tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post113716897702898130..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: The philosophy of designRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-49808728630570017232008-10-13T01:32:00.000-04:002008-10-13T01:32:00.000-04:00It's a pity that Ed Darrell has not read state con...It's a pity that Ed Darrell has not read state constitutions written when the 13 colonies became states. The majority of them required state officials to declare faith in God - indeed, about 1/2 of them required state officials to affirm faith in Jesus Christ. For proof of this statement, feel free to visit Yale's website and look it up. (I'm sure google will be only happy to help). The original constitutions are there for the whole world to read. <BR/><BR/>Were these affirmations part of a specific denomination? Not necessarily. But the fact that these affirmations exist seems, to me, to forever silence the bizzare (and modern) notion that states have always been legally required to affirm the god of the atheists at the expense of the religious.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17137621500242518482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1137456851567575402006-01-16T19:14:00.000-05:002006-01-16T19:14:00.000-05:00So much to correct, so little time . . .It was jud...So much to correct, so little time . . .<BR/><BR/>It was judicial activism that led the Marshal Court to claim, contrary to all the evidence, that the Bill of Rights did not apply against the states, in 1833. Since then we fought a war to correct that misimpression, we passed the 14th Amendment, <B>and we've finally got courts who are returning to the views of the founders at about mid-20th century. </B><BR/><BR/>The First Amendment prevents <I>all</I> governments from declaring a religion contrary to the faith of a citizen. <BR/><BR/>But that's gravy. Each and every one of the state constitutions does the same. <B>Since 1778, Americans have granted no government any duty, right or privilege with respect to religion.</B> Since 1778, Americans have created no formal role for any church in their government. It's unlikely they will backtrack now, and God bless those judges who preserve our religious rights. If they are activist judges, God bless activist judges.<BR/><BR/>None of the states had established churches after 1778, and only four states had even a vestige. All those vestiges were methodically eliminated. <B>No state had an established church in 1787 when the Constitution was written,</B> nor in 1789 when the First Amendment was written. Had the authors of the First Amendment intended that states should have the ability to establish a church, it would have had to have been explicitly included in the amendment, since such things did not exist, nor did the right. As you know, there is no clause of the First Amendment which authorizes states to establish churches.<BR/><BR/>I've heard Dembski describe his religious reasons for backing ID a couple of times, and state that they are superior to his science claims.<BR/><BR/>But we're willing and ready to take any serious science arguments for ID. As you know, under the Lemon rules, were there science behind intelligent design, religious motivation alone would not stop the teaching of ID.<BR/><BR/>Alas for ID, no one has been able to find any science to back it that will stand up to even cursory scrutiny in a federal court with fair rules of evidence.<BR/><BR/>The God of ID not being "sectarian" isn't enough to save it from the establishment clause. That clause forbids government from taking the side of a non-sectarian God, even the God of Abraham, against other beliefs and against no beliefs.<BR/><BR/>The Lemon test was created by the Supreme Court for lower courts to apply. <B>Judges Jones' court was the trial court, and he correctly applied the Lemon test.</B> That's the best we have until someone gets another case to appeal. That's unlikely, though, because, legally, Judge Jones' decision is very, very tight. Other courts will give it due deference. That's what the Supreme Court did with the Overton decision in the Arkansas case, too -- it was the Louisiana court which accurately applied the reasoning of the Arkansas case. A case does not need to have the approval of the Supreme Court to be valid -- it needs the disapproval of a higher court to make it invalid.<BR/><BR/>No, the case does not prohibit learning about religion. The Establishment clause prohibits teaching any one religious view as the correct one. History students may still learn about the Great Awakening.<BR/><BR/>As I noted, it's the IDists who wish to flout original intent. It is inconceivable that the founders wished religion to be taught to kids in public schools -- absolutely 180 degrees contrary to the express views of Washington, Jefferson, Madison and Franklin, among others.<BR/><BR/>It is a pipe dream to think that judicial review does not exist legally in the United States.<BR/><BR/>The public school system benefits every citizen in the nation, and that is why everybody pays property taxes to support it. If your neighbor's kid is uneducated, it affects you. You get the benefits of public education especially if you choose to take your kids out. No free rides here -- no work, no eat.Ed Darrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10056539160596825210noreply@blogger.com