It isn’t a “crime” in the sense you are thinking of. It’s verbotten altogether as a government led practice. A teacher who insists on teaching creationism is not going to go to jail, they are going to get fired, if need be by court order preventing them from teaching that in a public school.
When the court declared that it was unconstitutional to admit as evidence confessions made without miranda protections, they weren’t suggesting that cops who dodn’t read miranda warnings get thrown in jail. They prevent the government from using that evidence at trial.
I said, in reference to laws against murder: My thesis is that the US incarnation of these laws (and possibly many others) have a strong basis in religious views, dating back to long before the laws were framed.
DtC said: Your “thesis” is contradicted by both the Constitution and the writings of the framers outside the Constitution.
I said: Well, the Constitution is not a recondite document. Bring forth the quote that contradicts me.
DtC said: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
But this quote from the first amendment was brought up previously, and in no way bears on my reference to laws against murder. It is not responsive.
The First Amendment explicitly forbids any religiously derived laws whatever. This fact alone belies your unsupported claim that laws against murder had any religious basis. Frankly, if you’re going to persist in this vein you should really put up some evidence that any US murder laws have ever had any religious derivation. This is your contention. Prove it.
Coneivably, then, if a teacher continued to teach creationism after being ordered to desist by a court order, that teacher could be charged with contempt of court. I doubt it would ever get that far, though.
I’m afraid you’ll have to explain what you mean by “strong basis in religious views” in the first place. It’s not like there was a big hankering from anyone about allowing murder, at which other people had occasion to go “no no: the Bible says its bad.” The issue never came up because murder is universally condemned as a principle of good society in general. Most influential legal and philosophical thinkers during the period of the founding of the U.S. had long since abandoned the task of trying to justify principles legally: they had, as I noted, moved on to justifications based in principles of rational behavior and social contract theory.
I also already described to you that the rationale that the founders used in constituting a goverment was decidedly distinct from that of most other governments at the time: it was supposedly based on secular reason and concept of the social contract rather than grants of religious authority, which were believed to be outside of the purview of government altogether.
Sorry: the sentance "Most influential legal and philosophical thinkers during the period of the founding of the U.S. had long since abandoned the task of trying to justify principles legally: they had, as I noted, moved on to justifications based in principles of rational behavior and social contract theory."should read:
“Most influential legal and philosophical thinkers during the period of the founding of the U.S. had long since abandoned the task of trying to justify principles in terms of theology: they had, as I noted, moved on to justifications based in principles of rational behavior and social contract theory.”
Thank you for that. I’d rather naively assumed that such a level of “hands on” control would not be necessary to still involve a designer in the process.
My father-in-law’s view appears to be that god put the processes in place at / before the start of the universe and everything else has proceeded “naturally” given the universe laws that he decreed / enacted – no later hand-crafting needed and hence zero conflict with science.
Really?? Would you consider the killing of a chattel slave murder? Surely in the long history of human slavery we can find societies that condoned this.
Your father-in-law’s view is called Deism. That was (coincidentally to this discussion) the view of most of the founding fathers.
Incidentally, the view that God exists but that evolution is also true (in a God-set-it-in-motion sort of way) is usually referred to as “theistic evolution” which is dintinct from Intelligent Design.
First of all, the point is not to find middling exceptions, but one that considers murder perpetrated arbitrarily by one citizen against another as an acceptable everyday practice among the citizens it claims to legislate: not those which are benath the consideration of the state.
Secondly, the point would be to find some that could actually last for any period of time: chances are they couldn’t. Such a society probably couldn’t even be called a society at all: from the purely Hobbesian point of view, it’s no better than the state of nature.
If you’d really like to discuss this seriously, you need to better explain the meaning of your thesis.
You have quoted it and so you well know that it does no such thing. The meaning of “respecting an establishment of religion” is very far from saying “no religiously derived laws.” What are we to make, for example, of laws respecting sabbath days, which were common in US history until relatively recently?
The universality of people’s humanity is far more the issue than are social proscriptions against murder are. The point is that we find proscriptions against the arbitrary murder of one member of society by another in all succesful human societies, regardless of their wildly differing religious traditions or even lack thereof. Even those societies which practiced ritual human sacrifice didn’t allow one guy to go next door and hack up his neighbor because he wanted his house.
Yes, that is exactly what the establishment clause means. The government is not permitted to consider religious beliefs when drafting legislation. The laws respecting sabbath days were unconstitutional and that’s why they were overturned. This country has not always practiced what it preached, but that doesn’t mean that religiously derived laws are permissable under the constitution.
I mean that those who framed our laws partook of the Judeo-Christian tradition of laws, ethics, morality etc. The bible was taught almost universally in western society at that time – few if any of those who founded this country and framed its laws would have not been very familiar with it.
I hope it’s clear that I have neither said nor do I believe any such thing.
Again, I don’t believe, and don’t believe I have said, that the laws in question here have any basis in grants of religious authority. I’m thinking of the way in which the beliefs and attitudes of the lawmakers were formed – in what traditions they were educated and grounded.
** Here’s the first problem: ‘murder’ is by definition an unlawful act. If it’s lawful, it’s not murder, regardless of what our interpretations of whether that killing is correct or justified. It can’t be an “acceptable everyday practice” for that reason.
“Honor killings”, when men slay women who have supposedly defamed the honor of their families, aren’t murders in the societies in which they usually take place.
** Taoists would have some complaints with your argument and Hobbes’.
You should pay more attention to the meanings of the words you use.