| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Gregory Gadow" |
| Date: |
24 Sep 2003 05:51:07 PM |
| Object: |
Consider: Non promotion of religion amendment |
I am working to develop a "Bill of Rights II", a list of proposed
Constitutional amendments to address and correct the worst of the legal
and Constitutional abuses that have developed over the last few years. I
would value your considered opinions.
"Neither the United States, nor any state, nor any agency operating
under the direct authority of the United States or any state, shall
endorse, promote or denigrate any explicitly religious doctrine, belief
or creed. This shall not preclude mention of or teaching about religion
within institutions of public education PROVIDED that such remains
within the context of academic study and does not become endorsement,
promotion or denigration."
My intent to clarify the meaning of the First Amendment with regards to
religion as it has been interpreted during much of the 20th century.
Discuss.
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
Is your faith so weak and your god so powerless
that, without government endorsement of your
religion, all hell will break loose?
.
|
|
| User: "Crazyalec" |
|
| Title: Re: Consider: Non promotion of religion amendment |
24 Sep 2003 06:27:50 PM |
|
|
"Gregory Gadow" <techbear@serv.net> wrote in message
news:3F721FDB.19EA8FA0@serv.net...
I am working to develop a "Bill of Rights II", a list of proposed
Constitutional amendments to address and correct the worst of the legal
and Constitutional abuses that have developed over the last few years. I
would value your considered opinions.
Religion is a business. Religion should be separated from government because
its a conflict of interest.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Witziges Rätsel" |
|
| Title: Re: Consider: Non promotion of religion amendment |
24 Sep 2003 06:57:03 PM |
|
|
"Neither the United States, nor any state, nor any agency operating
under the direct authority of the United States or any state, shall
endorse, promote or denigrate any explicitly religious doctrine, belief
or creed. This shall not preclude mention of or teaching about religion
within institutions of public education PROVIDED that such remains
within the context of academic study and does not become endorsement,
promotion or denigration."
My intent to clarify the meaning of the First Amendment with regards to
religion as it has been interpreted during much of the 20th century.
Discuss.
I'd rather see a prohibition of religious instruction and promotion
at all levels. People should be taught critical thinking, research, and
skepticism; that faith without evidence is foolish; that rigid belief stifles
progress and fosters fanaticism; that fairy tales are fairy tales.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: aa - AQOTM [was: Re: Consider: Non promotion of religion amendment] |
24 Sep 2003 09:39:59 PM |
|
|
"Witziges Rätsel" <zer@roer.com> wrote in message
news:bktb1p$7l1$1@news.chatlink.com...
"Neither the United States, nor any state, nor any agency operating
under the direct authority of the United States or any state, shall
endorse, promote or denigrate any explicitly religious doctrine, belief
or creed. This shall not preclude mention of or teaching about religion
within institutions of public education PROVIDED that such remains
within the context of academic study and does not become endorsement,
promotion or denigration."
My intent to clarify the meaning of the First Amendment with regards to
religion as it has been interpreted during much of the 20th century.
Discuss.
I'd rather see a prohibition of religious instruction and
promotion
at all levels.
Nominated part:
People should be taught critical thinking, research, and
skepticism; that faith without evidence is foolish; that rigid belief
stifles
progress and fosters fanaticism; that fairy tales are fairy tales.
Seconds?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Carl Kaufmann" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - AQOTM [was: Re: Consider: Non promotion of religion amendment] |
24 Sep 2003 10:05:47 PM |
|
|
Bob White wrote:
"Witziges Rätsel" <zer@roer.com> wrote in message
news:bktb1p$7l1$1@news.chatlink.com...
"Neither the United States, nor any state, nor any agency operating
under the direct authority of the United States or any state, shall
endorse, promote or denigrate any explicitly religious doctrine, belief
or creed. This shall not preclude mention of or teaching about religion
within institutions of public education PROVIDED that such remains
within the context of academic study and does not become endorsement,
promotion or denigration."
My intent to clarify the meaning of the First Amendment with regards to
religion as it has been interpreted during much of the 20th century.
Discuss.
I'd rather see a prohibition of religious instruction and
promotion
at all levels.
Nominated part:
People should be taught critical thinking, research, and
skepticism; that faith without evidence is foolish; that rigid belief
stifles
progress and fosters fanaticism; that fairy tales are fairy tales.
Seconds?
Definitely seconded.
--
EAC Liar, Damned Liar, and Statistician
A.A. #1966
"Statistical thinking will one day be as necessary for efficient
citizenship as the ability to read and write." - H.G. Wells
.
|
|
|
| User: "*Nemo*" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - AQOTM [was: Re: Consider: Non promotion of religion amendment] |
25 Sep 2003 04:54:33 AM |
|
|
In article <fYscb.9973$KJ4.566@news1.central.cox.net>,
Carl Kaufmann <cwkaufmann@netscape.net> wrote:
Bob White wrote:
"Witziges Rätsel" <zer@roer.com> wrote in message
news:bktb1p$7l1$1@news.chatlink.com...
"Neither the United States, nor any state, nor any agency operating
under the direct authority of the United States or any state, shall
endorse, promote or denigrate any explicitly religious doctrine, belief
or creed. This shall not preclude mention of or teaching about religion
within institutions of public education PROVIDED that such remains
within the context of academic study and does not become endorsement,
promotion or denigration."
My intent to clarify the meaning of the First Amendment with regards to
religion as it has been interpreted during much of the 20th century.
Discuss.
I'd rather see a prohibition of religious instruction and
promotion
at all levels.
Nominated part:
People should be taught critical thinking, research, and
skepticism; that faith without evidence is foolish; that rigid belief
stifles
progress and fosters fanaticism; that fairy tales are fairy tales.
Seconds?
Definitely seconded.
Recorded.
--
Nemo - EAC Commissioner for Bible Belt Underwater Operations.
Atheist #1331 (the Palindrome of doom!)
BAAWA Knight! - One of those warm Southern Knights, y'all!
Charter member, SMASH!!
http://home.earthlink.net/~jehdjh/Relpg.html
Draco Dormiens Nunquam Titillandus
Quotemeister since March 2002
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Richardson" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - AQOTM [was: Re: Consider: Non promotion of religion amendment] |
24 Sep 2003 10:00:47 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 02:39:59 GMT, "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com>
wrote:
<stuff>
Skeptic!
You shouldn't get our hopes up like that.
It's very cruel.
Mark.
--
Mark Richardson mDOTrichardsonATutasDOTeduDOTau
Member of S.M.A.S.H.
(Sarcastic Middle aged Atheists with a Sense of Humour)
-----------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory Gadow" |
|
| Title: Re: aa - AQOTM [was: Re: Consider: Non promotion of religion amendment] |
25 Sep 2003 09:23:32 AM |
|
|
When you are quoting me, please include me in the references.
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
Is your faith so weak and your god so powerless
that, without government endorsement of your
religion, all hell will break loose?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory Gadow" |
|
| Title: Re: Consider: Non promotion of religion amendment |
25 Sep 2003 09:22:41 AM |
|
|
"Witziges Rätsel" wrote:
"Neither the United States, nor any state, nor any agency operating
under the direct authority of the United States or any state, shall
endorse, promote or denigrate any explicitly religious doctrine, belief
or creed. This shall not preclude mention of or teaching about religion
within institutions of public education PROVIDED that such remains
within the context of academic study and does not become endorsement,
promotion or denigration."
My intent to clarify the meaning of the First Amendment with regards to
religion as it has been interpreted during much of the 20th century.
Discuss.
I'd rather see a prohibition of religious instruction and promotion
at all levels.
I don't think that would work. For one thing, there are huge tracts of history that
simply could not be taught in public schools or universities because they centered
around religious conflicts. Philosophy, sociology, cultural diversity... there are
many curricula that would have to be either heavily censored or thrown out entirely.
People should be taught critical thinking, research, and
skepticism; that faith without evidence is foolish; that rigid belief stifles
progress and fosters fanaticism; that fairy tales are fairy tales.
I included the provision to allow for study of, say, the fall of the Roman Empire or
the impact of the Reformation or the former government of Tibet. Such educating
*requires* the mention of religion and enough background on that religion to make the
larger events meaningful. That does not -- and must not -- lead to "endorsement,
promotion or denigration" of religion.
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
Is your faith so weak and your god so powerless
that, without government endorsement of your
religion, all hell will break loose?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sverker Johansson" |
|
| Title: Re: Consider: Non promotion of religion amendment |
26 Sep 2003 07:06:15 AM |
|
|
Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net> wrote in message news:<3F721FDB.19EA8FA0@serv.net>...
I am working to develop a "Bill of Rights II", a list of proposed
Constitutional amendments to address and correct the worst of the legal
and Constitutional abuses that have developed over the last few years. I
would value your considered opinions.
