That's in the first amendment?

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Yea, Reynolds v. US in 1878.

[aurik]

Hence why the mormons all moved to utah: they thought they could establish a state which could effectively establish the mormon religion. Didn't quite work out the way they planned.

[zoobernut]

I ran across this article and it made me chuckle. Not commenting on the website or how truthful the article is.

http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo...person-yet.php

[Olo401]

While we're on the subject of free speech (and I suppose the right to privacy), I hear Clarence Thomas' teabagger-queen-of-a-wife got what she wanted..

http://static.someecards.com.s3.amaz...53_8726919.png

[Demosthenes11]

As long as they teach both sides, I could care less.

what the hell is both sides. Creationism is wrong; intelligent design has about as much evidence as me being a demi-god. You want them to teach both sides of...everything?
"Class, this is the periodic table" *1 month of teaching about the periodic table*
"Ok, many also believe the periodic table to be a cryptic message from the devil" *1 month of teaching of this*

You really can't be serious.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

I'm not gonna debate religion.

[Correction]

Teach the controversy! http://controversy.wearscience.com/

[Atreides]

"it's okay if they teach both sides as long as one of those sides isn't islam!"

[kuronosan]

Yea, I was actually about to bring that to the table. What you're failing to see Swamp, is that these people talking about the Establishment Clause are not talking about it in the context of keeping religion out of government affairs, they are talking about keeping Christianity IN them. As in, if we make any choices, they should be based on Christian ideals and that if any religion or intelligent design is taught in school, it should be Christian because we are a "Christian" nation.

However that may be, that is completely against the Establishment Clause, which specifically states:

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.

Which, logically interpreted, means no law can be made which puts any religion in the limelight. They won't prohibit people from practicing it or promoting it, but the government can play no role in passing laws which will interfere with religion or allow religion to interfere in government. It doesn't say "separation of church and state" but it clearly shows the first amendment's role was to prevent religious ideas from interfering with the progress of the nation (which is what happened in England during the time of the revolution).

So what does this mean? Well, there are already people talking about taking Islam out of textbooks, establishing "Christianity" as the national religion of the US, and forcing schools to teach intelligent design (obviously from a Christian perspective as they want Christ and biblical stuff in textbooks alongside true science). All of this is particularly unconstitutional.

Lastly, I agree with most who say that teaching Science alongside Intelligent Design is practically forcing religion down their throats, which is also unconstitutional. School is for education. If you want to be educated about religion, take your children to Church, as that is what Church is for. Arguing that it needs to be integrated in the school is pushing an agenda that doesn't need to be pushed.

[Rhinox]

I ran across this article and it made me chuckle. Not commenting on the website or how truthful the article is.

http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo...person-yet.php

pretty reputable site.

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201010200013

for the audio of it.

[zoobernut]

pretty reputable site.

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201010200013

for the audio of it.

Good to know thanks for finding that.

[Ksandra]

Lastly, I agree with most who say that teaching Science alongside Intelligent Design is practically forcing religion down their throats, which is also unconstitutional. School is for education. If you want to be educated about religion, take your children to Church, as that is what Church is for. Arguing that it needs to be integrated in the school is pushing an agenda that doesn't need to be pushed.

I agree 100% on this but you guys are actually bringing up the problem (that I see). First off science is not religion (duh) and evolution is not religion (also duh). With the way you (general you) are interpreting things, it would be constitutional if it was passed that science was to be completely removed from the schools and instead each and every religion was taught with equal amount of time in an unbiased way. Because the law the way it's written is protecting religion from other religions, but that doesn't protect science from religion. Which is something that needs to be protected.



Obviously as you guys are pointed out, these people are only in it for the "christian views" rather than every religion. But the theory of my point still stands imo.

[kuronosan]

Well, yea. I'm not arguing that science doesn't need to be protected. I'm just pointing out that the people who are wanting integration of religion in everything really just want to suppress everything but Christianity and force everyone (from any religion) to learn it, commit to it, and lay their lives down for it. It's sickening, because while religion should be protected, it is unconstitutional to force any one religion on any citizen of the country. You're free to believe what you will, but you are not free to force someone else to believe it.

Secondly, I don't think religion should all be taught equally. I actually disagree with that. I think religious history has a place in education, as it is deeply routed in ancient and modern cultures and should be taught to students. What I don't think should be taught is that some deity designed us as an equal fact that we evolved from amino acids and peptide chains. I don't think we should be teaching about the miracles of Jesus or the powers of Mohammed or the smiting of Sodom and Gomorrah. Those are religious stories that should remain in religious books. Leave those to Theologians or Religious/Parochial schools.

[Ksandra]

well I wasn't saying you were I was just referring to the basic loophole in the amendment. I quoted you because I agree, and most religious people forget, church is a great place to teach religion so it is somewhat unnecessary in schools.

[kuronosan]

I know. I was just clarifying my point. Sorry. :D

[Atreides]

not to mention the fact that curriculum isn't even decided at the federal level lol

[Tristam]

not to mention the fact that curriculum isn't even decided at the federal level lol

Exactly, I think a state could leave out evolution entirely, and would the gov't be able to do anything about it? Of course those schools would be severely handicapping their students, but it would be legal correct?

But if you put ID or creationism in either as a substitute or as a competition, then you're thrusting a single religion into class. The establishment clause is very clear, coincidentally I'm reading a biography about Jefferson now, it's amazing how carefully they tried to bargain and think and resolve every single phrase in whatever system of gov't he was in from even before the revolutionary war. Different times I guess. But yeah Jefferson was freaking brilliant, if he say it means "separation of church and state", that's what it means.

[Ksandra]

not to mention the fact that curriculum isn't even decided at the federal level lol

specifically no, but they do have the Federal Education Standards, which approve state standards. And states encourage to teach to the test so, it's not in the realm of impossibility.

[zoobernut]

not to mention the fact that curriculum isn't even decided at the federal level lol

Don't forget though that public schools are federally funded which is why the conflict exists.

Also what Ksandra said too.

[Atreides]

yeah true, but a bunch of Tea Party candidates are on record saying they want to get rid of the Department of Education entirely, so I'm not sure how any of the shit they propose actually gets funded.