COMMENTARY
Framers of the Constitution had religion in mind
By Stephen Crawford
It nevercMM to anutn* mo how certain
people who pontificate about the Con
stitution to make a point an* either com
pletely ignorant of its contextual meaning
or distort it in an attempt to make their
point seem valid.
Not surprising! v. this is a recurring event
in the Emerald, with the latest installment
coming in the July 14 edition
In the editorial titled "Religion, public
policy should stav separate." the editori
al writer takes up the view that when the
Constitution was signed into law there was
some sort of complete separation between
the signers' religious value system and the
laws themselves. This is dearly ludicrous
This document and those that followed
were based primarily upon biblical con
cepts. as well the social contract theory of
such philosophers such as John Locke and
Jean Jacques Rousseau, Ixith of whom wore
Christians. To attempt to distort the con
text of these documents is despicable at
best and dangerous at worst.
The writer states that "The founding
fathers, ever vigilant to the dangers of
either religious domination or persecution
based on religious belief worded the Con
stitution to prevent the very actions cur
rently lining propagated by certain
fundamentalist Christian groups against
the homosexual community.”
Oh, really. Perhaps the writer did not
realize that when the original 11 states rat
ified the Hill of Rights, sodomy was a crim
inal offense, or that until 1961 every state
in the union had laws prohibiting sodomy
In no way. shape or form was the Con
stitution or any other early human rights
document meant to protect homosexual
"rights" or any other "rights" considered
to be opposed to )udeo-('.hristinn values,
including sut h things as prostitution, l»*s
tiality and incest, among others, that were
considered to lie alxiininations against the
human laxly Any attempt to read the Con
stitution outside of this context is a dis
tortion of its true meaning
The writer goes on to say that "When
one group de< ides what is moral for the
rest of society and decrees those person
al beliefs into law. then majority tyranny
becomes institutionalized By taking those
religious and moral values out of the malm
of spirituality and inserting them into pub
lic policy through the conduit of initiative
process, our society is condoning the estab
lishment of theocratic law."
How insidious! Let me break down all
those multi syllabic words to show what
the paragraph's mol was If the majority of
the United States (or Oregon, for that mat
ter) believes that something should he
enacted into law on a moral or religious
basis, it would be wrong to even allow
such an initiative on the ballot.
Majority tyranny used to be called
democracy The president v, I suppose, in
the author's view, is a majority tyranny,
because the majority of die people voted
for him. Furthermore, them has never been
a president who did not use moral con
victions in his decision making process.
Former United States Supreme Court
Justice Byron White swims to agree with
this view of law and morality as i use pa
rable in his paper titled "Majority Opin
ion of tho Supreme Court on Homosexual
Relations.'' which was concerned with the
Rowers vs llardwit k i ase of l'IMfv
Justu» White said. "Even if the conduct
at issue here (consensual sodomy) is not
a fundamental right, respondent asserts
that there must he a rational tvasis for tho
law and that there is none in this case
(Stanley vs Georgia. 1969) other than the
presumed lielief of a majority of the eUx
lorate in Georgia that homosexual sodomy
is immoral and unacceptable This is said
to be an inadequate rationale to support
the law
" The law. however, is constantly based
on notions of morality, and if all laws rep
resenting essentially moral choices are
to be invalidated under the Due Process
Clause, the courts will be vers empty
indeed Even the respondent makes no
such claim, but insists that majority sen
timents about the morality of homosexu
ality should lie declared inadequate We
do not agree, and are unperauaded.
Instil e White reaffirms what most poo
pie know that lows against so-called v It
timless i rimes.' such as sodomy and drug
use. to laws against murder, pedophilia,
incest and bigamy. eti . were enai ted in
i nntext of their full moral and religious
unpin ationx and that was how they were
intended to be enforced.
As well,.it is not surprising that the
writer would liken homosexual rights cas
es to that of Roe \s Wade file author says
that "Just as the Supreme Court removed
the moral equation from legalized abor
lion with Roe vs Wade and instead plat ed
emphasis on the sanctity of privacy and
choice. citizens must likewise separata
|n>rvmal morality front the making of laws
that discriminate against certain sections
of society."
