Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationism in science classrooms (an argument for)
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 391 of 609 (610246)
03-28-2011 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 390 by NoNukes
03-28-2011 3:46 PM


Re: Argument.
quote:
While I did respond to your statement that the court cases were not relevant with the above statement, my response cites the actual original intent of the first and fourteenth amendments and does not cite case law. I apologize for the resulting confusion, but I think it is clear that I am not citing case law as evidence of original intent.
Then why cite court cases when specifically addressing original intent arguments (that you attributed to Robert) ?
quote:
It is not quite that simple. There is more to the discussion than simply arriving at the correct conclusion. Arguments based on the original intent of the first amendment are simply wrong.
Obviously I disagree. Let me remind you again that Robert claimed that the ideas were invented in the mid-1900s. The actual state of the law as interpreted by the courts is not necessary to show that. Original intent arguments DO suffice to show that the ideas were around, and seriously put forward by people instrumental in crafting the relevant Amendments - which really does refute Robert's claim.
Remember also, that you are looking solely at a point that Robert has NOT raised at all and is very likely of no relevance to Robert's actual points. Excepting the sole issue of applicability to the States, Jefferson's and Madison's interpretation of the Establishment clause may well be sufficient to refute Robert's position.
quote:
In my opinion, your original intent arguments to the contrary are simply wrong. If Jefferson thought that the Virginia model was correct, he did not manage to draft an amendment that accomplished anything other than federal restraint.
Of course my point is again that the IDEAS were current long before the 1940s. And Jefferson's work on Virginia shows that he felt that the States should be bound by such laws. If you wish to refute my arguments it is not enough to claim that the First Amendment did not bind the States, you have to show that Jefferson did NOT think that the States should be secular, leaving religion to personal conscience.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 390 by NoNukes, posted 03-28-2011 3:46 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 395 by NoNukes, posted 03-28-2011 8:24 PM PaulK has replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 392 of 609 (610252)
03-28-2011 7:01 PM
Reply to: Message 369 by Robert Byers
03-26-2011 2:01 AM


so if a religious group says the earth is flat that it must be illegal to teach otherwise. otherwise the state is saying that religion is wrong.
False. It is not the state that is claiming a round earth falsifies religion. That would be the flat earthers.
The same applies to creationism. The science teacher is not claiming that evolution falsifies christianity. That would be the creationists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 369 by Robert Byers, posted 03-26-2011 2:01 AM Robert Byers has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 393 by arachnophilia, posted 03-28-2011 8:04 PM Taq has replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 393 of 609 (610256)
03-28-2011 8:04 PM
Reply to: Message 392 by Taq
03-28-2011 7:01 PM


well... and logic.
but it's not the state's responsibility to coddle religion. if reality contradicts that religion, then it is not the state's fault for teaching things that contradict the religion. religions should just try to not make false claims.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 392 by Taq, posted 03-28-2011 7:01 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 394 by Taq, posted 03-28-2011 8:10 PM arachnophilia has not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 394 of 609 (610258)
03-28-2011 8:10 PM
Reply to: Message 393 by arachnophilia
03-28-2011 8:04 PM


but it's not the state's responsibility to coddle religion.
At least for Western style democracies. Middle Eastern theocracies on the other hand . . .
I have heard that in some Islamic theocracies that news reporters are not allowed to predict tomorrow's weather because only Allah knows what tomorrow's weather will be. I guess we can add meteorology to the growing list of anti-religious "theories".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 393 by arachnophilia, posted 03-28-2011 8:04 PM arachnophilia has not replied

NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 395 of 609 (610262)
03-28-2011 8:24 PM
Reply to: Message 391 by PaulK
03-28-2011 4:34 PM


