Posted on 09/07/2002 7:55:51 PM PDT by mhking
We have discussed this many times, and at great detail, examining particular cases, and as usual, it promptly exited your brain the instant you abandoned the previous thread. The Tree of Life bears some controversy around the edges, just like all active sciences. However, as I said, no tree puts ameba ahead of martingales, or martingales ahead of men. As ten minutes of work in a search engine would show you, there is remarkable agreement on the major branches of the Tree of Life--as most every reputable biologist knows.
Science works rather like our constitional representative government was supposed to work: it does not assume that counting the noses of the pigs at the trough is an adequate way to discern physical truth from pig droppings.
It assumes (rather like Plato recommended) that only the most seasoned and respected experts on a particular subject are fit to pass judgement on it. That is why we have referreed papers in technical journals to do the dog work of scientific decision-making. And that is why we don't have popular referendums on the laws of nature.
There is, of course, an all too human tendency to politicize this process, but that does not make political shenanigans arbiters of scientific truth. Scientists, widely respected by their fellows, who specialize in the subject under discussion are the arbiters of scientific truth.
I see. So there's no intellectual connection between the American Revolution and the American Constitution. What have you been smoking?
You can discuss it a million times if you like, a drawing is not evidence. The differences are significant though. How can you have a science if no one can agree on the same evidence? We are talking descent. If evolution were true then we could trace the descent in a definitive way. We cannot do that though. Reason is real simple - present species clearly cannot have descended from each other because they cannot mate with each other. Dead species we do not have enough information to know how they fit in the grand scheme of things. We have very few examples (which can barely be counted on the fingers of one hand) of the DNA of dead species. We do not even have full or close to full skeletons in 99.9% of the cases. All we have is a bone here and there. To infer descent from such scant evidence is utter nonsense. Organisms are very complex and they do not transform themselves into new ones like magic. Evolution only says 'it happens'. Well it has to show two things to be believed: prove that it happens, and show how it happens. It has not and will never be able to do either.
The first amendment has two clauses respecting religion: the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause. Do you contend that the original intent was identical for both? If not, what right do you think was being established by the Establishment clause that's distinct from the Free Exercise Clause? Why do you think the original signers thought they had to say the same thing twice? Why aren't there other examples of this rather careless habit other places in the Bill of Rights?
As with the gun control freaks who can't understand the straightforward and consistent nature of the Bill of Rights--it's not that you're right, it's not that you're wrong--it's that you aren't even in the game.
from: "The Establishment Clause" by Leonard Levy
The history of the drafting of the establishment clause does not provide us with an understanding of what was meant by “an establishment of religion.” To argue, however, as proponents of a narrow interpretation do, that the amendment permits congressional aid and support to religion in general or to all denominations without discrimination, leads to the impossible conclusion that the First Amendment added to Congress’s power. Nothing supports such a conclusion. Every bit of evidence goes to prove that the First Amendment, like the others, was intended to restrict Congress to its enumerated powers. Because Congress possessed no power under the Constitution to legislate on matters concerning religion, Congress has no such power even in the absence of the First Amendment. It is therefore unreasonable, even fatuous, to believe that an express prohibition of power—“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”—vests or creates the power, previously nonexistent, of supporting religion by aid to all religious groups. The Bill of Rights, as Madison said, was not framed “to imply powers not meant to be included in the enumeration.”
I have before me my worn copies of "Original Meaning" by Rakove and "The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution" by Bailyn. Both are Pulitzer Prize winning examples of exemplary scholarship on this matter.
I direct your attention to Bailyn pp 96-99, from which I briefly quote: "...fear of the conjunction of civil and ecclesiastical tyrannies was central to John Adam's understanding of American history and the revolutionary crisis..." (this from Samuel Adams) and to Rakove p 310 from which I briefly quote Madison's own words concerning his education: "under very early and strong impressions in favor of liberty both civil and religeous"
Madison caused the Virginia Bill of Rights of 1776 to be altered from the anemic "The fullest toleration..." to "all men are equally entitled..." for the very stated purpose of preventing such things as the ecumenical assessments of the 1780's which is more famous (at least, to the Supreme Court) for opposing.
How anyone in their right mind can think that the establishment clause means anything other than what it most obviously says, taken in context with the government-limiting reason for the Bill of Rights, strains my capacity for astonishment--and yet it continues to crop up. Sometimes I dispair for the republic.
Obviously, the Hartzsprung-Russell sequence is a figment of overactive athiest imaginings, and steller evolution is a fraudulant science. Furthermore, there has been a quarter of a century of controversy over the exact detailing of the sequencing. For that matter, we have changed the theory of gravity several times now because of new data. How can you have a science if no one can agree on the same evidence?
Well it has to show two things to be believed: prove that it happens, and show how it happens.
Leaving aside the exact nature of belief, Science has no such comprehensive requirements. Science just needs to tell a more useful story than whatever went before. Ptolomaic astronomy didn't tell an untruthful story, just not a story as useful as Copernican astronomy.
After proposing this amendment, he was a member of the committee of eleven to consider it, and then was the head of the House conference committee that negotiated with the Senate to produce its current wording.35 Because of Madison's, "nor shall any national religion be established," accommodationists have ballyhooed that his intent for the establishment clause was only that it prevent a national establishment and not the larger and more encompassing separation of the Remonstrance. But Samuel Livermore, an Episcopalian from New Hampshire, proposed an improvement on Madison's wording:
"Congress shall make no law touching religion, or infringing the right of conscience."
Madison promptly withdrew his proposed amendment and Livermore's passed the House, 34 to 20. This fact is not mentioned by those who hang on the apparent meaning of Madison's first draft.36 The lack of notes kept in the Senate's secret deliberations on the amendments has not kept hidden the fact that the more accommodationist amendments proposed--which would be what Rehnquist and the Religious Right would want in abundance--were twice rejected. As William Lee Miller concludes: "One may be allowed to infer that the majority in the Senate intended something more in the way of separation."37 Some think the eventual wording from the conference committee was written by Madison.
Too late, noon is not the same time as midnight!
Post 28 was about what decides political controversies, logic or a consensus among the electorate. There is a consensus among the electorate on these issues, and that will always defeat logical arguments.
It assumes (rather like Plato recommended) that only the most seasoned and respected experts on a particular subject are fit to pass judgement on it.
An appeal to what is commonly accepted as Plato's viewpoint, which is, of course, the source or all fascism.
Scientists, widely respected by their fellows, who specialize in the subject under discussion are the arbiters of scientific truth.
Possibly, but the subject here is not what is scientific truth, but is on the subject of who decides on what taxpayers money shall be spent.
I am sure you know that I did not say or imply any such thing. There is an intellectual connection between the American Revolution and the disputes of the Civil War, but that does not make them the same event.
The Establishment clause means that the federal government can not pick a single religious sect and establish it as the official religion of the US, supporting it with tax dollars. The Free Exercise clause means that no individuals or groups shall be limited by the government in practising their particular election. This is clearly two different ideas, and could have been passed as a separate Amendment, but the committee that wrote the amendment put them both in the First Amendment.
I notice in passing that you have not been able to cite a single word written or spoken in the Amendment process which supports your viewpoint.
Thank you for pointing out that my viewpoint is that of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, while yours is that of the hard leftists who control most law schools and journalistic legal analysis.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.I don't recall any response.
Your memory is far too short. Or you're a liar. Your choice. Here is the whole of post 28:
The discussion in question began in post 23 regarding scientific proof of god. You claimed that the theory of evolution depended on science disproving the existence of god. Aric2000 correctly pointed out that without physical evidence, science must assume an absence of supernatural effects; the supernatural nature of god puts such a being outside the realm of science.
Now, you can choose to believe in the existence of god with or without the sanction of the scientific community. But your belief remains a matter of faith. No matter how much you want it otherwise, closing your eyes and wishing really hard, even in large groups, has no discernible effect on reality. If you want to propose a new theory that explains the diveristy of life on earth using an invisible, unseen, undetectable entity as a mechanism, you're going to have to provide some kind of evidence for such a mechanism before your theory will have any scientific validity.
This is another failing in your reading of history in that there was no amendment process involved. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments) were ratified as a single document.
except, of course, by its probable drafter, Madison, as per post #209
Thank you for pointing out that my viewpoint is that of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, while yours is that of the hard leftists who control most law schools and journalistic legal analysis.
...and, of course, it's probable drafter, Madison, as per post #209.
And, just in passing, let me suggest to you what an incredibly thin reed you are trying to hold up against the onslaught of history. Intentionally kept-secret debates in congress is not likely to be considered a major indication of the intentions of the founding fathers by anyone not still wrapped in swaddling clothes. Publicly expressed thoughts about freedom of religion and freedom from religion were key results of the reformation at the time of the founding and populating of the new world. No educated person, less than 2 centuries separated from the 30 Years War, or the genocide of the Anabaptists, or the multitudinous other mortal sins of the Catholic or Lutheran controlled governments of Europe, could fail to have noticed the fundamentally pernicious nature of church allied with government, or to have a heated opinion about it. Certainly not in america, the land populated by people trying to escape it. Radical separatist opinions were to be had at any corner pub, on any day of the week. Hatred and disgust for church-allied governments was the political air one had to breath in 1775.
To imagine that congress took no heed of that, nor had any active sympathy for it among the ranks of the amendments' drafters is to strain credibility beyond the breaking point.
You mean, for instance, by the federal supreme court disallowing christian prayer in publicly supported schools with mandated attendance, for example?
Of course, you are exactly correct. But you refuse to notice two major points which the Supremes do not: 1) the implications of using no tax dollars whatsoever for funding religeous practices, or the implications of the 13th 14th and 15th amendments, thrusting federally recognized individual rights down onto state and local governments. 2) the painfully obvious fact I have been at pains to point out: that, as per post #209, the founding fathers intentions were more thoroughgoing than merely refusing to hand over the reins of government to religeous tyrants. If that was what they intended, that is what they would have said. Supposing that the founding fathers had a sudden change of heart between the writing of the 1st Amendment and the writing of the Virginia Bill of Rights, and its subsequent application to the public funding of ministries is a defense that betrays a lack of understanding of what motivates a passionate, educated heart, such as those possessed by Madison, Adams, Washington and Jefferson.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.