Did congress make a law? (Establishment Clause)

It has been a while since I tried to read that document.I personally notice&because it lacks a clear secular purpose. regardles of the "law".Then I noticed

quote:

---

In sum, even if one concedes, for the sake of argument, that a majority of the Louisiana Legislature voted for the Balanced Treatment Act partly in order to foster (rather than merely eliminate discrimination against) Christian fundamentalist beliefs, our cases establish that that alone would not suffice to invalidate the Act, so long as there was a genuine secular purpose as well. We have, moreover, no adequate basis for disbelieving the secular purpose set forth in the Act itself, or for concluding that it is a sham enacted to conceal the legislators' violation of their oaths of office. I am astonished by the Court's unprecedented readiness to reach such a conclusion, which I can only attribute to an intellectual predisposition created by the facts and the legend of Scopes v. State, 154 Tenn. 105, 289 S. W. 363 (1927) -- an instinctive reaction that any governmentally imposed requirements bearing upon the teaching of evolution must be a manifestation of Christian fundamentalist repression. In this case, however, it seems to me the Court's position is the repressive one. The people of Louisiana, including those who are Christian fundamentalists, are quite entitled, as a secular matter, to have whatever scientific evidence there may be against evolution presented in their schools, just as Mr. Scopes was entitled to present whatever scientific evidence there was for it. Perhaps what the Louisiana Legislature has done is unconstitutional because there is no such evidence,

---

&

quote:

---

Infinitely less can we say (or should we say) that the scientific evidence for evolution is so conclusive that no one could be gullible enough to believe that there is any real scientific evidence to the contrary, so that the legislation's stated purpose must be a lie

---

Now Scalia thought- from which I WAS FORCED TO READ either IT was in truth NOT violative or was facially say SNOOPDOGONSLOPEDAY@CU or else the law involves an intricate differnce of teleonomics and teleomatics. The record doesnt seem to support my reading so I suppose the purpose was contained in the document as documented thus if the PURPOSE of adding information not formerly available IS to enhance both creation and evolution hermenutics then I can see that it might have a just spectralization on are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. where the disposition set up how in this future of c/e we might show what IS TO THE PEOPLE.That's how I like to read it and had read it perhaps it is time for me to revist my reading.I dont know if that helps - THE FACE OF STATE AND THE STATE OF STATE's people's faces are two different things. I doubt the use of infinity by Scalia is able to support this. I havent read all the words though.BY ammend 1 we had

quote:

---

make no law respecting an establishment of

---

and that is about all santa clause brought. So did they "make this law?"- well no-
It is not really true that because the nature of the information needed to write this Santa was not included as far as I know.I think it was a mistake to focus on motives when it was the students perspective that should have become established rather than the teacher's need of freedom. That might be a little unfair to the people and I'll be willing to retract that and reread if that gave offense.There IS a clear secular purpose and from reading ICR material I think they were aware of it, at the time, so it is still somewhat a mystery to me how polItics trumped technology in the case, in my case how at the time, I was being prosecuted psychologically and against my will, for what is not evidentiary.My guess, and dont ""quote me on it, lets say lets keep it off the record, is that the justices could only write "of" and not comma

quote:

---

n, nor prohibited by it to the states, are

---

. Two letter are easier to comprehend than words between two commas.My feeling is that the lack of a clear secular USE OF THE BIOLOGY by the "seculars" and this includes faith people as well, as I spoke with one supporting the plaintiffs, who preached in my local church in Ithaca was more clouded than what we students can bring today and thus the judges "shortcircuited" the decision.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 02-25-2005 19:57 AMThis message has been edited by Brad McFall, 02-25-2005 19:58 AM

just ignore it then. thanks for giving me the links. Ihavent read that in some time.

I don’t know if this means anything to you. It is based on memory over a decade old, when I used to live in Providence RI.Roger Williams seemed to be concerned with separation issues as he clearly started the state to separate from his friends in Mass. He even designed the original shape of the state to be an octagon so that all parties, including Indians could have equal territory bounding their participation in the life in that state.The history of the state ensued but that shape did not materialize. Something that did, was the passage that the higher state supported education was not to duplicate education. Now you can tell me that I was reading into the facts but it seemed possible that the reason no duplicate education was lawed was a means to keep any separation issues separate. In that way any violation in establishments about the establishment clause the state itself had not to violate could be physically patrolled, door-to-door, so to say. Thus it would be Ok to teach BOTH creation and evolution or lets say many versions of biology in schools in RI provided they were not both taught in the same school.The application of this version however would not work in modern times where the number of alternative views is almost as great as the number of citizens rather than the number of businesses in state. And the web breaks down state-by-state barriers of this sort anyway. I don’t have all the scholarship on Jefferson but I often wonder how much was ripped off of Williams' state (ments). I didn’t see it as a 14th amendment issue but perhaps I did not try hard enough.Spellcheck by PBThis message has been edited by AdminPhat, 03-07-2005 09:41 AM

a url cited recentlyonEVC

http://EvC Forum: Homo floresiensis -->EvC Forum: Homo floresiensis
responded to by Nosy and Razd
or
WHEN THE BRAIN hobbitCarlZimmer
WAS A FOOT

Both Carl and I knew Rima well. She is jewish. I doubt Carl was coming to Rima's conclusion. Anyway a girl won the presidency not brains. Rima is just not in one of these "Sweaters".

I have not talked with Carl since High School. WE all had a big party at his house before us SMART"" kids went off to college.No one went to Harvard. One went to CooperUnion. I dont have any idea about how Carl takes what I mention about him now. It would not have been unusual for Carl to have picked up at Yale something biological that was not just a reflection of his high school opinions but I have not noticed. The point to really notice is to see that I was NOT catching phrases ( I WOULD NEVER HAVE ALLOWED even as a joke the phrasing that a CREATION book WAS "THE" biology book. The HM&JDMorris' are not on about this sillyness either... etc) but instead I was catching creatures nor these kinds of editorial writings in general (yes I was not as good a writer and still am not but I wrote the dichtomies that matched the same outofdoors

actually collecting biological data-) Just how come he gets a higher billing"" in society is a reflection more of what it wants to hear than what it actually is hearing.Carl seems to perpetuate a VERY LARGE mistake that Ernst Mayr made but I have no real tendency to try to see if I can actually take Zimmer to task on that. It may be that he simply is writing biology in "editorial" mode. I havent spent a lot of time with his writings. I dont need to. I can read whatever original biology I desire. Ill explore the GRASS later.I will explain how it appears to me that Carl has NOT "reremoved" the 'roadblock' Mayr asserts Darwin deSIGNED signing onto the DEsign of "modern genetics". Whether he makes this error on purpose as it appears in the piece from 81 or if it is just the failure of biology overall I will investigate if instigations are recalled. THERE IS NO NEW FACE as Mayr wrote in the late 60s. Many appear to be reading CZimmer as that. I dont. Relating that to the thread head would take some writing. Later-

I think people are generally missing your point because we get this all high and national minded critical attitude by watching CSPAN etc and think we can speak of "the nation" when we are really speaking as residents of different states.I had read

quote:

---

nor prohibited by it to the states,
again, nothing in the consituion prohibits a state from establishing a religion as long as congress doesn't make a law

---

slightly differently in that it might be the judiciary as well as congress that must be excluded in "making a law" ( as to whatever not being prohibited to the states. I had wondered if EARLY STATE Briefs to the US Supreme Court might have lead to a case history wherein justices did not rule for "people" (of particular states) but had to historicize the particular states that petitioned the court.) Thus Massachusetts went a lot etc. So for your point to be driven home PEOPLE would have to petition the courts from individual states and win sans prior claims of STATES on what it can have had judicially prohibited. The schivo case just shows that we have the national feeling OVER what the law actually is(and at that coming from Pres/Executive Branch). Thus issues that seem to be IN THE POWER OF THE PEOPLE are not structured properly in law (again Schivo etc)and with Judges' not longer simply interpreting the words today as you have done ,it looks like we will not get here, short of major biowarfare changing things radically from religion rather than secular perturbations of infinity as the international pressure is against the traditions of Nature's God amazingly so very strongly sad to say today.So... when some one points to the 1st or 14th ammendement the posters are placing their "legal theory" on sustaining particular cases out of those ammendements rather than this one you cited and I would have also.This failure to appreciate your point seems to be a consequence of technology and not particular materialist philosophies. I have never studied how technology affects case law. So it seems to me.It does indeed seem that what might be reserved is indeed being inhibited. It certainly was not being reserved that I must be ill. I am not.