Original intent of the first amendment.
PaulK writes:
Then why cite court cases when specifically addressing original intent arguments (that you attributed to Robert) ?
Because, as I've said repeatedly, (including, I note, in message 379) original intent is not the entire story. In particular, when discussing the incorporation piece of the discussion, the evolution of the law is important. If someone is complaining that the current meaning of the first amendment is not what was originally intended in the 1700s, what else could they be talking about other than changes in how the law has been applied or amended since its adoption.
quote:
Obviously I disagree. Let me remind you again that Robert claimed that the ideas were invented in the mid-1900s.
Yes. I think we've flogged that pretty thoroughly. I don't take Robert's words quite so literally. As I've explained, I believe Robert is simply doing a poor job of presenting a PRATT.
quote:
Excepting the sole issue of applicability to the States, Jefferson's and Madison's interpretation of the Establishment clause may well be sufficient to refute Robert's position.
In my opinion, that sole issue is rather important. If we are discussing the teaching of religious doctrine in public schools operated by the states, we must discuss the application of the first amendment to the states. I'm not even the first person to point that out in this thread.
I think your method of determining the original intent of the first amendment is fundamentally incorrect. I can agree with you about what Jefferson advocated, but the point of original intent is to establish the meaning of the law that was actually enacted and not the law Jefferson and Madison would like to have passed. What was actually ratified was an amendment specifically limiting Congress.
Of course my point is again that the IDEAS were current long before the 1940s. And Jefferson's work on Virginia shows that he felt that the States should be bound by such laws.
And my point is that regardless of the origin date of those ideas, they were not the law prior in the US prior to the early 1900s. Getting the law to its current state required a civil war, another amendment to the Constitution, and more than 50 years worth of development in the Supreme Court.
PaulK writes:
...you have to show that Jefferson did NOT think that the States should be secular, leaving religion to personal conscience
I don't think I need to do that. Perhaps you can expand a bit on why you believe that I do. I'll give a couple reasons why I think not. For one thing, Jefferson is just one dude and we need to consider the intent of others who participated in actually drafting the amendment. For another, Jefferson and Madison were not able to enact an amendment with wording similar to Virginia's statute.
During the process of drafting the first amendment Madison proposed the following more sweeping language:
http://spider.georgetowncollege.edu/...s/his338/1stamend.htm
quote:
No religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed.
But such an amendment was not enacted. I think our discussion should be about the meaning of the amendment that we did get. For that Further, Madison was quite clear that even the more sweeping language he originally proposed was supposed to limit federal action and not state action.
Amendment I. Freedom of Religion, Speech, Press, Assembly, and Petition | U.S. Constitution Annotated | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
From footnote 5.
quote:
During House debate, Madison told his fellow Members that he apprehended the meaning of the words to be, that Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any Manner contrary to their conscience.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 391 by PaulK, posted 03-28-2011 4:34 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 396 by PaulK, posted 03-29-2011 1:57 AM NoNukes has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 396 of 609 (610316)
03-29-2011 1:57 AM
Reply to: Message 395 by NoNukes
03-28-2011 8:24 PM


Re: Original intent of the first amendment.
quote:
Because, as I've said repeatedly, (including, I note, in message 379) original intent is not the entire story.
And nobody said that it was. We still have the problem that you introduced court cases specifically in the context of original intent arguments and that when I pointed out that they weren't relevant to original intent arguments you insisted that they were.
quote:
Yes. I think we've flogged that pretty thoroughly. I don't take Robert's words quite so literally. As I've explained, I believe Robert is simply doing a poor job of presenting a PRATT.
Unfortunately I need to keep reminding you of it, since you insist on attacking the arguments I make against Robert's point - and forgetting just what I was arguing against.
quote:
In my opinion, that sole issue is rather important. If we are discussing the teaching of religious doctrine in public schools operated by the states, we must discuss the application of the first amendment to the states. I'm not even the first person to point that out in this thread.
Your opinion doesn't seem to have much to do with the arguments made by Robert, which is what I was addressing. Moreover it seems to be a narrow legal point which misses the very important fact that the principles involved DO go back to the 1700s.
quote:
I think your method of determining the original intent of the first amendment is fundamentally incorrect. I can agree with you about what Jefferson advocated, but the point of original intent is to establish the meaning of the law that was actually enacted and not the law Jefferson and Madison would like to have passed. What was actually ratified was an amendment specifically limiting Congress.
Then it's a shame that you haven't discussed what Jefferson and Madison thought of the First Amendment after it was passed, then.
quote:
And my point is that regardless of the origin date of those ideas, they were not the law prior in the US prior to the early 1900s. Getting the law to its current state required a civil war, another amendment to the Constitution, and more than 50 years worth of development in the Supreme Court.
Provided you ignore similar laws at the State level. And also provided that you count a law as coming into effect only on a court ruling.
quote:
don't think I need to do that. Perhaps you can expand a bit on why you believe that I do
You see, I obviously HAVEN'T mentioned the point that Robert claimed that the IDEAS were invented in the mid-100s often enough. If my argument shows that Jefferson had the IDEA that the States shouldn't aid or hinder religions in the 1700s that shows that that IDEA wasn't invented in the mid-1900s. And to refute my argument you would need to show that Jefferson didn't have that IDEA. Got it ?
quote:
I think our discussion should be about the meaning of the amendment that we did get.
By my understanding Jefferson and Madison both interpreted it in much the same way as the courts do today.
quote:
Further, Madison was quite clear that even the more sweeping language he originally proposed was supposed to limit federal action and not state action.
Interesting double standard there. If I repeat a point which you keep conveniently forgetting it's "flogging a dead horse". If you keep repeating a point which isn't even disputed, let alone ignored (and is of questionable relevance) then that's perfectly fine. Perhaps you might want to think about that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 395 by NoNukes, posted 03-28-2011 8:24 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 397 by NoNukes, posted 03-29-2011 11:39 AM PaulK has replied

NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 397 of 609 (610373)
03-29-2011 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 396 by PaulK
03-29-2011 1:57 AM


Re: Original intent of the first amendment.
PaulK writes:
And nobody said that it was. We still have the problem that you introduced court cases specifically in the context of original intent arguments and that when I pointed out that they weren't relevant to original intent arguments you insisted that they were.
PaulK, I've already indicated that I did not intend to do any such thing. I've apologized for my part in creating that impression. At this point I think it's way past time to drop that line of argument and to deal with the arguments I did intend.
quote:
Moreover it seems to be a narrow legal point which misses the very important fact that the principles involved DO go back to the 1700s.
The principles existed, but they were not the law in 1791 any more than were civil rights for African Americans. At time of ratification, the first amendment strictly limited action to create a national church. The change in the law occurred only after incorporation via the fourteenth amendment, and in fact occurred substantially later. I say that I can defend portions of Robert's remarks on that basis. You don't accept that reasoning, so we disagree. And that's fine. But I don't lack reading comprehension abilities simply because I disagree with your arguments to the contrary.
quote:
By my understanding Jefferson and Madison both interpreted it in much the same way as the courts do today.
I've provided at least some contrary evidence for Madison. I'd be interested to see your reasoning on this point.
PaulK writes:
Then it's a shame that you haven't discussed what Jefferson and Madison thought of the First Amendment after it was passed, then
Why don't you go ahead and make that point then? But why isn't what Madison said to the his fellow drafters more relevant than what Madison said later. After all, the earlier audience was the one Madison needed in order to get the amendment to pass.
Edited by NoNukes, : Remove some snarky stuff...
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 396 by PaulK, posted 03-29-2011 1:57 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 398 by PaulK, posted 03-29-2011 12:42 PM NoNukes has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 398 of 609 (610379)
03-29-2011 12:42 PM
Reply to: Message 397 by NoNukes
03-29-2011 11:39 AM


Re: Original intent of the first amendment.
quote:
PaulK, I've already indicated that I did not intend to do any such thing. I've apologized for my part in creating that impression. At this point I think it's way past time to drop that line of argument and to deal with the arguments I did intend.
If you've made any arguments that I haven't already addressed I don't know what they might be.
quote:
The principles existed, but they were not the law in 1791 any more than were civil rights for African Americans.
Of course the existence of the principles is quite sufficient to refute Robert's actual claim and even your assertion with regard to the state of the law is somewhat misleading. That is, the courts could certainly and validly interpret the establishment clause as providing exactly the sort of restrictions we are speaking of on the Federal government.
quote:
I've provided at least some contrary evidence for Madison.
Actually you've failed to do that. If you look at the footnote that you cited you would see the following:
That his conception of establishment was quite broad is revealed in his veto as President in 1811 of a bill which in granting land reserved a parcel for a Baptist Church in Salem, Mississippi; the action, explained President Madison, comprises a principle and precedent for the appropriation of funds of the United States for the use and support of religious societies, contrary to the article of the Constitution which declares that ‘Congress shall make no law respecting a religious establishment.’

