New Evolution spat in U.S. schools goes to court

[Rat Faced]

The only proper conclusion would be that they agreed to adopt a passivity toward the religion/government relationship because the desire for an atmosphere of religious cohabitation was a founding premise, and also that they realized entertaining religious strictures while also attempting to formulate a new government incorporating religious freedom was a recipe for failure.

Tell that to the Mormons in Missouri and Catholics through most of your history



If this statement was true, then polygamy would be perfectly legal in the USA.

What you mean is that any Religion that will fit with the Christian majorities prejudice.

[Busyman]

WTH is wrong with a moment of silence or reflection?

If you don't want to reflect then STFU.

They already have it
It would take time out of the school day that should be used for teaching and learning. Do you think American students need less study time?

That's full of shit. It's a minute in the morning.

Both sides need to pick their battles. This nitpicking over a moment of silence that spouts no religion is why the other side may want to push harder 'cause you want to take even that tidbit away.

[Rat Faced]

There are 1440 minutes in a day, why chose one of the 360 or so that school has the use of? (and thats including lunch and breaks, which no one objects to using as a time of reflection)

Surely the bus trip home is longer than a minute

[Busyman]

There are 1440 minutes in a day, why chose one of the 360 or so that school has the use of? (and thats including lunch and breaks, which no one objects to using as a time of reflection)

Surely the bus trip home is longer than a minute

That's full of shit. It's a minute in the morning.

Both sides need to pick their battles. This nitpicking over a moment of silence that spouts no religion is why the other side may want to push harder 'cause you want to take even that tidbit away.

Because it's throwing a bone to the other side. It doesn't spout religion so again atheists should fuck off. It's usually one kid's atheist parents that have a problem 'cause he might wonder why everyone's silent. The atheist parents need to STFU 'cause their ain't getting religion.

I saw the same thing coming up and used to just look around while everyone else bowed their heads. I STFU out of respect back then. The teacher said quiet. I never got the Holy Ghost while reflection was going on.

It did a good job of simmering folks down in the morning for study. Before the "moment" it was tons a noise. However, admittedly as the day went on, the level rose back up.

[JPaul]

So the 1st amendment was (included) that the Government would not establish a religion.

I have to say mate that this does seem to imply that, from the outset, your founding fathers wanted religion kept totally seperate from the State. Or at least from your government.

I have to then take the point that there should be no religious symbolism in places like courts or schools (save for private ones).

Also that there should be no mention of God in things like pledges.

It seems only sensible.

Not merely that the government should not establish a religion, but that it adopt a hands-off stance with regard to the practice or choice of religion by it's citizens.

That the Founding Fathers wrote and abided this sentiment, then proceeded to salt their writings with religious reference should be considered the best indicator of their intent.

I don't recall off-hand, but as to the variety of religions represented among this gathering of men, I am sure were a variety of what are termed Christian religions as well as others.

The only proper conclusion would be that they agreed to adopt a passivity toward the religion/government relationship because the desire for an atmosphere of religious cohabitation was a founding premise, and also that they realized entertaining religious strictures while also attempting to formulate a new government incorporating religious freedom was a recipe for failure.

That they overlooked the eventuality the wider variety of immigration the future held would bring with it a selection of dieties not referred to as GOD should not preclude keeping the basic idea intact; indeed it should be expanded to make space for them, rather than constricted in any way, much less with any sort of selectivity.

Agree with this or not, that this is not clear to at least a few of you disheartens me beyond words.

Let me think out loud here. I assume that the majority of your founding Fathers would themselves have been Christian (of one flavour or another). They would therefore almost certainly be founding your new country on Christian values.

They then look at places like England, where the state is inextricably linked to one branch of Christianity, Anglicanism (the name's a giveaway) and decide that is wrong, that one branch should not have influence over governing everyone.

Could they, when speaking of religion, not actually be referring to Christianity, but to specific "branches" of it. In effect saying that the State would not adopt one particular religion (subset of Christianity) but instead would allow freedom of religion to all it's people. They would not allow one group to form part of the Government (Anglican Bishops in the Lords), but would seperate the State from it.

Thus making any reference to God OK, as it would be one area where all of the Christian religions agreed.

A lot of chaps, particularly at that time, would not define their religion as Christian, but as the particular form of Christianity that was their own faith. It would then make sense, when they were using the word "religion" that it was actually specific types of religion they were referring to.

Sorry if that's a bit rambled, but do you understand what I'm talking about.

[vidcc]

many if not most of the influential founding fathers followed deistic philosophy or Freemasonry

founding fathers

[JPaul]

Mr Morris doesn't appear to have an agenda

"The early presidents and patriots were generally Deists or Unitarians, believing in some form of impersonal Providence but rejecting the divinity of Jesus and the absurdities of the Old and New testaments."

