Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!decvax!decwrl!pyramid!nsc!voder!kontron!cramer
From: cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: net.college
Subject: Re: Brother Jed
Message-ID: <525@kontron.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 20-Feb-86 13:21:00 EST
Article-I.D.: kontron.525
Posted: Thu Feb 20 13:21:00 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 24-Feb-86 06:17:46 EST
References: <1406@sdcsvax.UUCP> <252@mit-vax.UUCP>
Organization: Kontron Electronics, Irvine, CA
Lines: 31

> In article <1406@sdcsvax.UUCP> cs195@sdcsvax.UUCP (EECS 195) writes:
> >	A harmless evangelist...
> 
> Harmless like Jimmy Swaggart or Jerry Fallwell? I don't see how anybody
> (in light of recent political trends) can use the word "evangelist" in
> the same sentence as a complaint of first amendment rights (such as 
> *separation of church and state*) being taken away.
> 
> -- 
> From the land of Chaldea.
> -Charles

What a person says doesn't hurt anyone.  If someone attempts to impose
their will on someone else, that's another matter.  It sounds to me like
you aren't too wild about that other First Amendment right -- free speech.

Also, "separation of church and state" isn't part of the Constitution, and
a good argument good be made that wasn't *quite* the intent of the 
Founding Fathers.  The First Amendment says, "Congress shall make no
law respecting an establishment of religion".  That means, no law
recognizing, supporting, hostile to, or having any involvement with
an establishment of religion.  A lot of people yell "separation of church
and state" as the basis for passing laws that attempt to control or
restrict religious beliefs.

A little more reading of the Constitution and the Constitutional Convention
debates is in order, and a little less blather.

---------------------
"Television evangelism is to evangelism,
as television journalism is to journalism."