"Neither the United States, nor any state, nor any agency operating
under the direct authority of the United States or any state, shall
endorse, promote or denigrate any explicitly religious doctrine, belief
or creed. This shall not preclude mention of or teaching about religion
within institutions of public education PROVIDED that such remains
within the context of academic study and does not become endorsement,
promotion or denigration."
My intent to clarify the meaning of the First Amendment with regards to
religion as it has been interpreted during much of the 20th century.
Discuss.
Apart from several other problems that others have pointed out,
I see a problem with the "denigrate" part. As we all know, there
are lots of fundies out there who see a conflict between science
and their favorite religion. For a YEC, the teaching of real science
about the age of the earth might be regarded as denigrating his
religion -- after all, it does imply that his religion is wrong.
I don't want to handle the fundies a tool they can use to get science
outlawed in school.
Best regards
Sverker Johansson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory Gadow" |
|
| Title: Re: Consider: Non promotion of religion amendment |
26 Sep 2003 09:25:38 AM |
|
|
Sverker Johansson wrote:
Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net> wrote in message news:<3F721FDB.19EA8FA0@serv.net>...
I am working to develop a "Bill of Rights II", a list of proposed
Constitutional amendments to address and correct the worst of the legal
and Constitutional abuses that have developed over the last few years. I
would value your considered opinions.
"Neither the United States, nor any state, nor any agency operating
under the direct authority of the United States or any state, shall
endorse, promote or denigrate any explicitly religious doctrine, belief
or creed. This shall not preclude mention of or teaching about religion
within institutions of public education PROVIDED that such remains
within the context of academic study and does not become endorsement,
promotion or denigration."
My intent to clarify the meaning of the First Amendment with regards to
religion as it has been interpreted during much of the 20th century.
Discuss.
Apart from several other problems that others have pointed out,
I see a problem with the "denigrate" part. As we all know, there
are lots of fundies out there who see a conflict between science
and their favorite religion. For a YEC, the teaching of real science
about the age of the earth might be regarded as denigrating his
religion -- after all, it does imply that his religion is wrong.
I don't want to handle the fundies a tool they can use to get science
outlawed in school.
Hmm... my reasoning is that saying "Religious believers, by definition, are delusional" is
just as unconstitutional in a government sponsored setting as saying, "atheists, by
definition, are ignoramouses." But I can see your point. Any suggestions on changing the
text?
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
Is your faith so weak and your god so powerless
that, without government endorsement of your
religion, all hell will break loose?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sverker Johansson" |
|
| Title: Re: Consider: Non promotion of religion amendment |
29 Sep 2003 02:24:09 AM |
|
|
Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net> wrote in message news:<3F744C62.95582D17@serv.net>...
Sverker Johansson wrote:
Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net> wrote in message news:<3F721FDB.19EA8FA0@serv.net>...
I am working to develop a "Bill of Rights II", a list of proposed
Constitutional amendments to address and correct the worst of the legal
and Constitutional abuses that have developed over the last few years. I
would value your considered opinions.
"Neither the United States, nor any state, nor any agency operating
under the direct authority of the United States or any state, shall
endorse, promote or denigrate any explicitly religious doctrine, belief
or creed. This shall not preclude mention of or teaching about religion
within institutions of public education PROVIDED that such remains
within the context of academic study and does not become endorsement,
promotion or denigration."
My intent to clarify the meaning of the First Amendment with regards to
religion as it has been interpreted during much of the 20th century.
Discuss.
Apart from several other problems that others have pointed out,
I see a problem with the "denigrate" part. As we all know, there
are lots of fundies out there who see a conflict between science
and their favorite religion. For a YEC, the teaching of real science
about the age of the earth might be regarded as denigrating his
religion -- after all, it does imply that his religion is wrong.
I don't want to handle the fundies a tool they can use to get science
outlawed in school.
Hmm... my reasoning is that saying "Religious believers, by definition, are delusional" is
just as unconstitutional in a government sponsored setting as saying, "atheists, by
definition, are ignoramouses."
Reasonable.
How about: "YECs, as a matter of empirical fact, are delusional." ?
But I can see your point. Any suggestions on changing the
text?
I would introduce something along the lines of the Lemon test
http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa031700a.htm
The first prong of Lemon concerns whether an action has a
secular purpose or not, IOW whether its religious implications
are by design or just incidental.
Why not change "shall endorse,..." in your text to "shall take any
action the principal purpose of which is to endorse,...".
