|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,419 Year: 3,676/9,624 Month: 547/974 Week: 160/276 Day: 34/23 Hour: 1/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Which religion's creation story should be taught? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Izanagi Member (Idle past 5237 days) Posts: 263 Joined: |
I am afraid that this is ‘off topic’.
I'm not sure that it is. The thread brought up the issue of the First Amendment and Supreme Court and I just added some background information that had bearing on the discussion. I don't think you can discuss the First Amendment or Supreme Court without understanding the history or the evolution of how the First Amendment was interpreted. As it stands, creation stories cannot be taught in science classrooms, but the topic just asks which creation story should be taught. It is likely that the current Supreme Court would favor a decision to allow all creation stories to be taught outside the science classroom in say, a class about world religions because it would satisfy all prongs of the Lemon Test.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
JRTjr writes:
quote: Thus showing you don't really understand constitutional law. Of course, the Legislature is the only body that can write law, but the separation of church and state isn't "law." It's a constitutional principle. And by the Constitution, judical power resides in the Judiciary, not the Legislature. The Congress can write whatever law it wishes, but it must be in confluence with the Constitution and it is the Supreme Court's responsibility to verify that the law fits with the Constitution. Suppose Congress were to write a law saying you, personally, are to be my slave. This violates not only the Thirteenth Amendment regarding the abolition of slavery but also Article I, Section 9 regarding bills of attainder. Where are you supposed to turn to have that law overturned if not the courts? Oh, you might petition Congress to strike the law, but what if they refuse? You might request the Executive not to sign the law, but what if it is? Now that it has been ratified and passed, where can you find relief from slavery? That is what the Supreme Court is for. It's what "judicial power" means. "Separation of church and state" isn't a law for it does not make anything happen. It only makes sense in the light of a law that exists...and that is something that only Congress can do. If the law that Congress passes violates the First Amendment's protections, then it is the duty of the Supreme Court to strike it down for they are the only ones who can. Hint: The specific phrase, "separation of church and state," wasn't coined by the Court but rather by Jefferson. However, it rather succinctly describes how the Court interprets the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Do not get caught up words. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time. Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Izanagi Member (Idle past 5237 days) Posts: 263 Joined: |
Actually, if Congress and the President both agreed that JRTjr should be your slave and would uphold that belief no matter what, nothing the Court could say would make a difference. The Court relies on the President and Congress to agree to follow its interpretation of the Constitution and to uphold any decision by the Court. Furthermore, JRTjr would actually need to be able to bring the case before the Court before the Court could have any say in the matter. If JRTjr could not bring the legislation to court, and no one else brought that legislation before any court, then it could never reach the Supreme Court and JRTjr would be your slave since the constitutionality of the act would never be challenged. Additionally, the Court could, in theory, interpret the Thirteenth Amendment in such a way as to allow JRTjr to be your slave since the Thirteenth Amendment states that
quote:meaning the Court could say that Congress is punishing JRTjr for some crime by having him be your slave. All in all, the real power to enact change is usually vested in the Legislative and Executive, not the Courts. That said, what the Court decides still has weight to the American public and the Court has opined that teaching one specific creation story in a science classroom, or even a public school, is unconstitutional. Edited by Izanagi, : No reason given. Edited by Izanagi, : No reason given. Edited by Izanagi, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blzebub  Suspended Member (Idle past 5262 days) Posts: 129 Joined: |
Easy (original) question: Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster
The myth of the FSM seems as good as any other. It's interesting how religious ideas have, um, "evolved" over time, isn't it!?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JRTjr Member (Idle past 4326 days) Posts: 178 From: Houston, Texas, USA Joined: |
Dear Rrhain,
Thank you for your response to my posting; I apologize for not responding sooner.
