Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Did congress make a law? (Establishment Clause)
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 31 of 103 (189538)
03-01-2005 7:18 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by gnojek
03-01-2005 7:02 PM


I don’t know if this means anything to you. It is based on memory over a decade old, when I used to live in Providence RI.
Roger Williams seemed to be concerned with separation issues as he clearly started the state to separate from his friends in Mass. He even designed the original shape of the state to be an octagon so that all parties, including Indians could have equal territory bounding their participation in the life in that state.
The history of the state ensued but that shape did not materialize. Something that did, was the passage that the higher state supported education was not to duplicate education. Now you can tell me that I was reading into the facts but it seemed possible that the reason no duplicate education was lawed was a means to keep any separation issues separate. In that way any violation in establishments about the establishment clause the state itself had not to violate could be physically patrolled, door-to-door, so to say. Thus it would be Ok to teach BOTH creation and evolution or lets say many versions of biology in schools in RI provided they were not both taught in the same school.
The application of this version however would not work in modern times where the number of alternative views is almost as great as the number of citizens rather than the number of businesses in state. And the web breaks down state-by-state barriers of this sort anyway. I don’t have all the scholarship on Jefferson but I often wonder how much was ripped off of Williams' state (ments). I didn’t see it as a 14th amendment issue but perhaps I did not try hard enough.
Spellcheck by PB
This message has been edited by AdminPhat, 03-07-2005 09:41 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by gnojek, posted 03-01-2005 7:02 PM gnojek has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by gnojek, posted 03-01-2005 7:36 PM Brad McFall has replied

  
gnojek
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 103 (189539)
03-01-2005 7:19 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by crashfrog
02-28-2005 12:46 AM


gnojek writes:
There is no law restricting the La. legislature from forcing schools to teach creationism.
crashfrog writes:
Yes, exactly. The lack of that law is an unequal protection under the law.
Because there is no law preventing the La. legislature from doing that, there is unequal protection - people subject to that action by the La. legislature are less protected than others, and less protected than they would be if it was Congress trying to do that. Thus, the 14th Amendment prevents the legislature from doing that.
What? I think you may be reaching here.
I can think of countless laws that don't exist. Does that mean I can't do the things those non-existent laws don't forbid because of the 14th ammendment?
I mean, you are making a case for the abolishment of states in favor of one federal government. Why bother with any state laws?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by crashfrog, posted 02-28-2005 12:46 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 33 of 103 (189540)
03-01-2005 7:23 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by gnojek
03-01-2005 7:02 PM


It had nothing to do with the 14th Ammendment either, which is also not violated by merely teaching inaccurate lessons in school.
If it teaches that the Judeo/Christian/Muslim GOD created the world, then it most certainly does come under the 14th. Amendment. That would be discriminatory as well as a severe disservice to the students. If you want to cover that in some Social Studies course then fine, but not in Science.
Teaching one, two, or three of the numerous versions of "biological theory" is limiting the scope of the lesson, discriminating (in the general sense) between the two versions.
The issue seems pretty clear and so far the courts have always found it to be very clear. Coming into a classroom in a public school and teaching kids any of the Creation Myths as though they were science is discriminatory. That happens to be the Law of the Land. Thank GOD!
You can have any interpretation you want but again, so far EVERY court has said that Dog won't Humt!
Should we teach multiple revisionist versions of the history of the American Revolution because teaching that George Washington was a great man discriminates against current members of the Native American nations that he decimated?
Well, he was a great man but that has nothing to do with teaching history. Hell, Yes! It's about time that we started teaching history and not fairytales. But actually, it was Jefferson and Jackson that were the greatest threat to the Indians. Required reading in every middleschool US History class should include Cherokee Nation vs State of Georgia.
A lot of what we learn in school is plain wrong, especially when it comes to history.
Absolutely true. So why teach yet another lie? Let's try to start teaching kids the truth. Don't add yet another layer of mythology between the kids and reality.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by gnojek, posted 03-01-2005 7:02 PM gnojek has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by gnojek, posted 03-01-2005 7:50 PM jar has replied
 Message 47 by Phat, posted 03-07-2005 11:50 AM jar has replied

  
gnojek
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 103 (189541)
03-01-2005 7:29 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Silent H
02-28-2005 4:35 AM


holmes writes:
While this is true, it was going to have an effect on those that thought they based their moral and legal classifications on "harm". Many people wanted to pretend that they did just that, and certainly the Congress wanted to have a legal argument that their policies were based on actually protecting people from harm, and so this paper did have an effect, even if they were mainly concerned with how Psychology should treat that issue.
If you want to talk more about that case, you can go to the thread. I didn't want to get into the actual specifics of it here, just point out that it is an example of Congress defying the Constitution's theoretical limitations on their power.
Sorry for mixing threads. I'm totally flabergasted (sp?) by Congress's behavior here. It truly is ridiculous.
holmes writes:
Please read my thread for further info. They did not pass a law, but instead passed a resolution stating that the gov't should reject any findings such as these. That has the indirect effect of "banning" the speech before lawmaking bodies, and thus is as good as killing it outright.
Oh, I get it now. Wow, that really is wierd. So by banning the findings of a scientific study from discussion they basically are saying that there would be no way for the findings to be used as justification of any law. I think this, along with all the gay marriage BS is an example of people legislating on how icky something makes them feel. Ick-factor morals. Cuz all the Bible says is that you have to be married. It doesn't say anything about how old you have to be, so they can't be basing it on something in the Bible.
Man, I would go over and discuss this stuff, but I'm pushing it doing this thread. I just happened to find this forum that debates almost exclusively my favorite debate topic right when stuff started getting crazy at work. I have all this crap to do before the 17th and I won't have time to take a decent , uh, nap, yeah that's it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Silent H, posted 02-28-2005 4:35 AM Silent H has not replied

  
gnojek
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 103 (189542)
03-01-2005 7:36 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Brad McFall
03-01-2005 7:18 PM


Hmm, it is interesting, though. I had no idea.
I don't know if any contemporary school district would start a school for christians, one for jews, and one for others, but it might be a way to skirt around the establishment clause, even if it did forbid it directly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Brad McFall, posted 03-01-2005 7:18 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Brad McFall, posted 03-05-2005 6:11 PM gnojek has not replied

  
gnojek
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 103 (189544)
03-01-2005 7:50 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by jar
03-01-2005 7:23 PM


Argh, I have to get back to work!!
You guys are quick on the draw.
O well...
jar writes:
If it teaches that the Judeo/Christian/Muslim GOD created the world, then it most certainly does come under the 14th. Amendment. That would be discriminatory as well as a severe disservice to the students. If you want to cover that in some Social Studies course then fine, but not in Science.
Well, it doesn't really violate the 14th simply because it doesn't violate the 1st. But anyway, nothing says that a school has to divide up it's classes into distinct subjects, and in elementary school it's not, so what if the creation story were just taught in "class." It's not "science class" or "biology", just class. Is it still a disservice? If your opinion is Yes, then I can find ten more people who would say No, and also say that teaching evolution is a disservice, so that one is just a matter of subjective opinion.
jar writes:
The issue seems pretty clear and so far the courts have always found it to be very clear. Coming into a classroom in a public school and teaching kids any of the Creation Myths as though they were science is discriminatory. That happens to be the Law of the Land. Thank GOD!
You can have any interpretation you want but again, so far EVERY court has said that Dog won't Humt!
Ok, thanks for re-stating the topic of the debate.
Yes, courts read things into the law that are not there.
Thank who?
jar writes:
Well, he was a great man but that has nothing to do with teaching history. Hell, Yes! It's about time that we started teaching history and not fairytales. But actually, it was Jefferson and Jackson that were the greatest threat to the Indians. Required reading in every middleschool US History class should include Cherokee Nation vs State of Georgia.
Was he? I guess so, if that's you're opinion.
Yes, Jackson was the worst, so what should we do to end this discrimination against native americans? Oh, I forgot, it's not discrimination to teach that these presidents were so great and to forget all about their humanitarian crimes.
jar writes:
Absolutely true. So why teach yet another lie? Let's try to start teaching kids the truth. Don't add yet another layer of mythology between the kids and reality.
Yes, let's keep the old lies. Or are they lies? Are they just inaccuracies? Is a preacher lying to you when he says "Jesus loves you" or is he sincere and perhaps inaccurate? I would think that a teacher teaching creationism that was sincere about it wouldn't be lying to her students. She would just be, in my opinion, wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by jar, posted 03-01-2005 7:23 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by jar, posted 03-02-2005 11:59 AM gnojek has replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 37 of 103 (189585)
03-02-2005 3:09 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by gnojek
03-01-2005 7:15 PM


the consitutution cannot be a document frozen in time. it must evolve (sorry) along with the people it protects.
anyone can sign his child out of an evo class just as anyone can sign his child out of a sex ed class. that is free exercise. observable demonstrable science is not a religion no matter how people who believe in it behave nor how people who don't, respond to it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by gnojek, posted 03-01-2005 7:15 PM gnojek has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by gnojek, posted 03-30-2005 12:43 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 38 of 103 (189640)
03-02-2005 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by gnojek
03-01-2005 7:50 PM


