Here in Utah, children are encouraged to take classes in seminary (if either DarkHorse or slcrocket are from Utah, perhaps they could explain the finer details). Essentially the children, at the appointed hour, walk across the street to the LDS building. Luckily, the separation of church and state is presided over by a crossing guard. ------------------ "At one of these governors' conferences, George [W. Bush] turns to me and says: 'What are they talking about?' I said: 'I don't know.' He said: 'You don't know anything, do you?' And I said: 'Not one thing.' [Bush] said: 'Neither do I.' And we kind of high-fived." --Republican Gov. Gary Johnson of New Mexico shares a verbal exchange that took place between he and George W. Bush. (Quote is from the Los Angeles Times, 5/31/00) Dubyah Speaks [This message has been edited by Achebe (edited August 04, 2000).]
Some states have advocated creationism over evolution. Now how is it possible to teach that without promoting a christian doctrine? Boy, talk about drifting off topic! ------------------
it's easy to say that if you are part of the majority religion. Would you feel the same way if say Islam became the #1 religion in the country?
Dennis, let me know where those schools are that don't allow any prayer at all (i.e. student-led prayer). That is against the law entirely. ------------------ Going for the Rolls Royce! visit www.swirve.com
What it means is that the state can not control religion, and religion can not control the state. That is!!!! It does not say you can not have prayer on state (schools) property. If it is going to be that ridiculas, then you need to ban every public holiday, including Christmas and Easter holidays. That also means no more Holloween parties or Christmas parties at schools. Also, they should not decorate the rooms regarding any of these holidays. ------------------ ...out with the old, in with the new...
There is no such provision for separation of church and state in the Constitution. If you can find it for me I'll give you a dollar. There is the Establishment Clause that says merely in the First Amendment, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Separation of Church and State was only written in a letter by Jefferson to a university. He wrote of a separation between church and state and that drew a lot of attention because of his influence as a founder. But if you surveyed more of the founders, I think you'd find that they were not as concerned with such a broad demarcation as Jefferson was. And quite frankly, Jefferson would likely laugh at the separations that advocates of this church/state separation talk about...either that, or he'd turn over in his grave! ------------------
how do you know what Jefferson would think? Maybe the man was an atheist? Basing today's society on what the founding fathers would do is ridiculous since most of them supported slavery and were against womens' rights.
You've eliminated it down to two topics..in my estimation their ideas on govt structure are worth preserving. And for the record, even many of the founders who were slaveholders were beginning to question the practice. John Adams was already writing about the rights of women to vote. As for what Jefferson thought...well...we can only rely on his writings (which others are relying on to support separation of church and state). He acknolwedged a belief in God and historians can look at his life and ideas to get a pretty good idea. Of course it can't be perfect...and I think it's clear it was mere conjecture on my part...of course I don't know exactly what Jefferson would think. But don't deny the role of the founders...believe me, in law school we used that analysis all the time. It was called the "founders' intentions." They set up a vision for a country that would last far beyond the values or culture that they knew. It's still the world's oldest existing constitutional government, so they must have done something right. Jefferson himself acknowledged how these rights given to the people must someday include all people. He was a very torn figure...very interesting if you get a chance to read "American Sphinx." ------------------
MadMax, In law school how did you guys factor in the "founders' intentions" with the notion that the Constitution is a 'living document'. It seems evident that Supreme Court interpretations have built into the document the notion of a separation between Church & State. Also, because of issues that outlaw brings up, including the Constitutional protection between states to recognize 'slaveholder rights' (Article IV somewhere?), it seems that we can view many of the pieces of the Constitution as being 'signs of the times'. ------------------ "At one of these governors' conferences, George [W. Bush] turns to me and says: 'What are they talking about?' I said: 'I don't know.' He said: 'You don't know anything, do you?' And I said: 'Not one thing.' [Bush] said: 'Neither do I.' And we kind of high-fived." --Republican Gov. Gary Johnson of New Mexico shares a verbal exchange that took place between he and George W. Bush. (Quote is from the Los Angeles Times, 5/31/00) Dubyah Speaks [This message has been edited by Achebe (edited August 04, 2000).]
