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?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ...
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.
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).
The meaning of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution should be disbarred.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Let the children make up their own minds.
What do evolutionists have to fear?
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.
Bruce ... here's a towel.
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.
your blasphemy cost you your LIFE, you fucking deluded idiot...
Right! Just after your mommy gives you permission!
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.
Klinghoffer also replied to Her. I talk about it here http://sciencestandards.blogspot.com/2010/08/klinghoffer-discovery-institute-shill.html