I thought my more interesting question was -- isn't leftist pseudoscholarly indoctrination unconstitutional? You're the one who (rightly) notes that it's actually their religion.

I think both are stupid, but neither unconstitutional. Incidentally, if there's danger of an established Church of America (or New Jersey, or Santa Fe, New Mexico), who's on its payroll?

Hallelujah!

This also has the potential to touch off another debate over Bill Of Rights incorporation. The First Amendment mentions restrictions on Congress's power, but not upon the powers of the states -- which made sense at the time, since several states had established churches during the first years of the Republic. But the federal courts have held for a while that the Fourteenth Amendment caused all the guarantees of the Bill of Rights, regardless of language, to descend to state and local levels as well; this is the core of "incorporation" doctrine.

SO: Whither now the validity of state, local, and municipal gun control laws, eh??

It amazes me that some people consider Darwin's theories to be absolute truth and the only "science" that explains the emergence of life and our own species. Don't they remember that Newtonion physics was once considered to be the complete and final answer to how the universe works? Now, that version of physics has been relaced by relativity and quantum physics.

Isn't it possible that Darwin's theories will be relaced by better theories in the future?

Most versions of intelligent design may be incorrect but many sophisticated mathematicians are troubled by the fact that the chances of dead matter combining to form living organisms in the period of time available for that to happen are about 1 in 10 to the 100th power.

Surely, some kind of Higher Power caused the creation of life.

And BTW, Darwin's theories explain the evolution of species but not the creation of life itself.

This extra-constitutional construct has grown tiresome

That's just damn funny, I don't care who you are.

Hi Megan.

I think, Ace, your 1st Am. reading is too broad along the ACLU lines; what exactly constitutes an "endorsement"? Or, how strong an "endorsement" does it have to be to become unconstitutional? Is 'In God We Trust' an unconstitutional endorsement?

The people that get overheated about the Dover case forget two things. The first is that the school board only called for a short announcement in science class that some other guys had another idea about evolution and that there's a book in the library about it, if any of you illiterate meatheads even know where that place is.

So I think it's ridiculous, in this case, to worry about ID-in-schools on the basis that it's bunk; there's much more pernicious bunk being taught. And I think it's ridiculous, in this case, to call the ID statement a violation of the 1st Am. on religion-in-school grounds.

The second thing -- the whole lot of the Dover school board got tossed out, which is about as strong an argument for the success of federalist democracy as you can make. This was not a constitutional issue. In fact, not only do we have a federal court again pronouncing on what extent/display/promotion of religion is allowed in the public sphere, but we also have a federal judge ruling on what is or is not science. The damage from that, I fear, will be far far more damaging than the corrective of removing ID from schools.

Here's a hypothetical for you to chew on: Let's the say the religious make-up of the country were exactly as it is now. That is, we've got flaming evangelicals who deny any and all evolution, and flaming atheists decrying all mention of religion to anyone anywhere. Now let's say there is actually some evidence for a literal Biblical creation -- or, at least, for a sudden creation of all things as they are, a young universe, etc etc. Not conclusive, but enough that there's an actual argument among scientists.

What gets taught in schools? Is it a violation of the establishment clause?

You know Ace, I think you're going to have to establish some kind of quarantine thread for this topic, you've riled up the loonies and they're tracking all over the place.

gudoleboy, I've just spent 8 hours teaching idiots smarter than you how to run a nuke plant, so excuse me for being brusque. You're an idiot. Specifically you have no idea the relationship between Newtonian Mechanics and Modern Physics. Quantum Mechanics and Relativity are merely extensions of Newtonian Mechanics. Use either sets of equations with the scales, speeds, and masses found on earth until the late 19th century and you'll find they limit down to Ye Olde Classical Mechanics. Similarly Natural Selection is a fundamental part of how nature works. Darwinian theory may be supplanted, but whatever replaces it will incorporate Natural Selection. Finally your mention of probability indicates you understand that subject about as well as you do physics. The odds of me having my current license plate are less than 1 in 17 million, and yet I have it, there was no design, it was totally random. It is a truism in probability that, given sufficient attempts, anything that is not impossible must happen, and it could happen on your first try.

And now, to post something that is actually germane. The big problem I have with posting the Ten Commandments in a public forum is that it gives them an appearance of legitimacy and support that some of them (specifically the first three) don't deserve. I'm secure enough in my faith that I can respect the tradition associated with old displays, but I don't like new ones.

