There we disagree. I think that the phrase refers to the establishment of a state-approved religion (as existed in England at the time the Constitution was drawn up). Neither its words nor its intent suggest that the mere consideration of religious beliefs are off limits.
But these were common during most of our history, and are scarcely unknown today. What about laws that provide for students to be absent from school for Jewish and Christian holidays? What about the fact that Devil’s Tower is closed to climbers in June because it is held sacred by certain Indian Tribes?
Xema, the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. The Supreme Court is granted the power to interpret the Constitution. The Supreme Court has said that the 14th Amendment makes the First Amendment applicable to the States. Thus, the prohibition on Establishing Religion applies to both the Federal and State Governments.
Teaching Creation Science furthers a religious belief. If the State Government GIVES MONEY to a teacher that is teaching a religious belief in her official capacity as a school teacher, they are in effect ESTABLISHING RELIGION.
In this, was he typical or unusual for learned men of his time? Do you believe he rejected its view of laws and morality?
I don’t understand this. Are you saying there is no such thing a Jewish thought, philosophy, morality, ethics? What are we to make of all that’s written along these lines?
Bear in mind that the context of this discussion is the original framing of our laws. It can thus be argued that what was said and done quite some time ago is more relevant that what has transpired recently.
I do notice that there was a semantic issue that was missed early on. The OP mentioned the act as being “against the law” and several posts reiterated that point or used the term “illegal.”
Now Xema has actually been arguing a position that the act would not be a criminal act because it did not violate a statute. (Whether Xema has failed to make this explicit distinction out of carelessness or with great care, I do not know.) However, none of the earlier posts before the hijack claimed that teaching religious creationism was a criminal act, only that it was “against the law.” The Constitution is the highest law of the land and an act in defiance of that law is, indeed, “against the law.” Multiple court cases have supported that position. This, however, is a different statement than that teaching Creationism is a criminal offense–a statement that no one has actually made.
Yes, I agree with this. I stop short of viewing her as chargeable with the “crime” of violating the first amendment – I think that bears on the actions of governments, not individuals.
The National Park Service instituted a voluntary ban on climbing the Tower, and stated that it would not enforce that ban. Because it is voluntary, rather than established as a law, the act was not deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. See Bear Lodge Multiple Use Association v. Babbitt, 1998.
I had intended to make a comment regarding that point, but am not anywehere near well-enough versed in law to support my position. From what I have seen, violations of the OP’s sort would fall within the realm of civil law, not criminal law. And those are two different animals.
Well it looks like Xema isn’t going to see this for a great while, but I’ll post the explanation anyway.
By neccesity, the Constitution has to apply to individuals that are acting as agents of the Government. The Fourth Amendment makes it illegal to burst into peoples homes without a search warrant.
The entire State Government of Oregon can’t burst into my home, so I assume the amendment applies to actions that are done by Agents of the Government. In this case, a police officer is an agent of the government. Police officers work for the government, so do school teachers.
I’m saying that the phrase “Judeo-Christian” is not really inclusive of Jewish thought. It’s a pseudo-inclusive way to talk about Christian thought. Once you add the “Christian” part, you’ve left behind the “Judeo” part. Yes, there is Jewish thought in Christianity, but there is no Christian thought in Judaism. Any paradigm which includes both Jewish and Christian thought is therefore ipso facto Christian. There is nothing in “Judeo-Christian” thought which can be separated from Christianity proper. There is much which can be separated from Judaism, ergo, "Judeo-Christian is really just a weasel phrase for Christian.
As I pointed out before, you’re making a “guilt by association” argument: as if we are in the dark as to what the thinking of the framers was. But we are NOT in the dark. They left extensive writings on their thinking. And no, the basis IN THE LAW for having statues against murder is not based on solely or even primarily God’s say-so or religious tradition. There are countless religious traditions that are not law: it’s just not enough. Instead, these thinkers developed a framework of natural rights that, in the minds of many, stood in direct opposition to religious mores which held that morality rested solely on Biblical and heavenly authority, not based on some rationalist philosophy.
While Christian values certainly played a major role in our society, to act like that fact makes everything, by mere association, a subset of Christian thought is pure nonsense. Western legal thinking did not begin and end with the publication of the Bible. Indeed, Enlightenment probably did more to change Christianity than the other way around, and it was Enlightenment principles and thinking that primarily inspired the founders.
Sure, but you seem to make the mistake of thinking that because Christianity was a part of that tradition, that therefore it must be the primary factor in everyone’s thought. Just because I was raised in a culture of Pokemon does not mean that everything I do is designed to “catch em all!” Plenty of people looked to entirely different ideas, even formulated new ideas of their own, as the basis for legal philosophies. Indeed, most legal philosophies were concerned with technical matters and proceedural traditions like the common law, not theology.
Yawn.
As I thought I made clear, the issue IS the matter of having laws against murder, and NOT our particular interpretation of whatever killings should be legal and what shouldn’t (be called murder and what shouldn’t). The idea is not that all societies had to conform to our idea of what actions were punishable by death, or what non-full members of society count as legitimate protectees, and so on, but rather that the society acted, as a matter of due process, to prevent recognized citizens from simply slaughtering each other over a sixpence whenever they felt like it. That’s the issue on which, at its most basic level, societies cannot really live without: they have to have some concept of murder: killing that is not acceptable to the general social order.
Sure, but no one would be able to understand what their complaints are anyway. If they say anything of substance, they’ve betrayed the Tao, and we can safely write them off as inconsistent.
And you should pay more attention to how they are being used.
This is not, to my knowledge, strictly true. What the government is barred from doing is acting for a religious purpose: a particular secretarian end, advancing one view over another. That doesn’t mean that religious beliefs cannot enter into the debate, or inform the reasoning of people in the process. It just means that the law has to have a plausible secular purpose.
Yes, you’re correct. It was just bad phrasing on my part. What I meant to say was that legislation cannot be drafted purely to serve the interest of a religious view.
If you’re still watching the thread, I thought I would bring it back to the heart of your question.
Evolution is a fact. It is a Law: the Law of Evolution. Science still talks of the Theory of Gravity, but don’t test it by jumping off of a building. Evolution was a Theory 100 years ago, now it is an accepted Fact.
Your teacher cannot teach other theories because they are not based on science, they are based on religion. You are not supposed to be confused by teachers that do not know the difference between science and religion. I’m sorry that you were.
