That’s true. I started the thread with a much stronger idea of what was going on. Discussion in the thread disabused me of some notions, and led to this current view. What’s wrong with that?
Uh… thanks.
:dubious: Wayyyy off the mark here. I disagree with Starving and Bricker, but I see no evidence that either of them is behaving dishonestly. Quite the contrary.
Daniel
OK. Since no one’s talking about gloating, though - the discussion here was about assigning blame for the results of actions taken - I fail to see how your comment is remotely relevant.
Yes, I’d consider those things forms of lying. But since I’m not doing them here, I fail to see how your comment is remotely relevant.
As I pointed out already, it is not the only source, nor the one that deserves the blame. Shouldn’t the legislatures that enact clear violations of the establishment clause bear more blame? How about the nature of the our entire justice system.
No, small minded bigots are responsible for the backlash.
They pursued both.
And those damn uppity black people and Brown too? You’re blaming the wrong group. Your blaming the people working for equal rights when the others find other ways to squelch them.
I was merely pointing out why your credibility has been challenged in this thread. I’ll leave it to you to respond to the most current questions about your examples.
You’re welcome.
It’s got nothing to do with honestly, and your own unveiled attacks are constituting a much greater hijack. I believe that might just be a beam in your eye.
Daniel
The abortion discussion was very relevant: if a poster advances the text of the Constitution in a particular argument, it’s relevant to explore whether this is an argument of convenience or a legitimately-held belief. A poster who advances the text only when it suits his cause, and argues a “living Constitution” when it does not, is subject to a different rebuttal than someone who consistently advocates a textualist interpretation. I can ask the former to define precisely how he knows that this instance is one that demands a textualist interpretation. The latter’s answer to that question is, of course, that ALL instances demand a textualist interpretation.
Great. Then you’re finally willing to tell us what a principled textualist interpretation of the Establishment Clause inevitably leads to, aren’t you?
Can we stop this? You reading things into the Constitution that aren’t written down, ceremonial deism for example, is inherently no different than someone else reading something into the Constitution that isn’t there. Dressing it up as “reasonable” does nothing to change the fact that it is at its core no different than reading any other right into the Constitution.
Well, not everyone, fine.
Anyhow, to sum up my thoughts a bit more clearly: Seems to me that it’s just common sense that any time you have any controversial issue with cloudy constutional lines and some people with strong opinions on both sides of the issue, there are going to be cases where people go to far either way, frequently out of a misunderstanding of the law, a fear or lawsuits, or what have you. If that’s what you are referring to as a “chilling effect”, then I agree. However, I also think this is just an artifact of the way society works, has nothing at all to do with Christianity or religion, particularly, and would be just as likely to be found if we went over every lawsuit concerning, say, equal-money-spent-on-girls-and-boys-sports issues. (Furthmore, to make an unsupported claim, I think if you took a fairly far out atheist and a fairly far out Christian and said “you can remake the schools however you like… how would they look?”, the Christian schools would be WAY further from constitutional than the atheist schools. But that’s neither here nor there.)
Thus, while I basically agree with your point in that limited context, I also have to ask, what’s the big deal? Is this still an issue which, for want of a more quantifiable word, alarms you?
Secondly, you have several times in this thread claimed that there are people out there (“angry atheists”) who not only are trying to remove Christmas from public schools (a fuzzy issue on which reasonable people might disagree), but want to get rid of Christmas altogether. I’ve been trying to get some clarification as to what you mean here. In particular, are you claiming that there’s a meaningful group of people actively trying to do this? That is, more than just a Phelps-esque super-fringe? And if so, can you give some evidence for their existence?
Finally, do you now claim that there is any connection between the schools/lawsuits/chilling-effects side of things and the Wal-Mart/Loews/Happy-Holidays side of things? And if so, what and how?
Not so.
At issue is not a new right. It is the meaning of “establishment of religion.” A textualist is perfectly able to read “establishment of religion” as MEANING WHAT IT SAYS: ESTABLISHING A RELIGION. The textualist can then look at things like student-led distribution of religious material and see, plainly, that it is NOT an establishment of religion.
No reading of new rights required. Just a simple reading of the text. Does the action establish a religion? No? Then it’s OK. Simple, neat, and easy.
The only thing that now alarms me is people like Diogenes, who refuse to recognize the existence of a phenomenon that you are readily prepared to acknowledge.
No, when I mentioned them, it was only as an example of the far swing of the curve. I don’t claim there is a meaningful group here.
It’s not that simple and you should know that, Bricker. I believe a public school that endorses religion IS establishing religion. Any religion or all religions are being established over NO religion.
The only connection is in effect, not in cause. That is, if I claimed that trailer parks were in danger, I might mention zoning law changes at the behest of developers who wished to build homes, action from people opposed to “trailer trash,” and tornados. I wouldn’t claim that the actions of tornados are connected to the actions of developers, though.
You believe that, but the courts do not. And the courts are the ones to decide what the word means. A student handing out matierials does not equate the school endorsing religion.
But here’s the key point: the legal analysis revolve around interpreting what “establishment of religion” means. It starts and ends with the words that are written. It’s completely different from the “substantive due process” that is used to create new rights.
Take “unreasonable search.” A court can find that a particular method of searching - say, with infrared - is, or is not, an “unreasonable search”. No matter which way they decide, they will be interpreting the text. Textualism does not mandate a result. It merely insists that the text, and only the text, controls.
I don’t believe your question correctly characterizes ceremonial deism. Your question also suggests conclusions about the teachings of Christ that I don’t believe I’d agree to.
I think you have to admit, Bricker, that at least part of what is driving whatever amount of “chilling effect” there is, are activist organizations that are trying to convince people that Christianity is under vast coordinated assault and that there is a big dangerous controversy around the corner whenever religion is an issue.
Many of the “test cases” you note involve not uninterested kids, but paranoid Christian organizations out looking for a fight. The “no praying at lunchtime example” is an interesting case:
Here’s the World Nut Daily’s telling of the story:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44223
Note the Alliance Defense Fund. After the story was splashed all over the Christian News organizations (based on just the ADF’s version of events with, of course, no information at all about anyone else’s side of the story) the principal of Karns Elementary School received a deluge of hate mail calling her a “fascist” and a “communist” for her policies.
Here’s an actual news source reporting the rest of the story:
http://www.knoxnews.com/kns/local_news/article/0,1406,KNS_347_3774277,00.html
(I can’t seem to get to the story there but I first read it there: here’s anoter source with less detail:
http://atheism.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.wbir.com/news/news.aspx%3Fstoryid=25648
To summarize:
- The principal who made the decision is a Christian with a Bible sitting square on her desk who allows students to bring Bible to school just fine.
- The reason for the decision is that she believes that recess is a time for physical activity and she wants kids active and playing. Bible groups are already allowed on school property before and after the school day.
- the “group” seems to have been pre-planned and organized, possibly precisely to bring this case into being. Instead of just a kid reading his Bible innocently at recess “with a few friends” and then getting a complaint about it, the schools’s acocunt of things is that:
She said no, not during school time like recess. So the complaint that started the whole shebang was from the parent trying to organize this activity, not some liberal do-gooder complaining about kids reading the Bible.
And finally: what is the ultimate dispute here? Is it over whether kids are allowed to read the Bible during free time? No. It’s over what constitutes free time. The principal thinks that recess is a time for active play, to release pent up energy:
Seems pretty reasonable to me: making kids run the hell around so that they burn off a little of the sugar in their systems so they can be more attentive in class is not a crazy idea. So the schools’ position is at least prima facie not an attack on free expression: it’s a difference of opinion as to what is part of a good, structured school day. They already agree that bibles at school and reading the Bible is cool with them. They just disagree on when students have free time.
So here we have yet another example of an organization like the ADF fanning the flames of religious controversy, riling up lynch mobs for fellow Christians, all by misrepresenting a case to the public. They are ones in part presenting the idea that public schools and religion are at loggerheads, and that there is a huge scary realm of legislation out there.
The point is that it is not just a simple reading of the text. Our textualist must have gotten his definition for “establishment of religion” from somewhere. Since it “establishment of religion” is not defined in the Constitution he must have gotten his definition from somewhere other than the text. In addition, there is no method of determining this defintion proscribed anywhere in the Constitution. With no terms defined the Constitution and no method to determine these proscribed every method of interpetation must rely on something outside of the text.
Yes. The English language must also be considered a source of authority.
Which version oz the English language? Some have substantitive Due Process and some don’t. Which is right?