This message is a reply to:
 Message 397 by NoNukes, posted 03-29-2011 11:39 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 399 by NoNukes, posted 03-29-2011 2:20 PM PaulK has replied

NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 399 of 609 (610391)
03-29-2011 2:20 PM
Reply to: Message 398 by PaulK
03-29-2011 12:42 PM


Re: Original intent of the first amendment.
PaulK writes:
Of course the existence of the principles is quite sufficient to refute Robert's actual claim and even your assertion with regard to the state of the law is somewhat misleading. That is, the courts could certainly and validly interpret the establishment clause as providing exactly the sort of restrictions we are speaking of on the Federal government.
Just to be clear, are you saying that "Congress shall make no law..." could have been validly applied to limit the actions in state legislatures prior to the ratification of the fourteenth amendment? I'm extremely skeptical about that notion. It'd be interested in any evidence or support your could provide for that contention.
Paulk writes:
Actually you've failed to do that. If you look at the footnote that you cited you would see the following:
quote:
That his conception of establishment was quite broad is revealed in his veto as President in 1811 of a bill which in granting land reserved a parcel for a Baptist Church in Salem, Mississippi; the action, explained President Madison, comprises a principle and precedent for the appropriation of funds of the United States for the use and support of religious societies, contrary to the article of the Constitution which declares that ‘Congress shall make no law respecting a religious establishment.’
PaulK, you seem to be making my point rather than yours. As best I can tell, we don't disagree on the meaning of the limitations in the Establishment Clause. What we degree on is whether those limitations reach action by the states, and whether Madison and Jefferson expected the Establishment Clause (i.e. the version actually ratified) to do so.
Madison's veto and his remarks address federal action, and in particular Congressional action to use federal funds to support a church in Mississippi. This is exactly what I suggest the Establishment Clause does target even absent the Fourteenth Amendment. A true counter example would be in invalidation in federal court of a law passed by the Mississippi legislature to set aside state funds to purchase land for a Baptist church. Perhaps Madison did make some appropriate remarks elsewhere, but these aren't those remarks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 398 by PaulK, posted 03-29-2011 12:42 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 400 by PaulK, posted 03-29-2011 2:50 PM NoNukes has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 400 of 609 (610392)
03-29-2011 2:50 PM
Reply to: Message 399 by NoNukes
03-29-2011 2:20 PM


Re: Original intent of the first amendment.
quote:
Just to be clear, are you saying that "Congress shall make no law..." could have been validly applied to limit the actions in state legislatures prior to the ratification of the fourteenth amendment?
Just to be clear, when I say "the Federal government" I mean "the Federal government". Not "the Federal government and the State legislatures." So no, I have not suddenly changed my mind on this issue.
quote:
PaulK, you seem to be making my point rather than yours. As best I can tell, we don't disagree on the meaning of the limitations in the Establishment Clause.
So far as I can tell that was the precisely point of contention. I can't think what else I've said that you might have been arguing about.
quote:
What we degree on is whether those limitations reach action by the states,
Unless you think that the First Amendment DID apply to the States when the Bill of Rights was passed that's obviously not true.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 399 by NoNukes, posted 03-29-2011 2:20 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 401 by NoNukes, posted 03-29-2011 3:01 PM PaulK has replied

NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 401 of 609 (610393)
03-29-2011 3:01 PM
Reply to: Message 400 by PaulK
03-29-2011 2:50 PM


Re: Original intent of the first amendment.
PaulK writes:
Just to be clear, when I say "the Federal government" I mean "the Federal government". Not "the Federal government and the State legislatures." So no, I have not suddenly changed my mind on this issue.
Then I don't understand your position and I've wasted a bunch of our time arguing against what I thought to be your position.
My question to you is how does the Establishment Clause reach state policy on what gets taught in public schools without the Fourteenth Amendment.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 400 by PaulK, posted 03-29-2011 2:50 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 402 by PaulK, posted 03-29-2011 3:19 PM NoNukes has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 402 of 609 (610395)
03-29-2011 3:19 PM
Reply to: Message 401 by NoNukes
03-29-2011 3:01 PM


