Date: Thu Sep 25 10:17:32 1997
To: Frank Grose
From: Rob Weinberg
Subject: Re: Answers (Re: Question du Jour)
At 11:54 PM 9/24/97 0500, you wrote:
However, I do believe God's word is absolutely true.
I have no reason to disagree with that statement. I'm just not always sure that what I'm being _told_ God's word is is actually the WORD. Too many filters and translations. Y'ever hear of that game where you get a bunch of people in a circle? The first says some, I dunno, esoteric quote to the next, and he's supposed to pass it on to the next, and so on. By the time it gets back to the original person, it's something totally different. That's what concerns me. Y'know, the translations after the KJV may or may not suffer from that too much, since that was only 400 yrs. ago. But since the version was compiled for and approved by the king, it gives you pause that he didn't have an agenda, which of course we know he did. The church really didn't like the idea of publishing the Bible to the masses. And what about the preceding 1600 years just to the time of Jesus? Or the 4,000 yrs before that?
There are those to whom the truth means nothing. Sometimes some of them will be elected to very high offices. ; )
Tell ME about it! What's just as bad sometimes is that there are those who don't even know what the truth is. High office, low office, you name it. Or those who don't care, like far too many lawyers I have to contend with. And unfortunately the courts are not those "crucibles of truth" we're led to believe they're supposed to be. I frequently have clients who just want to go to court and tell their side of the story and they KNOW they'll be vindicated. The problem is, in the courts, as in war (which is what litigation really is), truth is often the first casualty. It's not a question of what you say, but how you present. But enough on that ... for now.
Our Declaration of Independence and Constitution established our country and laid out how it was to run.
In very broad based terms, yes. Think of it as a corporate charter, outlining generally how things are supposed to operate, and the distribution of powers and accountability. Unlike a lot of state legislatures and their constitutions which grant plenary authority, the federal constitution is one of specific enumerated powers to the three branches. And the bill of rights and the eleventh amendment are further limitations on those powers.
I agree that it must be interpreted in light of the present day so long as it doesn't reverse what it has meant up until now. Situational ethics and "whatever feels right today" mentality have no place in the courts. Otherwise, we have an oligarchy. I favor a more strict interpretation of our founding documents.
Given the nature of the work I do, I agree very much. I think I agree for personal reasons as well. What's particularly important is continuity and consistency in interpretation, what in the case law is called "stare decisis." When the courts are constantly flip flopping on the law (as is particularly true in Alabama state courts), the people cannot develop a sense of what the law is and be able to apply that to their future conduct. Things are too unpredictable in state court, because they can't keep politics out of their decisions.
It was this kind of interpretation that allowed America to become a great and prosperous nation. We have a lot of social ills today because God has been banned from the public arena, and the courts have played fast and loose with the Constitution.
I agree we have a lot of social ills. And I agree that a more religious, or as I prefer, spiritual, society could address many of those ills. But it's too much of a leap to say that it's the government's role to address our spiritual decline. Judge Moore is just not, and will never be, adequately equipped to those address needs, and yet when we seek to "return" religion to the hands of government, we're delivering it into the hands of men like him.
Great! A worthy course of study indeed. But be careful of the "agendas" of the teacher and the test author.
Good points, and I'm way ahead of you on that one anyway. At present, our readings include a very readable biography of James Madison, and I told my wife the other day that I'm identifying with him very much. But instinctively I question (and caution myself) whether it might not have been better for my "education" had I started with someone I instinctively disagreed with first. One thing regardless: there's a LOT of reading to do, and I think it'll be a few years before I'm ready to offer my opinion on what I believe they really thought and meant.
See, lawyers are trained to take snippets of what they find and mold them into arguments. It would be too easy for me to go out and find just those parts of Jefferson and Madison I already agree with and to distinguish the writings of others to make the argument to fit my own personal agenda. Knowing how well I could do it makes the writings of others automatically suspect, and I take nothing at face value (hopefully, and thanks for keeping me honest).
Seriously, you would do yourself a disservice if you did not avail yourself to some of David Barton's material on the subject. He is a Christian, and in his talks, he points out the evidence of the founders' faith in God. He doesn't "push" Christianity. He is a walking history book; an amazing individual. He makes history very interesting.
Frankly, I'm a little stunned at myself for not having more knowledge of this stuff past what pap they taught us in high school, if even then. I had so many other things I was planning on learning about, from trying to delve into the problem of race relations to understanding TCP/IP. Americans are egocentric enough as it is. I guess I hadn't planned on studying our history more, but it looks like I'm committed. Very interesting stuff, and what especially interests me are the dynamics of the process, because we keep seeing the same process in today's governments, particularly at the state and local level.
