Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.

Texas approves textbooks with Moses as Founding Father

2»

Comments

  • #32
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 28,013 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Turtwig wrote: »
    Yeah, that's what I meant. :p

    (Though obviously I did put that down in words.:) Wasn't meaning to propose a blanket erase.)

    Something like a mod note at the top of the OP. Editing the thread title is awkward there's a character limit. Anyone adept with brevity got any suggestions? :)
    How about:

    Texas approves textboods with Moses as Founding Father [Mod: misconception]

    Or:

    Texas approves textboods with Moses as Founding Father [Mod: allegedly]

    Cryptic, I know, but at least it alerts the reader not to take the header at face value.


  • #33
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,989 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    I'll admit I didn't realise "natures god" was in the declaration of independence, which I suppose makes it more acceptable to stick in the document now, as a historical phrase. Nevertheless, I suspect it was dredged up because it suited the current evangelical agenda, and not because it was ever particularly significant. Its the kind of flowery language that would have been used to fluff up a preamble, before getting into the real nitty grittty.

    Which brings us to separation of church and state. I agree this is something that developed over time as an important principle. Various court rulings etc contributed, similar to the development of civil rights and womens suffrage. But by focusing in on the fact that the principle is not specifically spelled out in their constitution, these people may well be trying to row back on that progress. Or trying to head off any objection to the promotion of Christian religious material by the state of Texas (of which this document itself is an example)

    On the importance of missionaries for projecting state power; for Ireland, maybe. The USA, not so much. Guam is projecting US power because of the US military presence there. Not because there were a few US missionaries there once. Without the military base, very few would have heard of it.

    Social Gospel is like Moses and the 10 commandments. Those elements of Judaeo Christian law that are basic ethics, common to all mankind, are incorporated into modern US law. Not because they were revealed by one particular religion, but because they pre-date most religions, and are common to most religions.

    I would say that the founding fathers of the USA such as Washington and Jefferson drew more on the same philosophies that inspired the French revolution, and perhaps other ideas going back to Plato's republic, which were generally secular philosophies.

    "Social Darwinism" is a favourite catchphrase of Creationists, used as a means to discredit Darwin and evolution. Who has ever described themselves as a social darwinist? Certainly not Darwin.
    Discussing it as part of the syllabus might go like this;

    Teacher; "Social Darwinism"
    Pupil; Eh, what?
    Teacher; "Social Darwinism"
    Pupil; What is it?
    Teacher; Its the proof that Darwin was Hitler's atheist grand-daddy.


  • #34
    PopePalpatine
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,178 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine


    Funnily enough, you could probably attribute the phrase "social Darwinism" to the Republicans' social welfare policy, i.e. "further impoverish them all and let the free market sort them all out".


  • #35
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 38,988 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    recedite wrote: »
    Which brings us to separation of church and state. I agree this is something that developed over time as an important principle. Various court rulings etc contributed, similar to the development of civil rights and womens suffrage. But by focusing in on the fact that the principle is not specifically spelled out in their constitution, these people may well be trying to row back on that progress.

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

    First Amendment.



    Edit:
    This is an issue of interpretation - the wall of separation flows from SC decisions based on the First Amendment - the explicit language of a wall of separation is not there but the principle which gave rise to it is.

    I'm partial to your abracadabra,

    I'm raptured by the joy of it all.



  • #36
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    recedite wrote: »
    Which brings us to separation of church and state. I agree this is something that developed over time as an important principle. Various court rulings etc contributed, similar to the development of civil rights and womens suffrage. But by focusing in on the fact that the principle is not specifically spelled out in their constitution, these people may well be trying to row back on that progress. Or trying to head off any objection to the promotion of Christian religious material by the state of Texas (of which this document itself is an example)

    Actually separation of church and state is explicitly verboten in the 1st Amendment, through the wall of separation clause:
    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion
    No state religion is an explicit separating out of religion and secular spheres. The principle was developed as early as 1878 within the Supreme Court which is the right forum (legally and constitutionally) for developing standards deriving from the constitution (even if, in recent years, they've decided that the best way to uphold the constitution is to use it as toilet paper {see recent rulings on the 2nd amendment, and reintrodcution of Jim Crow, ignoring the 14th}).

    Oh, and "Nature's God" (does that even refer to yhwh?) doesn't appear within the Constitution, but the Declaration of Independence, which was superceded by the Articles of Confederation (the first consititution) and the current constitution.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    recedite wrote: »
    But by focusing in on the fact that the principle is not specifically spelled out in their constitution, these people may well be trying to row back on that progress.
    Where are they focusing on the fact that it is not specifically spelled out in the constitution? The curriculum requirement is that the subject matter should examine the reasons the Founding Fathers protected religious freedom in America and guaranteed its free exercise by saying that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," and compare and contrast this to the phrase, "separation of church and state". It's not focusing on the fact that the principle of separation isn't spelled out; it's requiring a student to examine why there are are constitutional provisions that establish the principle of separation; and what that means in terms of the phrase. There's no directive to point out the phrase separation of church and state doesn't occur in the constitution, and deliberately leading students away from that fact would arguably be very poor education policy. I can't imagine what progress is rowed back on by pointing out the facts of what actually is in the constitution? It's not like if everyone believes really hard that separation of church is a phrase in the constitution it will magically appear.
    recedite wrote: »
    Or trying to head off any objection to the promotion of Christian religious material by the state of Texas (of which this document itself is an example)
    I don't think you've even come close to making the case that the document is any such thing; so far the only case you seem to be making is that some people want to engage in historical revisionism, as they seem very uncomfortable with students being aware of the role religion played in the formation of the USA.
    recedite wrote: »
    On the importance of missionaries for projecting state power; for Ireland, maybe. The USA, not so much. Guam is projecting US power because of the US military presence there. Not because there were a few US missionaries there once. Without the military base, very few would have heard of it.
    I think you're missing the point; it's about history. The document is talking about the role of missionaries in the historical context of United States as a world power between 1898 and 1920. Not about who is 'projecting' power now. And back then, missionaries were a significant feature of Americas' involvement on the world stage.
    recedite wrote: »
    Social Gospel is like Moses and the 10 commandments. Those elements of Judaeo Christian law that are basic ethics, common to all mankind, are incorporated into modern US law. Not because they were revealed by one particular religion, but because they pre-date most religions, and are common to most religions. I would say that the founding fathers of the USA such as Washington and Jefferson drew more on the same philosophies that inspired the French revolution, and perhaps other ideas going back to Plato's republic, which were generally secular philosophies.
    Would you say that's your opinion of what Social Gospel is like? Or just plain uncapitalised social gospel even?
    I'm guessing that (in a curricular context), based on the clue that (as you said) they capitalised the name Social Gospel, they're probably more likely to be talking about the movement in American history by that name. Since they're talking about the history of the United States, I'd suggest that's a safer bet than 'when the Creationists added in some little gem, or a favourite catchphrase, they put it in capitals for extra importance'.
    recedite wrote: »
    "Social Darwinism" is a favourite catchphrase of Creationists, used as a means to discredit Darwin and evolution. Who has ever described themselves as a social darwinist? Certainly not Darwin.
    Yes, some Creationists have used Social Darwinism as a fallacious argument. You surely don't imagine that's the sum of the subject though, do you? The theories themselves, their proponents, and the effect of the ideas on American society is a slightly broader subject than 'a means to discredit Darwin and evolution'. Particularly when you consider it as a historical subject, instead of a contemporary argument, which is the context it's being presented in here?
    recedite wrote: »
    Discussing it as part of the syllabus might go like this;
    Teacher; "Social Darwinism"
    Pupil; Eh, what?
    Teacher; "Social Darwinism"
    Pupil; What is it?
    Teacher; Its the proof that Darwin was Hitler's atheist grand-daddy.
    Sounds like a pretty dreadful teacher, don't you think? I know the American education system isn't highly rated by many Europeans, but I rather imagine it's more likely to go along the lines of:
    Teacher; Social Darwinism is a modern name given to various theories of society that emerged in the United Kingdom, the United States, and Western Europe in the 1870s, and which sought to apply biological concepts of natural selection and survival of the fittest to sociology and politics.
    (he's a lazy teacher and uses wikipedia on his phone a lot, but he does have the amazing ability to speak in hyperlinks).
    Today we're going to discuss how Edward L. Youmans, William Graham Sumner, John Fiske, John W. Burgess, and others developed theories of social evolution as a result of their exposure to the works of Darwin and Spencer, and how their theories were used to support laissez-faire capitalism and political conservatism.
    Pupil; Eh, what?
    Teacher; Listen kid, either read your assignments or join the army, I don't care.
    Pupil; Are you a creationist? I think you're trying to oppress me. My mom says I have a constitutional freedom from religion, and that's what makes my weight genetic. So you can't oppress me.
    Teacher; Those are the words of a President in waiting if ever I heard them. The future of this nation is assured, I can retire now.