Contrary to the writer's sparkling adu
lation of this "piece" of legislation, Roe
vs. VVntle is generally considered by
lawyers and law students to lie one of the
worst scams ev er pulled on the American
public that passes for a law
Sewsnerk. with its pro-< hoice leanings,
said of Rtm vs Wade that "With a wave of
the judicial wand, abortion has become a
constitutional right, without on account
ing of why Roe vs Wade was enacted
without a single U S citizen, other than
the seven Supreme Court justices, voting
on it. On the contrary, most every state
apposed unrestricted abortions
And this is the tv pe of legislation that
the writer holds up as an example Instead
of a system hv w hit h the people dec ide
what is in their own best interests, with
a system of checks and balanc es to make
sure that no one's fundamental Cod-giv
en rights are violated (make sure you read
this sentence again to understand what I
am sav ing), the writer would have a small
minority tits ide what is in our ties! inter
ests.
I lad the editorialist studied Ins history,
he would have known that this tv|ie of gov
ernment was the reason we left Kngland
in the first place
Stephen Cranford is a philosophy major
at the Ihuvrrsity
LETTERS
Narrow view
In response to Loretta's letter
(ODE, July 7): I have to say l hope
that there are few students on
your campus that believe the
OC.A is truly for religious free
dom.
The CX’.A and its like are in
business to make money for their
loaders. Pat Robertson and the
700 Club pulled in more than
5140 million and that is just in
the reported figures, not the unre
ported ones that religious special
rights protect from public dis
closure. A genuinely compas
sionate society, like the Salem
witch trials and burnings, the
Inquisition, the stoning of Quak
ers, the slaughter of Native Amur
leans, and slavery, are all parts of
the founding society
If homosexuality was against
the nature of the Ijiws of Nature
it would not be found; yet. it is
Where is there anything about
religion in the Laws of Nature?
Once again (X1A and its kin want
you to believe that their narrow
version of God is the only one
They do not want you to he al
lowed to believe in lehovah.
Allah. Zeus. (aiia. the Great Spir
it. Buddha or anything else which
does not agree with them Do not
sign their petitions and tell them
why.
James Dean Poynor
Eugene
Do it daily
Please discuss with your col
leagues the merits of your pub
fishing on Saturdays and Sun
day s, which might turn out to be
■i good idea. or striking "daily"
from the name of your paper.
Whether it is called truth or
accuracy, tolling it liko it is
should always be a journalist's
first concern
"Daily" means every day. You
don’t publish every day and you
never have. Why misuse your
paper's name and pretend to be
something you are not?
Nobody is fooled? Probably
true, but irrelevant. Who gives a
damn? Besides mo, that is? Your
response is invited
Charles O. Porter
Eugene
EDITOH S NOTE .According to
the Americ an Heritage College
Dic tionary, third edition, the
word "doily" may he applied to
"A newspaper published every
day or every weekday." The Web
ster's Third Now International
Unabridged defines the word sun
ilarly Thank you for noticing,
though
i
: We carry computers and we're on campus. Who are we?
Getting through college can be hard, but a
good computer can make your life a lot easier.
That's why we’re here. We carry computers and
software at special educational prices to match
everyone’s pocketbook, even yours.
But what good is a computer if you can’t use
it? That’s why “support” is our middle name. We're
here to support you. If you’re stumped by your
system or stymied by your spreadsheet, we can
help. Dying for a computer, but don’t know where
to start? We’ll help you make a choice that fits
your needs.
Have a question? Come on in to room 202 of
the Computing Center (acroee from Rennie’s
Landing), or give us a call at 34G-4402. We've got
a lot to show you, so come see us!
Hint: We
are here r
Mon-Fri,
10am-3pm!
U i * '
M«WL*TT
PACKARD
A: The Microcomputer Support Center, 202 Computing Center!