What you're talking about was merely a protection of the union to prevent an immediate civil war at the outset of the nation. I do not believe the framework of the govt outlined in the Constitution should be considered "living." When we consider it "living" we put in jeopardy our rights under the Bill of Rights. I don't know about you, but I'm sleep a little sounder each night thinking those are locked in concrete! As for law school..in Constitutional Law you study the Supreme Court's interpretation of the document over the years. Just because the Supreme Court has twisted it over the years doesn't mean the document should change. The idea of founders' intent is that you can't consider what a document means unless you know what the author intended. This is why Jefferson's letter has been so influential. And you can't have it both ways...you can't cite the importance of "separation of church and state" and then say that the founders' intent is irrelevant. The very notion of separation of church and state is directly from founders' intent analysis. I just think it's limited because it is merely the view of one of the founders. ------------------
mc mark, It is most certainly possible to teach the creation model and not be teaching a "Christian doctrine." I quoted this in another thread, but I think it would be good to notice it here also. It is a quote from Colin Patterson of the British Museum (Natural History). He is an evolutionist. "This theory [evolution] has only one main competitor, creation theory, though there are different stories of how the Creator went about His work" (Evolution, p. 148). When a person argues that the creation model fits the available data better than the evolution model, that has nothing to do with Christianity per se. It tells you nothing about Diety (nature, number, etc...). I could argue the evidence that someone made the watch my wife bought me for my last birthday. It's obvious to me that it didn't simply evolve over the course of many years. But having said that, I know almost nothing about the maker of the watch. To argue for creation from a scientific standpoint has nothing to do with quoting Bible passages. I don't want teachers in our schools teaching the book of Genesis, but I would like for them to point to the complexity of the universe and make the observation that one possible explanation for that complexity is design, rather than blind chance. Not only is it possible to teach creation without teaching "Christian doctrine," it's also allowable under the law. Supreme Court justice Brennan, commenting on the LA Balanced Treatment act, said, "The Act does not grant teachers a flexibility that they did not already possess, to supplant the present science curriculum with the presentation of theories, besides evolution, about the origin of life....Teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to schoolchildren might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science education" (Edwards v Aquillard, 1987). [This message has been edited by TraJ (edited August 05, 2000).]
You could also argue that the intent of the second amendment wasn't to allow Brian Kagy to have an automatic weapon strapped to his ankle at all times. You could argue the original intent of the second amendment was to allow the masses to form militias, not for every Tom, Dick, and Harry to buy a gun without having to register them. But that's an argument for another time! I'm not trying to get into a gun debate, that's been done to death here. I'm just saying that if the Supreme Court's job isn't to interpret the constitutionality of various laws or issues (prayer in school), then what are they really there for? ------------------ Going for the Rolls Royce! visit www.swirve.com
Sure it's their job to interpret the Constitution..I'm just saying that in my opinion some of their interpretations have been unreasonable. As for the 2nd Amendment...read the contemporaneous writings of the founders and it's very clear that they intended for individuals to be able to own weapons. ------------------
Getting back to the prayer in school thing... Dennis, Growing up I remember many times when "prayer at the flagpole" was announced over the PA. It was outside organized (by christian youth leaders) and was allowed to be advertised. I know for a fact my school was not the only one to do this, in fact, it was a national campaign. Additionally, Young Life volunteers were allowed to come to our lunches (most outsiders were not because they could be drug dealers, or whatever - I could not go back to my high school and walk in the halls because I do not have an ID tag). They would always go from table to table. They also did this at other schools. How is this denying religion in schools. Kids could wear t-shirts with bloody crucifixes on them. But a child could get expelled if he wore one of those short lived "highway 666" t-shirts. I guarantee those kids wearing those shirts were not satanists - just trying to be funny. I also guarantee that the kids with bloody crucifixes were christian and promoting their beleifs. ------------------ Play the Piano Drunk Like a Percussion Instrument Until the Fingers Begin to Bleed a Bit
TraJ, Excellent post! But lets take an honest question. Johnny's sitting class and the teacher explains the creation theory, Then Johnny asks, "so...where did this all come from? Do you say God? And if so, what god? Or do you say "we don't know", passing it off as a "theory"? ------------------
