If the case went to court, that would be the clause at issue. It is hence the applicable part of that amendment.
What constitutes an establishment of religion?
What if public school teachers denounce some religions in the classroom?
What if they just actively advocate their own?
Additionally, the textualist/originalist position you are advancing is not the only method of constitutional interpretation. It could certainly be argued that there are larger principles embodied in the constitution that are not explicitly spelled out as such.
Actually, without personal knowledge of this, I would bet that the ISU FB team has numerous "counselors" that are paid by the University and assigned to the team for various duties. It sounds to me as though you fear someone on the team seeking spiritual advice.
Because the Congress begins its sessions with a Christian prayer has it invalidated all other religions. I think not. In fact, if you look around the world you will see that the USA has the most religious tolerance of any nation with significant numbers of people practicing many, many religions.
Again, having the resource of a Chaplain does not mandate that anyone on the team use that resource. As I said earlier, it's kind of like the Parks Library...it is there for those that want to use it but no one is forced to use it.
I can't believe this ridiculous argument has lasted this long. We need to consult a Higher Power to resolve this. Let's make a pilgrimage to the Powerhouse Church of the Presumptuous Assumption of the Blinding Light...
"O Blinding Light! O Light that blinds! I cannot see! Look out for me!"
If the religion is Christianity, this behavior is practically forbidden today, and any teachers that openly try it would likely be legally reprimanded or fired. In practicality, in public classrooms today, our "law" makes it acceptable to ridicule Christianity, but not acceptable to advocate it. Personally, I find it very difficult to believe that our founders, no matter how diverse they were (and I do agree that they were diverse), intended for the constitution to promote and allow such a situation regarding any religion.
And yet the United States has prohibited Mosques from sounding their call for prayer because it "infringes" on the Christians' rights for religion. Sounds a little biased to me since Christian churches can sound there call for prayer (bells).
I can't stand people like that. Wasn't this country based on religion?
The difference being mosques would be sounding their call five times a day every day, as opposed to a once-in-awhile occurrence with the church. As a matter of fact, outside of really small towns, I can't remember the last time I heard a church bell chime. Probably because most city ordinances don't allow it anymore :sad9cd:
You would have been right prior to the passage of the 14th Amendment. Technically the applicable part of the Constitution is the due process clause of the 14th Amendment, through which the 1st has been incorporated against the states. The courts have interpreted prohibitions of the 1st Amendment to apply to the states in exactly the same way as the federal government though, so for practicality purposes it makes sense to just discuss the 1st Amendment.Congress has made no law making Christianity our national faith nor have they made any law mandating a Christian Chaplain at ISU...so the first part actually does not apply.
I think I would disagree as to it being the "safest" one, probably because I like the results a more liberal interpretation more than you do. I also think this country would have been in trouble though if a strict constructionist interpretation had won out. I would also add that couched within serving "as the framework for how our country is to operate" is the notion of individual liberties which restrict what the government is able to do. Among those individual liberties are some that are not enumerated in the Constitution, and which are eluded to in the 9th Amendment. The wording of the 9th Amendment begs for a natural law approach to rights, and if such an approach is taken then it makes sense that we would better "discover" the extent of those rights as time goes on.I agree that my position isn't the only one, but I think it is the "safest" one. The constituion functions on several levels...it provides the practical framework for running our country...it functions as philosphical document that provides interesting thoughts on the origins of human rights and liberties. But the question is, what is its primary function? I think its primary function is to serve as the framework for how our country is to operate. I have no problem discussing the constitution philosophically, but I do have a significant problem when the results of that philosphical discussion, which seem to clearly conflict with the intent of the Founders, are implemented as law through judicial decision.
I had it before you butted in. :growl5cj:Just checking back in to see who ultimately will get the last word in this never-ending saga. :rofl8yi:
I was going to prove you wrong by not responding. But then I figured that no one would realize I was proving you wrong unless I said something. So maybe I'll prove you wrong by not responding to your response to my response. Maybe.Believe me Psyched, Kyle never shuts about anything:biggrin9gp:
I knew that you would wait for my response, so that you could not respond to it, and I am responding expecting you not to respond, but knowing that you probably will anyway, despite yourself.
On what do you base that conclusion? The pilgrims and others who started the colonies fled England (primarily) and other European countries, where there existed state-sanctioned churches that did not tolerate diverse religious viewpoints. They didn't flee Europe because the church was running the government...
On what do you base that conclusion? The pilgrims and others who started the colonies fled England (primarily) and other European countries, where there existed state-sanctioned churches that did not tolerate diverse religious viewpoints. They didn't flee Europe because the church was running the government...
Wow! Are you actually pro-Theocracy???!!!!:baffled5wh:
if there was an Olympic event for jumping to wild conclusions, I'd want you on our team!