|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Creationism in science classrooms (an argument for) | |||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 18041 Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
quote: Then why cite court cases when specifically addressing original intent arguments (that you attributed to Robert) ?
quote: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10385 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1660 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10385 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
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".
|
|||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
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: 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: 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: 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:
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 18041 Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
quote: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: By my understanding Jefferson and Madison both interpreted it in much the same way as the courts do today.
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
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: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 18041 Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
quote: If you've made any arguments that I haven't already addressed I don't know what they might be.
quote: 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: 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.’
|
|||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 18041 Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
quote: 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: 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: Unless you think that the First Amendment DID apply to the States when the Bill of Rights was passed that's obviously not true.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 18041 Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
quote: Unless the schools or the curriculum are controlled by the Federal government, then no, as I've accepted all along.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 18041 Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
quote: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025