Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site cybvax0.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxb!mhuxn!mhuxm!mhuxj!houxm!whuxlm!akgua!sdcsvax!dcdwest!ittvax!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh From: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) Newsgroups: net.origins Subject: Re: Re: Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrr! (1st Amendment) Message-ID: <342@cybvax0.UUCP> Date: Thu, 7-Feb-85 11:31:43 EST Article-I.D.: cybvax0.342 Posted: Thu Feb 7 11:31:43 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 10-Feb-85 04:42:48 EST References: <202@decwrl.UUCP> <528@mhuxt.UUCP> <239@ihu1m.UUCP> <322@cybvax0.UUCP> <80@tikal.UUCP> <333@cybvax0.UUCP> <502@teldata.UUCP> Reply-To: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) Organization: Cybermation, Inc., Cambridge, MA Lines: 42 Summary: In article <502@teldata.UUCP> shad@teldata.UUCP (Warren Shadwick) writes: > In article <333@cybvax0.UUCP> mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) writes: > > > > The U.S. Constituion has already been alterred by our legal system. The > > > current non-establishment clause (of Amendment 1) being interpreted as > > > a wall of separation and the free excercise clause being totally ignored. > > > > I suppose you're trying to make some sort of rhetorical point, because you > > identify first ammendment in your second paragraph. If you'd like to say > > something, why not spit it out, and quit pussyfooting around with vague > > insults and assertions? > > If anything, I was trying to avoid insult. I took exception to misquoting > our Constitution in the original article. The courts have perverted the > intent of the 1st Amendment. Try reading the Constitution and see if it > states that there shall be "no state funding of religion." Or if it states > "religion shall be separate from education." Thank you for saying it clearly. The insult I was referring to was your "is this another quotation from the constitution of the USSR", which you removed from your citation. Since we're now talking constitutional arguments, I disagree. The writers of the constitution and the ammendments were fully aware that the constitution was to consist of general statements of principles which were later to be fleshed out through the processes of law and the courts. Unless you want a constitution which is the size of the US legal code, you have no other choice. Like the Bible, there is no one clear interpretation of the constitution. Like the Bible, the interpretations in use are usually ones which cause relatively few inconsistancies and handle most day-to-day circumstances. The interpretations aren't sacred. The two examples you cite are merely interpretations. If you want to argue their merits, I'd be happy to oblige. That's what net.religion is for. It's just that it's hard to understand the basis of someone's argument until a common ground of shared assumptions is found. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh