion.


    ____________________________________________________________________

                            The seeker is a finder.

                                     Ancient Persian Proverb

       The Armadillo Group       ,::////;::-.          James Choate
       Austin, Tx               /:'///// ``::>/|/      ravage@ssz.com
       www.ssz.com            .',  ||||    `/( e\      512-451-7087
                           -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
    --------------------------------------------------------------------