A Test for Intelligent Design Proponents

Again, Para, in the days when the amendment was written, the Christian religion was clearly taught in the public schools which was not regarded as a violation of the amendment, just as Congress opened with Christian prayer which was not regarded as a violation of the amendment they had themselves written. This ought to be a clue to what was intended by the amendment which was simply a restriction on CONGRESS with respect to ANYTHING having to do with the religious practices of the people. Which religion was not a problem as Christianity was the religion of some enormous percentage of the population, no doubt pushing 98% or so.It is a problem NOW, yes, but this is a matter left to the people and the states and they can accommodate such changes by vote as they see fit. Also, the Constitution prescribes directives for changing its provisions too, to accommodate such changes as they occur, but what has happened is that instead of following those directives, the courts have redefined the First Amendment to suit their biases and effectively hijacked the Constitution. Who knows how it would have worked out if the rules for such changes had been followed, considering that the nation is still predominantly Christian.This message has been edited by Faith, 11-28-2005 03:36 PM

The Fourteenth amendment provides the Constitutional justification for this extension. And as the Constitution cannot violate itself, and amendments have the full force of the constitution itself, it's incorrect to characterize the blanket prohibition from any government establishment of religion as a "violation". The Constitution cannot violate itself.

The fourteenth amendment was either badly worded, is wrongly interpeted itself, or unconstitutional in itself as it effectively reversed the intention of the first amendment.This message has been edited by Faith, 11-28-2005 03:39 PM

It is the 14^th. Amendment to the Constitution, ratified by the peoples of the United States, that extends the restriction to protect all of us from any level of government imposing religious oppression. To say the the justices have violated the spirit of the 1^st. Amendment is just another silly statement showing a willfull ignorance of both the Constitution and our legal and political system. It was not the courts that promugated that protection but the peoples of the United States. It was the Congress that proposed the 14^th. Amendment, that voted and approved it overwhelmingly, and the peoples of the individual states that then ratified it. Nor is this something new or recent as the 14^th. Amendment was finally ratified in 1868.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Why would that make it unconstitutional? Indeed, the fourteenth amendment extends the First beyond its original perview.But the constitution cannot violate itself. The fourteenth amendment cannot, by definition, be "unconstitutional" - it's part of the constitution.This shouldn't be difficult. Constitutional amendments can't, by definition, be unconstitutional. If you think the fourteenth amendment is bad, well, that's your perogative, and you're free to write your congressperson to try to have the amendment that granted voting rights to black people repealed. I'm sure they're pay very close attention to your concerns.

No, it vitiated its intent which was to reserve this matter for the states that Congress was not allowed to rule on.

The "intent" of the Constitution is not law, and it's not binding. The fourteenth amendment alters that intent. It was the intent of the framers, after all, not to have income tax, and the body of the constitution specifically disallows such a tax; does that make the 16th amendment "unconstitutional"? Does that mean you don't have to pay your income tax? I dare you to try it.The intent of the framers was to have a document that could be changed via an amendment process spelled out in the body of the document, so clearly, they didn't expect us to cleave to their narrow intent in regards to the scope of the First Amendment. Hence, we amended the constitution with the 14th amendment. The original intent of the framers in regards to the first amendment is no longer relevant in that regard, because we changed the constitution, something they intended us to be able to do.

Funny how everybody is wilfully ignorant and silly who doesn't see things your way, jar.

You inaccurately paraphrased; I quoted. Your tu quoque fails. No, it is a exacting parallel of your argument, the above meaningless sentence fragment notwithstanding.If you would like to debate interpretations of the Constitution, I would be happy to oblige, but not here. I did not want your inane, revisionist reading of that grand document to stand unchallenged, but neither do I wish to intrude further on Tim's thread.This message has been edited by Omnivorous, 11-28-2005 04:19 PM

Tim, I look forward to reading through your links at home this evening. My apologies for the part I played in steering this thread away from your theme.As a faculty spouse, and so privy to the academic preparedness of many college freshmen, I think your mini-seminar may require a full day--at minimum--for each section. In fact, a full week would probably be better; it would make a great remedial summer science program for college-bound seniors.This message has been edited by Omnivorous, 11-28-2005 04:31 PM

You had "respecting" meaning "supporting." Get a clue.

You read very poorly.I wrote: Get a dictionary.

Yeah, but I gotta go with Faith on this one - it looks a lot like you equivocated on the term "respecting." Maybe that wasn't your intent but that was certainly the result.

I think this is what she's talking about: It's hard not to read that as an equivocation on the term "respecting", or as a direct implication that "respecting" means "supporting." Particularly since, in your rephrase, the word "supporting" occupies the same place that "respecting" does in the original text.I'd say you made a mistake and weren't clear, and because Faith is your opponent, you're digging in and refusing to admit it. Which is not uncommon; I do it too. But I'd cop to the error in clarity and just let it go.

Sorry, you are right. You were talking about "establish." Well, what you need to do is read up on the history of the establishment of religion because it has the specific meaning in the amendment of establishing a state church, such as Britain had and still has, and Europe had since the Middle Ages, and nothing else. Make firm, settle or support is not the meaning of the establishment clause, it is strictly about creating a state church and you are just playing semantic games.