On re-reading your text I see another creationism-related
problem, and that concerns your use of the words "explicitly
religious". Creationism is commonly presented masquerading
as science, without _explicit_ religious trappings. This is
particularly the case with its latest stealth incarnation,
"Intelligent Design". Your amendment isn't useful for keeping
stealth religion out of government. In the past, the courts
have used the Lemon test, particularly the part about "secular
purpose", to keep creationists out of schools, but that won't
work if explicitness is required. Why not just drop the word
"explicitly" ?
Best regards
Sverker johansson
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Woden" |
|
| Title: Re: Consider: Non promotion of religion amendment |
24 Sep 2003 08:42:22 PM |
|
|
Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net> wrote in news:3F721FDB.19EA8FA0
@serv.net:
I am working to develop a "Bill of Rights II", a list of proposed
Constitutional amendments to address and correct the worst of the legal
and Constitutional abuses that have developed over the last few years.
I
would value your considered opinions.
"Neither the United States, nor any state, nor any agency operating
under the direct authority of the United States or any state, shall
endorse, promote or denigrate any explicitly religious doctrine, belief
or creed. This shall not preclude mention of or teaching about religion
within institutions of public education PROVIDED that such remains
within the context of academic study and does not become endorsement,
promotion or denigration."
My intent to clarify the meaning of the First Amendment with regards to
religion as it has been interpreted during much of the 20th century.
Discuss.
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
Is your faith so weak and your god so powerless
that, without government endorsement of your
religion, all hell will break loose?
Does the expression "pissing up a rope" mean anything to you?
;-)
--
Woden
"religion is a socio-political institution for the control of
people's thoughts, lives, and actions; based on
ancient myths and superstitions perpetrated through
generations of subtle yet pervasive brainwashing."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brainfried Sysadmin" |
|
| Title: Re: Consider: Non promotion of religion amendment |
24 Sep 2003 10:26:25 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 01:42:22 +0000, Woden wrote:
Does the expression "pissing up a rope" mean anything to you?
You CAN ***** up a rope. It just take a huge amount of ***** and a very
long time for that ***** to wick its way to the top.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brainfried Sysadmin" |
|
| Title: Re: Consider: Non promotion of religion amendment |
24 Sep 2003 11:16:04 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 03:26:25 +0000, Brainfried Sysadmin wrote:
On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 01:42:22 +0000, Woden wrote:
Does the expression "pissing up a rope" mean anything to you?
You CAN ***** up a rope. It just take a huge amount of ***** and a very
long time for that ***** to wick its way to the top.
I guess I better drink some more beer and get started...
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Thomas" |
|
| Title: Re: Consider: Non promotion of religion amendment |
26 Sep 2003 03:49:29 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 03:26:25 GMT, Brainfried Sysadmin
<no@way.com> wrote:
On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 01:42:22 +0000, Woden wrote:
Does the expression "pissing up a rope" mean anything to you?
You CAN ***** up a rope. It just take a huge amount of ***** and a very
long time for that ***** to wick its way to the top.
But be careful not to ***** into the wind. I was on a boat once
and I did just that :(
-
Martin Thomas
mart666t@netscape.NO.HAWKERS.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory Gadow" |
|
| Title: Re: Consider: Non promotion of religion amendment |
25 Sep 2003 09:25:33 AM |
|
|
Woden wrote:
Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net> wrote in news:3F721FDB.19EA8FA0
@serv.net:
I am working to develop a "Bill of Rights II", a list of proposed
Constitutional amendments to address and correct the worst of the legal
and Constitutional abuses that have developed over the last few years.
I
would value your considered opinions.
"Neither the United States, nor any state, nor any agency operating
under the direct authority of the United States or any state, shall
endorse, promote or denigrate any explicitly religious doctrine, belief
or creed. This shall not preclude mention of or teaching about religion
within institutions of public education PROVIDED that such remains
within the context of academic study and does not become endorsement,
promotion or denigration."
My intent to clarify the meaning of the First Amendment with regards to
religion as it has been interpreted during much of the 20th century.
Discuss.
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
Is your faith so weak and your god so powerless
that, without government endorsement of your
religion, all hell will break loose?
Does the expression "pissing up a rope" mean anything to you?
More like "pissing on a live wire" :-)
I have several more ideas that I'd like to promote; they are being scattered
around the Usenet in appropriate groups for comment. What the hell, I'm a
dyed-in-the-wool idealist, and the growing backlash against Bush and the
religious right will be the best time to push some of that idealism.
