It is apparent that you never receied a literary education. That is not bad. I value my education in mathematics and physics. And I do not feel in any diminished for it. Just the same, the meaning of a historica text is not the same as a current interpretation of the US Constitution by political ideologues–such as that motley crew of misfits, morons, and dolts that are currently Justices on the USSC (or should I say that dedicated group stalwart jurists who are committed to justice under the rule of law — your choice).

USSC interpretation of the US Constitution cannot be the meaning of the US Constition–the USSC interpretation is the USSC’S interpretation at the particular time that the then current composition of the USSC interprets it, with the majority and minority opinions. Historically, the USSC has reversed itself on its interpretation of the US Constitution–so does the US Constitution actually mean self contradictory things. The “meaning” of the US Constitution, i.e., the the meaning of the text of the US Constitution is best disclosed by literary scholars of historical texts using historically and phenomenologically objective techniques of literary criticism as to the authorial, textual, historical, grammatical, and semantic sense of the text. Your contention that it, the US Constitution, somehow means what the USSC “says it means” is as meaningless as saying that what Shakespeare, Plato, Vergil, or any other historical author means is what the USSC says it means. The USSC HAS RARELY, IF EVER, BEEN GRACED WITH ANY JURIST WITH LITERARY CRITICAL ACUMEN.

At most, you would be correct to say that at any given time, the AUTHORITATIVE interpretation of the US Constitution is the interpretation of a majority of nine not particularly gifted people, as far as literary interpretation of historical texts in concerned, who are the then current Justices of the USSC. Of course, the authoritative interpretation–NOT THE MEANING–will change when the composition of the USSC changes. These nine people have never been known as reliable scholars of historical texts. They have been primarily lawyers, and, even worse, former judges. The current composition is even more unreliable than many courts in the past–in assessing the “meaning” of the US Constitution.

A Christian Church with no Sunday Eucharist?

I see lots of hypocrisy here. So it’s ok to destroy a president and spend thousands of hours looking into his church but if it’s a republican then you call for seperation of church and state.

Good grief.

The real answer probably lies somewhere in between. Fundamentalists and many evangelicals find us hopelessly “liberal”; mainline churches find us hopelessly “conservative.” (And what do those words really mean, anyway?)

There are probably more self-described Republicans than self-described Democrats in the denomination, but much of that is a function of geography and history given our past as an ethnically Dutch, predominantly rural denomination with its largest base in the midwest.

The “establishment of religion” clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government, can openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organization or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect “a wall of separation between church and State.” Justice Hugo Black, U. S. Supreme Court, Everson v. Board of Education, 1947.