A Test for Intelligent Design Proponents

That is inaccurate.The First Amendment states that Congress shall not make any law "respecting the establishment of religion." The difference widens the clause considerably: the primary meaning of establish, then as now, is to make firm, settle, or support--it does not primarily mean to create or found.If there is any definitional doubt, the term "respecting" removes it, producing a plain meaning of "shall not make any law supporting a religion." The parallel clause, protecting the individual right to regligion, illuminates the first, prohibitive one: govenment can neither support nor obstruct religious practice.Just as your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose, your right to practice religion ends at my right (and my childrens' right) to be free of its imposition. Both liberal and conservative justices have concluded, quite reasonably, that if the Constitution does not contain provisions respecting the establishment of religion, and Congress is prohibited from making laws to that effect, then all governmental bodies are forbidden to do so, and no government-funded institution (e.g., schools or armned forces) may act in an analogous manner.Your logic suggests that although the police cannot conduct unreasonable searches and seizures, your English teacher can.

You inaccurately paraphrased; I quoted. Your tu quoque fails. No, it is a exacting parallel of your argument, the above meaningless sentence fragment notwithstanding.If you would like to debate interpretations of the Constitution, I would be happy to oblige, but not here. I did not want your inane, revisionist reading of that grand document to stand unchallenged, but neither do I wish to intrude further on Tim's thread.This message has been edited by Omnivorous, 11-28-2005 04:19 PM

Tim, I look forward to reading through your links at home this evening. My apologies for the part I played in steering this thread away from your theme.As a faculty spouse, and so privy to the academic preparedness of many college freshmen, I think your mini-seminar may require a full day--at minimum--for each section. In fact, a full week would probably be better; it would make a great remedial summer science program for college-bound seniors.This message has been edited by Omnivorous, 11-28-2005 04:31 PM

You read very poorly.I wrote: Get a dictionary.

I truly don't follow your logic here, crash.The use of the word "respecting"--in the sense of "regarding"--generalizes and broadens the meaning of the clause. That is genuinely my opinion, no digging in involved.The FFs (Founding Fathers) could have simply said that Congress shall make no laws establishing religion, but they didn't: the difference is, as I said, one that broadens that stricture of the amendment."Respecting"--to me--generalizes the meaning of the clause to say that Congress shall not make laws favoring or disfavoring any religion.I'll look at my post again, and I am honestly open to a explication that suggests I seemed to be (or was) weaseling my words. I will gladly apologize for either case, but I am not yet persuaded.

I still have to disagree, crashie I wrote: "If there is any definitional doubt"=if the plain primary meaning of establish--which is to support, not create--were unclear, then"the term "respecting" removes it"=the broadening use of respecting, meaning any impact on establishing a religion, removes any doubts about the intended broad definition of "establish", which leaves us with"producing a plain meaning of "shall not make any law supporting a religion"I suppose I could have added "or suppressing a religion," but I cannot find any basis to suggest I was fast and loose about the actual meaning of respecting.Anyway, my apologies if I seemed to be playing two word monte, but I don't believe my text supports that conclusion.Edit: spelling correction before Faith sees itThis message has been edited by Omnivorous, 11-28-2005 07:09 PM

Sorry, AdminNWR. I'm done--and imperviously done, I promise.