Re: Original intent of the first amendment.
quote:
My question to you is how does the Establishment Clause reach state policy on what gets taught in public schools without the Fourteenth Amendment.
Unless the schools or the curriculum are controlled by the Federal government, then no, as I've accepted all along.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 401 by NoNukes, posted 03-29-2011 3:01 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 403 by NoNukes, posted 03-29-2011 4:34 PM PaulK has replied

NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 403 of 609 (610405)
03-29-2011 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 402 by PaulK
03-29-2011 3:19 PM


Re: Puzzled
PaulK writes:
Unless the schools or the curriculum are controlled by the Federal government, then no, as I've accepted all along.
So I was addressing the wrong part of the argument. Let me correct that here.
The original intent of the First Amendment addresses both the meaning of its limitations and its application to federal law. Neither of us deputes the scope of the Establishment Clause in any way important to this discussion.
The adopters of the First Amendment, including Madison, and the states who adopted it in the 1700s, fully understood that each state would be free to teach creationism in public schools if a state chose to do that. Robert would have been perfectly happy with that state of affairs. In fact, he has stated that communities should be able to decide issues of teaching creationism by simple vote.
Further the above was the law of the land until at least the early 1900s and at least arguably until 1947. Now it is pretty clear that school boards cannot teach creationism in schools. Robert does not like that and objects to those meddling 1900s SCt Justices who decided to apply the incorporation doctrine to the Establishment Clause when earlier Courts had refused to do so.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 402 by PaulK, posted 03-29-2011 3:19 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 404 by PaulK, posted 03-29-2011 4:53 PM NoNukes has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 404 of 609 (610408)
03-29-2011 4:53 PM
Reply to: Message 403 by NoNukes
03-29-2011 4:34 PM


Re: Puzzled
quote:
The adopters of the First Amendment, including Madison, and the states who adopted it in the 1700s, fully understood that each state would be free to teach creationism in public schools if a state chose to do that. Robert would have been perfectly happy with that state of affairs. In fact, he has stated that communities should be able to decide issues of teaching creationism by simple vote.
Except for the fact that some States had their own laws which forbade it. Robert wouldn't have been happy about that. Nor would I think that he would be happy about the First Amendment restrictions on the Federal Government - especially as the Federal government DOES get involved in education.
quote:
Further the above was the law of the land until at least the early 1900s and at least arguably until 1947. Now it is pretty clear that school boards cannot teach creationism in schools. Robert does not like that and objects to those meddling 1900s SCt Justices who decided to apply the incorporation doctrine to the Establishment Clause when earlier Courts had refused to do so.
And arguably it ceased to be the law of the land when the 14th Amendment was passed. Neither extreme tells the whole story. While the role of precedent shouldn't be ignored, we must also recognise that the courts interpret laws, they don't make them. A simplistic insistence that the law changed in 1947 misses that fact.
More importantly, the principles Robert objects to go back to the Founding Fathers. Even if individual states could (or even did) act against those principles there is a far bigger story here than mere legal technicalities.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 403 by NoNukes, posted 03-29-2011 4:34 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 405 by NoNukes, posted 03-29-2011 5:23 PM PaulK has replied

NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 405 of 609 (610412)
03-29-2011 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 404 by PaulK
03-29-2011 4:53 PM


Re: Puzzled
PaulK writes:
While the role of precedent shouldn't be ignored, we must also recognise that the courts interpret laws, they don't make them. A simplistic insistence that the law changed in 1947 misses that fact.
Simplistic maybe, but perhaps supportable in an argument.
Original intent only arguments are just as simplistic. And saying that appellate courts in common law countries don't make laws is really not correct either. We require our courts to make law and to establish precedent. It would be more correct to say that courts don't have a legislative role.
My personal view is that all of the first eight amendments should have been applied against the states immediately upon passage of the 14th Amendment. Those 19th century justices were simply wrong when they refused to do so.
More importantly, the principles Robert objects to go back to the Founding Fathers. Even if individual states could (or even did) act against those principles there is a far bigger story here than mere legal technicalities.
Principles aren't laws and you've agreed that the law allowed states to act against those principles.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 404 by PaulK, posted 03-29-2011 4:53 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 406 by PaulK, posted 03-29-2011 6:06 PM NoNukes has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024