From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 07:39:56 +0800
To: Tim May <tcmay@got.net>
Subject: Re: Democracy...
In-Reply-To: <v03130306b224f2bc1149@[209.66.100.71]>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.95.980916052820.6927B-100000@well.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



Indeed. There are two types of freedoms at issue here: establishment and
free exercise, which the Framers thought were complementary and the
Supreme Court has said "occasionally overlap." There were three
ideological positions that drove the clause forward: those who wanted to
prevent corruption of the church, those who wanted to prevent corruption
of the state (such as Jefferson), and those who wanted to protect the
church from the state. 

I haven't come across documents written by the Founders or cases that say
the "state CAN support one religion over another." Cites, please? The cass
I'm familiar with suggest exactly the opposite. The Supremes believe in
"the established principle that the Government must pursue a course of
complete neutrality toward religion." Supporting one religion over another
violates the rule against "forbidden effects." 

As Tim said, our new friend's interpretation is somewhat bizarre.

-Declan


On Tue, 15 Sep 1998, Tim May wrote:

> At 9:09 PM -0700 9/15/98, Jaeger wrote:
> >well, the first amendment is what I expected to be used...
> >unfortunately, the phrase "...wall of separation between church and
> >state" is not taken from the first amendment.  It is taken from a letter
> >written by Thomas Jefferson...  and the meaning is not that church
> >shouldn't have an effect on the state.  The state CAN support one
> >religion over another.
> 
> Ah, it's the appearance of a new ranter arguing for some bizarre,
> idiosyncratic interpretation of the Bill of Rights and suchlike. Mr.
> Jaeger, meet Mr. Choate.
> 
> Your notion that the state can support one religion over another so long as
> it does not "restrict" the other will surely be news to the many who have
> studied this issue for centuries. In particular, all those legal decisions
> which got Christian manger scenes removed from public buildings, and which
> got "Jesus Loves Sinners, Even Jews" removed from our coinage, will surely
> now have to be reversed.
> 
>  > 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.
> 
> 
> Bizarre. Try Ritalin. This has helped some list members cope.
> 
> --Tim May
> 
> 
> (This space left blank pending determ. of acceptability to the gov't.)
> ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
> Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
> ComSec 3DES:   831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
> W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
> Licensed Ontologist         | black markets, collapse of governments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>