Chuck wrote:
> The US was fortunate that our founding fathers created
> a framework of laws that granted certain rights and
> freedoms to its citizens while at the same time defining
> the role they saw for the 3 branches of government. The
> Executive, Judicial and Legislative branches were meant
> to balance each other and prevent the situation we currently
> find ourselves in where one branch establishes a
> totalitarian control over the country.

There are many who would find your characterization of the
Bush White House (with Republican control of the House and
Senate, and 5 to 4 majority of conservative Supreme Court
Justices) to be a bit harsh when you call it "totalitarian".
:)

Then wrote:
> Judges are basing their rulings not on our constitution,
> but instead upon their own social/political belief's,
> and treating those rulings as superior to laws enacted
> by our legislatures or through voter referendum's.

Judges using their own experiences, beliefs, and judiciary
style, is nothing new; but our founding fathers built in
a check for this power when they provided the legislature
the ability to change the constitution and have the states
and executive branch affirm that change.  The limitation
there, which the judges deal with more than the legislature,
is that our laws effect each other: change one and you
may invalidate many others you had no desire to change.

The judicial branch has always been, and remains, subject
to the joint efforts of the other two branches.  Their power
is not absolute, but their rulings do skew based on the makeup
of the panel of judges to review a case.  When reviewed
by the entire court, their rulings on most laws have been
very consistant year over year.

Lastly, you wrote:
> I am not religious so the effect on me is minimal, this
> time, but the removal of the Christian religion from
> public life is not being done by the will of the majority,
> but by the will of the minority through the power of a
> rogue judiciary.

Two thoughts.  First, you note that this effect is minimal
to you because you are not christian, which brought to
mind the writing of Martin Niemoeller ("In Germany,
they came first for the communists, and I didn't speak
up because I wasn't a communist.....Then they came
for me, and by that time nobody was left to speak up.")
So, kudos for speaking up when you aren't one of those
being "come for".

Second, the effect of these changes can only be to
what extent religion may have an overt role in our
government; not removing it "from public life".
Nobody would question whether or not the US
Attorney General is a Christian and is deciding
what cases to try and how to try them based on
his religious beliefs; but he is limited to application
of existing laws and to legal application of them.

While I don't have statistics on this, my expecation
is that (a) Americans who are religious or claim
to be a member of a religion are the vast majority;
(b) of those, the judeo christian faiths make up the
majority; and (c) of those, christians make up the
majority.  Even without the filter: Christians make
up the majority of America.  But, Americans also
have some idea about how harsh and unfair life
is in a country whose government is based on a
religion, though admittedly our only examples
are non Christian religions.

I think, and I could be waaaaaaayyyy off base,
that most Americans want a government that is
tempered by what they believe is the best of
their religion, but not one which uses civil law
to enact all this historical rules and laws of
their faith.  The Dr. Laura email ("what's a fair
price when I sell my daughter") is a good
example of why the limited enactment of the
religion's principles would be preferred.

The historical interpretation of the 1st am. as
preferring an absence of overt religious influence
in all things government is/was meant to be the
easiest way to have the limited enactment.

Rs~

Russ Smith
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* * * * * *
The opinions expressed in this email are mine, and are not meant to reflect
those of any other party.  The subject matter herein is intended solely for
the named recipient(s) of this email.  Spellcheck cancelled.  Your mileage
may vary.  Look both ways and hold hands when you cross the street.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* * * * * *

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *