Many Texas Schools Teach Creationism

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

You are making a claim that you asserted in principle above in the page: that you know more about the 1st Amendment. Now you are shifting the proof of that claim to me.

You are scattered in your thinking.

I gave more than opinion, and my evidence trumped yours, shakles.

You may believe whatever you want, but you are limited in its expression both the workplace and in public tax supported places.

Reynolds vs US, a case about polygamy is your big argument against what I've been saying regarding the First Amendment? This is all you got. Let me explain the meaning of the First Amendment to you.

When it was initially being drafted in August 15, 1789 of the House Select Committee, one of the initial drafts read:

"NO RELIGION shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed."

If this Amendment was to be about the removal of ALL religion from government, which no law shall be found to condone religion, then the Founders could have left it at that. However Peter Sylvester, Representative of New York, OBJECTED to the Select Committee's version stating:

"It might be thought to have a tendency to abolish religion altogether."

The Final version of the First Amendment therefor reads:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an ESTABLISHMENT of religion, or prohibit the free exercise thereof.



Congress of the United States of America on January 19, 1853, through the report of Mr. Badger of the Senate Judiciary Committee defined what was meant by the word "establishment".

"The [First Amendment] clause speaks of "an establishment of religion." What is meant by that expression? It referred, without doubt to that establishment which existed in the mother-country ... endowment at the public expense, particular advantages to its members, or disadvantages or penalties upon those who wish to reject its doctrines or belong to other communions, -- such law would be a "law respecting an establishment of religion....."
They intended, by this amendment, to prohibit "an establishment of religion" such as the English Church presented, or any thing like it. But they had no fear or jealousy of religion itself, nor did they wish to see us an irreligious people...
They did not intend to spread over all the public authorities and the whole public action of the nation the DEAD AND REVOLTING SPECTACLE OF ATHEISTIC APATHY. Not so had the battles of the Revolution been fought and the deliberations of the Revolutionary Congress been conducted.
In the law, Sunday is a "dies non;".... The executive departments, the public establishments, are all closed on Sundays; on that day neither House of Congress sits....
Sunday, the Christian Sabbath, recognized and respected by all the departments of the Government.....
Here is the recognition by law, and by universal usage, not only of a Sabbath, but the Christian Sabbath.... the recognition of the Christian Sabbath [by the Constitution] is complete and perfect."



Congress of the United States of America March 27,1854, received the report of Mr. Meacham of the House Committee on the Judiciary:

"What is an establishment of religion? It must have a creed, defining what a man MUST believe; it must have rites and ordinances, which believers MUST observe; it must have ministers of defined qualifications, to teach the doctrines and administer the rites, it must have tests for the submissive and penalties for the non-conformist. There has never been an establishment of religion without all these....
At the adoption of the Constitution... every State... provided as regularly for the support of the Church as for the support of Government...
Down to the Revolution, every colony did sustain religion in some form. It was deemed peculiarly proper that the religion of liberty should be upheld by a FREE people.
Had the people, during the Revolution, had a suspicion of any attempt to war against Christianity, that Revolution would have been strangled in its cradle.
At the time of the adoption of the Constitution and the amendments, the universal sentiment was that Christianity should be encouraged, not any one sect [denomination]. Any attempt to level and discard ALL religion would have been viewed with universal indignation. The object was not to substitute Judaism or Mohammedanism, or infidelity, but to prevent rivalry among the [Christian] sects to the exclusion of others.
It [Christianity] must be considered as the foundation on which the whole structure rests. Laws will not have permanence or power without the sanction of religious sentiment, -- without a firm belief that there is a Power above us that will reward our virtues and punish our vices.
In this age there is can be no substitute for Christianity: that, in its general principles, is the great conservative element on which we must rely for the purity and permanence of free institutions. That was the religion of the Founders of the Republic, and they expected it to remain the religion of their descendants. There is a great and very prevalent error on this subject in the opinion that those who organized this Government did not legislate on religion."


United States Supreme Court 1844 in the case of VIDAL vs. GIRARD'S EXECUTORS, 43 U.S. 126, 132, Justice Story delivered the court's opinion. Case concerned Stephen Girard, a deist from France, who had moved to Philadelphia and later died. In his will he left his entire estate, valued at over $7 million, to establish an orphanage and school, with the stipulation that no religious influence be allowed.

The United States Supreme Court rendered its unanimous opinion, stating:
"Christianity ... Is not to be maliciously and openly reviled and blasphemed against, to the annoyance of believers or the injury of the public... It is unnecessary for us, however to consider the establishment of a school or college, for the propagation of ... Deism, or any other form of infidelity.
Such a case is not to be presumed to exist in a Christian country.... Why may not laymen instruct in the general principles of Christianity as well as ecclesiastics....
And we cannot overlook the blessings, which such laymen by their conduct, as well as their instructions, may, nay must impart to their youthful pupils. Why may not the Bible, and especially the New Testament, without note or comment, be read and taught as a divine revelation in the school -- it's general precepts expounded, it's evidences explained and it's glorious principles of morality inculcated?
Where can the pursers principles of morality be learned so clearly and perfectly as from the New Testament?"


This does not appear like the United States (according to the Supreme Court) disallowed the instruction of the Bible in school. So much for this liberal atheistic interpretation of "separation of church and state".

 

[JakeStarkey]

And they are all trumped by Reynolds and every other case since then.

You have the right to believe whatever your want.

You do not have the right to worship however you want.

That is why you have to pray at the flag pole before school begins: it's voluntary and no one else has to be around when it happens.

You may pray in any tax-supported public building as long as you don't disturb your neighbor or disrupt the business of the office.

Got it now.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

And they are all trumped by Reynolds and every other case since then.

Hey clueless.

(1) I just proved how religion was ENCOURAGED by government, NOT discouraged regulated and suppressed as to not offend. To quote Mr Badger of the Senate Judiciary Committee in 1853

They intended, by this amendment, to prohibit "an establishment of religion" such as the English Church presented, or any thing like it. But they had no fear or jealousy of religion itself, nor did they wish to see us an irreligious people...
They did not intend to spread over all the public authorities and the whole public action of the nation the DEAD AND REVOLTING SPECTACLE OF ATHEISTIC APATHY.

(2) The Federal Government instituted "Deis Non" by law which all businesses AND Federal Buildings must close on a Sunday in recognition of the Sabbath, not any Sabbath but the CHRISTIAN Sabbath. There was no violation of the First Amendment to have been found by the Supreme Court in doing so.

(3) The United States Supreme Court also encouraged the teaching of the Bible, VIDAL vs. GIRARD'S EXECUTORS, as it did not violate the First Amendment interpretation of establishment.

You just got "schooled" little boy, unless you can prove the Founders had other intentions o the First Amendment. Get back to me when you have the actual ability to disprove the supported facts with more than just your "opinions". I don't care a out some liberal reinterpretation of separation of church and state, it's about establishment, to which no case has ever been found in the history of our country.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You have not proved anything.

The Constitution is generally ruled by SCOTUS as neutral on religion. None of your material before Reynolds counts at all.

You are a dying breed of social traditionalist that will be overwhelmingly decimated by age and lack of number by 2050.

Tis what tis.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

You have not proved anything.

The Constitution is generally ruled by SCOTUS as neutral on religion. None of your material before Reynolds counts at all.

You are a dying breed of social traditionalist that will be overwhelmingly decimated by age and lack of number by 2050.

Tis what tis.

The Reynolds case has ZERO to do with eliminating religion in favor of more secular view towards religion, it focused on the state of Virginia, ITS amendments and ITS legislatures.

UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT stated:

"after the convention of Virginia had recommended as an amendment to the Constutution of the United States the declaration of the bill of rights that "all men have an equal, natural, and unalienable right to the free exercise if religion, according to the dictate of conscience, that the legislature of that state substantiatially enacted the death penalty .... for polygamy."

You have proved nothing with respect to the FEDERAL law enacted with regard to a Christian Sabbath law.... or the case of Vidal vs Girard. The United States Supreme Court ENCOURAGED the freedom to practice religion, not subdue and restrict it.

You have proven nothing, period.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

You have not proved anything.

The Constitution is generally ruled by SCOTUS as neutral on religion. None of your material before Reynolds counts at all.

You are a dying breed of social traditionalist that will be overwhelmingly decimated by age and lack of number by 2050.

Tis what tis.

The Reynolds case has ZERO to do with eliminating religion in favor of more secular view towards religion, it focused on the state of Virginia, ITS amendments and ITS legislatures.

UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT stated:

"after the convention of Virginia had recommended as an amendment to the Constutution of the United States the declaration of the bill of rights that "all men have an equal, natural, and unalienable right to the free exercise if religion, according to the dictate of conscience, that the legislature of that state substantiatially enacted the death penalty .... for polygamy."

Polygamy was not a moral belief of Christians of the state during that time, nor is it the values of islam nor Buddhism.... it was viewed as simply a moral sin. You have proved nothing with respect to the FEDERAL law enacted with regard to a Christian Sabbath law.... or the case of Vidal vs Girard. The United States Supreme Court ENCOURAGED the freedom to practice religion, not subdue and restrict it.

You have proven nothing, period.

 

[JakeStarkey]

shakles, you are arguing a dead subject.

If you have offered nothing to do convince the rational standard man of your interpretation about religious expression and the 1st Amendment.

Continue to follow the two Great Commandments and I wish you well.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

shakles, you are arguing a dead subject.

If you have offered nothing to do convince the rational standard man of your interpretation about religious expression and the 1st Amendment.

Continue to follow the two Great Commandments and I wish you well.

I have provided more relevant facts on the subject with regard to its interpretation, supported by more than one minor Supreme Court case. If you want to convince anyone of the true nature of the First Amendment, you better be prepared to provide more facts with a bit more relevancy. Concede if you so desire.