Re: Argh, I have to get back to work!!
Well, it doesn't really violate the 14th simply because it doesn't violate the 1st.
IMHO, it would likely violate the 14th. without even considering the 1st.. If we teach that one religion has the correct idea in our public schools we are not providing equal protection to all citizens. We would be discriminating and that would violate the 14th. irregardless of the existence of the 1st..
But anyway, nothing says that a school has to divide up it's classes into distinct subjects, and in elementary school it's not, so what if the creation story were just taught in "class."
They don't divide up the day into subjects in elementary school anymore? Bummer. I know they did way back when I was there and when my daughter was there. They had a time to do arithmetic, geography, reading, spelling, history, singing and even play time. We all called it recess.
If your opinion is Yes, then I can find ten more people who would say No, and also say that teaching evolution is a disservice, so that one is just a matter of subjective opinion.
True but that has nothing to do with the issue. We're not talking public opinion but rather Law.
As for the rest, what is taught as history is a great subject but OT for this thread. Start a thread on what should be taught as history and we can discuss it there.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by gnojek, posted 03-01-2005 7:50 PM gnojek has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by MangyTiger, posted 03-03-2005 8:03 PM jar has replied
 Message 44 by Rrhain, posted 03-07-2005 3:15 AM jar has replied
 Message 60 by gnojek, posted 03-30-2005 1:00 PM jar has not replied

  
shackelfordster
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 103 (189733)
03-03-2005 2:25 AM


I'm not so sure that you can be signed out of an evolution class. I suspect that at my school, if you signed up for biology, you would be tested an graded on the theory of evolution, just like you would any other scientific theory.

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by CK, posted 03-03-2005 9:04 AM shackelfordster has not replied

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4128 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 40 of 103 (189749)
03-03-2005 9:04 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by shackelfordster
03-03-2005 2:25 AM


BBC Radio 4 - Crossing Continents
I think that clicking on the audio link should give you access to today's program which was about Dover.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by shackelfordster, posted 03-03-2005 2:25 AM shackelfordster has not replied

  
MangyTiger
Member (Idle past 6354 days)
Posts: 989
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 07-30-2004


Message 41 of 103 (189897)
03-03-2005 8:03 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by jar
03-02-2005 11:59 AM


Re: Argh, I have to get back to work!!
and even play time. We all called it recess.
Over here we actually called it playtime
What's that old saying about two countries divided by a common language ? I can still vividly remember the first time I flew to the US in '82 - I needed to have a crap rather urgently and was getting rather panicky as I went around O'Hare looking for a sign that said "toilet" or "bathroom" - all I could see were ones for "restrooms" and it wasn't exactly a rest I needed

Confused ? You will be...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by jar, posted 03-02-2005 11:59 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by jar, posted 03-03-2005 9:44 PM MangyTiger has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 42 of 103 (189922)
03-03-2005 9:44 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by MangyTiger
03-03-2005 8:03 PM


Re: Argh, I have to get back to work!!
A lovely young lady from England moved in on the floor above me when I was still a young single guy. First thing she said was "You'll have to knock me up sometime." Imagine my disappointment when I found out that was the equivalent of "Call me someday."

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by MangyTiger, posted 03-03-2005 8:03 PM MangyTiger has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 43 of 103 (190238)
03-05-2005 6:11 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by gnojek
03-01-2005 7:36 PM


a url cited recentlyonEVC

http://EvC Forum: Homo floresiensis -->EvC Forum: Homo floresiensis
responded to by Nosy and Razd
or
WHEN THE BRAIN
hobbit
CarlZimmer
WAS A FOOT

Both Carl and I knew Rima well. She is jewish. I doubt Carl was coming to Rima's conclusion. Anyway a girl won the presidency not brains. Rima is just not in one of these "Sweaters".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by gnojek, posted 03-01-2005 7:36 PM gnojek has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by berberry, posted 03-07-2005 3:29 AM Brad McFall has not replied
 Message 51 by berberry, posted 03-09-2005 12:52 PM Brad McFall has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 44 of 103 (190413)
03-07-2005 3:15 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by jar
03-02-2005 11:59 AM


Oh, no...jar...you didn't!
jar writes:
quote:
irregardless
Oh...you didn't!
"Regardless" or "irrespective." No such word as "irregardless."

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by jar, posted 03-02-2005 11:59 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by jar, posted 03-07-2005 11:09 AM Rrhain has not replied

  
berberry
Inactive Member


Message 45 of 103 (190416)
03-07-2005 3:29 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by Brad McFall
03-05-2005 6:11 PM


damn! that's seems almost prescient
You had some pretty illustrious classmates, Brad. The Carl Zimmer piece on the year 2021 is fascinating considering it was written in 1981 when he was in high school with you. It's remarkable how the nightmare scenario he talked about way back them seems entirely possible now.
That column is recommended reading for anyone concerned about church / state issues. Click on it and it'll enlarge.
ABE: If you still speak to Carl, have you ever mentioned evcforum to him? It'd be great if he joined, although it might draw a lot more attention to this board, which may or may not be something the admins would like.
For anyone who doesn't know, Carl Zimmer writes about science for the New York Times and a number of magazines. You can find more information about him at the first link Brad posted in the message I'm responding to.
This message has been edited by berberry, 03-07-2005 02:43 AM

Keep America Safe AND Free!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Brad McFall, posted 03-05-2005 6:11 PM Brad McFall has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024