Well, even if you are an eternal optimist, like me, you have to admit, two things will probably happen in most people’s lifetime. Roe v. Wade will be overturned. And so will the Separation of Church and State (technically called, the Establishment Clause, in more formal legal circles;)).
Even as a dyed-in-the-wool freethinker, I accept this. No point crying over spilled milk. But I do wonder about its more broader reaching implications.
For one thing, without the establishment clause, what will happen to modern science, in the USA? Some conservative states think the universities should give both Darwinism and Intelligent Design equal time. What effect will that have on cosmology? Biology? Or for that matter, even medicine?
Also, I was thinking. Will it make US scientists want to avoid certain states? So there will effectively an intellectual vacuum, in some states? And scientists will then just naturally flock to the more enlightened states?
And what about the international community? Will they shun the US as a whole? Frightening, and a prediction I hope I am wrong about.
Well, I’m certainly worried. What do the rest of you think ?
Why do you think the Establishment Clause will be “overturned”? On the one hand, people have been trying to overturn the Establishment Clause for over a 150 years, without much success so far. (Note that, strictly speaking, to actually overturn the Establishment Clause would require an amendment to the Constitution. Even the Supreme Court can’t just “overturn” part of the Constitution, although a SCOTUS decision or decisions could radically re-interpret the currently accepted interpretations of the Establishment Clause–or any other part of the Constitution.)
I think your starting premise is doubtful. I don’t see any reason to think that the establishment clause will be “overturned”.
If it were to be, there is no reason to expect the consequences that you predict. Lots of modern, progressive democracies have no establishment clause, the UK being an obvious example. This does not result in the state mandating equal teaching time for darwinism and intelligent design or any remotely similar consequence.
As for the rest of the world shunning you, if we don’t shun you over your utterly bizarre constitutional provisions regarding firearms, we’re hardly likely to get worked up over the deletion of the establishment clause.
Especially given the number of countries that do, in fact, have a state church but nonetheless are either more socially secular than the US (much of Europe) or manage to deal with nations with other religious beliefs to greater or lesser degree (most of the Muslim nations, Israel, etc.)
I tried to find where the “separation of church and state” is written, and I failed to do so. At best, I found it was the philosophy of Jefferson. So, other than the Preamble, where is this “Establishment clause” found? What I’ve Googled does quote the 1st Amendment “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…” but, it does not explicitly say “separation of church and state”. This is always a problem when religious displays are placed at/on Government property.
In addition to the “nones,” there is actually a pretty large contingent of theists opposed to government control in general, and many (not all) of those are opposed to doing anything that might give the government more control over religion. They firmly support separation of church and state.
It mostly comes from the long term jurisprudence. From your example, allowing the displays of one religion but not all has been interpreted as equating to supporting the establishment of that religion. Some jurisdictions have gotten around that by saying we’ll allow Christian displays, but also other religious displays too (then the Satanists try to erect a monument to Satan then they backpeddle).
Perhaps the OP should have clarified that Separation of Church and State is more accurately called “The Establishment Clause”. Maybe something along these lines:
I, too, put very low probability of either prediction in the OP coming true. But since everyone is focusing on the Establishment Clause, let’s look at Roe. A few states will probably ban abortions in most cases, but most states will still ensure that abortion is legal. We’ll have 50 standards instead of 1. A woman would still be able to go to another state to get an abortion-- which could be a barrier for women not in a position to manage such a trip financially or for other reasons.
However, I’m not seeing any effect on science in the US of Roe were overturned.
I would be surprise if, now, more than 5% of the population in the US actually understands what evolution by natural selection is and how it works. I’d also be shocked if many people renounce their religious beliefs about evolution because of what they learn in school. It’s one small subject in one or two courses a person takes in a normal K-12 education.
There was a news story the other night that only 30% of American college students could identify Iraq on a map, even though we’d been fighting there for most of their lives.
This is exactly why we actually have the Establishment Clause. It was not put in to protect atheists from religious mandates (that’s a beneficial side effect). It was put in to prevent the state from telling the churches how to worship. The founders wanted to stamp out any possibility of the sectarian conflicts of Europe.
In the US, through, it would. “Equal time” is being pushed in US schools right now; along with mandatory school prayers, judges handing down sentences based on the ten commandments or other “biblical law,”(Christian, mind you – we’ll keep trying to pass laws to make sure Sharia and those other “furrin’” religions can’t have people following their rules–even voluntarily) and the like. These things never survive court challenges, but that’s only because the establishment clause exists.
I don’t think people in religiously saner countries understand how overwhelming and pervasive Christianity is in the United States, or how much certain loud and political branches of it would like to make us a theocracy.
Count me in among those who don’t believe the clause will ever be “overturned,” either by amendment or judicial decree. For the most part, courts have interpreted it more strictly as time has passed. On the other hand, it is plausible - though unlikely - that Roe could be overturned.
Darwin never used “natural selection” either, though the term became pervasive in his lifetime and was adopted for later editions of On the Origin of Species. He preferred “descent with modification.”
Nitpick: the Free Exercise clause prevents the government from telling churches how to worship. The Establishment Clause protects atheists from religious mandates, though the Founders more likely simply wanted to protect some Christian sects from others.
Separation of church and state as it exists in modern jurisprudence is the combination of the two doctrines.
Repeal of Roe v Wade would only mean that abortion would be left up to Congress and/or the states. Its far better than an undemocratic mandate from the bench.
Just for laughs, I googled “blank map middle east” and got a drawing of the borders but no names. I forgot about Oman and there were some former Soviet republics in the northeast that I couldn’t name (and honestly know very little about), but I got everyone else correct.
Anyhoo, if scientific educational standards slip because religion is allowed to interfere, the real impact will be felt 20 years later when fewer kids end up in science programs, hypothetically. The U.S. will survive as long as it’s rich enough to be tempting for scientists from other countries to immigrate there. Expect some Nobel Prizes to be won by American citizens with Hindu names.
It’s too bad that the courts had to intervene to provide for women to have control of their own bodies. Women’s rights should not be subjected to popular vote.
Don’t those kinds of “mandates” serve to curb the excesses of democracy? Democracy’s great in theory but in practice it turns into mob rule pretty easily unless it has some controls in place, i.e. a constitution.
?