It's a Sad Day For the Future Of American Children.

quote:

---

I'm not sure which part of the constitution says you can't teach anything religious in public schools.

---

Constitutional law is usually put up for interpretation based on the original intent of the authors of the constitution. For instance, the first amendment only says that Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech. It doesn't say anything about state government. But it's fairly obvious that the intent was a blanket protection of free speech, so that's how the law is interpreted. Even though there's nothing in the constitution that says the mayor of Chicago can't pass a law forbidding the Tribune from running a negative opinion piece about him, he's still not allowed to do so.With religious teaching in schools, we have to go to the other writings of the constitutional authors at the time. The founding fathers make it abundantly clear in their various writings that their intent was a blanket separation of church and state. Therefore, the courts have interpreted the portions of the first amendment which relate to religion to mean just that.Mind you, a separation of church and state doesn't just protect the state from the church; it works the other way around, too. So not only can creation not be taught in public schools, but the government also can't insist that Christian churches allow gay priests. That's why I'm amazed when religious people want to do away with the church/state barrier, and open up their religion to all sorts of government regulations.

I think I know where you're going with this one... 16th amendment?If so, what's your point? We interpreted the law according to how it originally stood, didn't agree, and so we had to change it.Same deal here. If we suddenly decided that we didn't want separation of church and state, we would be free to amend the constitution. But if we're going to keep the law on the books as it stands now, the original intent is clear.

Ohhh.Well then, yeah. I agree. That's another reason religious folks should want separation of church and state.

quote:

---

The schools are not congress.

---

You might wanna go back and read my post. There are one or two subtle points you might have missed.

Which law specifically is that, and in what way do you feel it does not conflict with the court interpretation of the first amendment?

quote:

---

You:
The schools are not congress.

---

quote:

---

Me:
For instance, the first amendment only says that Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech. It doesn't say anything about state government. But it's fairly obvious that the intent was a blanket protection of free speech, so that's how the law is interpreted. Even though there's nothing in the constitution that says the mayor of Chicago can't pass a law forbidding the Tribune from running a negative opinion piece about him, he's still not allowed to do so.

​

With religious teaching in schools, we have to go to the other writings of the constitutional authors at the time. The founding fathers make it abundantly clear in their various writings that their intent was a blanket separation of church and state. Therefore, the courts have interpreted the portions of the first amendment which relate to religion to mean just that.

---

quote:

---

Here is the law and the site which I took it from.

---

Okay. What part of "clear secular intent" is so confusing?

quote:

---

What part of "clear secular intent" is so confusing?

---

You'll excuse the quotes, but I really hate repeating myself.

Ut, good call, bad example.Basic point about church and state stands, though.