  • #38
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,989 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    Absolam wrote: »
    Yes, some Creationists have used Social Darwinism as a fallacious argument. You surely don't imagine that's the sum of the subject though, do you? The theories themselves, their proponents, and the effect of the ideas on American society is a slightly broader subject than 'a means to discredit Darwin and evolution'. Particularly when you consider it as a historical subject, instead of a contemporary argument, which is the context it's being presented in here?
    Can you tell me who these proponents are?
    There have always been groups of people or tribes who sought to dominate other tribes and take their resources. One tribe goes extinct, the other expands. Or one class or caste dominates the others. We don't need a theory to explain that, nor do we need to conflate it with Darwins theory of evolution, which sought to discover and explain the biological mechanisms of the evolution of different species.
    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    Huh?
    First Amendment.
    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
    An established religion is one that is officially backed by the State. Arguably there is difference between not having an established state religion (such as the COE in the UK who have ex officio representatives in Parliament) and on the other hand enforcing a complete separation between church and state. In this grey area between the two, it might be argued by a creationist state governor that handing out christian literature in a public school is justified, or inflating the importance of Moses in the founding of the USA was perfectly acceptable. The governor might justify this on historical "christian heritage" grounds, in the absence of a specific law preventing it.
    So we see the inevitable recourse then is for atheists and minor religions to support the likes of "satanists" to have equal exposure in schools, until the majority decides they would rather have no religion at all supported than tolerate "that sort of thing".

    What I am saying is, there is a difference between allowing the state to endow all religions equally, and saying it cannot endow any. Even though both result in equal treatment for all religions.

    A similar constitutional issue pertains here in Ireland, which has been exploited much more successfully by the dominant religions. Probably because our courts have tended to come down on the side of the religious when interpreting any ambiguity in the wording, whereas in the USA the courts have tended more towards the complete separation of church and state. France springs to mind as a country that enforces a complete separation of church and state, in that no religion is facilitated by the State, but all are tolerated.


  • #39
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    recedite wrote: »
    Can you tell me who these proponents are?
    Assuming you mean were rather than are , is the list from the erudite teacher in my post not suitable?
    recedite wrote: »
    There have always been groups of people or tribes who sought to dominate other tribes and take their resources. One tribe goes extinct, the other expands. Or one class or caste dominates the others. We don't need a theory to explain that, nor do we need to conflate it with Darwins theory of evolution, which sought to discover and explain the biological mechanisms of the evolution of different species.
    That's interesting. But how would you apply it to an analysis of the causes and effects of Social Darwinism in American history?
    recedite wrote: »
    An established religion is one that is officially backed by the State.
    Aren't you rather grasping at straws? An established religion is also one that has succesfully subsisted for some time. It is a religion that has been founded, a religion that has been instituted, or built, or brought into being on a firm or stable basis. But what does it matter what an established religion is?
    The provision is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion", and realistically no one is going to claim that means Congress cannot establish a religion anymore; the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that the Establishment Clause prohibits more than the establishment of a state religion. It is commonly held to mean that Congress cannot pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another.
    recedite wrote: »
    Arguably there is difference between not having an established state religion (such as the COE in the UK who have ex officio representatives in Parliament) and on the other hand enforcing a complete separation between church and state. In this grey area between the two, it might be argued by a creationist state governor that handing out christian literature in a public school is justified, or inflating the importance of Moses in the founding of the USA was perfectly acceptable. The governor might justify this on historical "christian heritage" grounds, in the absence of a specific law preventing it.
    Arguably; do you think that might be why 'they' created a curriculum that requires a student to examine the reasons the Founding Fathers protected religious freedom in America and guaranteed its free exercise by saying that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," and compare and contrast this to the phrase, "separation of church and state? It seems to me such an examination would reveal the difference between the two, and lead to a discussion (and potential understanding) of federal jurisprudence which has qualified the subject since. Such a student would then be sufficiently educated to discern the legalities of the permissibility of handing out christian literature, or the pernicious advancement of antitheist agendas at the expense of factual history.
    recedite wrote: »
    So we see the inevitable recourse then is for atheists and minor religions to support the likes of "satanists" to have equal exposure in schools, until the majority decides they would rather have no religion at all supported than tolerate "that sort of thing".
    Actually, that is more relevant in discussing the 2nd provision; that Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion.
    recedite wrote: »
    What I am saying is, there is a difference between allowing the state to endow all religions equally, and saying it cannot endow any. Even though both result in equal treatment for all religions.
    I really don't think you should muddy the argument what what you imagine endowment could mean. The first Amendment doesn't speak of endowing religion at all. Regardless, the US Supreme Court has held (Everson v. Board of Education (1947)) that aiding all religions is no more permitted by the Amendment than aiding one religion.
    recedite wrote: »
    A similar constitutional issue pertains here in Ireland, which has been exploited much more successfully by the dominant religions. Probably because our courts have tended to come down on the side of the religious when interpreting any ambiguity in the wording, whereas in the USA the courts have tended more towards the complete separation of church and state.
    That really is only the case if you imagine that there is ambiguity in the word 'endow'. Once you realise that the courts and english speaking world at large accept a dictionary definition of the word, rather than your personal construal, its use in the Constitution, clearly doesn't allow and hasn't facilitated any exploitation by religions. Not an argument I expect you to give up, but I'd suggest it's not one that relates to the US history curriculum either.