Megan! Good to see you again.

Well Ace you really should read it as "establishment ". Words have meaning, "establishment" and "endorsement" are not the same words, and the Constitution says "establishment" not "endorsement".

MMDeuce,

You wrote: The big problem I have with posting the Ten Commandments in a public forum is that it gives them an appearance of legitimacy and support that some of them (specifically the first three) don't deserve.

You see, that's the problem with a Supreme Court that overreaches (or is activist, to use the popular term). Their job is to rule on the constitutionality of laws, not to decide if it's a good law or even one that makes sense. Only if it violates the US constitution should they strike it down. If it's merely a stupid law or an uncomfortable law, it is up to the people, as reflected by their elected repesentatives to deal with it.

So, does displaying the 10 commandments by a county in Kentucky have anything at all to do with:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of a religion, or prohibiting the exercise thereof..." Clearly it does not.

In a perfect world with judges and SCOTUS justices that know their jobs, this wouldn't even be an issue. Every American should know the Constitution.

But the federal courts have held for a while that the Fourteenth Amendment caused all the guarantees of the Bill of Rights, regardless of language, to descend to state and local levels as well; this is the core of "incorporation" doctrine.

Not quite true. The strictures of the Bill of Rights have been held to apply to the states via the 14th Amendment under the incorporation doctrine, but on an individual basis. That is to say, the Supreme Court has at various times looked at a particular Constitutional right -- the Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches, for example -- and held it to apply to the states, rather than announcing, "All of the Bill of Rights applies to the states."

I mention this because there are a few Constitutional rights that the Supreme Court hasn't gotten around to applying to the states yet. For example, the Seventh Amendment (guaranteeing right to jury in common-law trials) has not been incorporated yet. Nor has the Supreme Court held the Second Amendment to apply to the states.

but the Constitution does forbid the establishment (or endorsement, as I read it) of religion

As Francis and Pompous have already mentioned, this is not accurate. The Federal Constitution forbids the Federal government from establishing a religion. It also forbids the Federal government from interfering from interfering in the religion laws enacted by the States.

Incidentally, the states with official, state-supported religions at the time the Bill of Rights was ratified were Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Connecticut. The last of these (Mass.) was not repealed until 1833. As everyone acknowledged at the time, the Constitution and the First Amendment specifically permitted state-religions.

The argument that the 14th Amendment "incorporated" the First Amendment is one of the most hypocritical, dishonest piece of garbage in the whole of Constitutional law (and there are quite a few).

Even if you say that it applies to the States, the language of the First Amendment begins by saying that "CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW ..." There is only one Congress, and that is in Washington, DC. So, even if you "apply" this rule to the States, then you still have what amounts to an explicit limitation on federal power. The SCOTUS has taken that provision to mean the exact opposite -- that the Court (as part of the Federal government) has the power to control State laws in matters of religion. That is a usurpation of power if there ever was one.

Like most people, I agree with the outcome of the Court's decision (i.e., there should be no state religions). But we should still be faithful to the ideas of federalism and originalism, and pull this self-aggrandizing constitutional abuse of power out by the root.

That's what we were fighting for with Miers and Alito, after all.

The Ten Commandments were posted in public forums in America for most of its national history. Until the Fifties, it wasn't unusual to see court sessions start with a prayer. Until the Sixties, it was common for schoolchildren to begin their day with a prayer. Where is that fascism and the theocracy that was supposed to occurr when you do things like that?
Oops, never happened.

Creation was taught in schools until-what, the Snopes case? Evolution wasn't taught universally until the late Sixties or so, was it? Where is the horrible religon-based ignorance that the ACLU says will overcome America?
Oops- never happened.

Amazing, isn't it? Almost...a miracle.

I checked the local statutes and think I've found a loophole.

There's no law against projecting the 10 Commandments onto a Federal building or Courthouse provided you stay within reasonable safety limits - for example, you don't use a laser that's powerful enough to destroy the building or blind school children.

Laser Writing - using Science to promote Religion.

If you were part of a religious fanatical organization, you could just park across from the courthouse and project the 10 Commandments onto the building.

It'd be cheaper than filing a lawsuit.

And way cheaper than that five ton "Ten Commandment" monument that judge in Alabama had made.

.

I've always understood the Establishment Clause to mean that the government cannot impose a religion upon the populace; there is no "official" state religion (unlike, for example, the C of E in Britain). There is also the presumption of neutrality towards religious belief by governmental bodies as well -- under the law, all citizen are equal regardless of their creeds or belief systems.

Unfortunately, over the years this notion has been perverted into a presumption that the government must abjure religious expression in the public arena, and this is clearly not the case. America is a Christian nation, run along Judeo-Christian principles, and this has been true ever since its founding. It is a cultural reality as plain as the nose on your face -- and I say this as an avowed atheist and believer in religious freedom.

I find the whole effort to expunge religion from public life to be wrong-headed. What we need is a vigorous and law-abiding public sphere in which all viewpoints may be expressed. (And to those who inevitably bring up ID/creationism at this point: I'll teach science in science class, and religion in philosophy and/or religious studies class. Fair enough?)

Bah. The Ten Commandments belong on courthouse walls, not as a religious statement but as part of the evolution of Law.

That's where it all started, folks -- the notion that Law wasn't whatever the King farted or whatever the priesthood decided had been decreed from on high, but something written down, so that anyone could check and see whether or not they were in violation without having to ask permission.

Yeah, the Commandments aren't the only example of such a thing, but they're one of the ones that have had the most influence. A person who doesn't know the Commandments and their application to the later evolution (!) of the Rule of Law is too ignorant to be listened to on any subject.

Regards,
Ric

I live in a state wherein a town could not be established (incorporated) until there was a Parish that had its own place of worship. So much for history.

It is nice to see a bit of rational reason from the courts for a change.

Hi Dave, hi Slubs. :)

gudoleboy said: Surely, some kind of Higher Power caused the creation of life.

I believe that too, but that's a statement of faith, not fact. Science by its nature does not deal with the supernatural. "Intelligent design" is not science; it is merely (very poor) theology and an ignorant attempt at rationalization of scientific discoveries.

If five years or five decades or five centuries from now, the theory of evolution through modification is proven wrong, that will not turn ID into science. It is predicated on faith and faith alone.

"Darwin's theories explain the evolution of species but not the creation of life itself."

Exactly so. The theory of evolution does not attempt to explain the creation of life. Other theories, drawing on cosmology, deep time theory, chaos theory, biology, and chemistry do make that attempt. Thus far the data are inconclusive. However, the fact that science has not provided a complete explanation of the origin of life does not mean that religion can now take science's place.

Furthermore, I'm not sure why the theory of evolution and possible scientific explanations of the origin of life are seen as such an existential threat by so many religious people. To me such reactions speak, ironically, of a lack of faith. You think God couldn't have used any mechanism he pleased to create life, or to modify it?

St Augustine once wrote:

"It very often happens that there is some question as to the earth or the sky, or the other elements of this world - respecting which one who is not a Christian has knowledge derived from most certain reasoning or observation, and it is very disgraceful and mischievous and of all things to be carefully avoided, that a Christian speaking of such matters as being according to the Christian Scriptures, should be heard by an unbeliever talking such nonsense that the unbeliever perceiving him to be as wide of the mark as east from west, can hardly restrain himself from laughing.

And the real evil is not that a man is subjected to derision because of his error, but it is that to profane eyes, our authors (that is to say, the sacred authors) are regarded as having had such thoughts; and are also exposed to blame and scorn upon the score of ignorance, to the greatest possible misfortune of people whom we wish to save. For, in fine, these profane people happen upon a Christian busy in making mistakes on a subject which they know perfectly well; how, then, will they believe these holy books? How will they believe in the resurrection of the dead and in the hope of life eternal, and in the kingdom of heaven, when, according to an erroneous assumption, these books seem to them to have as their object those very things which they, the profane, by their direct experience or by calculation which admits of no doubt? It is impossible to say what vexation and sorrow prudent Christians meet with through these presumptuous and bold spirits who, taken to task one day for their silly and false opinion, and realizing themselves on the point of being convicted by men who are not obedient to the authority of our holy books, wish to defend their assertions so thoughtless, so bold, and so manifestly false. For they then commence to bring forward as a proof precisely our holy books, or again they attribute to them from memory that which seems to support their opinion, and they quote numerous passages, understanding neither the texts they quote, nor the subject about which they are making statement."

"Intelligent design" is nothing more than a very bad and thoroughly contemptible joke. It makes only the slightest pretense at being science, and it mocks the Bible, and it mocks God. Its inventors are liars and frauds, and its proponents are deluded and ignorant only at best.

Now can we get back to our celebration of this wonderful and (to me, at least) utterly unexpected ruling?

Here's a link to a news story (goes back to Dec. 21):

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051221/NEWS01/512210356/1056

I love this country and the symbols that represent our history and culture. But Jesus taught us; don’t be concerned with things of this world. Be only concerned with two things, The Kingdom of God and your place in it.

I wonder sometimes, in the middle of a fight over the statue of the 10 commandments, if we have not created a Golden Calf. When we stand on the Court House Stairs and shout down at the masses below, how many people have come to know God and learn of the salvation He promised? If in all our fights and all our efforts, no one came to know God, then don’t our words and actions and deeds just amount to a pile of dirty rags?

elbogz, would you like a waffle and a cigar?
No?
Pancake and a smoke?
No?
Blintz and a bong?

Well then, there ish no pleashing you.

I think teaching an expressly eveangelical-Christian Biblical-literalist belief in science class falls into that category.

Despite our disagreement about scientific research into the beginnings of life, I totally agree with your statement here.

Here is an interesting tidbit regarding all those 10 commandment displays at courthouses and such. Did you know that most of those where donated by Cecil B. DeMill to promote his movie "The Ten Commandments" in 1956?

Kinda takes the religious fevor off of it, doesn't it?

I don't know, is this really all that? If you read this story, they're saying you can display the 10 commandments in a court if you clutter enough secular documents around them to desanctify the context and give them no privileged position.

I don't hear the court saying you could post the 10 commandments as an expression of religious sentiment. It sounds like an argument restricted to whether the commandments are inescapably religious or can be presented as purely historical.

So what do those pronouncements about the wall of separation of church and state have to do with the actual ruling? Are they just taking the opportunity to spout off.

Although the end result of the case seems pretty small to me, see the implications are pretty large. I'm glad that a court finally looked at the First Amendment read "an establishment of religion" and decided that it actually meant "an" establishment of religion.

That's important to me.

The 10 Commandments weren't the foundation of Western codes of law. Codes of law existed throughout the Near East and Mediterranean: Hammurabi, Solon, the Twelve Tables, etc. If anything, the pre-existence and primacy of these codes led to acceptance of the 10 Commandments, not the other way around.

They choose the 10 Commandments over the others just to assert that, by contrast with those pagansecularhumanistwickeddecadentungodlyimmoral Greeks and Romans, we Americans are based on the Bible (halleluia!).

So a 10 Commandments display tells us heathens two things. First, this is a Christian nation which refuses to acknowledge any other forebears other than the Jews. Second, that the best law is theocratic: delivered from on high to the chosen prophet to serve God first and our fellow man second.

Of course the Ten Commandments display in a secular courthouse represents an establishment of religion. It has just as much right to be displayed there as do the verses about killing unbelievers in the Qur'an.

I just read recently that ID is catching on in Japan. Some critics of ID looked at that, noted that there are very few Christians in Japan, noted that the lead Japanese proponent for ID is not a Christian, and even quoted the proponent saying, "I am discussing this theory on its merits, it has nothing to do with religion to me!", and yet still claimed that this was evidence that Christianity was diabolically insinuating itself into Japan!

Maybe, just maybe, even though some Christians are using it as a Trojan horse, the fact that a growing number of non-Christians are supporting the theory might just indicate that it's more than just thinly-disguised Christianity?

Nah. That would slaughter too many sacred cows.

Welcome back, Megan, you've been missed.

By the way, you all have permission to shoot me if I get involved in another intelligent design discussion so soon.

You guys want a piece o' me?

Yeek!

Ok, one at a time. SCOTUS has never ruled that religious texts or art (or whatever) cannot be displayed (or whatever) except alone or in other manner showing a particular religion as superior/given deference. Heck, with respect to the famous "Stone" of 'Judge Roy' they did not even go that far, they just upheld the State court which ordered the removal of an unauthorized (and possibly dangerous, as the floor had not been checked to see if it could hold it) display.

