Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
10 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Importance of the First Amendment
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 38 of 59 (464136)
04-23-2008 4:41 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Organicmachination
02-08-2008 11:36 AM


This comment doesn't fit:
Creationism cannot be taught in schools because it is explicitly religious.
with this law:
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Organicmachination, posted 02-08-2008 11:36 AM Organicmachination has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by molbiogirl, posted 04-23-2008 4:54 PM randman has replied
 Message 40 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-23-2008 5:14 PM randman has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 41 of 59 (464142)
04-23-2008 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by molbiogirl
04-23-2008 4:54 PM


Quote-mining? Guess I could do like you do and be a tattle-tale to the mods.
The establishment clause and the free exercise clause are there for a reason.
Do you know what the reason is?
The reason is so that the free exercise of religion is not interfered with by the state, not that anti-religionists could create a doctrine that science cannot include religion and so ban thought in the class-room if it relates to religion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by molbiogirl, posted 04-23-2008 4:54 PM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by molbiogirl, posted 04-23-2008 6:34 PM randman has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 42 of 59 (464144)
04-23-2008 5:18 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Dr Adequate
04-23-2008 5:14 PM


The "free exercise" clause does not mean that you can take money paid to you to teach science, use the time allotted to preach the beliefs of your religious sect instead, and still expect to retain your job.
uh huh?
Why not?
And don't give me some bs about the courts ruling. If you are going to make that argument, then I assume if they rule the other way down the road, you will have to say the words changed their meaning?
Bottom line is the interpretation that religion should be silenced from science education and only a secularist view taught is a total bastardization of the 1st amendment, turning it into the opposite of it's original meaning. Clearly, you are taking something intended to protect religion and turning into something banning religious thought (the free exercise thereof).
In the same way, the right to free speech would not protect the job of someone employed as an airline steward who advised passengers: "In the event of an emergency, please run around panicking and screaming before making a disorderly stampede for the exit".
So daring to develop science that acknowledges the Creator is akin to screaming fire or some such?
You don't see a problem with your logic here?
Edit to add: just in case you didn't realize it, I was bypassing the straw man argument you advanced since the issue isn't teachers teaching their personal religious beliefs but whether a school board can allow teaching of science or a theory advanced in science if it is also religious or related to religious beliefs.
Of course, teachers cannot just teach whatever they want. They are responsible to teach the curriculum, though there is some leeway there.
Edited by randman, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-23-2008 5:14 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-23-2008 5:55 PM randman has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 44 of 59 (464152)
04-23-2008 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Dr Adequate
04-23-2008 5:55 PM


Once again, please note I bypassed your straw man which is totally off-topic, namely people who don't do their jobs being able to keep them, in order to advance the discussion forward.
If your point merely relates to job employment and meeting quality standards, then perhaps a new thread would be appropiate. It has nothing to do with creationism or evolutionism.
If your real point was, as I thought, that allowing teaching of creationism or any other religiously based perspective in science is against the 1st amendment, then feel free to respond to my posts and arguments. This last post of your's does not address them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-23-2008 5:55 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-23-2008 6:19 PM randman has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 47 of 59 (464160)
04-23-2008 6:53 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Dr Adequate
04-23-2008 6:19 PM


Maybe you don't realize your posts on employee's not doing their jobs has nothing to do with my original comments on the free exercise clause? It appears that is the case.
Suffice to say, teachers not doing their jobs is not related to the Constitutional claims I have made.
Is it your belief they are?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-23-2008 6:19 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-23-2008 7:36 PM randman has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 48 of 59 (464162)
04-23-2008 6:56 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by molbiogirl
04-23-2008 6:34 PM


The establishment clause has the same purpose, to protect religion and religious speech. The idea is if we had an official religion, such as secularism, then religion could become threatened by the state.
Your position is that religious thought and theory must be restricted when it comes to science and so you advocate not allowing the free exercise of religion. That Orwellian approach has turned the 1st amendment on it's head to do exactly what the 1st amendment was written to prevent.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by molbiogirl, posted 04-23-2008 6:34 PM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by molbiogirl, posted 04-23-2008 7:26 PM randman has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 50 of 59 (464165)
04-23-2008 7:34 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by molbiogirl
04-23-2008 7:26 PM


Put your thinking cap on.....what was the purpose in restricting an official religion?
Could it be that establishing an official religion would restrict the free exercise of other religions?
Nah, just couldn't be.
As far as Jefferson's term "separation of Church and State", it doesn't state separation of God or religious thought from the State. The Baptists, Jefferson and the meaning of the idea of the time was not what you are suggesting. In fact, the term originates with the Anabaptists and is not meant to suggest the State not acknowledge God or the Creator, merely that the State cannot enforce religious law.
Nice try though.
Edited by randman, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by molbiogirl, posted 04-23-2008 7:26 PM molbiogirl has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 52 of 59 (464171)
04-23-2008 7:40 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Dr Adequate
04-23-2008 7:36 PM


Her comment is that it is unConstitutional to teach creationism in schools, and my comment is that this turns the 1st amendment on it's head, restricting the free exercise of religion.
Your point about employer/employee relations isn't what we were discussing. I don't know how much clearer I can make it.
A mental exercise.....Think of a situation where the school board mandates creationism be taught so the teacher isn't teaching his or her private, personal religious beliefs......now, think of your posts arguing about teachers teaching their personal beliefs...
Edited by randman, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-23-2008 7:36 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-23-2008 7:51 PM randman has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 54 of 59 (464176)
04-23-2008 7:57 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Dr Adequate
04-23-2008 7:51 PM


Seems like you are still missing the point. The issue isn't employer/employee relations. If a school district exclusively teaches a doctrine specific to a single religion, you could have a point. Imo, it's still not a violation as the school district isn't "Congress" but that's a separate legal issue.
However, teaching a general religious tenet or teaching a specific religious tenet alongside other beliefs is not, imo, seeking to establish a national religion.
What secularists have done is taken the 1st amendment, designed to promote religion, religious freedom and protect it into something hostile towards religion and restricting it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-23-2008 7:51 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-23-2008 8:08 PM randman has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 56 of 59 (464180)
04-23-2008 8:12 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Dr Adequate
04-23-2008 8:08 PM


Your explanation is wrong because you assume they would be promoting their religious beliefs when in reality, they could be doing the exact opposite, for example, and want to give a minority view perspective a fair hearing.
And for the record, you are for the restriction of religion and using the government to do so if you are for restricting scientific theories in the classroom based on their religious affiliation or religious flavor. That's just a fact whether you want to admit it or not.
Edited by randman, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-23-2008 8:08 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-23-2008 8:51 PM randman has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024