Block · one region of the page, as the scanner read it. It may hold a whole story, part of one, several, or an advertisement; stitching blocks into articles is the next step. Text is supplied OCR.
Page 7 · column 1 of 6 · from the scan, no model involved
By James L. Oyster, J.D.,
L.L.M. , Rappahannock News 4 Contributing Writer
There was a recent article in your paper criticizing George Bush’s “faith-based initiative” program. The writer opined that President Bush’s program was unconstitutional. I disagree. While I respect the author of that article, I disagree with his statements regarding the constitution.
: The definition of “liberal” as it appears in Webster’s First Edition, reads as follows: “Of a free heart; free to give or bestow; not close or contracted; munifi(jent; bountiful; generous; giving largely; as a liberal donor...” • < Another definition given in ■Webster’s reads: “Free; not literal or strict; as a liberal construction of law.” | Clearly, the President’s program promotes a “liberal” ideal. The intent is to find new and better ways to meet the needs of our nation’s poor. That is indeed a “liberal” cause in its most pure $ense. True liberals should support such a concept. , The argument against Mr. Push’s initiative is that it violates the First Amendment. This argument is premised on (he assumption that the intent of the First Amendment is to build a “wall of separation” lpetween state and religion. « The First Amendment feads: “congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...” There is nothing in the Constitution about a wall of separation. That concept was in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson. It is one man’s opinion regarding the purpose of the First Amendment. By analogy, it would be like taking a comment made by Senator Ted Kennedy and making it the definitive explanation of a law passed by Congress today. The comments of one man may be considered, but they should not be used as the fundamental tfnderpinning of any law.
In order to claim that the faith-based program is uncon
92.4%