I guess that makes sense as I am basing my idea on the reading of powers of the US on what I learned from Grandfather (before WW2). It seems that we might need some better feds to seperate triple powers(legislative,executive,judicial) from personal combinations of them OR powers in a non-political sense altogether. States wouldnt like that reserved too much I guess. I recall Conneticut getting pissed or therabouts about something about 800numbers and interstate commerce. When Bill Clinton gave last years' Cornell commencement speech, he was arguing for a more perfect "Union". I could only guess that is how he justified his move to NY. Such hopes are inscribed on the side of a building in ALBANY.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 04-02-2005 07:48 AM

ok ok,
Still even if the difference goes back further in fact, the fact remains that I was prosecuted BY THE STATE OF FLORIDA because on a winter break with my NJ Drivers' Liscence expiring(I never lived in Florida (at that time)) (I was going to renew it in NY where I now(then) lived)my parents offered TO DRIVE me to the Motor Vehicle Office (I could have taken the bus) so I decided to reup sooner and more conviently than later from my Dorm Room.The state of Florida's only jurisdiction OVER ME AGAINST MY WILL was the fact that I HAD a Florida Drivers' Liscence but had in fact never lived in the state (only visiting the state twice before for less than two weeks each) So...either the STATE OF FLORIDA still "reigned supreme" and the federal goverment via giving me free $ thru SSI relieved this false supremity which you assert went by the books now in WW1 not WW2 or else "the government" ( in granting Lisences that work in multiple states and I have not needed to get a Drivers' liscence since) attempted to withold the search for knowledge IN A STUDENT (every student has parents - we cant divorcethem but not every student has to go to a mental hospital because they are capable of taking classes under large pressures (well known for causing suicide at Cornell))as Cornell on the basis of ONE DAY the State of Florida had in the sun, said that this choice, I BSM made, of where I got my Drivers' Liscence prevented me from finishing my degree, as it was, because I was locked up in another state when the school had a meeting on my education to which I was to have attended if not held by the government of the other state. The only knowledge I did not have then was the difference of classical and quantum physics as it applies to biology. But geezs I was just a college student then.It seems to me that NEITHER the states nor the federal government can mess up a person's power to chose which of two states' drivers lisences are applied to/for, as the student does not have a "permanent" residence as of yet. I clearly no longer lived in New Jersey but it was my parents not me who "moved". I was off at school. And the relevance is that my understanding of these quirky ideas on biological change I present here on EVC were "prima facie" evidence that I was ill. I was only ill in the sense that people couldnt understand what I said. We can all drive cars despite the facts that someone might be lipsinking to a heavy metal song while another is trying to brain out one of those math problems you mentioned, but this difference does not effect whether we both know when to stop (when there is red light). The state did not. That is in the power of the people not reserved to the states by law as far as I know/think and was still happening in the 80s no matter when the union went "out" of fashion as you think on second thought.The point is is that neither the State of Florida nor Cornell University had any idea if I was "speaking a foreign language of a future science of evolution" or was expressing delusional thoughts and yet there clearly was not "equal protection" as Crashfrog wants to insist on. Cornell got away with an arbitrary and capricous action while the State of Florida permanently destroyed my personal relations (and even CAUSED some new ones for me).In academic fact, Cornell had already approved of the general outline(for instance one- it was already approved to investigate the possible relation of Kant's proof of God by the difference of left and right and the origin of bilateral symmetry, and for two- it was approved to try to relate quantum electrodynamics to melanin distributions somatically through an adjudication of the Goethe-Newton subjective difference on color perception, three-it was approved to develop an incidence geometry of snake traits in the family Xenodontidae, four-it was approved to investigate Croizat's panbiogeography), so there is little basis beyond the financial gains of a Jewish doctor in Florida that the law protected unequally(because my proposal was so strong I was even being considered in recommendations to get a scholarship to Oxford for graduate work- I would not have gone because of how I saw developemental biology being done there). Distributive Justice in Aristotle's sense did not exist then but this was not WW1 or WW2. So despite any changes in the Federal Government these had not affected my life especially as if they had I would at least have been able to convince reasonable people in NY (Florida was not reasonable) of the falsity of that cultural event but alass once I tried to seperate the State of NY at Cornell from the PRIVATE SCHOOL in my case even they called in the police (not the doctors)(I just wanted to know in what offices my files were being saved at but apparently because the State of Florida illegally made a law suit I would have to make a spurious law suit just to get information on what happened because of criminal or illegal activity made in my name)( that doesnt form a more perfect union, necessarily establish justice, nor insure domestic tranquility at all). Apparently the economic relations of Darwinism to the economics of interstate commerce could not be differentiated by the state while they could be by the school. This is obviously not why the feds gave me dough though. There were also faked records by doctors in addition. So I cant say for certain what "government" is to blame. That would be up to the courts.All I CAN say, is that I talked MORE about evolution in high school(and I obviously had understood far less at that time) and this problem NEVER came up, neither in school with other students, nor with teachers, nor in public where I talked on it, nor in 4-H where it was objective to a club I started. Seems like my imagination grew faster than the rest of us were ready to realize. In fact I would guess that the Federal Government role of supporting science post Sputnick was responsbile for me haveing as much success in high school as I did.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 04-02-2005 02:09 PM