Intelligent Design defeated in PA schools

[notfarnow]

Originally posted by Don Plumley
Wonderful - you are helping to prevent global warming!

Yup, Pirates are cool, so they help cool the earth. The whole thing makes so much sense when you really look into it. I just hope this ruling in Kansas doesn't prevent the sound scientific basis of FSM from being taught in school.

[tswaney]

Now if Kansas could just wake up and smell the coffee.

Hey now, I'm working on it...

And I do have my FSM curricular materials at the ready (just in case!)

[CamB]

The breathtaking inanity of the Board's decision

"Breathtaking inanity" is now my phrase of the day. I'm going to go get some lunch and try and use it in a sentence.

[jorian]

"Yup, Pirates are cool, so they help cool the earth."

Nice one.

[nostatic]

dude, we have data:

[Don Plumley]

Facts are Facts. Prevent Global Warming. Become a Pirate!

[Taz's Master]

I wish Garciaparra some of the other better Free Agents had read this thread, nobody good thinks it's cool to be a Pirate. I mean here we are in Pennsylvania trying to educate our kids and supplying 25 Pirates every year to fight global warming, but all the really great Pirates (and even most of the pretty good Pirates) are gone. I blame that miser from California.

[Tervuren]

Seperation of Church and State means that the church does not run the state, and the state does not run the church. I do not see how that applied to this case. I beleive it should be up to the schools what they teach, not the government.

If the government can interefere here, whats to keep them from brainwashing in other areas? (They already do though). When I read a modern text book I often feel like throwing it into a wall. I try to steer clear of the atrocities. They provide such a weird distorted view of history it drives me nuts.

I beleive I jsut wnet of subject, it was not an inteinotal ploy to hid the real debate, its just things flow into eachother in my mind.

[Mulhollanddose]

Originally posted by Tervuren
Seperation of Church and State means that the church does not run the state, and the state does not run the church. I do not see how that applied to this case. I beleive it should be up to the schools what they teach, not the government.

The "separation" was concocted by Hugo Black, (Democrat KKK member/anti-Catholic), of the Supreme Court. It is not found in the Constitution or any founding document...It was established not to keep the church out of the state (as it has been warped by the left), but to keep the state out of the church.

To this day "freedom of speech" is a right prohibited to the church. This is NO idea of the religious right, but concocted by the fundamentalist left.

[jyl]

Public schools are the government. The government collects taxes from all of us to fund the public school, the government runs the public school, often the government requires children to attend the public school. Look in your White Pages in the "Government" section, usually you'll find the local school district numbers there.

[jyl]

Originally posted by Mulhollanddose
The "separation" was concocted by Hugo Black, (Democrat KKK member/anti-Catholic), of the Supreme Court. It is not found in the Constitution or any founding document...It was established not to keep the church out of the state (as it has been warped by the left), but to keep the state out of the church.

To this day "freedom of speech" is a right prohibited to the church. This is NO idea of the religious right, but concocted by the fundamentalist left.

Not sure where you come up with this stuff (so what's new).

Refer to the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the US Constitution.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am1

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The phrase "separation between church and state" was "concocted" (your words) by Thomas Jefferson, one of the Founding Fathers.

http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html

Jefferson's Wall of Separation Letter

Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802 to answer a letter from them written in October 1801. A copy of the Danbury letter is available here. The Danbury Baptists were a religious minority in Connecticut, and they complained that in their state, the religious liberties they enjoyed were not seen as immutable rights, but as privileges granted by the legislature - as "favors granted." Jefferson's reply did not address their concerns about problems with state establishment of religion - only that on the national level. The letter contains the phrase "wall of separation between church and state," which led to the short-hand for the Establishment Clause that we use today: "Separation of church and state."

The letter was the subject of intense scrutiny by Jefferson, and he consulted a couple of New England politicians to assure that his words would not offend while still conveying his message: it was not the place of the Congress or the Executive to do anything that might be misconstrued as the establishment of religion.

Note: The bracketed section in the second paragraph had been blocked off for deletion, though it was not actually deleted in his draft of the letter. It is included here for completeness. Reflecting upon Jefferson's knowledge that his letter was far from a mere personal correspondence, he deleted the block, he says in the margin, to avoid offending members of his party in the eastern states.

This is a transcript of the letter as stored online at the Library of Congress, and reflects Jefferson's spelling and punctuation.

"Mr. President

To messers Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem & approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful & zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more & more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from presenting even occasional performances of devotion presented indeed legally where an Executive is the legal head of a national church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

(signed) Thomas Jefferson
Jan.1.1802." (underline mine)

As far as I have seen, religious leaders can and do say whatever they want - in their churches and in public statements. But they are not free to use a public school as a church.

[Mulhollanddose]

jyl...nothing that you have offered refutes my last post.

[jyl]

Keep smoking whatever you smoke.

[Mulhollanddose]

Originally posted by jyl
Keep smoking whatever you smoke.

Keep projecting. I repeat, without refutation:

"The "separation" was concocted by Hugo Black, (Democrat KKK member/anti-Catholic), of the Supreme Court. It is not found in the Constitution or any founding document...It was established not to keep the church out of the state (as it has been warped by the left), but to keep the state out of the church.

To this day "freedom of speech" is a right prohibited to the church. This is NO idea of the religious right, but concocted by the fundamentalist left."

[Mulhollanddose]

Originally posted by jyl
As far as I have seen, religious leaders can and do say whatever they want - in their churches and in public statements. But they are not free to use a public school as a church.

Let's nevermind that the earliest "public schools" taught Christ and Christianity. Pray-tell...where in the Constitution is public schooling provided for?

[Mulhollanddose]

"The modern separationist myth, as Hamburger shows, leaps from Jefferson's 1802 letter to Justice Hugo Black's 1947 Everson opinion, which adopted the "wall" as a constitutional doctrine and omits "any discussion of nativist sentiment in America and, above all, omits any mention of the Ku Klux Klan," which helped lead the fight for separation. The myth also omits many details about Hugo Black, who was not only anti-Catholic but also a Klan leader, not the naive, young lawyer he later made himself out to be. It is impossible to read the separationist opinions of the Court from that time forward without recognizing what Chief Justice Rehnquist called a "bitter hostility" toward any government recognition of religion. As American society became increasingly secular and groups indifferent or actively hostile to religion grew in numbers, the antipathy toward Catholicism became a more general antipathy to all religion. Eventually, many Protestants realized, as Hamburger notes, that "they faced a greater threat from secularism and separation than from Catholicism." And indeed, Protestant and Jewish institutions and practices have since come under the increasingly antagonistic scrutiny of the courts."


Bork on the subject (ya, the guy who was burned at the stake by liberals)

[HardDrive]

Originally posted by Mulhollanddose
jyl...nothing that you have offered refutes my last post.

Ummm...yeah, actual it does.

[Mulhollanddose]

Originally posted by HardDrive
Ummm...yeah, actual it does.

I should be easy to demonstrate this assertion, without of course diverting and not answering the argument.

The Establishment Clause clearly does not establish a "separation." The "separation" WAS NOT in any founding documents, aside from a personal communique from one select Founder to an unrelated organization. Hugo Black did establish this concept of "separation."

Read the Bork piece. Well documented, researched and objective.

Public schools have no "separation" protection via the Constitution, as public schools are un-Constitutional by their very nature. This issue is not about the pushing of religion in schools, but forcing down the Nation's throat fundamentalist secularism...This is about persecuting Christianity, a religion that founded this country.

[livi]

Healthy ruling. What IROC said make sense.

[Mulhollanddose]

Originally posted by kang
Here's a quote from the ruling:

"Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the Board's decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources."

Sounds like an activist judge, writing law from the bench, in direct violation of the establishment clause. He presents a very skewed opinion that has only a basis in editorialism. As a judge he violates his Constitutional restraints by usurping the legislative procedures and making a ruling that sets into law a definition of what religion is or isn't, and its place in an un-Constitutionally constructed public education.