RE: Democracy...

Someone wrote:
>Religion has nothing to do with 'faith' or 'Churches'

What definition of "religion" are you using. I am very hard pressed to
find single definition that does not involve *faith*, although I have
yet to find a good etymological dictionary on the Internet (anyone know
of one?). You are correct that religion need not have anything to do
with church.

>A man may be an atheist and be religious.

Greek: a- (without) + [theos (god) + ismos (practice or doctrine)]

Unless you can show me a religion that does not involve a god or gods,
and although etymologically unjustified I would claim one that does not
involve *faith*, then I would say you could NOT be both an atheist and
religious. Agnostic perhaps, but not an atheist. You can be
contradictory and hypocritical and claim you are many things, but we are
talking about a coherent philosophy.

You can be both spiritual and an atheist. Spirituality does not require
faith in any external mystical element or being.

Jaeger wrote:
> notice the wording in the first amendment...it only restricts gov't
> restrictions on religion.

What part of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion" didn't you understand?

As with most the constitution, however, this is theory, not practice. In
practice there are many laws and case precedence establishing and
preferring certain religious practices, particularly the institution of
marriage.

Jim wrote:
> The 1st prevents the government from regulating religion, even to the 
> point of having the authority to define what a religion is.

I agree, but clearly they have. Particularly all the IRS code involving
certain exemptions for religious organizations and individuals. Like I
said above, theory versus practice, we are essentially no longer living
under the constitution.

	Matt

>As with most the constitution, however, this is theory, not practice. In
>practice there are many laws and case precedence establishing and
>preferring certain religious practices, particularly the institution of
>marriage.

The congress doesn't pass laws regarding marriages.  That is all up to
individual states.



Matt <mailto:melliott@itmail.ncsa.uiuc.edu>

Matt Elliott wrote:

> The congress doesn't pass laws regarding marriages. 

Yet.

Z

> > The congress doesn't pass laws regarding marriages. 
> Yet.
Not really true, IMO.  Consider

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d104:HR03396:@@@L

Signed into law in 1996, The Defense of Marriage Act, seeks to define 
"marriage" as a marriage between one man and one woman, in an attempt to 
prevent gay people from getting, say, married in Hawaii and then getting 
the same protection as other married people.

Unfortunately, it it seems to be in character with the "full faith and 
credit" clause (Article IV, Section 1) of the U.S. Constitution, which 
follows "And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the 
Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved,
and the Effect thereof."

The same rationale could be used in turning state-issued driver's 
licenses into National ID Cards, couldn't it?

(me)

zebo wrote:
> 
> Matt Elliott wrote:
> 
> > The congress doesn't pass laws regarding marriages.
> 
> Yet.
> 
> Z

Yes, that's the IRS's job. :^)

-- 

=====================================Kaos=Keraunos=Kybernetos==============
.+.^.+.|       Sunder       |Prying open my 3rd eye.  So good to see |./|\.
..\|/..|sunder@sundernet.com|you once again. I thought you were      |/\|/\
<--*-->| ------------------ |hiding, and you thought that I had run  |\/|\/
../|\..| "A toast to Odin,  |away chasing the tail of dogma. I opened|.\|/.
.+.v.+.|God of screwdrivers"|my eye and there we were....            |.....
======================= http://www.sundernet.com ==========================

At 2:47 PM -0400 on 9/16/98, Matt Elliott wrote:


> The congress doesn't pass laws regarding marriages.  That is all up to
> individual states.

Nit: But, not in Utah, of course. :-).

Cheers,
Bob Hettinga
-----------------
Robert A. Hettinga <mailto: rah@philodox.com>
Philodox Financial Technology Evangelism <http://www.philodox.com/>
44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA
"... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity,
[predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to
experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'