In a message dated 12/18/2004 2:08:13 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Heres the way I look at. People who I agree with set out to
raise consciousness. People I disagree with proselytize with militant zeal.
Frank's sardonic remark is,
of course, problematic.(I
We could also add the oath or affirmation clause, which in effect denies the
need to recognize God to hold office (which is slightly different, perhaps,
from no religious test). While some religous people today which to claim the
Dec of I or the Constitution as being religous, the criticism as
For those who are interested in this issue, I have written an amicus
brief for the McCreary case (with the valuable assistance of Paul
Finkelman) that argues against a close connection between American law
and the 10 Commandments. If you would seriously consider signing on to
such a brief (on
To the best of my knowledge that Court has never cited the TenC as legal
authority for anything. On the other hand, I don't know any serious
scholar who would deny that the 10 C have influenced American law.
The issue is HOW MUCH influence. Chief Justice Moore asserted it was
the moral
Surely one can be an atheist and accept the core moral
principles of the Declaration. But I think that atheists generally
wouldn't accept some of the rhetoric, especially the confidence in
divine Providence or God as Judge. That doesn't sound to me as the
'unknowable' or the 'unprovable'
In a message dated 12/20/2004 4:47:31 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I
inferred that because most Americans of theera were Christians, the public
meaning of the document would have beenunderstood as referring to the God
that they generally believed in.
Has
my point is that TJ and his generation were capable of using religous
language, and chose not to, instead using diestic terms like nature's
god (as opposed to the Bible's God?) and their creator as opposed to
God. Giving a modern definition to diesim for the 18th century
makes no sense; if
Volokh, Eugene wrote:
The Great God of the Bible? The Father, Son and Holy Ghost?
The Jehovah? These would have been odd things to say in even a
non-Deistic document. Divine Providence and Supreme Judge of the
world were, I suspect, much more normal and idiomatic ways of referring
to
After the experience of assault and battery at the hands of so-called
anti-war protesters, I find it very difficult to take this qualitative
difference allegation seriously, and I think it trivializes four years
in constant fear of bodily harm.
Original Message:
-
From: Michael
