Of course this country is based on the Judeao-Xian tradition. It is also based on Enlightenment Liberalism, which itself is a a response to people getting really insistent that the true view must be imposed on the unbeliver by the state. It's a very Ameriacn thing to say, isn;t it, we cana greeto disgaree, or as it is cpommonlyt put among undergrads, That may be true for YOU, but not for me. So, you ask people, whose truth gets imposed? The framers, in their white male propertyholding slaveowning wisdom, said, Not Even Ours. God bless 'em. Ooops!
>
> It's impossible to quantify such things, but to me
> it feels
> as if the argument that the First Amendment builds
> an unbreechable
> wall between church and state doesn't carry the
> weight it used
> to. In particular, the 1st Amendment doesn't seem a
> guarantee
> of irreligion. Remember Joe Lieberman's "Freedom OF
> religion, not freedom
> FROM religion" quip from the 2K election? I wish I
> could forget it.
Irreligion is probably more acceptable than at any time inour nation's history. Public piety has always been required. Story is, while practicing as a railroad lawyer in Illinois, young Abe Lincoln wrote a passionate defense of atheism. His law partner William Herdon, knowing his ambition, burned it. The mature Lincoln's greatest public expressions, the 2d Inaugeral and the Gettysburg Address, are filled with very moving God-talk and references to scripture that Lincoln probably didn't believe a word of.
>
>
> And I hope the text/case history/policy hermeneutic
> continues
> to prevail among members of the professional law
> community.
Originalism is not much use because mostly have haven't a clue beyond the text ofd what the origibal intent was. Judges are very pragmatic creatures by and large. Ask them to become historians and they will laugh at you. Thay have large dockets to manage.
> Speaking personally, I figure the original intent
> interpretive
> method *shouldn't* prevail, because the original
> intent referred
> to those institutions and social forces that existed
> at that time.
> (That argument generates a lot of black stares among
> people who agree
> with me.)
Also it doesn't give determinate answers in too many cases.
>
> BUT we're not all members of the professional law
> community, and
> the notion that law or policy contrary to anything
> other than the
> original intent of the Contitution--mindless
> veneration--is evil
> and un-American has currency, and it's linked to the
> notion that
> the USA at its founding was, in some sense, an Xtian
> country.
Well, the C has been amdended, e.g., by the 14th Amendment. But mainly the irrefutable answer to originalism is that it is hopeless, we can't do it. As well as we shouldn't -- not least b/c it wasn't the original intent!
And
> so we have Judge Moore and the Alabama situation.
Na, he's a lawless State Rightist Nullifier in the Calhoun tradition, not a constitutional fundamentalist.
>
> Different day, same question: What is to be done?
Ike sent in the National Guard . . . That's the legacy of the 14th amendment!
jks
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com