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
Is your faith so weak and your god so powerless
that, without government endorsement of your
religion, all hell will break loose?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Consider: Non promotion of religion amendment |
25 Sep 2003 01:25:58 AM |
|
|
In article <3F721FDB.19EA8FA0@serv.net>,
Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net> wrote:
I am working to develop a "Bill of Rights II", a list of proposed
Constitutional amendments to address and correct the worst of the legal
and Constitutional abuses that have developed over the last few years. I
would value your considered opinions.
"Neither the United States, nor any state, nor any agency operating
under the direct authority of the United States or any state, shall
endorse, promote or denigrate any explicitly religious doctrine, belief
or creed. This shall not preclude mention of or teaching about religion
within institutions of public education PROVIDED that such remains
within the context of academic study and does not become endorsement,
promotion or denigration."
My intent to clarify the meaning of the First Amendment with regards to
religion as it has been interpreted during much of the 20th century.
Discuss.
--
I like it. I would, however, think about rewording the part about
permitting the teaching about religion in public schools. I would be
concerned about the fundies using it as an excuse to sneak creationism
into the science class. "Oh, no! We're not promoting religion! we just
want the competing ideas of creationism and evolutionism to be taught
side be side." Right.
Perhaps there could be some language added to limit the teaching about
religion to it's historical, sociological, and psychological aspects.
--
John Hachmann, aa #1782
Pierre Laplace, when asked by Napoleon on why he made
no mention of a god in his book on astronomy: "Sire,
I have no need of that hypothesis."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory Gadow" |
|
| Title: Re: Consider: Non promotion of religion amendment |
25 Sep 2003 09:35:48 AM |
|
|
johac wrote:
In article <3F721FDB.19EA8FA0@serv.net>,
Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net> wrote:
I am working to develop a "Bill of Rights II", a list of proposed
Constitutional amendments to address and correct the worst of the legal
and Constitutional abuses that have developed over the last few years. I
would value your considered opinions.
"Neither the United States, nor any state, nor any agency operating
under the direct authority of the United States or any state, shall
endorse, promote or denigrate any explicitly religious doctrine, belief
or creed. This shall not preclude mention of or teaching about religion
within institutions of public education PROVIDED that such remains
within the context of academic study and does not become endorsement,
promotion or denigration."
My intent to clarify the meaning of the First Amendment with regards to
religion as it has been interpreted during much of the 20th century.
Discuss.
--
I like it. I would, however, think about rewording the part about
permitting the teaching about religion in public schools. I would be
concerned about the fundies using it as an excuse to sneak creationism
into the science class. "Oh, no! We're not promoting religion! we just
want the competing ideas of creationism and evolutionism to be taught
side be side." Right.
Perhaps there could be some language added to limit the teaching about
religion to it's historical, sociological, and psychological aspects.
You are spot on about why I included the provision, but I don't think that
enumerating the permitted academic disciplines is a good idea. What about the
impact of religion on current events? Would it be acceptable to teach some
basics of Islamic culture and religion in order to better understand the
situation in the Middle East? What about philosophy? Literature? Most choral
music is religious in nature; would it be acceptable to Constitutionally
prohibit 3/4 of our musical heritage from public schools?
As for creationism, you raise a good point. I can see the argument that
"planned design" is not an *explicitly* religious doctrine. What would you
suggest?
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
Is your faith so weak and your god so powerless
that, without government endorsement of your
religion, all hell will break loose?
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Consider: Non promotion of religion amendment |
26 Sep 2003 12:07:24 AM |
|
|
In article <3F72FD44.60723629@serv.net>,
Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net> wrote:
johac wrote:
In article <3F721FDB.19EA8FA0@serv.net>,
Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net> wrote:
I am working to develop a "Bill of Rights II", a list of proposed
Constitutional amendments to address and correct the worst of the legal
and Constitutional abuses that have developed over the last few years. I
would value your considered opinions.
"Neither the United States, nor any state, nor any agency operating
under the direct authority of the United States or any state, shall
endorse, promote or denigrate any explicitly religious doctrine, belief
or creed. This shall not preclude mention of or teaching about religion
within institutions of public education PROVIDED that such remains
within the context of academic study and does not become endorsement,
promotion or denigration."
My intent to clarify the meaning of the First Amendment with regards to
religion as it has been interpreted during much of the 20th century.
Discuss.
--
I like it. I would, however, think about rewording the part about
permitting the teaching about religion in public schools. I would be
concerned about the fundies using it as an excuse to sneak creationism
into the science class. "Oh, no! We're not promoting religion! we just
want the competing ideas of creationism and evolutionism to be taught
side be side." Right.