    Anyways, after all that, you seem to be drifting from your assertion that by focusing in on the fact that the principle of separation of church and state is not specifically spelled out in their constitution, these people may well be trying to row back on that progress.
    Perhaps you'd like to explain how exactly 'they' are focusing on this fact, and what progress you imagine 'these people' are trying to row back on?


  • #40
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 38,988 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Absolam wrote: »
    Aren't you rather grasping at straws? An established religion is also one that has succesfully subsisted for some time. It is a religion that has been founded, a religion that has been instituted, or built, or brought into being on a firm or stable basis. But what does it matter what an established religion is?

    recedite isn't grasping at straws. There is a specific meaning for 'established church'.

    Both the Church of Ireland and the Church of England meet all the criteria above, but only the CoE is an established church - the CoI was disestablished in 1871.

    It is notable that opposition to disestablishment has given rise to one of the longest words in the English language :)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antidisestablishmentarianism


    The provision is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion", and realistically no one is going to claim that means Congress cannot establish a religion anymore; the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that the Establishment Clause prohibits more than the establishment of a state religion. It is commonly held to mean that Congress cannot pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another.
    Anyways, after all that, you seem to be drifting from your assertion that by focusing in on the fact that the principle of separation of church and state is not specifically spelled out in their constitution, these people may well be trying to row back on that progress.
    Perhaps you'd like to explain how exactly 'they' are focusing on this fact, and what progress you imagine 'these people' are trying to row back on?

    You said it yourself above. The constitution of the US states that Congress may not establish a religion, the Supreme Court has interpreted this to enforce a wall of separation between churches and state.
    As we all know, the make up of the US Supreme Court depends on who is in power at the time vacancies arise (Obama has been extremely unlucky in this regard) and it's not impossible that a future Supreme Court packed with religious conservatives might come to quite a different interpretation of the implications of the Establishment Clause with regard to separation of churches and state.

    I'm partial to your abracadabra,

    I'm raptured by the joy of it all.



  • #41
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    As we all know, the make up of the US Supreme Court depends on who is in power at the time vacancies arise (Obama has been extremely unlucky in this regard) and it's not impossible that a future Supreme Court packed with religious conservatives might come to quite a different interpretation of the implications of the Establishment Clause with regard to separation of churches and state.

    Actually, as far as I can see it is very hard for a Supreme Court to overturn previous rulings of Supreme Courts on constitutional matters. Under the principle of stare decisis (tr: to stand by what is decided) which the US judicial system adheres to, it is extremely hard to overturn previous rulings, meaning there are only two effective options:
    1) Change the constitution (which is pretty hard 3/4 of the 50 states have to pass the amendment).
    2) The court can overrule itself. This generally happens only after a long delay, because the usual reason for the overruling is that there is a significant societal shift so that the previous ruling is either no longer valid or contrary to the rule of law.

    While it could happen, there would have to be a significant shift in the polity of the US for it to happen with the "wall of separation" clause, such that, IMO, an effective theocracy would have to be set up prior to the decisions being reversed.


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    recedite isn't grasping at straws. There is a specific meaning for 'established church'.
    Well, offering his own definition of what an 'established religion' is to try to counter the notion that 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion' is a foundation for the separation of church and state seems pretty straw grasping to me.....; whatever definition you choose for 'established church' (and I note you are taking a step further away from 'established religion' with the word 'church') isn't all that synonymous with 'an establishment of religion' which is different to both an 'established religion' and an 'established church'.
    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    You said it yourself above. The constitution of the US states that Congress may not establish a religion, the Supreme Court has interpreted this to enforce a wall of separation between churches and state.
    Actually, what I said was
    Absolam wrote: »
    realistically no one is going to claim that means Congress cannot establish a religion anymore; the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that the Establishment Clause prohibits more than the establishment of a state religion.
    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    As we all know, the make up of the US Supreme Court depends on who is in power at the time vacancies arise (Obama has been extremely unlucky in this regard) and it's not impossible that a future Supreme Court packed with religious conservatives might come to quite a different interpretation of the implications of the Establishment Clause with regard to separation of churches and state.
    Except of course that previous Supreme Court decisions cannot be overturned unless;
    Congress changes the law and invalidates the decision (which in this case would require changing the First Amendment).
    The SC rules on a new case which invalidates the previous decision. That's not impossible, but it is very unlikely that even the most fundamentalist Judges ever to sit on the SC since the Founding Fathers themselves would have a hard time 'interpreting' the language in such a way that the separation of church and state could not be seen as the intention.

    All of the above, I imagine, is exactly the kind of critical thought the writers intended to provoke when they stipulated that the curriculum should include an examination of the reasons the Founding Fathers protected religious freedom in America and guaranteed its free exercise by saying that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," and a comparison and contrast of this to the phrase, "separation of church and state."
    I still don't see how actually teaching students about this can perniciously seek to undermine the separation of church and state.


  • #43
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,989 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    Absolam wrote: »
    Actually, that is more relevant in discussing the 2nd provision; that Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion.
    Nobody was prohibiting the satanists from practicing their religion, so the 2nd provision is not relevant to what they are doing now.
    They have successfully argued their case to put a "happy holidays" crib styled shrine in a state capitol building, and satanist colouring books in schools. They cannot be stopped from doing these things because christian sects are already doing the same.

    Absolam wrote: »
    I really don't think you should muddy the argument what what you imagine endowment could mean. The first Amendment doesn't speak of endowing religion at all. Regardless, the US Supreme Court has held (Everson v. Board of Education (1947)) that aiding all religions is no more permitted by the Amendment than aiding one religion.That really is only the case if you imagine that there is ambiguity in the word 'endow'. Once you realise that the courts and english speaking world at large accept a dictionary definition of the word, rather than your personal construal...
    The basic constitutional provisions in the US and in Ireland are quite similar, but how society and/or the courts have interpreted them is different. The word "endow" is mentioned in the Irish constitution and "establishment" of a church is in the US text, but IMO the meaning, or the effect of it, would be similar.
    That US case you linked to is a really good example. Taxpayers money was being spent on transportation costs for a religious owned school (not even on funding the school itself). The US courts stopped the practice. In the normal use of the English language, the state was "endowing" or subsidising the school.
    Yet here in Ireland, where the State is not allowed to "endow" a religion, it would be perfectly normal for the state to fund a bus to a religious school, as well as funding the school itself, and even some staff whose main function is to promote religion. In an Irish Supreme Court case,[FONT=Times New Roman, serif][FONT=Arial, sans-serif] "Campaign to Separate Church and State Ltd v Minister for Education[/FONT][/FONT] 1998" the plaintiff complained that when the State paid the salaries of school chaplains (priests) it was endowing the religion. The court ruled against the plaintiff.

    Why the difference in interpretation? IMO the courts represent society to certain extent. In the USA there are many religions and many ethnic groups. If any one group was favoured they would only be in the minority, and the majority population of the various others would mobilise against them.
    In Ireland we are less diverse, and so we are far more susceptible to "the tyranny of the majority".