EDIT - Sorry Professor Morris

Steven Morris received his Bachelor's Degree in astronomy from the University of Toronto and his Ph.D from the University of Calgary. He held a research position at UCLA for two years working on a seismology project, which included spending one year at the South Pole running a seismometer. He has taught at the University of Puerto Rico and now teaches physics and physical science at Los Angeles Harbor College. He has published several astronomy research papers and is an active member of the Los Angeles-based Atheists United.

His qualifications in astronomy and membership of "Atheists United" would obviously make him an expert on the subject of your constitution..

[3RA1N1AC]

it's worth noting that the first federal congress considered & voted against quite a few variations of the establishment clause. very much worth noting, i think. they struck particular words out of proposals for the clause, too. at various points, the words "particular denomination," "national religion," and "articles of faith" were proposed... yet they were debated, rejected, and what the congress ultimately approved was relatively generic wording. it isn't uncommon to hear someone (since i don't have a specific who/where/when anecdote at hand, let's just call it a hypothetical straw man) profess to favor a strict reading of the u.s. constitution, who'll then go on to claim that the establishment clause means merely to prohibit the gov't from establishing a national denomination. does "strict" mean to revise history and to claim the official clause is synonymous with proposed clauses that were rejected? well, no. if the establishment clause were meant to say those words, then it would say those words, 'cause there were plenty of opportunities to approve those words instead of the more generic "respecting an establishment of religion."

going off on a tangent:
the use of the word "congress" in the establishment clause may lead one to believe that this allows the individual state gov'ts to establish official churches, and this concern was voiced in the first congress. but the proposal referring to states was rejected, in favor of a reference to congress. so, does this mean that each of the 50 states is free to establish an official church? that point might've been debatable early on but, if nothing else managed to settle it, the u.s. civil war settled the question. outcome: states have no more right to abuse their residents than the federal gov't has.

[j2k4]

Not merely that the government should not establish a religion, but that it adopt a hands-off stance with regard to the practice or choice of religion by it's citizens.

That the Founding Fathers wrote and abided this sentiment, then proceeded to salt their writings with religious reference should be considered the best indicator of their intent.

I don't recall off-hand, but as to the variety of religions represented among this gathering of men, I am sure were a variety of what are termed Christian religions as well as others.

The only proper conclusion would be that they agreed to adopt a passivity toward the religion/government relationship because the desire for an atmosphere of religious cohabitation was a founding premise, and also that they realized entertaining religious strictures while also attempting to formulate a new government incorporating religious freedom was a recipe for failure.

That they overlooked the eventuality the wider variety of immigration the future held would bring with it a selection of dieties not referred to as GOD should not preclude keeping the basic idea intact; indeed it should be expanded to make space for them, rather than constricted in any way, much less with any sort of selectivity.

Agree with this or not, that this is not clear to at least a few of you disheartens me beyond words.

Let me think out loud here. I assume that the majority of your founding Fathers would themselves have been Christian (of one flavour or another). They would therefore almost certainly be founding your new country on Christian values.

They then look at places like England, where the state is inextricably linked to one branch of Christianity, Anglicanism (the name's a giveaway) and decide that is wrong, that one branch should not have influence over governing everyone.

Could they, when speaking of religion, not actually be referring to Christianity, but to specific "branches" of it. In effect saying that the State would not adopt one particular religion (subset of Christianity) but instead would allow freedom of religion to all it's people. They would not allow one group to form part of the Government (Anglican Bishops in the Lords), but would seperate the State from it.

Thus making any reference to God OK, as it would be one area where all of the Christian religions agreed.

A lot of chaps, particularly at that time, would not define their religion as Christian, but as the particular form of Christianity that was their own faith. It would then make sense, when they were using the word "religion" that it was actually specific types of religion they were referring to.

Sorry if that's a bit rambled, but do you understand what I'm talking about.

Granting the surety that the Founders could not have imagined that the U.S. would become the magnet for immigrants that it is, and the inescapable following conclusion they wouldn't have an idea of the sheer numbers of religious leanings, Christian or otherwise, accompanying them?

Yes... I'd say you've delivered a servicable summary, but would add a clarification:

If the Founders' imaginations were circumstantially truncated, their language still leaves us on the hook as tolerant of other religions, but subjects those religions to limited intrusions on the order of disallowing bigamy and human sacrifice, and no, I don't mean that last facetiously.

[j2k4]

it
going off on a tangent:
the use of the word "congress" in the establishment clause may lead one to believe that this allows the individual state gov'ts to establish official churches, and this concern was voiced in the first congress. but the proposal referring to states was rejected, in favor of a reference to congress. so, does this mean that each of the 50 states is free to establish an official church? that point might've been debatable early on but, if nothing else managed to settle it, the u.s. civil war settled the question. outcome: states have no more right to abuse their residents than the federal gov't has.

Yes, and yes.

The language does not preclude individual states establishing official religions, but, as you note, if the impetus ever existed, government machinations coincident with the Civil War pointed up the impracticality of this.

Such leeway for individual states to tailor what these days would be termed "quality-of-life issues" was inherent and intended by the Founders.

Well spotted, 3RA1N1AC.