A Test for Intelligent Design Proponents

The Fourteenth amendment provides the Constitutional justification for this extension. And as the Constitution cannot violate itself, and amendments have the full force of the constitution itself, it's incorrect to characterize the blanket prohibition from any government establishment of religion as a "violation". The Constitution cannot violate itself.

Why would that make it unconstitutional? Indeed, the fourteenth amendment extends the First beyond its original perview.But the constitution cannot violate itself. The fourteenth amendment cannot, by definition, be "unconstitutional" - it's part of the constitution.This shouldn't be difficult. Constitutional amendments can't, by definition, be unconstitutional. If you think the fourteenth amendment is bad, well, that's your perogative, and you're free to write your congressperson to try to have the amendment that granted voting rights to black people repealed. I'm sure they're pay very close attention to your concerns.

The "intent" of the Constitution is not law, and it's not binding. The fourteenth amendment alters that intent. It was the intent of the framers, after all, not to have income tax, and the body of the constitution specifically disallows such a tax; does that make the 16th amendment "unconstitutional"? Does that mean you don't have to pay your income tax? I dare you to try it.The intent of the framers was to have a document that could be changed via an amendment process spelled out in the body of the document, so clearly, they didn't expect us to cleave to their narrow intent in regards to the scope of the First Amendment. Hence, we amended the constitution with the 14th amendment. The original intent of the framers in regards to the first amendment is no longer relevant in that regard, because we changed the constitution, something they intended us to be able to do.

Yeah, but I gotta go with Faith on this one - it looks a lot like you equivocated on the term "respecting." Maybe that wasn't your intent but that was certainly the result.

I think this is what she's talking about: It's hard not to read that as an equivocation on the term "respecting", or as a direct implication that "respecting" means "supporting." Particularly since, in your rephrase, the word "supporting" occupies the same place that "respecting" does in the original text.I'd say you made a mistake and weren't clear, and because Faith is your opponent, you're digging in and refusing to admit it. Which is not uncommon; I do it too. But I'd cop to the error in clarity and just let it go.

What do you think the definition of "state church" implies?Government tax funding of religious activities and facilities? Religious prohibitions enforced with the civil power of law?I don't see how a reasonable person could argue that a government could do those things and yet avoid conflict with the First amendment simply because the government did not come right out and say "this is the new state religion". If you're doing the above things, you have already established a state religion, whether you admit it openly or not.

And what do you think that means? I mean, what's the harm in a government simply saying "such-and-such is our national religion", as they do in a lot of Europe?Isn't it the effects that go along with that that the framers tried to prevent? Isn't it the effects, not the statement, that do the harm? And if you have the effects, what does it matter if the government avoids the appearance of a state religion?The protections of the first amendment go way beyond a declaration of state religion; they protect the citizenry against government implementing a state religion under any name. It's a two-way street. The idea that you can somehow prevent one but allow the other is incoherent; they're the same thing. What you propose makes as much sense as trying to flip only one side of the coin, but not the other. Sure. And some of them are on the record as disagreeing. See, it's kind of funny how that works, in a democracy. The people have decided that we'll have a secular society. Reasonable people understand that that's what you have to have if your society has a plurality of religions.

Secularism is only a religion if "bald" is a hair color.It's logically incoherent to suggest that secularism, the absence of a religion, is somehow a religion. If secularism is, then nothing is. And everything is. Well, they haven't. You had a thread where you were challenged to provide examples of that, of secularists violating your free expression, and you weren't able. All you could show were public officials using my tax dollars to promote their personal religion.We're not going to talk about it again, here. That's the consequence of you losing the debate, you see.

I believe you, but that's not the impression one gets from that post. A lot of people make the mistake of interpreting that clause to mean that Congress can't make laws that show respect, deference, or support to religions, and your post seemed to imply that that was the view you were putting forth.I'm sure it was just a mistake, and it was compunded by the fact that you appeared to paraphrase the clause in question by substituting "support" for "respect", though I see now that what you did was substitute "support" for "respecting an establishment."It was an error of ambiguity, the way I see it. Your post was simply ambiguous, Faith and I both interpreted it in a different way than you obviously intended, and naturally, she challenged you a little more forcefully than I have, because she's your opponent. And naturally, you've defended yourself a little more forcefully than I think you have a right to, because the criticism is coming from your opponent.Well, take it from me, who's on your side. Faith wasn't wrong to read it the way that she did, it was a reasonable interpretation due to the ambiguity of your post, and I think you'd be better served to own up to the ambiguity. Your choice, though. Maybe it seems perfectly clear to you. But when two people, including one from your own side, arrive at the same erroneous interpretation, you have to kind of wonder if you maybe weren't as clear as you thought you were.

Right, but what you didn't write was a clear definition of what you assumed "respecting" to mean, and the way you seemed to substitute it for "support" implied that you interpreted "respecting" to mean that Congress couldn't show deference to religion, or pay it respect, or honor it, or other, more common meanings of "respect"; contrary to what it does mean in the context, which is "referring to."That's it, pretty much. You're free to assert that your post was clear as day, but two intelligent people totally misunderstood you, and I have years of formal training in the interpretation of written English. Up to you, I guess.

Huh, that sounds familiar. Where did I first read that?Oh, right - in my own posts to you, in another thread, where I said:

quote:

---

I never have maintained that stance. As I've said, different religions ascribe different properties to their gods. The fact that the god of the Soviets was not held to be the creator of the world is no more an indicator of atheism then the fact that the god that you believe in doesn't have the eight arms of Hindu deities.

---

And what was your position in thread? Let's see:

quote:

---

What they meant is that there is no God. They considered the concept of a Creator or Divine being to be an unhealthy psycholigical aberration that needed to be stamped out, by force if necessary.

​

Their position was that God does not exist. They were officially atheist.

---

quote:

---

Do you think the Soviets believed the Soviet state created the world or was God in the sense of being the Creator?

---

quote:

---

Sorry, but your unlinked to quote taken out of context does not prove that they felt the state was a god that created the worlds. The sheer idiocy of your continuing to maintain that stance is very telling.

---

Truly, your intellectual cowardice is breathtaking. There's literally no position you won't flip-flop on in order to continue your irrational vendetta against me. Not to mention, your insulting dishonesty. You truly are the biggest liar currently posting on EvC. Truly amazing. Well, you got one thing right, at least.