  • #44
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,989 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    Absolam wrote: »
    Well, offering his own definition of what an 'established religion' is to try to counter the notion that 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion' is a foundation for the separation of church and state seems pretty straw grasping to me.....;
    Look, you have already been politely corrected on this. You didn't understand what the phrase means. Now you have been told, yet you still persist in your wrongness, and also you attempt to insult me while doing it.

    Here's what happened to the CoI when it was disestablished in Ireland, and was no longer the state backed religion. Being the religion of a minority, it found itself in an untenable position. Perhaps the CoE is now effectively in that same position.


  • #45
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    recedite wrote: »
    Nobody was prohibiting the satanists from practicing their religion, so the 2nd provision is not relevant to what they are doing now.
    Ah now... 'exercising' isn't 'practicing' is it? We surely need less muddying, not more..
    recedite wrote: »
    They have successfully argued their case to put a "happy holidays" crib styled shrine in a state capitol building, and satanist colouring books in schools. They cannot be stopped from doing these things because christian sects are already doing the same.
    Well, they cannot be stopped from doing so because they cannot be prohibited from freely exercising their religion, just like the christian sects who do the same. Hence 2nd provision. The first provision would be relevant if the state were aiding the satanist religion, or aiding the christian religion, or aiding both.
    recedite wrote: »
    The basic constitutional provisions in the US and in Ireland are quite similar, but how society and/or the courts have interpreted them is different.
    To be clear;
    The Irish Constitution prohibits the State from endowing religion, and the US Constitution does not.
    The US Constitution prohibits Congress from making a law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, and the Irish Constitution does not.
    I don't think that society and the courts are interpreting similar things differently here; they are quite manifestly different things.
    recedite wrote: »
    The word "endow" is mentioned in the Irish constitution and "establishment" of a church is in the US text, but IMO the meaning, or the effect of it, would be similar.
    It's an interesting opinion, but I daresay a fairly singular one. Leaving aside that on the one hand you say the effect of these is similar, and on the other hand you say that both society and the courts have interpreted them differently (thereby creating different effects), why don't you show us the Supreme Court jurisprudence from both States that demonstrates how each provision has been tested and resulted in the same judgements?
    recedite wrote: »
    That US case you linked to is a really good example. Taxpayers money was being spent on transportation costs for a religious owned school (not even on funding the school itself). The US courts stopped the practice. In the normal use of the English language, the state was "endowing" or subsidising the school.
    Hmm. You know the SC ruled against Everson in the case, and the funding was upheld, don't you? I think you chose a poor example for your assertion.
    Did the SC rule that the school was being endowed? More specifically, did they rule that it was an endowment of religion and prohibited by the Constitution? I don't think they did. Firstly it was parents being reimbursed; not the school (or the religion). The court didn't say that any religion was being endowed by the reimbursement, it said that the reimbursement aided the children in a substantial way to secure religious training and teaching, but that this did not violate the constitution because it was separate and so indisputably marked off from the religious function. So whilst they weren't at all concerned with whether the State was unconstitutionally endowing a religion, they did decide that providing state financial aid to students receiving religious education did not violate the First Amendment (as binding on the State via the Fourteenth Amendment), which (effectively) prohibits State aid to religions.
    BY the way, endow also has a different meaning to subsidise. Though subsidise didn't apply (with regards to the school) either.
    recedite wrote: »
    Yet here in Ireland, where the State is not allowed to "endow" a religion, it would be perfectly normal for the state to fund a bus to a religious school, as well as funding the school itself, and even some staff whose main function is to promote religion. In an Irish Supreme Court case,"Campaign to Separate Church and State Ltd v Minister for Education 1998" the plaintiff complained that when the State paid the salaries of school chaplains (priests) it was endowing the religion. The court ruled against the plaintiff.
    Well firstly, I need to challenge your assertion that a chaplains 'main function is to promote religion'. Would you like to post a link to the chaplains job description where this must surely be right at the top if what you're saying is true?
    Secondly, the SC ruled that the principle of non-endowment of religion found in Article 44.2.2 does not prohibit state funding of denominational schools. Do you think that maybe your interpretation of the word 'endow' might actually be at fault?
    recedite wrote: »
    Why the difference in interpretation? IMO the courts represent society to certain extent.
    I'm going to go out on a limb and say there was no difference in interpretation whatsoever. Both Supreme Courts ruled on completely different constitutional provisions in completely different jurisdictions.


  • #46
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    recedite wrote: »
    Look, you have already been politely corrected on this. You didn't understand what the phrase means. Now you have been told, yet you still persist in your wrongness, and also you attempt to insult me while doing it.
    Really? You offered a definition of an established religion.
    I offered a number of others.
    Hotblack Desiato offered a definition of antidisestablishmentarianism, which is relevant to the concept of an 'established church' in the United Kingdom.
    I pointed out that offering your own definition of what an 'established religion' is in order to try to counter the notion that 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion' is a foundation for the separation of church and state seems pretty straw grasping to me.
    So, which phrase do you think I don't understand? 'An establishment of religion', 'established religion', or 'established church'? After that we can talk about your argument.
    recedite wrote: »
    Here's what happened to the CoI when it was disestablished in Ireland, and was no longer the state backed religion. Being the religion of a minority, it found itself in an untenable position. Perhaps the CoE is now effectively in that same position.
    Fascinating. And it is relevant to Congress making no law respecting an establishment of religion not being a foundation for the separation of church and state how?


  • #47
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 28,013 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    The phrase “wall of separation between church and state” is Thomas Jefferson’s. It appears in a letter he wrote in 1802 (when he was President of the US); he uses it to explain the effect of the non-establishment and free exercise clauses in the First Amendment. (The First Amendment had been in force for about ten years at that point.) And Jefferson’s phrase has been explicitly adopted by the US Supreme Court in rulings on the question. So, as far as US constitutional law goes, there is no gap or “grey area” between the First Amendment and the separation of church and state; the latter is simply the consequence or effect of the former.

    As far as political theory or critical history goes, of course, you can make a distinction. You can argue that the first amendment doesn’t achieve a true separation of church and state. People who object to, e.g., the words “under God” in the pledge of allegiance, or the words “In God We Trust” on US coinage (both of which the Supreme Court has authoritatively endorsed as consistent with the First Amendment) will often make this argument, as will people who object to, e.g., educational spending which might find its way to religious schools (like the school bus issue already mentioned).

    In short, arguing that the First Amendment falls short of achieving separation of church and state and accordingly that the US doesn’t have full separation of church and state, isn’t solely the preserve of creationists; you’re just as likely - in fact, more likely - to find that argument being advanced by progressives in the US.

    Either way, it’s a legitimate subject for inclusion in an American history syllabus; to what extent does the American polity give effect to the enlightenmen principles that inspire it? I honestly think recedite is jumping at shadows in detecting the hands of the creationists here. It’s noteworthy that the advocacy groups who have objected to other elements of the syllabus from a progressive standpoint haven’t, so far as I am aware, taken exception to this bit.


