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 2 of 6 · from the scan, no model involved
stitutional, it is necessary to apply a nonsensical reasoning process to constitutional construction. First one must apply a “liberal” construction of law to read the concept of “wall of separation” into the constitution. Then one must abandon liberal thinking and apply a strict construction to the concept of wall of separation so that any linking of Federal funds and religious institutions is automatically precluded without any room for “liberal” interpretation of the concept. This is convoluted reasoning at best.
The clear intent of the First Amendment was to prevent the practice that was in effect in England of having an official state-established religion (the church of England). The state was not to prefer one religious institution to another. As long as the state treats all religions organizations on an equal basis, there is no violation of the First Amendment under a “strict construction” approach to the constitution.
Nor should there be a problem if a “liberal” approach is consistently applied. A liberal approach to interpretation permits the interpreter to read into the constitution a “wall of separation” between state and religion. However, it also permits the concept of wall of separation to be interpreted in a liberal manner. So long as the program does not involve the promotion of religious beliefs per se, a liberal interpretation of the wall of separation would permit the activity, which is unrelated to the religious activities of the institution.
I understand that there are those who can and who will make a strong argument that giving any of the government’s money to religious organizations is a violation of the principal of separation of church and station. However, they are
96.2%