Fortunately the Congress kept records of what they did.
Madison made extensive notes that weren't published until after his death. And of course, we can learn much from the writings of the federalists and anti federalists (both of which I've not read yet), as the ratification process was going on. Interestingly, one of the first things the second continental congress did in 1787 was decide to meet behind closed doors and made one another swear that they wouldn't tell the outside world what was going on in the debates.
Barton has researched the First Amendment drafts that were rejected. Reading those, it is clear that our Founders wanted and tried to ensure that government would not interfere in a person's exercise of his religion.
True enough, in part. And Judge Moore has cleverly perverted that to his own political agenda to say that by restraining his use of his office from being a platform to endorse or promote his own religion, it's now HIS religious freedoms that are under attack by the government. Sorry, Charlie, but that's hooey.
Y'know that adage: your right to throw a punch stops just before my nose? Same with religion. Practice your religion all you want, just don't use my tax dollars to pay for you to rub my nose in it. From where I sit, he is a hypocrite and a demagogue. As I said earlier, it is no answer that the majority of Alabamians support him or that he has national support. For it's protecting the MINORITY from the excesses of the majority that everyone agrees was meant, at a minimum, in saying that "congress shall make no law..."
Try and understand the minority point of view, and you'll see why a "majority rules" argument is unsound. Imagine for the sake of argument that you believe what you believe. Now imagine that you lived in a black belt county and imagine further that after a visit from Louis Farrakahn (sp?) the county commission of your county decided that all county schools would stop for Moslem prayer three times a day. If your children didn't like it, they could stand in the hall. But imagine also that before regular classes and the three R's the first 15 minutes of the day were devoted to reading from the Koran, attendance mandatory, no exceptions. Imagine also that all county commission meetings opened and closed with a prayer to Allah in arabic, and a reading of the Koran. Work that one around in your head for ten minutes.
Don't think the hypothetical is absurd, and that it's pointless to consider because it'll never happen. Frankly, I think it can. Substitute Jew for Christian and Christianity for Islam, and I'm here to tell you I live it every day.
It's also no answer to say, "but we're a Christian nation founded on Christian principles." There weren't any blacks or women participating in the constitutional convention, but that doesn't mean they don't have a voice today. Are we a nation where everyone is included, or just those who share the same religious ideologies? That is why I can foresee no practical way to hedge the interpretation of the first amendment. To me, from experience, it is couched in absolutes precisely because there's no such thing as compromise from the majority.
Prayer and references to the hand of Providence is clearly evident in their documents. They had no conflict with prayer and Bible reading in school (or anywhere else for that matter). They just did not want a "state religion."
I don't think it's as simple as simply insuring against having the Anglican church be the official church, which was the issue at the time. There's been a (I would characterize it as) refinement in thought. And contrary to popular misconception, them ACLU types (which fits me well enough on this issue) have never advocated the absolute banning of references to God or providence.
I have learned to be more questioning, but I also have to guard against cynicism. We have to accept some things as truth. "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men were created..."
I'm not really a cynic (although I play one on t.v.). But your point is well taken.
Now consider the phrase you quote. In the first place, as an aside, Jefferson was referring to a concept of government articulated by Locke which discusses "natural law," although the use of God is a convenient metaphor. I'm not prepared to distinguish that too much, but he wasn't exactly talking about the father, son and holy ghost. Now, your focus is on the part of the phrase that goes "were created." Obviously, you'd say they were saying "God created." That part, I can take or leave. My focus, on the othe hand is on the part that says "all men." Which "all men"? The WASPs, Anglicans, puritans and Baptists who wrote the constitution, or does that also include some of the Jews, deists, agnostics and atheists who also had a hand in it? You see where I'm going with this. Food for thought. Question, question, question.
Oh, if He were only publicly pointing out corrupt politicians today!
I assure you, I do what I can. The problem is, when you point out a hypocrite's hypocrisy, they never see it in themselves.
"The Government" is the last (well next to the liberal news media) one I'd want telling me what "the truth" is. The credibility of this administration is way down in the negative numbers with me.
Precisely! And if we can't trust our elected leaders to deal with the truth, how can we entrust to them the role of spiritual guide? No, the answer lies elsewhere I'm afraid. It's easy to say our government ought to do it. That, however, was one of the things we had a revolution in this country about, although that fight actually goes back to the time of William and Mary in England. It's real hard to figure out how to get spirituality back in the homes, and to bring people back into the churches, mosques and synagogues. When it's the government doing it, because of their own political agendas, their hypocrisy is obvious, credibility nil. I don't know the answer, but I'm working on it.
Take care. -Rob
© Copyright 1998 and 2008 by Robert M. Weinberg & Franklin L. Grose
All Rights Reserved