  • #48
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,989 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    The satanists (or perhaps the secularists, acting by proxy) are doing more than "practicing their religion" they are setting out their stall in state buildings and schools. Allowing the use of state property for this purpose is a (small) breach of the separation between church and state. It would not be tolerated in France.

    There is rarely 100% separation anywhere. There are degrees of separation.
    At the bottom of the scale, a situation such as we had in 19th C Ireland in which people were forced to pay tithes to support an established religion which very few even agreed with. This is undoubtedly the principle type of injustice which both the US and Irish constitutions sought to prevent.

    Then, much further up is the modern UK; technically the monarch is still head of an established church, but in practice it has evolved into a parliamentary democracy with strong equal rights legislation, and with the CoE reps in the House of Lords having little or no real power left.

    In the middle ground, Ireland, which funds religious indoctrination through the schools, justified on the grounds that it will fund all religions equally.

    The US is a bit further up the scale; they will not fund any religion directly, but have been willing to indirectly facilitate the main religions, by giving them access to public buildings and helping with school transport. Now that same policy is coming back to bite them, because the satanists are asking to be facilitated in the same way.

    Then you have France, which would be invulnerable to this strategy of the satanists, because they have not been facilitating the main religions by granting the free use of publicly owned buildings and schools. On the other hand, France is sometimes criticised for being overly restrictive, by refusing to allow pupils in state schools to wear any "conspicuous" religious gear, such as headscarves.

    Jefferson himself was a complex character. He was probably more aware than most of his contemporaries that there was more to "the separation of church and state" than merely preventing the establishment of a state endowed religion. But he could only go so far with his own ideas, bearing in mind that the vast majority of citizens were extremely religious at the time.
    He was also very keen that private banks would not control the money supply as they did in Europe.
    I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies.” – Thomas Jefferson
    Unfortunately the US ceded control of the money supply to the Federal Reserve in 1913, which is a private/public conglomerate.
    Also he was a major slave owner, which complicates his idea of liberty.
    It would be interesting to guess (but impossible to know) which changes to US society he would be most happy with, and which he would most object to.


  • #49
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    recedite wrote: »
    The satanists (or perhaps the secularists, acting by proxy) are doing more than "practicing their religion" they are setting out their stall in state buildings and schools. Allowing the use of state property for this purpose is a (small) breach of the separation between church and state. It would not be tolerated in France.
    Wasn't it 'exercising' rather than 'practicing'? And were they actually setting out stalls? Or did they simply say they intend to distribute materials in the coming school year? As part of the passive distribution policy of the school board perhaps? Leaving aside the (rather substantial) difference, the passive dissemination of religious material is (currently) permitted by the Florida school board. Are you saying that such permission is in your opinion a breach of the separation of church and state, or that such a permission is in fact illegal in the US? My suspicion is that, given the obviously litigious nature of the participants in this particular situation, if anyone imagined for a moment that this dissemination was foul of the legal separation of church and state, a court case would already be in full swing. If, however, it's just your 'interpretation' of what the separation of church and state should mean, that's obviously a different thing from the historical separation in the US.
    And... how is that relevant to Congress making no law respecting an establishment of religion not being a foundation for the separation of church and state?
    recedite wrote: »
    In the middle ground, Ireland, which funds religious indoctrination through the schools, justified on the grounds that it will fund all religions equally.
    Tut tut. Hardly a factual statement, now is it? Ireland has neither said that it funds religious indoctrination, nor that it funds all religions equally. That would be your 'interpretation' again.
    recedite wrote: »
    The US is a bit further up the scale; they will not fund any religion directly, but have been willing to indirectly facilitate the main religions, by giving them access to public buildings and helping with school transport. Now that same policy is coming back to bite them, because the satanists are asking to be facilitated in the same way.
    Gosh, you changed that tune without even a blush! You've gone from 'the US Courts stopped that practice' to 'have been willing to indirectly facilitate the main religions' without a pause... bravo!!
    But.. the Satanists aren't asking to be facilitated in the same way. Nor has anyone stopped them doing what they've said they're going to do either (yet).
    recedite wrote: »
    Jefferson himself was a complex character. It would be interesting (but impossible) to speculate on which changes to US society he would be most happy with, and which he would most object to.
    Of course it would be even more difficult to speculate if pupils weren't encouraged to examine the reasons the Founding Fathers protected religious freedom in America and guaranteed its free exercise by saying that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," and compare and contrast this to the phrase, "separation of church and state.". Because then students wouldn't have the facts to hand that would inform their speculation.


  • #50
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 28,013 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    I don't think the question of different notions of separation of church and state is a simple line from "most separate" to "less separate"; it's a bit more nuanced than that. As you rightly say, religious groups can be given access to public schools in the US, whicih would not happen in France. On the other hand, France provides public money to church schools, which doesn't happen in the US. So in which country are church and state more separate? It's not the case the France takes separation of church and state more seriously than the US, or vice versa; it's that they have differing conceptions of exactly what that means, or should mean.

    I think it's a mistake - or, at any rate, it's not the whole truth - that the US founding fathers' motivation for favouring church and state was to avoid injustices like people being compelled by law to pay tithes to a church that they did not belong to. In fact a large part of their motivation was to secure the freedom of churches from state influence and interference. Many of the US colonies had been settled by people who left England because they didn't like the way the state was directing and controlling the church. ("Too Romish.") They didn't at first object to the principle of state control; just to the particular way it was exercised. But over time they came to a realisation that state control over churches was always liable to be abused, and that state support for churches was inherently corrupting of the purity of the church. Hence the attraction of the separation of church and state was that it would secure the freedom of the churches from state intervention. When Jefferson wrote his famous "wall of separation between church and state letter", he was in fact writing to the Danbury Baptist Association who were concerned that the State of Connecticut, which didn't at the time have a freedom of religion clause in its constitution, was minded to take the view that freedom of religion was a matter of policy, not fundamental principle, and that their freedom was dependent on continued political goodwill towards them. With his "wall of separation" comment Jefferson was not seeking to marginalise them or to exclude them from the public square or confine them to particular areas or activities, but to reassure them that the federal government would do no such thing.

    With that background, separation of church and state in the US is obviously going to play out with a strong emphasis on religious liberty, and the rights of churches to conduct their affairs free from state intervention. That's why, e.g., equal opportunities legislation often contains carve-outs for churches, synagogues etc; the non-establishment clause prevents the state from directing the affairs of churches, because establishment isn't confined to the payment of money; it includes assuming control over church affairs and church government.

