Saturday, August 07, 2010

 

Making Bruce Chapman Cry


To be fair, the article at something called Everyday Christian, entitled "Does Seperation [sic] of Church and State Prohibit Teaching Creation Science in Public Schools?," by Jack Wellman, will make any civil libertarian cry too.

Where do you find the separation of church and state? In the U.S. Constitution?

Why, yes, you do. Oh, there is no "proof-text" ... no statement that "listen, idiot, let me spell it out for you, the government should be separate from religion." You have to be able to actually read and think ... but it is there as plain as day:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ...

Let me translate for the incapable-of-reading-crowd: "Whether you like it or not, not everyone believes in your religion. You can't use the government and taxpayer money to proselytize your religion -- even if you happen to be in the majority in any one place -- because all the people, even if it is one person only, have the right to exercise their own religious conscience -- including the right to have no religion at all -- without their pockets being picked to support someone else's religious beliefs." Simple ... except for the simple-minded.

And, of course, the Fourteenth Amendment, the result of a bloody Civil War, extended that principle to state and local governments

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

But the inability to read is multiplied in this screed beyond all belief:

The Supreme Court has already been made it crystal clear that the teaching of creation science cannot be legally prohibited from being taught in the classroom, if the local school district opts for it. Incidentally, this is what the Supreme Court calls it: Creation science. Former Chief Justice William Riehquist [sic] and current Justice Antonin Scalla [sic], "We have no basis on the record to conclude that creation science need be anything other than a collection of scientific data supporting the theory that life abruptly appeared on the Earth." Edwards vs. Aguillard, Dissent (1987).

Apparently, black is white, up is down and "dissent" means "ruling." Hint to idiot: "dissent" means their arguments lost and "creation science" is specifically banned from public schools.

The meaning of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution should be disbarred.

Okay, this makes no sense but why should we expect anyone who can't read to be able to write cogently?

This Amendment clearly says, "Congress cannot pass any law concerning a religion or establishing a religion; and cannot pass any law that prevents the free exercise of religion." To do otherwise is clearly a violation of the Constitution and discrimination and hate crime against believers. The U.S. Supreme Court decision concerning separation of church and state is clearly a violation of the U.S. Constitution.

I have to admit this is beautifully insane -- a Salvador Dali of fractured logic -- "since the Constitution prohibits establishing a religion, it also prohibits enforcing its own prohibition." It takes the breath away!

Now, here's the part that'll make Bruce Chapman cry:

Louisiana's "Creationism Act" - the Edwards v. Aguillard Supreme Court decision - forbid the teaching of the theory of evolution in public elementary and secondary schools unless accompanied by instruction in the theory of creation science. Appellees, who included Louisiana parents, teachers, and religious leaders, challenged the act's constitutionality in U.S. District Court, seeking an injunction and declaratory relief. The district court granted summary judgment to the appellees, holding that the act violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The Court of Appeals affirmed ...

The U.S. Constitution guarantees that nondiscriminatory teaching of creation science and intelligent design theory and freedom of speech cannot be denied to schools. The power to legislate - - pass laws is specifically allocated in the U.S. Constitution to Congress; not the U.S. Supreme Court justices. What laws Congress cannot make are also stated in the Constitution. The Supreme Court is the judicial branch of our government, conceived as a counterbalance to the legislative branch. In this capacity it has the ability not to make laws, but to judge whether or not a law is being broken. The courts have been making laws, and this is not their job. That falls to Congress and even then, and then to two thirds majority of the states.

Damn! I would have sworn that a random word generator would be ... well ... less random than that!

The legal challenges to intelligent design center around the notion that if a superior being created the universe and that superior being is God – then such a theory violates the separation of church and state and cannot be taught in public schools. But consider what the Supreme Court has said about this issue. In 1987, in Edwards v. Aguillard, the high court concluded that "teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to school children might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction." The court also said that teaching these theories would pose no constitutional problems provided they are not taught to the exclusion of evolution. If the classroom is indeed, as the Supreme Court has said, "the marketplace of ideas," why not teach multiple theories regarding the origins of mankind – including Intelligent Design?

But there is that kicker in Edwards ... it has to be "scientific theories" ... and "creation science," even if dishonestly called "Intelligent Design" doesn't qualify.

Parents and their children ought to have the right to question current theories and be able to consider alternative explanations, especially when a theory is regarded as fact and has yet to be conclusively proven.

Of course you do. Even when it is something as "conclusively proven" as anything in science ... like evolution. But where does it say that you get to use my tax money to do it? That's what homes and churches are for.

Let the children make up their own minds.

Hmmm. As Judge Walker just demonstrated, the real impetus behind the Proposition 8 victory in California was that some people didn't want their children taught about homosexuality unless they were also taught it was wrong! So, you are in favor of using Heather Has Two Mommies in Louisiana schools and letting the children make up their own minds? Right? ... Right?

What do evolutionists have to fear?

Ignoramuses ... who shall remain nameless.

Evolution has become like a state ideology and instead of people worrying about the separation of church and state, it has turned to an effort to become a separation of church from state. This was most certainly not the founding fathers intent.

And intent is everything.

Yes. And thanks for confirming, once again, that ID is just a a transparent fig leaf intended to permit the teaching of creationism in public schools.

Bruce ... here's a towel.
.

Comments:
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
 
add comment moderation to your GARBAGE
 
Damn! I really appreciate your proving I haven't lost my ability to provoke the loons!
 
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
 
DM said...
john - you DIE today...


If I took that anymore seriously than the rest of your babble, I'd make an effort to turn you in so the authorities could find your mother's basement and arrest you. As it is, I take it as a badge of honor.
 
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
 
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
 
john we are going to torture and execute you...

your blasphemy cost you your LIFE, you fucking deluded idiot...


Right! Just after your mommy gives you permission!
 
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
 
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
 
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
 
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
 
... the only reason you censor the comments is because you cannot HANDLE THE TRUTH...

No, the only reason I censor your spams is because you keep including the same cut-and-paste blather all over the place.

Stop doing that and I'll just make fun of your comments.
 
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
 
And Brucie and his buds are running as fast as they can from Livingston parish in hopes of saving something when the Parish wrecks on Creationism. Lauri Lebo (author of Devil in Dover) also pointed out their cowardice.

http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/laurilebo/3100/creationism%3A_don%27t_use_the_%22c-word%22/

Klinghoffer also replied to Her. I talk about it here http://sciencestandards.blogspot.com/2010/08/klinghoffer-discovery-institute-shill.html
 
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

. . . . .

Organizations

Links
How to Support Science Education
archives