What do the US & state constitutions say about social aspects of the EvC debate?

Where do any laws, federal or state, specify the role of religion or science in our lives?Where can we look for guidance in what information should be shared in our governments vs. communities vs. schools?And where can we find information about what restrictions we have as far as evangelization of ideas in public spaces?It's three questions, but they're all related in this way: I want to know what US federal and state law says about the most (socially) disturbing aspects of the EvC debate.I don't even know where to look. I looked at the US and California Constitutions, and I found very little. Can I get a little help?AbE: Here's a reference link to the amendments in the US Constitution.Social Issues in Creation/Evolution pleaseThis message has been edited by Ben, Tuesday, 2005/11/15 09:34 PMThis message has been edited by Ben, Wednesday, 2005/11/16 08:36 AM

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Evangelization is free speech and so cannot be restricted in public places. That's an easy one.Next is what should be taught to children. No laws restrict what schools can teach, but the courts have taken a very broad interpretation of the establishment clause which merely restricts Congress from passing laws, and in doing so has created a walking contradiction. If their current stance is correct, Congress should never open with prayer, but since they know they cannot win ruling that way, they hold to a contradiction. Personally, I expect the current rules to be overturned and federal meddling with the states and schools in this area to end.

Randman,Thanks for the reply, but you're talking like someone with context. Can you break it down a bit more for those (like me) who are less well-read on this stuff?Establishment Clause (this was one of the few things I had found when looking through the constitution)Could you try to summarize Congress's "broad interpretation" of the Establishment Clause, and how that leads them to being a "walking contradiction"? I don't see how Congress opening with a prayer has anything to do with the Establishment Clause.Thanks.
Ben

It is mostly in the bill of rights, particularly the first amendment rights, and in the traditions established by court interpretations of those rights.The establishment clause forbids congress from establishing a state religion. Free speech allows discussion of religion in public cases.A supreme court decision (not sure when) extended this to apply also to the states.

What are the "rules" for establishing whether something is a religion or not?And what are the boundaries placed on what behavior is acceptable in a religion or not? Where is criminal law written / established?Starting to feel like an idiot... but better to get educated now.Thanks.
BenThis message has been edited by Ben, Tuesday, 2005/11/15 10:30 PM

Ben, Congress didn't expand the establishment clause. The first amendment of the bill of rights reads something like this:Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof.So that should mean Congress cannot pass laws related to religion, but in the 20th century the liberal Supreme court decided it meant that the state must suppress all religious worship and speech that occurs on any governmental function at all, and proceeded to ban school prayer, take down public displays of the baby Jesus around Christmas time, etc,....In truth, their ruling clearly violates the first amendment which prohibits the free exercise of religion, and that includes public displays or particupation in religion or nominally religious activities. That's why the first Congress didn't feel wrong to have a chaplain because having a chaplain is not making a law, and therefore not violating the establishment clause forbidding Congress from making a law respecting an establishment of religion.

I'm not sure that there are any rules. The courts have to use their judgement. There are lots of really crazy religions in America, because the courts try to allow broad interpretations. Criminal law is written in congress and state legislatures. The boundaries on what is allowed in religion are not clearly defined and the courts have to use their judgement.As I recall, American indian tribes were able to use peyote in their religion, and in effect had a special exemption from drug laws. That changed in the 80's, when a supreme court said that the drug laws do apply.During prohibition, churches were still allowed to use wine in their communion ceremonies. I seem to recall reading that some religions were setup to take advantage of exemption of religions from probibition laws.

... broad interpretations... of what? Is it an unestablished, common-sense term? Sounds like things were deliberately left wide open, I would guess to allow the majority of the day legislate things as they want. But if that's the case, then that seems to undercut any use of "precedence" in establishment of laws that change as the population's philosophical position changes. Sounds arbitrary. I get the sense, then, that what I said above might reflect reality?Thanks,
Ben

randman,Does such a decision set a "precedent" in court, such that it affects future cases? And if so, what does it take to get such a law repealed?Seems like NFL instant replay; the initial call (law-making act) stands unless there's indisputable evidence that it's wrong (unconstitutional). If the evidence is neutral (the constitution doesn't address it), then the call will stand (the law can never be repealed).As I said in my reply to nwr, seems that there's little formalization of the principles on how to deal with religion. That makes me think it's supposed to be left open to each current population to determine how to deal with things (within the bounds of existing amendments).Ben

Haven't you ever heard of Selective Incorporation?

Here's the formalization of principles that I'm aware of, the Lemon Test:

quote:

---

1. The government's action must have a legitimate secular purpose;
2. The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion; and
3. The government's action must not result in an "excessive entanglement" of the government and religion.

---

Lemon v. Kurtzman - WikipediaAlso, this summer, the Lemon test was applied and refined by the Supreme Court.McCreary County v. American Civil Liberties Union - Wikipedia
Van Orden v. Perry - Wikipedia

The writers of the constitution presumably understood that they could not predict the future with any accuracy. Thus they left the constitution as mostly broad principles, to be interpreted by the courts.

There are two sections of the Constitution that deal with religion as randman well knows. At least he's been told about this often enough that he should know.The 1^st. Amendment, the so called Establishment Clause, was simply intended to assure that the US will never have a State Religion.It's the 14^th. Amendment that helps protect all of us from the tyranny of religious based sanctions. It's not some liberal Supreme Court as he asserts. The SCOTUS is simply following the Constitution, as voted through our Legislature and then Ratified by the individual states.The 14^th. Amendment says that nobody, not federal, not state, not local governments can pass laws that disciminate against citizens. It is the 14^th. Amendment that protects us from the tyranny of the Christians. Hopefully it will be the 14^th. Amendment that will help overturn oppressive legislation like the recently passed marriage definitions here in Texas.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Thanks Jar, that's helpful. I take it that it's this part of the 14th amendment you're referring to.I'll take some time to think about it, but I missed this part of the 14th amendment when scanning through. Thanks for bringing it up.Randman, what does this section of the 14th amendment mean to you?BenEdited bolds per jar's commentThis message has been edited by Ben, Wednesday, 2005/11/16 09:10 AM