Hi Jim,

>Doug,
>SNIP
>>>Tyranny by the minority is still tyranny.
>>
>>Alex has his ears turned off. I doubt he'll hear you.
>
>Why would people call it "tyranny by the minority" when the state is forbidden from funding religious activity in any way?

I think that's a great question. The way I think about this is that there are three approaches and we're confusing two with each other. Let me see if I can confuse everyone even more. <bg>

1) Allow any and all religious systems to participate in a reasonable (definition to be fought over I'm sure <g>) manner in the public square. For example, if a city put aside a couple of acres for religious displays then all should be allowed. They may be distatseful to the others but as far as I'm concerned the rule should apply to all equally.

2) Preclude any religious faith, entity or group from any displays whatsoever. That's fine until you realize that athiesm is really a religious system as is agnosticism. Why is that? Because all of these at some point require a position that is one of faith.

3) Promoting one religious system over another. I believe that this is what the founders were getting at. They came, in themain, from the tyranny that the Church of England imposed as a sort of cultural response to the Roman Catholic Church's grip on their society in an historical sense. During the early years of the colonies there was much persecution between several of these groups - even to the point of the loss of life - and this was what Jefferson and Adams were trying to respond to.

I thinkthat we've adopted a legal position (unlearned or deliberate) that equates athiesm with neutrality. It's not.

>The Supreme Court Judges are all learned people. The Supreme Court Judges all believe in God.
>Confronted with a problem, they came to a resolution, and in the manner prescribed. Seems to me that they did do their job, to the best of their ability.

That doesn't mean they're always correct. Need I mention Jim Crow? Or the 13th ammendment?

>
>I think that you folks are extremely lucky in the way their ruling(s) on this issue have been implemented.

I would tend to agree. The whole idea of moderation is IMO a basically sound one though there are fundamental presumptions that have changed in the last 226 years or so.

> My personal strategy would have been to make a full wide sweep and change everything that was affected upon FIRST ruling. But it works in the opposite way, so each and every instance gets judged on its own merits. That's gross inefficiency, to say the least! And it's no doubt this way precisely so that those lawyers you admire so much < s > can make their big bucks. [I guess that no lawyers attend your Church]

<g>

Well, sure, but the whole idea of the tripartate form of government was in fact to slow things down and allow passions to cool.

>
>What would be your solution to these problems, keeping in mind the WHOLE RANGE OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS and that they apply EQUALLY TO ALL?

Exactly what I'm doing now; praying for a true spiritual awakewning. Unless men change inside nothing else will change. This has been the error of many in the 'Religious Right' movement. While they have every right to lobby and so forth I think that at times they've forgotten where the true power lies.

>
>I may be a negative ninnie as regards some VFP/MS things, but it is clear that you are a member of the club when it comes to the Supreme Court and religion.

LOL!!!

So be it. I suppose I just think we'e tossed the proverbial baby out with the bathwater in this issue.