Re: Dover Intelligent Design case -- judge rules for plaintiffs
 

i disagree. i will have to search for some info on what they truly meant by inserting this clause. i definitely think it's clearly not 'obvious' that they would be against any and all mention of God in the classroom, and strongly suspect (based on my reading and miniscule knowledge of the time period) that the Christian God was commonly called upon throughout the classrooms of the land. If anyone could show me otherwise, I'd be glad to consider a different perspective.

Re: Dover Intelligent Design case -- judge rules for plaintiffs
 

[ QUOTE ]
i definitely think it's clearly not 'obvious' that they would be against any and all mention of God in the classroom

[/ QUOTE ]


That's not what I said. I said it's obvious they didn't support government *support* of one religion, which is what the Establishment Clause says.

Please read more carefully.

Re: Dover Intelligent Design case -- judge rules for plaintiffs
 

you dont need to insult me. if you read your initial response, it does not even make proper sense in responding to my question. but i didnt bother to point that out. anyway, if i misread, then you have clarified - the gov warned against 'support' of a religion. did this mean that prayer in school was forbidden in the 18th century? i very much doubt that. again, if you can give me good evidence that the e clause was used that way THEN in that time, i will listen. i am 96% certain (even more certain than Sklanksy's 90% or so belief in no God) that prayer in public school was acceptable in the 18th century. perhaps, God forbid, even Creationism was taught.

Re: Dover Intelligent Design case -- judge rules for plaintiffs
 

[ QUOTE ]
perhaps, God forbid, even Creationism was taught.

[/ QUOTE ]

While you're checking that out, could you keep an eye out for me as to whether "the brain's purpose is to cool the blood" was still taught at that time, as well as the theories taught that dealt with heredity.

There would be no bar to the teaching of creationism if it was the accepted scientific explanation for speciation (and it may well have been at that time). That's a different situation than where the teaching of it would be because of it's standing in certain religions ( as is the current situation).

Don't be concerned if the differences between the situations elude you... perhaps it just me,

luckyme

Re: Dover Intelligent Design case -- judge rules for plaintiffs
 

my main point in that post was only that it's dishonest to distort the constitution by trying to pass it off as meaning something it really doesnt. even if evolution were absolutely proven true, that does not in any way transform the original meaning of the document

Re: Dover Intelligent Design case -- judge rules for plaintiffs
 

[ QUOTE ]
even if evolution were absolutely proven true, that does not in any way transform the original meaning of the document

[/ QUOTE ]

And my point, which is clearly escaping you, is that enforcing government neutrality towards religion clearly coincides with the spirit of the Establishment Clause, even if it is not explicitly the original intent.

Re: Dover Intelligent Design case -- judge rules for plaintiffs
 

Very good article recapping the whole trial here: link.

Re: Dover Intelligent Design case -- judge rules for plaintiffs
 

"judge rules for plaintiffs"

Thank G-d.

Re: Dover Intelligent Design case -- judge rules for plaintiffs
 

[ QUOTE ]
"judge rules for plaintiffs"

Thank G-d.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol.