You say I don't understand the First Amendment very well, but I think what that amounts to is simply that I reject the revisionist interpretations of it that you accept.
No, the problem is that you accept the Radical Religious Right's (RRR) revisionist interpretations, which are an abomination.
Again,
read James Madison's A Memorial and Remonstrance! Since he wrote that a few years before
he drafted the First Amendment (IOW,
James Madison quite literally wrote the First Amendment),
A Memorial and Remonstrance provides us with direct insight into the
original intent of the First Amendment. I remember when "original intent" was an enormously important buzzword for the RRR, but apparently not so much when they can't distort it.
Here is your assignment, Faith.
Read A Memorial and Remonstrance. Then use it to support your statements here about the First Amendment. Be sure to quote directly from
A Memorial and Remonstrance to demonstrate exactly where and how it supports your statements here about the First Amendment. Your ability to do so will demonstrate to us that your understanding of the First Amendment is in agreement with James Madison's original intent.
You should also start reading
Liars for Jesus, a free downloadable book that examines several claims by the RRR's revisionist historians (eg, David Barton) and shows us what the real historical facts are. Remember, the truth shall set you free.
The idea is that the government is not to open its foul mouth on the subject of religion AT ALL. But now thanks to twisted logic if a teacher, now called a "state actor" brings a religious text to school that can be interpreted as the equivalent of "making a law respecting the establishment of religion" and you think this makes sense and this is why I want out of here.
Complete and utter nonsense!
The government can indeed speak on the subject of religion; it simply cannot establish a religion nor prevent the free exercise of religion. That is the Great Barrier that defends the rights of the people, decades later renamed as the Wall of Separation between Church and State. Suffering either religion or government to overleap the Great Barrier damages both Church
and State and violates the rights of the people.
Nor should a teacher be prevented from bringing a religious text to school. In most cases, it would be for the teacher's own private reading and not for presentation to the class; there's certainly nothing wrong with that. In some cases, it could even be presented to the class as part of a lesson on the history and/or teachings of a particular religion, such as in a comparative religions class, or to support what they are learning about a particular religion's role in historical events. There are even "Bible as literature" classes where that particular religious text would need to be presented. The key is that there would needs to be a legitimate educational purpose for presenting that religious text. What would most certainly
not be permissible would be for the teacher to use it to proselytize or to promote his own religion.
Where do you get your crazy ideas from? What you want out of is an imaginary world that's inside your head, so what you're saying is that you want to be out of your mind. Well, it looks like you're most of the way there.
The government is to keep its dirty paws off religion both in the sense of deciding that a particular religion represents the government, and in the sense of keeping people, and that includes teachers, from practicing their religion wherever they want to, including on school premises. But now the teacher is prohibited the free exercise of his/her religion because of being insanely defined as a "state actor" who would then be in the position of defining the religion of the whole nation.
Teachers, like every other citizen of this country, are free to practice their religion
as private citizens. But when they are acting in their official capacity, they need to abide by the standards of conduct of their profession. For example, military members are completely free to speak their minds and to participate in demonstrations, etc,
as private citizens, but when they wear the uniform or otherwise act in their military capacity then they must conduct themselves professionally, because what they say and do while in uniform infers that they speak for the service. They also cannot use their affiliation with the service in business dealings nor in making public statements, since that would infer that they are speaking for the service.
Do please tell us just exactly what free exercise of the teachers' religion is being prohibited. What
specific aspects of teachers' religious exercise are you referring to? Proselytizing? Is that what you are talking about? Do you want teachers to be free to abuse the authority of their positions in order to proselytize to a captive audience? Have you truly no concept how unspeakably
evil that is? Are you truly incapable of realizing how extremely valuable the First Amendment is in prohibiting that kind of evil from happening?
Here's the scenario you want: your brand of Christian is teaching the class. There are Mormon, Catholic, and Jewish students in that class. You want that teacher to proselytize to those Mormon, Catholic, and Jewish children in an effort to convert them to your brand of Christianity. You're just fine with that and, indeed, you very much want that to happen.
Now consider this scenario: the teacher is a Catholic (or far worse, a
Mormon!) and some of the students in that class are of your brand of Christianity. That teacher proselytizes to the class trying to covert those your-brand-of-Christian students to his religion. Are you still fine with that? Do you still want that to happen?
What's the difference between those two scenarios? In your mind and according your own twisted revisionist view of the First Amendment, there's all the difference in the world. To the First Amendment operating in the real world,
there is absolutely no difference! The teacher is prohibited from using the power of the state to promote his own religion. He's free to proselytize all he wants to
as a private citizen outside the school, but he is prohibited to do so
in his official capacity as a teacher.
Regardless of what his religion is. And everybody's rights are protected,
regardless of what their religion is. The First Amendment is not intended to only operate for the benefit of a select few, as you mistakenly believe, but rather for the benefit and protection of
everybody, regardless of religion.
But your brand of Christians continue to strive for their evil goals, something that is not lost on the public. The public sees the evil that they are doing and trying to do. The public sees the evil in how they repeatedly attack our precious rights and liberties. The public sees the evil of the religious tyranny that they want to create to enslave us in, the same kind of religious tyranny that you have presented here. The public sees their evil and how their evil taints Christianity. And as a result, Christianity becomes something that the public does not want; definitely your brand of Christianity, but for many it's any form of Christianity. Even without employing the Matthew 7:20 Test, they can clearly see that it is a false religion, bears evil fruit, and should be hewn down and cast into the fire.
It's your mess. You created it. You need to clean it up.
™ Version 4.2
(1)
