Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site yale.ARPA
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!yale!andrews
From: andrews@yale.ARPA (Thomas O. Andrews)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Jerry Falwell and the Moral(?) Majority(??)
Message-ID: <63@yale.ARPA>
Date: Tue, 19-Nov-85 01:19:49 EST
Article-I.D.: yale.63
Posted: Tue Nov 19 01:19:49 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 26-Nov-85 21:31:16 EST
References: <290@cuuxb.UUCP>
Reply-To: andrews@yale-comix.UUCP (Thomas O. Andrews)
Organization: Yale University CS Dept., New Haven CT
Lines: 38
Summary: 

>A note about Church and State : 
>
>The Founding Fathers simply wanted no single State Religeon.  They left
>Europe to avoid that.  They meant that America should not persecute anyone
>for their personal beliefs.  This did not mean keeping the two completely
>apart.  The ACLU has blown this way out of proportion.  I don't object to
>having a manger in a public building, nor a menorah, nor any other symbol
>appropriate for the season.
>
>If what the ACLU says is true, why do the Senate & House have chaplains, and
>why do they open each days busines with an invocation?  Why does our money
>say "In God We Trust"?  Why did they write "...all men are created equal and
>they are endowed by their Creator..."?  They were very religous.  They just
>didn't want to be told who or what they could/couldn't worship.
>
>Religeon will always play a big part in our lives, therefor it will be a part
>of our politics.  If everybody would give a little, we'd have a lot less 
>problems.
>
>
>				-Steve Adams
>				 ihnp4!cuuxb!jedi
  The founding fathers didn't truly understand the notion of repression and
bigotry.  They did not have the advantage of the modern psychological aspects,
and the extent of degradation involved in bigotry.  After all, many of them
believed slavery was a fine idea.
  We, as a modern society, can see *more* than the founding fathers.
  As for "endowed by their creator,"  this phrase occurs in the Dec. of Indep.,
and thus is not a legal document of any sort.  It is a declaration. (Hence the
name.)  It only proves that those who signed it were religious.  This does not
indicate any other intention ...

  I'd be happy if "In God We Trust" was removed from our money, if chaplains 
would be removed from Congress (unless they are congresspeople, too,) etc.
But, in my opinion, these are minor, compared with issues like school prayer.
-- 
					      Thomas Andrews
					      andrews-thomas@yale