<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><HTML><FONT SIZE=2 PTSIZE=10 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"><BR>
All:<BR>
<BR>
What is this dispute about? The correct interpretation of the separation of church and state as a constitutional principle? Whether or not the pulpit should be or legally can be used for political speech? What the historical facts are regarding these two questions in the history of the US? Or are you debating under what circumstances is it valid to use historical precedent in fact or principle to justify present principles or actions?<BR>
<BR>
Perhaps this debate could focus on one question at a time?<BR>
<BR>
On this issue of authority and historical precedent justifying current principles or actions, we do this all the time, whether it is fallacious or not. The US Constitution itself is nothing but a historical document that we continue to reference to justify current principles and actions. Yet there is nothing to stop someone from using the argument that just "because someone thought or did something a certain way in the past does not necessarily justify presence actions or thoughts," as Rose put it, to question the US Constitution, or the Bible, for that matter.<BR>
<BR>
I should be taking sides in this discussion but I'm not sure what the discussion is about! <BR>
<BR>
My bad maybe!<BR>
<BR>
Ted Moffett<BR>
<BR>
</FONT></HTML>