“Our interpretations of the Constitution do not have the force of law. The interpretations of the Supreme Court do.”
Of course. I was using “we” to refer to us as a nation, as a law-creating entity which includes the actions of the Supreme Court.
Again, the point is this: The fact that the Supreme Court interprets atheism as a religion for the purposes of interpreting the first amendment has no impact whatsoever on the laws regulating what counts as science or on the laws keeping evolution in, and Intelligent Design out of, the classroom.
I just don’t see anything here which will further the Intelligent Design movement. Thus, I predict that you will have to find another reason to eat popcorn.
As for the lawsuit regarding the National Prayer Day, I’m not so sure it is doomed to failure. This is not to say that I think it will succeed. If I had to guess, I’d say it will probably fail, actually. But I am hopeful.
Thank you for your reply!
Of course. I was using “we” to refer to us as a nation, as a law-creating entity which includes the actions of the Supreme Court.
Under the Constitution, only the Legislative Branch creates law. The Judicial Branch interprets law and their interpretations have the force of law, e.g. Rowe v. Wade. If laws were created by popular vote, they might as well throw away the Constitution.
Again, the point is this: The fact that the Supreme Court interprets atheism as a religion for the purposes of interpreting the first amendment has no impact whatsoever on the laws regulating what counts as science or on the laws keeping evolution in, and Intelligent Design out of, the classroom.
It depends on the legal theory argued before the court. So far, the one side has successfully argued that I.D. is religious. The I.D. side has not yet argued that naturalism (metaphysical or methodological) is religious. If anyone picks up that legal theory, IMHO, it will be quite entertaining to watch the court try to keep the government out of the establishment of atheism as the state religion through publicly funded education.
From your other post:
There is a three-pronged test to decide if a law runs contrary to the establishment clause. One prong says that the law must serve a secular function. The question then is, what secular function is served by declaring a National Prayer Day?
It is no more difficult for the court to uphold a National Prayer Day than to uphold Thanksgiving, prayers in Congress, use of Holy writ in Judicial Oaths or printing "In God we Trust" on currency. Indeed, ruling in favor of the atheists on this point would open the door to all of them because atheists are anti-Christ, anti-God and cannot be appeased. They are indeed very "religious" and "evangelical" in their contempt for God, hence the importance of Kaufman. The "free exercise" clause and legal precedent cannot and I aver, will not, be dismissed by this Supreme Court. They will not favor one belief (including disbelief) over another.