    France doesn't have the same historical background; hence separation of church and state plays out differently there. The French have no compunction about funding religious schools; nobody is obliged either legally or practically to attend such a school, and funding them does not infringe anybody's religious liberty. State aid to churches is not a problem; it's built into the system. All church buildings in France erected before 1905 in fact belong to the state, and are provided by the state to churches for use in public worship. How very un-American! :)


  • #51
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,989 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    Absolam wrote: »
    Wasn't it 'exercising' rather than 'practicing'?
    Whats the difference?
    Absolam wrote: »
    And were they actually setting out stalls? Or did they simply say they intend to distribute materials in the coming school year?
    Both of the above. The stall will be set out over the Christmas period in the Florida State Capitol building
    ...the Satanic Temple's display (described as "an angel falling into a pit of fire") will take its place under the rotunda December 22-29. Horns up for the First Amendment.
    source
    Absolam wrote: »
    the passive dissemination of religious material is (currently) permitted by the Florida school board. Are you saying that such permission is in your opinion a breach of the separation of church and state, or that such a permission is in fact illegal in the US?
    I'm saying its a breach of the notional "wall of separation between church and state" which I contend is quite an ill defined and porous wall, and therefore a breach is not necessarily illegal.
    Absolam wrote: »
    And... how is that relevant to Congress making no law respecting an establishment of religion not being a foundation for the separation of church and state?
    The two are not quite the same thing. I agree the former is a foundation for the latter, but the building of this wall of separation is an ongoing project. And there are those, such as the creationists, who want to dismantle the wall as quickly as others are building it.
    Absolam wrote: »
    Gosh, you changed that tune without even a blush! You've gone from 'the US Courts stopped that practice' to 'have been willing to indirectly facilitate the main religions' without a pause... bravo!!
    I'm happy to admit I misunderstood the verdict at first. From what I can see, it was something of a pyrrhic victory anyway, because it only scraped through with a 5:4 majority, and that was back in the arch conservative times of 1947. And as a result of the close vote, it spurred numerous other cases pushing a secular agenda. If the same case had been heard more recently, the majority vote might have gone the other way.

    Absolam wrote: »
    Of course it would be even more difficult to speculate if pupils weren't encouraged to examine the reasons the Founding Fathers protected religious freedom in America and guaranteed its free exercise by saying that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," and compare and contrast this to the phrase, "separation of church and state."
    Yes, there is a value to the debate itself. But as with most debates, there is a side that seeks to use the debate to further its own agenda. That agenda is to water down the separation between church and state, and to promote the idea that the separation only ever applied to federal govt. According to this theory, individual states (and they always seem to be the southern states) are free at state level to promote the religion associated with their heritage, and the federal govt cannot interfere with them.
    IMO its not altogether different to the notion they put out in the 1960's Alabama when the governor had state troopers out in force to prevent black students attending a whites only college. Kennedy had to federalise the National Guard and deploy them (in opposition to the state police) in order to show the governor who was boss.

    Peregrinus thinks I am jumping at shadows; well maybe, but maybe not. Here's an example of the agenda I refer to.
    Peregrinus wrote: »
    I don't think the question of different notions of separation of church and state is a simple line from "most separate" to "less separate"..
    I didn't say it was a simple line, but as your post illustrates, it is something of a grey area, with various shades to be seen in different countries.


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    recedite wrote: »
    Whats the difference?
    Do you mean apart from them being two different words with different meanings? Well, in the current context, the free exercise of religion is protected by the 1st amendment. The free practice of religion isn't. To sidestep your own special 'interpretation' of the words as being the same, the US SC ruled fairly early on that the Free Exercise Clause protects religious beliefs, not religious practices that run counter to neutrally enforced criminal laws.
    recedite wrote: »
    Both of the above. The stall will be set out over the Christmas period in the Florida State Capitol building source[/URL]
    Aw now... that's really bold! I don't think a statue actually qualifies as 'a stall', and I'm certain that that haven't actually set one out yet; only that they intend to, as your source points out.
    And... how is that relevant to Congress making no law respecting an establishment of religion not being a foundation for the separation of church and state?
    recedite wrote: »
    I'm saying its a breach of the notional "wall of separation between church and state" which I contend is quite an ill defined and porous wall, and therefore a breach is not necessarily illegal.
    When you say the notional wall... do you think you mean your notional wall, rather than, say, the notional wall as accepted by the US Government?
    Still... how is that relevant to Congress making no law respecting an establishment of religion not being a foundation for the separation of church and state?
    recedite wrote: »
    The two are not quite the same thing. I agree the former is a foundation for the latter, but the building of this wall of separation is an ongoing project. And there are those, such as the creationists, who want to dismantle the wall as quickly as others are building it.
    Which two are not the same thing? No one has claimed that the First Amendment and the Separation of Church and State are the same thing; in fact, the curricular requirement was that students must examine the reasons the Founding Fathers protected religious freedom in America and guaranteed its free exercise by saying that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," and compare and contrast this to the phrase, "separation of church and state.", which fairly clearly shows they are different things. It was your contention that such an examination is a quite easily spotted input from Creationists, perniciously seeking to undermine the separation of church and state..
    So far you've given us nothing to support either part of that allegation... just a lot of broad 'interpretation' of the activities of satanists and such.
    recedite wrote: »
    I'm happy to admit I misunderstood the verdict at first. From what I can see, it was something of a pyrrhic victory anyway, because it only scraped through with a 5:4 majority, and that was back in the arch conservative times of 1947. And as a result of the close vote, it spurred numerous other cases pushing a secular agenda. If the same case had been heard more recently, the majority vote might have gone the other way.
    Ah well, if we're talking about might, the revolution might have failed, the founding fathers might all have become ardent royalists, and America might still be a British colony.
    Might is not terribly useful in teaching a history curriculum.
    recedite wrote: »
    Yes, there is a value to the debate itself. But as with most debates, there is a side that seeks to use the debate to further its own agenda. That agenda is to water down the separation between church and state, and to promote the idea that the separation only ever applied to federal govt.
    So far the only agenda that seems to be getting pushed is one that wants to decry religious influences in history though? All the 'obvious' Creationist input you've pointed out in the curriculum has turned out to be no such thing, so there seems to be only one agenda in play here....
    For instance you're now claiming that someone's trying to promote the idea that the separation only ever applied to federal govt. Was that in the curriculum we looked at? Or are you casting about for new arguments?
    recedite wrote: »
    IMO its not altogether different to <...> boss.
    Fascinating (again), but how is it relevant to the proposed curricular changes?
    recedite wrote: »
    Peregrinus thinks I am jumping at shadows; well maybe, but maybe not. Here's an example of the agenda I refer to.
    You know, I can't see anything in there saying things they don't like shouldn't be included in history lessons. So as agendas go, it seems somewhat less pernicious than others around here....


  • #53
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,989 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    Absolam wrote: »
    No one has claimed that the First Amendment and the Separation of Church and State are the same thing; in fact, the curricular requirement was that students must examine the reasons the Founding Fathers protected religious freedom in America and guaranteed its free exercise by saying that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," and compare and contrast this to the phrase, "separation of church and state.", which fairly clearly shows they are different things. It was your contention that such an examination is a quite easily spotted input from Creationists, perniciously seeking to undermine the separation of church and state..
    Actually a lot of people do think the first amendment and the separation of Church and State are the same thing. This is an issue of interpretation - the wall of separation flows from SC decisions based on the First Amendment - the explicit language of a wall of separation is not there but the principle which gave rise to it is.
    It doesn't help that the language used in the amendment is somewhat antiquated and obtuse; not everyone understands what "established" means in the specific context ;)
    And subsequent Supreme Court cases such as the Everson case (despite it failing) have done much to make "the wall of separation" a more familiar phrase to the general public in the US than the actual wording used in the Constitution.

