Hey, my internet’s been down for three days, sorry I’ve been out of touch.
But I wanted to let y’all know that so far my son’s school, at least (Chicago Public School District) is NOT participating in this Moment of Silence nonsense, so at the moment at least, I have no grounds to be the token lawsuit even if I wanted to.
Unless I get really wily and report them to the police for not participating, and then sue them for the harm they’re doing to my son by participating…that’d be devious…
Yes, just as it was done in colonial times. :rolleyes:
This may be a fine idea, but if it really was “one of the founding principles of America,” I’m wondering why we didn’t see so much of it during the founding days of America.
Well, I would argue that one of the founding constitutional principles of the US was religious freedom/freedom of speech, even though that was clearly not one of the founding principles of the colonies.
Not that it was an immediate shift away after independence/the constitution, but the principles of “colonial times” might be seen to be different.
Fine, fine. Sorry for mentioning the colonies.
Perhaps we can identify the many instances c. 1790-1830 in which this principle was exemplified, then? That was clearly “founding” times for the nation. Right?
I could start with 1791, with “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abriding the freedom of speech.”
“One of the founding principles” to which I was referring was freedom of conscience. I was not claiming that villages around this time set up “free speech areas.” Hence I described the idea as “a radical celebration of what is one of the founding principles” as opposed to “a radical return to something that had been done frequently throught the history of this country.”
I’ll stick by free speech and freedom of religion as being important founding principles of the US. Not always perfectly acknowledged and implemented, but still bedrock principles none the less. We might have different definitions of what establishment and religious freedom entail and how they interact, but so, I think, did those who wrote the constitution, as well, presumably, as many other people around at the time.
If I were a student I would find the moment of silence perfectly acceptable, provided we were allowed an equivalent daily “free speech” moment where everyone was permitted to scream—as loudly as they wish—anything they want, without fear of reprisal.
I think that was called “recess”.
At meetings of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, they start off with a “moment of bedlam.”
America isn’t all that tolerant; it just has trouble focusing it’s religious hate and control freakishness very well, because it’s so fractured, as you put it. The Catholics who think the Pope should be America’s final moral arbiter have trouble getting traction because of the people who refuse to admit that Catholics are even Christian, and so on. When we have general religious agreement, our national religious bigotry shines through, such as the banning of gay marriage all over the country. And just try to get elected President as an atheist.
Because America is a Christian country, this is about pushing Christian prayer, and Christianity is all about exclusion. Christians have the one true god and the one true way and are the only people who count.
So these “bedrock principles” were created back then, but not put into practice until 200+ years later?
I honestly don’t understand what you are talking about here. Basic principals - free speech and freedom of religion. One method of putting them into effect - method I talked about. How you jump from the fact that this method had not been implemented to 200 years of the principles not being implemented defeats me, to be honest.
And I don’t see freedom of speech and freedom of religion as having been created 200 years ago. I don’t really think principles are created in that way.
He’s just going through his standard “strict construction” schtick to support a conservative agenda. Proceed as you wish, but he’s got his act down pat, so beware of joining battle on his grounds.
I’m still not sure what Bricker is getting at though. I have not had a strict constructionalist ever tell me before that freedom of speech and freedom of religion were not to be found in the text of the Amended Constitution.
My problem though is that I suggest idea A might be consistent with principle B, which has been present throughout US history. Only to get a response that, as far as I can understand it, says that because idea A was not present in 1800, it cannot be consistent with principle B. That just doesn’t make any sense to me, under a strict constuctionalist interpretation, a textualist one, or indeed any for of constitutional analysis.
I’d also like to note that I did not say it was constitutionally required that a village set up such a free speech zone. Just that I would like to see it.
There is absolutely no question that the words: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof… appear in the Constitution. And it’s even reasonably well … er… established that this prohibition applies to the states as well.
The idea that these words MEAN that a town may not place a Nativity scene in their center square during Christmastime is a relatively new interpretation of those words.
What you have done is switch horses in your argument’s mid-sentence. You appeal to the well-grounded historical roots of our country’s founding by pointing to a principle that has come to mean something rather different now than it did then.
I’m not saying here that it’s a better, worse, or indifferent interpretation. I’m saying that you cheated by invoking the ancient clause in support of your rather modern twist on it.
Let’s look back to what I said.
What I am suggesting is a “free speech/display area” and in support of that invoking “one of the founding principles of America” that being free speech (and also freedom of religion).
I personally do think that the First Amendment prohibits local government from spending tax payer money on religious displays. I also accept that is an interpretation, that however obvious it may seem to my inner textualist, has not been universally accepted throughout the history of this country. But what I am suggesting there is separate from that concept. It would be possible (though I believe unconstitutional) for the aforementioned village to set up a religious display itself, and still have a free speech area where residents (subject to other non-discriminatory laws) could set up whatever religious or non-religious displays they wished. I certainly believe leaving this to the citizens is not only the constitutional choice, but also the better one on many levels, both from religious and non-religious viewpoints.
But I think your criticism is unfounded. You read into it what you wanted to see there, so you could oppose it. I haven’t switched arguments mid-sentence at all. I’ll happily discuss establishment and the first amendment if that is what you want. But don’t pick a meaning that I did not have in order to better oppose it.