Now, ID. Part of the scientific method is to suggest a hypothesis/theory (yeah, there is a difference, but waddahay) and make predictions that events (experiments) will turn out in accordance with it. Evolution suggests changes will occur which can be derived from the existing (according to rules, which may or may not have been set up by a divinity): ID says nothing about future changes, though it implies change can only occur through (divine) intervention rules or no. Evolution says where you cannot trace a change now, you may be able to if more evidencc shows up (as it has over the past century or two), while ID says if you cannot show how something developed don't look because it was done by an outside "intelligence" (which apparently does not want to be found - "things mankind was not meant to know"). ID even admits to "a form of evolution" in micro-organisms, but says without that "intelligence" interfering it cannot be scaled up past a single cell - not why it cannot, just the bald statement. As recently as this past Sunday, Behe used the "iireducible complexity" of a bacterial flagellum to support ID - apparently he does not keep up, his example was exploded some time ago -
*"The Flagellum Unspun - The Collapse of 'Irreducible Complexity'"*
as have previous examples used by ID proponents.

In short, ID makes no predictions and thus does not fit into what we call science - and I think goes further by implying we should stop improving the science we do have.

OK...here's my point about intelligent design and why I think I was on subject. Ace (whom I admire very much and whose blog I read several times a day) said that he felt that intelligent design is an "expressly evangelical-Christian Biblical-literalist belief" and that forcing it to be taught in class was "establishing a religion".

I have seen writings by people who aren't literalist, evangelical Christians but who still say they believe in "intelligent design". They don't have the slightest problem with Natural Selection being the way that species have evolved and they don't take the Bible literally. They just happen to think that dead matter combining under a random process to creat a living, very complex organism is highly unlikely. They think that some kind of powerful, intelligent or whatever you want to call it, being or process either creating life or creating the environment for the creation of life is a more likely explanation.

That's not religious fanaticism...it's just a reasonable weighing of the odds. And I wouldn't have the slightest problem with a local school board choosing to include that reasonable thinking in a school course, if it were to be presented as one of several theories.

And Megan...I'm pretty sure that I agree with you that science and religion don't have to be mutually exclusive. For many years, I have incorporated modern physics, Darwinism, eastern religions, and other things into my beliefs on how things work and have worked and my faith hasn't suffered in the slightest.

One of the problems I have with Intelligent Design is that too many people arguing 'the complexity of life means it is so improbable as to be impossible' seem to jump right away into Intelligent Design as the only other possible explination. This looks to me as if they want intelligent design to be true, not that they want to know the origins of life.

As a hypothetical example, I will put forth a third theory: the origins of life lie in a parallel dimension which is orders of magnitude more conductive to the sort of chemical reactions necessary to generate life, and that single-celled organisms entered our universe via quantuum irregularities. This is, of course, probably psuedo-scientific hogwash, but it fits the observed evidence just as much as supernatural Intelligent Design and without the need to postulate a creator.

So, dear readers, would this theory be suitable to be mentioned in a science classroom as an alternative to evolution? Would it be suitable to be mentioned in place of Intelligent Design?

As for natural Intelligent Design (the fig leaf to ID that it could be 'space aliens' or some other non-supernatural entity as creator), I find that it is hard to accept that complex structures such as eyes or flagellums could not form naturally BUT a creature capable of creating these same structures could.

My preferred theory is that the universe was created 5 minutes ago.
All this artifical aging and memories we have are just a byproduct of this creation event (whether it was a natural event or done by a creator I leave for the metaphysicians- this is science here)

Prove me wrong, and if you can't I demand equal time in the classroom.
And mandatory attendance at my $100 a seat seminars

This was the same court that tried to rule that OHIOs state motto IN GOD ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE as unconstitutional all becuase of the nafarious ACLU

This extra-constitutional construct has grown tiresome.

And now, if I were a lawyer contemplating appearing before the Sixth Circuit to make an argument for abortion, I would tremble at the thought of using the words "trimester" or "Constitutional right of privacy."

DaveP & Monty: Thank you both, very good, very well said. I especially liked your's, DaveP, because it expresses what I've felt for decades, that the screaming about "theocracy" from the left/Dems/libs/moonbats has at best been a Trojan horse, at worst similar to their typical tactic, that is, "accuse the "radical right" of what we in fact are doing."

The ACLU and its worshippers are fervently aware that theirs is a religion, too, but must hide it under the sacrosanct "rights" banner to hide their true agenda.

Frankly, I'm beginning to worry about ID being taught in the schools. Not because I'm worried about the theory and whether it's religious or not, but because any time the state schools are given any subject that can be twisted to unrecognizability, they'll twist the mushminds of their charges to their own purposes, leaving the real meaning of ID out in the cold.

Kinda like teaching the precious ones about Christmas now, right?