Rrhain writes: "Separation of church and state" isn't a law for it does not make anything happen. It only makes sense in the light of a law that exists...and that is something that only Congress can do. If the law that Congress passes violates the First Amendment's protections, then it is the duty of the Supreme Court to strike it down for they are the only ones who can. You are correct that Separation of church and state" isn't a law per say; your also right in that it is the Supreme Court that is suppose to be making sure that the laws of our land are in accordance with the ‘Constitution of the United States of America’. However, when the Supreme Court makes a ruling that is 180 degrees opposite of what the ‘Constitution of the United States of America’ states they are ‘in effect’ making up law. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof According to the ‘First Amendment’ to the ‘Constitution of the United States of America’ the Government cannot make laws that prohibit, forbid, ban, bar, exclude, make illegal, proscribe, or disallow the free exercise of religion This is clear, plain and simple; the Government of the United States of America, according to the ‘Constitution of the United States of America’, can not restrict, or outlaw an establishment of religion or prohibit it’s free exercise. For those whom are still unclear, the Supreme Court, itself, is in violation of the ‘Constitution of the United States of America’ when it requires that Christian symbols, and historical landmarks be taken down from public domains because they are ‘religious in nature’. As you yourself have stated, there is no separation of Church and State clause it the ‘Constitution of the United States of America’; and even a casual reading of our founding documents will show that our founding fore fathers not only believed in putting religious principle into government they weaved them into every aspect of the founding of this nation. Thank you for your interest; I promise to respond much sooner this time if you choose to comment on my posting, JRTjr P.S.
Rrhain writes: "Separation of church and state" isn't a law for it does not make anything happen. Requiring Crosses, manger scenes, Bibles, etc be taken off public property, buildings, etc. is making something happen.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
For those whom are still unclear, the Supreme Court, itself, is in violation of the ‘Constitution of the United States of America’ when it requires that Christian symbols, and historical landmarks be taken down from public domains because they are ‘religious in nature’. Perhaps this is true in Opposite World, but back in the real world it is putting these things up that violates the Consititution. Now, if you disagree with my interpretation of the Constitution, then fortunately the Constitution specifically empowers a body to determine what the Constitution means in cases of potential ambiguity, namely the Supreme Court. Constitutionally, therefore, they're right about this just because they say so.
... and even a casual reading of our founding documents will show that our founding fore fathers not only believed in putting religious principle into government they weaved them into every aspect of the founding of this nation. You seem to rewrite history with the same ease and fluency with which you rewrite constitutional law.
Requiring Crosses, manger scenes, Bibles, etc be taken off public property, buildings, etc. is making something happen. Specifically, it's defending the Establishment Clause against those who wish to sacrifice the Constitution on the altar of their religion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4211 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
According to the ‘First Amendment’ to the ‘Constitution of the United States of America’ the Government cannot make laws that prohibit, forbid, ban, bar, exclude, make illegal, proscribe, or disallow the free exercise of religion Which means that no one can do this. The free exercise of religion A in no way can interfere with the free exercise of religion B. That is the Gist of the statement freedom of religion is also freedom from religion.The banning of religious symbols is just that, freedom of religion. Edited by bluescat48, : No reason given. There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969 Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 755 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
and even a casual reading of our founding documents will show that our founding fore fathers not only believed in putting religious principle into government they weaved them into every aspect of the founding of this nation. Yes, I've noticed how often our Constitution mentions gods.......once. In the phrase "Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth." That's some real "weaving," all right.... Don't read David Barton, JRTjr. It'll rot your teeth. "The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3478 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:I think some issues go to extreme, but I don't think it is unreasonable to keep religious icons off public property. It isn't an exercise of religion to put icons on public property. The Bible doesn't say thou shalt put up graven images for public viewing. This article is good.
Establishing Free Exercise To reformulate free exercise, the Court could do worse than turn to the writings of James Madison. Not only did Madison introduce the Bill of Rights into Congress, he has long been cited as the authoritative guide for the meaning of the First Amendment’s protection of religious liberty. Madison offers a clear and simple statement, moreover, summarizing what free exercise means. When editing the religious freedom amendment to Virginia’s state Bill of Rights, Madison proposed the following: That religion or the duty we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, being under the direction of reason and conviction only, not violence or compulsion, all men are equally entitled to the full and free exercise of it accord[in]g to the dictates of conscience; and therefore that no man or class of men ought, on account of religion to be invested with peculiar emoluments or privileges, nor subjected to any penalties or disabilities. What does the exercise of the Christian religion actually entail? Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it. -- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JRTjr Member (Idle past 4326 days) Posts: 178 From: Houston, Texas, USA Joined: |
Dear Dr. Adequate,
Thank you for your response.
Dr. Adequate writes: Perhaps this is true in Opposite World, but back in the real world it is putting these things up that violates the Constitution. Is your position so weak you have to resort to belittling your opponent?
