Creationism in science classrooms (an argument for)

I'm afraid that your argument is based on ignorance concerning the law.Under the U.S. constitution the state is permitted to take actions that hinder or advance religion PROVIDED these actions have a valid secular purpose. Educating children in science is a valid secular purpose. Therefore it does not matter if science happens to contradict your religious beliefs, the state is free to teach it. This is the reason why polygamy, for instance, is illegal (and some drugs, too).Creationism, on the other hand is a religious position. The only reason for teaching it is to advance religion. Therefore teaching creationism is unconstitutional.

quote:

---

Amen. (Accepting that this is a state/church issue for arguments sake) the state can ADVANCE religion for a secular reason.
the reason it can advance creationism is to discover and teach the TRUTH on origins.

---

If creationism really were scientific then it could be taught in science lessons. But it isn't. And since creationism is a purely religious view where could it go that it could be taught as true without violating the First Amendment ?

quote:

---

if creationism is a religious position and its banned then the state is saying its not true.
A state opinion on religion.
Another break in the wall .
it doesn't matter if creationism advances religion.
The truth is the goal of education.
you made my case here.

---

If you restrict "your case" to the narrow point that the state is admitting that creationism is not science. Thus YOU have conceded my point that refusing to teach creationism is NOT against the First Amendment.And of course the state has many more opinions on religious matters, as I pointed out. Polygamy was not made legal when it was a religiously important to the Mormons (the mainstream abandoned it long ago but there are breakaway sects that cling to that belief). Marijuana was not made legal because of it's religious use by the Rastafarians. These seem to be far more severe hinderances to those religions than merely having science contrary to their beliefs taught in schools.

The rights and wrongs of those particular decisions aren't a simple issue and it would be getting off topic to deal with those details. Suffice to say that making special exemptions to otherwise valid laws for religion is generally AGAINST the First Amendment and in THAT respect the decisions were correct.

quote:

---

Nothing to do with ideas about science.

---

In fact the battle over creationism in schools has focussed very heavily on the science curriculum.

quote:

---

Creationism is banned as the truth or a option for truth because of a law against the state supporting a religion.

---

It is certainly forbidden to teach Creationism as true because that would have no purpose other than advancing the beliefs of particular sects. However, there might be religious classes where it might be considered an "option for truth". But as far as I know, nobody has made the attempt to produce such a curriculum.

quote:

---

My point is that in the censorship, logically, the state is supporting a opinion on religion. its saying its false. This because its saying its teaching the truth on origin subjects.

---

Of course you are referring to science lessons and it would be absurd to say that the content of science lessons has "nothing to do with ideas about science". So we have a valid secular purpose - teaching science - and the relevant science disagrees with creationism. Thus there is no legal problem with the curriculum at all.

quote:

---

I'm just making a logical point.

---

Logical is not the word I would use to describe it. Ignorant, for instance, would be far better.

quote:

---

i'm just saying the law, used to censor creationism, means indeed any idea opposing or proposing religion must be banned.

---

There is no law used to censor creationism. Creationists are perfectly free to promote their views in the same way that any other religious group may do so. They are simply forbidden from abusing government positions or powers to do so.Furthermore your interpretation of this law is hopelessly wrong. The government may take actions that in fact hinder - or benefit - religion so long as they have a valid secular purpose which wholly justifies their action.

quote:

---

This is your law.
In fact its none existent and a dumb invention from the middle 1900's to ban creationism on the intent of 1700's constitution creating American settlers.

---

Again, this is ignorant. The Bill of Rights dates to the 1700s, and the first Amendment was interpreted by Jefferson and Madison - who had a great deal to do with writing it - in much the way that the courts interpret it today (and interpretation of the law is the province of the courts). In the courts a key precedent was a ruling against Mormon polygamy - in 1879 (Reynolds v. United States) which stated that the Mormon belief in polygamy was not sufficient to overturn a Federal law banning it.

In fact that is a side-issue, irrelevant to Robert's arguments. In addition to the points on incorporation, it was apparently the intent of John Bingham who framed the 14th Amendment that it should make the First to Eighth amendments applicable to the States. So even the idea of incorporation goes back to the mid-1800s.We can also note that if the Scopes case had made it to the Supreme Court there was every possibility that the matter would have been decided in the 1920s. It certainly seems likely that Scopes was let off on a technicality largely to avoid that possibility.

Err, no. If Robert raised the issue of when the courts ruled that the establishment clause applied to the States then I'd like you to tell me where he said it. If he didn't it's a side issue.And of course, it is not relevant to original intent arguments since for those court rulings are not relevant - while the intent of Madison, Jefferson and Bingham would be highly relevant.Meanwhile, I will stick to my points:The idea that the state should not advance religion goes back to the formulation of the Bill of Rights.The idea that the First Amendment does not forbid the state to make laws which hinder religion goes back at least as far as ReynoldsNeither was invented in the middle of the 20th century, nor for the purpose of battling Creationism.

quote:

---

Roberts has said any number of times that the current interpretation of the Establishment Clause dates from the 1900s and that the founders would never have agreed to it. Message 330 contains one example.

---

In other words he HASN'T raised the issue at all, just as I thought.

quote:

---

Yes it is relevant. We both agree that incorporation dates from the 1800s, and we seem to agree that the original intent of the first amendment was federal scope only.

---

It seems to me quite obvious that the original intent must precede the passing of the law, let alone it's application in court. Court decisions, therefore cannot be relevant to original intent. Your claim to the contrary is simply absurd.As for the States we know that Jefferson felt that the states SHOULD have similar legislation, since he was so heavily involved in Virginia - and drew on that experience in framing the first Amendment. So again you can only focus on peripheral issues apart from Robert's main claim. We are not dealing with an interpretation of a law invented to fight creationism in the middle of the 20th century. We are dealing with ideas very current when the Bill of Rights was framed,

quote:

---

I think the only interpretation of that sentence that makes any sense is that Byers is complaining that the current interpretation of the first amendment is 1) different from the original intent of the first amendment, and 2) dates from 1947.

---

True, however if you look at his posts you won't find ANY indication that he is referring to the idea that the Establishment clause applies to the States - or that he narrowly applies it to court precedents. Neither point seems at all relevant to his arguments. Your position then is reaching to find an interpretation of the above claim consistent with the facts, ignoring the rest of the discussion.

quote:

---

Correct. However original intent is not the sole method for interpreting the constitution. Also original intent is not merely the intent of the drafter. It should also include the understanding of the members of the constitutional convention and possibly even the understanding of the adopters.

---

You seem to have a problem inderstanding context. I was answering YOUR assertion that court verdicts were relevant to "original intent" arguments.

quote:

---

I'll defer to you on that point. But do Jefferon's feelings support your argument or mine? If state legislation would be needed, does not that support an argument that Jefferson knew that the First Amendment alone would not apply to the states.

---

That would again ignore the context. The Religious Freedom statute in Virginia came before the Bill of Rights - as I pointed out Jefferson applied his experience in Virginia when drafting the First Amendment. The First Amendment could not apply before it was even written ! However it does support my point that Robert is wrong to say that the ideas were invented in the mid-1900s since we have very similar ideas appearing in the 1700s, in a context significant to Constitutional history.

quote:

---

Aren't we talking about the Bill of Rights and then the later Fourteenth Amendment?

---

I was talking about the Religious Freedom statute in Virginia and how it was similar to the later First Amendment. Again, it seems that you have a problem reading statements in context.

Well you were certainly claiming that court verdicts were relevant to original intent arguments.And you seem to be missing the fact that Robert's claim is about when the idea was [i]invented[\i]. In pointing out the ideas of Jefferson and Madison and Bingham, I am not simply focussing on original intent, I am looking at where these ideas were really introduced to thinking about the U.S. Constitution.An idea that goes back to the 1700s or the 1800s cannot reasonably be said to be "invented" in the mid-1900sSo, even if Robert meant incorporation (and there is every reason to think he did not) he would still be wrong to say that it was invented in the mind-1900s.

In Message 379 you start talking about original intent arguments and when I pointed out that the court decisions you had introduced were not relevant to such arguments, in Message 381 you insisted that they were.And if you agree with me that Robert's claim was untrue and you can't even produce any argument that he was thinking of incorporation, then what point have you got to make?

quote:

---

While I did respond to your statement that the court cases were not relevant with the above statement, my response cites the actual original intent of the first and fourteenth amendments and does not cite case law. I apologize for the resulting confusion, but I think it is clear that I am not citing case law as evidence of original intent.

---

Then why cite court cases when specifically addressing original intent arguments (that you attributed to Robert) ?

quote:

---

It is not quite that simple. There is more to the discussion than simply arriving at the correct conclusion. Arguments based on the original intent of the first amendment are simply wrong.

---

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:

---

In my opinion, your original intent arguments to the contrary are simply wrong. If Jefferson thought that the Virginia model was correct, he did not manage to draft an amendment that accomplished anything other than federal restraint.

---

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.

quote:

---

Because, as I've said repeatedly, (including, I note, in message 379) original intent is not the entire story.

---

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:

---

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.

---

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:

---

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.

---

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:

---

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.

---

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:

---

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.

---

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:

---

don't think I need to do that. Perhaps you can expand a bit on why you believe that I do

---

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:

---

I think our discussion should be about the meaning of the amendment that we did get.

---

By my understanding Jefferson and Madison both interpreted it in much the same way as the courts do today.

quote:

---

Further, Madison was quite clear that even the more sweeping language he originally proposed was supposed to limit federal action and not state action.

---

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.

quote:

---

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.

---

If you've made any arguments that I haven't already addressed I don't know what they might be.

quote:

---

The principles existed, but they were not the law in 1791 any more than were civil rights for African Americans.

---

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:

---

I've provided at least some contrary evidence for Madison.

---

Actually you've failed to do that. If you look at the footnote that you cited you would see the following:

quote:

---

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?

---

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:

---

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.

---

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:

---

What we degree on is whether those limitations reach action by the states,

---

Unless you think that the First Amendment DID apply to the States when the Bill of Rights was passed that's obviously not true.