    A similar situation pertains in the UK, the actual level of separation is much higher than is justified by their (unwritten) constitution. They have evolved.

    It stands to reason then, that the people who are most keen to remind us of this are the people who deplore the loss of (their own) religious influence in the affairs of state.

    The satanists are a bulwark against religious influence, they have done secularists some service in reinforcing the notional wall of separation. The satanists remind the general public what is like to have someone else's religion getting a little too close to "the State" and/or "Government" which are supposed to represent all the people.


  • #54
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,989 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    Absolam wrote: »
    Do you mean apart from them being two different words with different meanings? Well, in the current context, the free exercise of religion is protected by the 1st amendment. The free practice of religion isn't. To sidestep your own special 'interpretation' of the words as being the same, the US SC ruled fairly early on that the Free Exercise Clause protects religious beliefs, not religious practices that run counter to neutrally enforced criminal laws.
    Without getting too bogged down in semantics, the exercise of religion and the practice of religion mean generally the same thing to me, and I suspect to most people.
    Religious practices (being the rituals and acts associated with religion) are slightly different, being a subset of the above. And religious practices that run counter to neutrally enforced criminal laws would be a tiny subset within religious practices.


  • #55
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    recedite wrote: »
    Actually a lot of people do think the first amendment and the separation of Church and State are the same thing. This is an issue of interpretation - the wall of separation flows from SC decisions based on the First Amendment - the explicit language of a wall of separation is not there but the principle which gave rise to it is.
    So... if a lot of people think that they're same thing, then a curriculum which requires students to compare and contrast the First Amendment "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," to the phrase, "separation of church and state", would appear to be would seem to be a good way of disabusing them of the notion? Hardly a pernicious attempt to undermine the separation of church and state as you said.
    recedite wrote: »
    It doesn't help that the language used in the amendment is somewhat antiquated and obtuse; not everyone understands what "established" means in the specific context ;) And subsequent Supreme Court cases such as the Everson case (despite it failing) have done much to make "the wall of separation" a more familiar phrase to the general public in the US than the actual wording used in the Constitution.
    That all seems to be making the case that the curricular inclusion is a good idea (even allowing for mistaking 'established' for 'establishment').
    recedite wrote: »
    A similar situation pertains in the UK, the actual level of separation is much higher than is justified by their (unwritten) constitution. They have evolved.
    So... their (unwritten) first amendment is clearly understood by the public to be separate from the phrase used by Thomas Jefferson? I'm not quite sure what sort of achievement that is? Or how relevant it is to an American history curriculum?
    recedite wrote: »
    It stands to reason then, that the people who are most keen to remind us of this are the people who deplore the loss of (their own) religious influence in the affairs of state.
    I think you've wandered astray there a little. People who deplore the loss of their religious influence in the affairs of state (Who are they? What influence? When did they exert it, and when did they lose it?) are perniciously undermining the separation of church and state by encouraging students to understand the intent and content of the First Amendment, and how it applies to the separation of church and state? How exactly does that make sense?
    recedite wrote: »
    The satanists are a bulwark against religious influence, they have done secularists some service in reinforcing the notional wall of separation. The satanists remind the general public what is like to have someone else's religion getting a little too close to "the State" and/or "Government" which are supposed to represent all the people.
    That's a novel observation, but how is it relevant to Congress making no law respecting an establishment of religion not being a foundation for the separation of church and state?
    recedite wrote: »
    Without getting too bogged down in semantics, the exercise of religion and the practice of religion mean generally the same thing to me, and I suspect to most people.
    Which is fair enough, as long as you remember that whilst you like to be fairly laissez faire with your 'interpretation' of words, it doesn't mean generally the same thing to the US Supreme Court whose job it is to provide the definitive meaning of such things in the context of the US Constitution.
    So when discussing the First Amendment (as you were), the free exercise of religion cannot be considered to be generally the same thing as the free practice of religion.
    Still, whether you imagine they were exercising or practising their religion by intending to passively disseminate religious material or to erect a statue (or that it is 'more' than either to do so), you haven't shown that this is a breach of the separation of church and state in the US, or that this is an the inevitable recourse to an imaginary creationist state governor handing out christian literature, as a potential result of Congress making no law respecting an establishment of religion.


  • #56
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,989 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    Absolam wrote: »
    That all seems to be making the case that the curricular inclusion is a good idea (even allowing for mistaking 'established' for 'establishment').
    I am making no mistake there. But as I said, there is some value in the debate itself, provided the debate covers all the ground, including the various SC cases which advanced the case for a wall of separation, and the changes in public attitudes, and even the contribution of the satanists.
    That's not what they are calling for. They want to go back to the original wording, and ask the question does this really mean the separation of church and state?

    Compare this to the UK, it would be like the Queen demanding that a reminder be included in the school syllabus that she is the boss, above the PM, because she was anointed by God at Westminster Abbey with the divine right to rule, that she is the head of The Church, that the House of Lords with its coterie of Bishops is the Upper house and the House of Commoners is only the lower house etc...
    Why not assert these original rights and privileges?
    Because in the past, when kings of England have put their heads too far above the parapet, they have lost their heads. The English public is amongst the most republican in the world in their attitudes, despite their fondness for royalty. The Scottish and Irish are similar, but with less of a soft spot for royals.

    In the USA those who want to install Moses as a founding father, and generally roll back the separation of (their) Church and the State are trying to work against the tide of human progress.


  • #57
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,989 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    Absolam wrote: »
    Still, whether you imagine they were exercising or practising their religion by intending to passively disseminate religious material or to erect a statue (or that it is 'more' than either to do so), you haven't shown that this is a breach of the separation of church and state in the US, or that this is an the inevitable recourse to an imaginary creationist state governor handing out christian literature, as a potential result of Congress making no law respecting an establishment of religion.
    As you said yourself;
    the US SC ruled fairly early on that the Free Exercise Clause protects religious beliefs, not religious practices that run counter to neutrally enforced criminal laws.
    I think that is fairly straightforward. I am not imagining anything.
    On the question of disseminating religious materials in public schools, or erecting religious statues in public spaces and State capitols, yes that is a clear breach of the concept "the separation of church and state".
    It is not necessarily a breach of the first amendment, or any US law, so long as all religions are granted equal access, and they do it at their own expense.
    I would not be surprised if the actions of the satanists resulted in a new law prohibiting religious statues/displays in public buildings.
    If that happens, it will be another brick in the wall of separation between church and state. And if it happens, the words in original first amendment will still remain unchanged.