Dr. Adequate writes: the Constitution specifically empowers a body to determine what the Constitution means in cases of potential ambiguity, namely the Supreme Court. Constitutionally, therefore, they're right about this just because they say so. This answer reminds me of my mother when I was a little kid. I would ask a question that my mother really did not have an answer to so she would just say Because I said so! With that said; I only have one small problem with your assertion that the Constitution specifically empowers a body to determine what the Constitution means in cases of potential ambiguity, namely the Supreme Court. Article III of the ‘Constitution of the United States of America’ does not empower the Supreme Court to determine what the Constitution means. It says: judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority The ‘small’ point I am making here is this: the Supreme Court is not the Final authority on what the Constitution says; the ‘Constitution of the United States of America’ is the final authority on what the ‘Constitution of the United States of America’ says. So, If the Supreme Court says something, or does something, that is opposite of what the ‘Constitution of the United States of America’ says then the Supreme Court is wrong and the ‘Constitution of the United States of America’ is right.
JRTRjr Wrote:
... and even a casual reading of our founding documents will show that our founding fore fathers not only believed in putting religious principle into government they weaved them into every aspect of the founding of this nation. Dr. Adequate replied:
You seem to rewrite history with the same ease and fluency with which you rewrite constitutional law. Now, ain’t that the pot calling the kettle black? O.k. let me give you a few examples: click this link - Legal Information Institute Please, note here that this is not a right-wing religious website. Hope to hear from you soon, JRTjr.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9142 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.3 |
So, If the Supreme Court says something, or does something, that is opposite of what the ‘Constitution of the United States of America’ says then the Supreme Court is wrong and the ‘Constitution of the United States of America’ is right. The constitution isn't a living breathing thing. The Constitution cannot be right or wrong. It has been interpreted many times and many ways by the courts. According to the constitution, the Supreme Court is allowed to determinbe the constitutionality of laws. If they say it is unconstitutional then that is it. Other courts could decide otherwise in the future but until then that is the final say. The Supreme Court cannot make an unconstitutional decision. They may make a decision that someone thinks goes against the constituition, but that does not make the decision unconstitutional. P.S.Drop the colors. It makes your post hard to read and makes you look even more juvenile than your arguments do. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 755 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
From your link, JRT:
(16) The erroneous rationale of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in Newdow would lead to the absurd result that the Constitution’s use of the express religious reference ‘Year of our Lord’ in Article VII violates the First Amendment to the Constitution, and that, therefore, a school district’s policy and practice of teacher-led voluntary recitations of the Constitution itself would be unconstitutional. I don't know who wrote this, but some of the "absurd" leaked out of their pen. First, the last paragraph of the Constitution preceded the First Amendment by three years or so. We try not to do retroactive laws in this country. Second, ‘Year of our Lord’ is not an "express religious reference" - it's merely a way of telling time. You will note that it is immediately followed by "and of the Independance (sic) of the United States of America the Twelfth." That's an alternate way of telling time. "Under God" in the pledge is a whole different kettle of fish. It has no purpose in there except to chase away those scary godless pinko commies that were hiding under every other bed in 1954. Kind of like crosses and movieland Dracula. "The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
No. Your position is so weak that, without belittling you in any way, I pointed out that it was wrong.
The difference is that in the case of the law this is actually how it works --- this is only one of the many differences between the Supreme Court and your mother. In effect, the Constitution says that the Supreme Court can have the final say on what the Constitution means, whenever this is legally disputed. U.S. Constitution, article III, section 2: The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.
Sure, the Constitution is the final authority on what the Constitution says. But the Supreme Court are the final arbiters of what it means. If you think about it, someone has to be.