Perhaps there could be some language added to limit the teaching about
religion to it's historical, sociological, and psychological aspects.
You are spot on about why I included the provision, but I don't think that
enumerating the permitted academic disciplines is a good idea. What about the
impact of religion on current events? Would it be acceptable to teach some
basics of Islamic culture and religion in order to better understand the
situation in the Middle East? What about philosophy? Literature? Most choral
music is religious in nature; would it be acceptable to Constitutionally
prohibit 3/4 of our musical heritage from public schools?
I thought of current events after I posted. The others that you
mention should be in there too.
As for creationism, you raise a good point. I can see the argument that
"planned design" is not an *explicitly* religious doctrine. What would you
suggest?
I tried to think of something last night and couldn't come up with
anything specific. We would say that raising creationism or
intelligent design to the level of current biological theories of
evolution is promotion of religion, but how to put that into words to
fit the current case? One would probably have to have some working
definition of religion and science in the law. Perhaps the law should
not permit the study of religion as religion, except maybe a brief
description the various religions for background, but only how it
affects other areas of human experience, such as, but not limited to,
history, politics, the arts, etc. Since religion has no part in modern
scientific theory, there is no reason to consider it in the science
class. Of course the fundies, their lawyers, and judges would probably
take issue with that.
--
John Hachmann, aa #1782
Pierre Laplace, when asked by Napoleon on why he made
no mention of a god in his book on astronomy: "Sire,
I have no need of that hypothesis."
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Consider: Non promotion of religion amendment |
24 Sep 2003 10:28:26 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 15:51:07 -0700, Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net>
posted in alt.atheism:
I am working to develop a "Bill of Rights II", a list of proposed
Constitutional amendments to address and correct the worst of the legal
and Constitutional abuses that have developed over the last few years. I
would value your considered opinions.
"Neither the United States, nor any state, nor any agency operating
under the direct authority of the United States or any state, shall
endorse, promote or denigrate any explicitly religious doctrine, belief
or creed. This shall not preclude mention of or teaching about religion
within institutions of public education PROVIDED that such remains
within the context of academic study and does not become endorsement,
promotion or denigration."
My intent to clarify the meaning of the First Amendment with regards to
religion as it has been interpreted during much of the 20th century.
Discuss.
A snowball has a better chance of surviving 20 years in the hottest
corner of hell.
--
"Creationists are the best evidence we have that there is no intelligent design."
-Josef Balluch
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory Gadow" |
|
| Title: Re: Consider: Non promotion of religion amendment |
25 Sep 2003 09:29:04 AM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 15:51:07 -0700, Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net>
posted in alt.atheism:
I am working to develop a "Bill of Rights II", a list of proposed
Constitutional amendments to address and correct the worst of the legal
and Constitutional abuses that have developed over the last few years. I
would value your considered opinions.
"Neither the United States, nor any state, nor any agency operating
under the direct authority of the United States or any state, shall
endorse, promote or denigrate any explicitly religious doctrine, belief
or creed. This shall not preclude mention of or teaching about religion
within institutions of public education PROVIDED that such remains
within the context of academic study and does not become endorsement,
promotion or denigration."
My intent to clarify the meaning of the First Amendment with regards to
religion as it has been interpreted during much of the 20th century.
Discuss.
A snowball has a better chance of surviving 20 years in the hottest
corner of hell.
Except that snowballs actually exist :-P
So consider it a thought experiment. Or an expression of wide-eyed if totally
unjustified optimism. If the RR can masturbate over *their* Constitutional
amendments, why can't I?
Does this proposed amendment adequately cover what I want it to cover? Is there a
clearer, simpler way to express it that does not dilute its intent? Is it too open to
interpretation? Too restrictive? That's what the kind of consideration I'm looking
for.
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
Is your faith so weak and your god so powerless
that, without government endorsement of your
religion, all hell will break loose?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Consider: Non promotion of religion amendment |
27 Sep 2003 12:32:52 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 07:29:04 -0700, Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net>
posted in alt.atheism:
Does this proposed amendment adequately cover what I want it to cover? Is there a
clearer, simpler way to express it that does not dilute its intent? Is it too open to
interpretation? Too restrictive? That's what the kind of consideration I'm looking
for.
I tried. I may be able to get it if I work on it, but it's not easy.
--
"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists, but
not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and actions of human beings."
-A. Einstein (1929 -- Einstein Archive 33-272)
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