  • #58
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    recedite wrote: »
    I am making no mistake there.
    I don't doubt you think so.
    recedite wrote: »
    But as I said, there is some value in the debate itself, provided the debate covers all the ground, including the various SC cases which advanced the case for a wall of separation, and the changes in public attitudes, and even the contribution of the satanists. That's not what they are calling for. They want to go back to the original wording, and ask the question does this really mean the separation of church and state?
    I didn't actually read that in the curriculum anywhere, is there any chance you could point it out? The requirement I read was "examine the reasons the Founding Fathers protected religious freedom in America and guaranteed its free exercise by saying that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," and compare and contrast this to the phrase, "separation of church and state"." It would seem to provide a remarkably unbiased basis for further study into, as you say, various SC cases and public attitudes. That study would probably be assisted by other curricular requirements such as:
    (A) analyze the effects of landmark U.S. Supreme Court decisions, including Brown v. Board of Education, and other U.S. Supreme Court decisions such as Plessy v. Ferguson, Hernandez v. Texas, Tinker v. Des Moines, Wisconsin v. Yoder, and White v. Regester;
    (B) discuss historical reasons why the constitution has been amended; and
    (C) evaluate constitutional change in terms of strict construction versus judicial interpretation.
    The student understands efforts to expand the democratic process. The student is expected to:
    (A) identify and analyze methods of expanding the right to participate in the democratic process, including lobbying, non-violent protesting, litigation, and amendments to the U.S. Constitution;
    The student understands how people from various groups contribute to our national identity. The student is expected to:
    (A) explain actions taken by people to expand economic opportunities and political rights, including those for racial, ethnic, and religious minorities as well as women, in American society;
    recedite wrote: »
    Compare this to the UK, it would be like the Queen demanding that a reminder be included in the school syllabus that she is the boss,
    I think you're going to have to point out where someone in the American curriculum is demanding a reminder be included that they are the boss. I just can't see it.....
    recedite wrote: »
    In the USA those who want to install Moses as a founding father, and generally roll back the separation of (their) Church and the State are trying to work against the tide of human progress.
    Well, it seems we're back to the start of the thread again! If you have a read through, I think you'll notice we found out that no one was installing Moses as a founding father... it was all just hyperbole.
    recedite wrote: »
    As you said yourself;I think that is fairly straightforward. I am not imagining anything.
    I did say that, though notably it didn't include a finding that exercising was the same as practicing.
    recedite wrote: »
    On the question of disseminating religious materials in public schools, or erecting religious statues in public spaces and State capitols, yes that is a clear breach of the concept "the separation of church and state".
    You said that already (you just siad notion instead of concept); what I asked you was whether it is (to use your new word) your concept, or the US governments concept. Because the US Government aren't giving the impression that it's a clear breach of their concept.
    recedite wrote: »
    It is not necessarily a breach of the first amendment, or any US law, so long as all religions are granted equal access, and they do it at their own expense.
    So, it's probably not something necessarily relevant to a US educational curriculum then?


  • #59
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,989 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    Absolam wrote: »
    It would seem to provide a remarkably unbiased basis for further study into, as you say, various SC cases and public attitudes. That study would probably be assisted by other curricular requirements such as:
    (A) analyze the effects of landmark U.S. Supreme Court decisions, including Brown v. Board of Education, and other U.S. Supreme Court decisions such as Plessy v. Ferguson, Hernandez v. Texas, Tinker v. Des Moines, Wisconsin v. Yoder, and White v. Regester;
    (B) discuss historical reasons why the constitution has been amended; and
    (C) evaluate constitutional change in terms of strict construction versus judicial interpretation.
    The student understands efforts to expand the democratic process. The student is expected to:
    (A) identify and analyze methods of expanding the right to participate in the democratic process, including lobbying, non-violent protesting, litigation, and amendments to the U.S. Constitution;
    The student understands how people from various groups contribute to our national identity. The student is expected to:
    (A) explain actions taken by people to expand economic opportunities and political rights, including those for racial, ethnic, and religious minorities as well as women, in American society;
    All the required reading as quoted refers to the development of civil rights issues other than the separation of church and state. Mostly in relation to equal rights for racial minorities.
    But when it comes to the religion issue, the focus is merely on going back to a law passed in 1791 and pointing out that it contains the words "religious freedom" and not "the separation of church and state".

    The biblical references (and requirement to teach as such in Texas) proclaim Moses as having "informed" the founding documents of American independence
    (1)History. The student understands how constitutional government, as developed in America and expressed in the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, and the U.S. Constitution, has been influenced by ideas, people, and historical documents. The student is expected to:
    (A) explain major political ideas in history, including the laws of nature and nature's God, unalienable rights, divine right of kings, social contract theory, and the rights of resistance to illegitimate government;
    (B) identify major intellectual, philosophical, political, and religious traditions that informed the American founding, including Judeo-Christian (especially biblical law), English common law and constitutionalism, Enlightenment, and republicanism, as they address issues of liberty, rights, and responsibilities of individuals;
    (C)identify the individuals whose principles of laws and government institutions informed the American founding documents, including those of Moses, William Blackstone, John Locke, and Charles de Montesquieu
    Strange there is no mention there that the bible prohibits equal rights for gays, but condones slavery.


  • #60
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,989 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    Absolam wrote: »
    You said that already (you just siad notion instead of concept); what I asked you was whether it is (to use your new word) your concept, or the US governments concept.
    Neither I nor the US govt. can own any concept.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    recedite wrote: »
    All the required reading as quoted refers to the development of civil rights issues other than the separation of church and state. Mostly in relation to equal rights for racial minorities.
    SC jurisprudence is on the curriculum though? So there seems to be no issue with including it on the curriculum, perhaps the fact that it's not being particularly presented to provide the narrative that you want to see has more to do with your desire for a particular narrative than a general presentation of American history? It's really sounding like you're the one that wants to change the curriculum to match your agenda, not anyone else....
    recedite wrote: »
    But when it comes to the religion issue, the focus is merely on going back to a law passed in 1791 and pointing out that it contains the words "religious freedom" and not "the separation of church and state".
    Is it possible that it goes back that Constitutional Amendment because that is the seminal legislation? On which all further legislation is founded? It would seem to be a remarkably good place to start learning about legislation on 'the religion issue'.
    recedite wrote: »
    The biblical references (and requirement to teach as such in Texas) proclaim Moses as having "informed" the founding documents of American independence.
    Which biblical references proclaim Moses as having "informed" the founding documents of American independence?
    And where is the requirement to teach a proclamation that Moses "informed" the founding documents of American independence?
    The requirement states "identify the individuals whose principles of laws and government institutions informed the American founding documents, including those of Moses, William Blackstone, John Locke, and Charles de Montesquieu"
    Do you really have to rehash the first two pages of the thread, or do you actually have something new?
    recedite wrote: »
    Strange there is no mention there that the bible prohibits equal rights for gays, but condones slavery.
    Why? Do you think either had a significant influence on the American founding documents?
    recedite wrote: »
    Neither I nor the US govt. can own any concept.
    Ah now, I didn't ask who owned the concept, only whether it was your concept or their concept you were speaking of.... which draws out the point that your concept of the separation of church and state is not necessarily the same as everyone else's, particularly when you consider the differences in the concepts of separation of church and state in the various nations you have alluded to.
    In fact, in the context of American history, the phrase 'separation of church and state' and the concept it denotes, can only realistically be considered when one has at least examined the reasons the Founding Fathers protected religious freedom in America and guaranteed its free exercise by saying that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,"


Advertisement