This does not convince me (nor do I see why it convinces you) that "our founding fore fathers not only believed in putting religious principle into government they weaved them into every aspect of the founding of this nation." Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
I would suggest you read what President Thomas Jefferson actually said about a ‘Separation of Church and State’. It was meant to keep the State out of religious affairs, not to keep religion out of the State’s affairs. Quite so. And for the State to spend its revenues on promoting one creed or sect or the doctrines thereof would be for the state to meddle in religious affairs. While you mention Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists, a little context will be provided by reading the letter that they wrote to him:
Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious liberty--that religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals--that no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious opinions--that the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbors.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5948 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5
|
I would suggest you read what President Thomas Jefferson actually said about a ‘Separation of Church and State’. It was meant to keep the State out of religious affairs, not to keep religion out of the State’s affairs. Who cares what Jefferson had to say about church-state separation? Sure, we got that particular wording from a letter he wrote in the 1810's, but so what? Why not go the his life-long friend, James Madison, who not only wrote a pamphlet, Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments in 1785, about 30 years, three full decades, before Jefferson's letter, but then a few years later he up and went and wrote the Bill of Rights, including The First Amendment. Gee, you think maybe what Madison was thinking on the subject when he drafted The First Amendment just might possibly have some bearing on the matter? You can Google for the text. The first hit was from virginia.edu, but that page was not accessible, so I went with the second hit, which was Amendment I (Religion): James Madison, Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments (the third was for atheism.about.com, which I figured would have caused you fits; pick whichever hit comes up -- I would navely assume that no right-wing or fundamentalist site would change the text, but you might still want to compare whichever page you choose with others, just to be sure). OK, Jefferson might have given us the wording, but three decades prior Madison described the concept (my emphasis added):
quote: Do, do, do, do please read the entire document. It is your patriotic duty! Paragraph 1 establishes "rights of conscience", in which":
quote: He develops it further to conclude (again, my emphasis added):
quote: The second paragraph establishes that what cannot be coerced by Civil Society also cannot be coerced by the Legislature. Of course, as you have already seen, it presents the concept of the "wall of separation" in the most original form that I am personally aware. It then states in no uncertain terms:
quote: OBTW, do you know what Madison was remonstrating against? Oh, this could have been pulled out of the past few decades. The Good Citizens of the State of Virginia were concerned with the general decline of the morals of the people of their state. So they asked Patrick Henry for state legislature to provide tax money to support Christian ministers, the named "teachers of the Christian religion." Jefferson was able to postpone the Legislature's vote on Henry's bill until it reconvened. Then he talked his friend James Madison into writing a pamphlet remonstrating against Henry's bill, which was distributed state-wide and generated so much public sentiment against Henry's bill for providing public tax monies to Christian ministers that in the Legislature's next session, not only did Henry's bill die without ever even coming to a vote, but Jefferson's own bill on religious liberty got passed. The third paragraph starts with a statement that must burn in every single patriot's heart, regardless of which century/centuries he lives:
quote: quote:What part of that [i]do you not understand?[/] The fourth paragraph questions how one group could deny the religious liberties of any other group (yet again, quoted only in part, so then frakin' go and read the original already!):
quote: quote: At this point, it is way too late (0100 hours) and my own words completely pale to Madison's. Follow my link or find your own, but read Madison's Remonstrance and Memorial for yourself. If you are an actual American. If you are instead some religionist anti-American subversive, then frak you! Paragraph 6 states that not only is government support of Christianity necessary, but it is also "a contradiction to the Christian Religion itself". Paragraph 7 (quoted in very small part):
quote: Paragraph 8 states that a religious establishment is not necessary for the support of Civil Goverment. The observed effects in both clergy and laity are detrimental:
quote: At the time of its authorance and even woven deeply within the mythology of America even unto this very day, the idea of America serving as a haven for those religious factions who face only persecution on their native shores runs very deep. Even in 1785 James Madison saw very clearly how that iconic American promise was being made to ring so hollow:
quote: In this case, I have quoted the 9th paragraph fully, because there is no point where I could have possibly editted it. Excuse me, but do you have any possible conception of the Inquisition? The Spanish Inquisition started circa 1492. In that year, the Islamic Moors were finally expelled from Spain. That freed up Christian Spanish interests to finance Christopho Columbo's expedition to the Americas (though he earnestly thought, through erroneous geographical calculations, that he was reaching the Indies). That year (or there abouts) marked the Expulsion of the Jews (up to this point, Spain as the "Kingdom of Three Crowns", Christian, Islamic, and Jewish). The Christian Spanish atrocities against the Jews rival Nazi Germany only in the sheer scale and efficiency -- after the Expulsion Act in Spain, those Jews being expatriated from Spain were summarily dumped at sea, to be drowned. Then those Jews who converted to Christianity were ever thereafter suspected of continuing to harbor secret Jewish beliefs, which in all reality lead directly to the Spanish Inquisition, which lasted from circa 1942 to mid 1830's. The only way a Jew could have remained in Spain was to have converted to Christianity, but then every single Jew who so converted was immediately suspected of having converted falsely, which directly sparked the Spanish Inquisition. My ex-wife is Mexican. Even though she was not in any measure observant in her Catholic duties (she used to routinely play hooky from her Catholic classes, such that when the final ceremony finally came down, she had absolutely no idea what all the frakn' Latin was about). Paragraph 10 tells us that quote: quote: Paragraph 12 questions whether the proposed bill will lead all to 'the light". The answer is, No. Paragraph 13: quote: quote: quote:
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024