steen said:
It is about the separation of church and sate. That IS what you were asking about.
yes, and I said that teaching a nuetral class on the subject is not a violation of seperation of chuch and state. just because the court ruled that bringing in clergy to give prayers violates seperation of church and state, does not mean that teaching a nuetral class would.
steen said:
Ah, it is about teaching a specific, religious viewppoint in class. You obviously missed this part:
Held:
- 1. The Act is facially invalid as violative of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, because it lacks a clear secular purpose.
So there it is. You need a clear secular purpose to your teaching.
it's quite possible to teach about religions with a secular purpose. that is the kind of class I am speaking about.
steen said:
(b) The Act impermissibly endorses religion by advancing the religious belief that a supernatural being created humankind. The legislative history demonstrates that the term "creation science," as contemplated by the state legislature, embraces this religious teaching. The Act's primary purpose was to change the public school science curriculum to provide persuasive advantage to a particular religious doctrine that rejects the factual basis of evolution in its entirety. Thus, the Act is designed either to promote the theory of creation science that embodies a particular religious tenet or to prohibit the teaching of a scientific theory disfavored by certain religious sects. In either case, the Act violates the First Amendment.
So teaching a specific religious view is not allowed.
no, "The Act impermissibly endorses religion by advancing the religious belief that a supernatural being created humankind." that is not equal to teaching a religion from a nuetral perspective.
"The legislative history demonstrates that the term 'creation science,' as contemplated by the state legislature, embraces this religious teaching. The Act's primary purpose was to change the public school science curriculum to provide persuasive advantage to a particular religious doctrine that rejects the factual basis of evolution in its entirety."
this was obviously quite preachy. far different from a neutral class about a religion.
steen said:
The court further concluded that "the teaching of `creation-science' and `creationism,' as contemplated by the statute, involves teaching `tailored to the principles' of a particular religious sect or group of sects
And there it is that no specific religion can be taught.
no, it just means that you cannot teach religion as if it were true. you cannot preach religion. it says nothing about whether its alright to teach about religion nuetrally.
steen said:
Because the Creationism Act was thus a law furthering a particular religious belief, the Court of Appeals held that the Act violated the Establishment Clause
There it is. regardless of how academically you push it, the teaching of one specific religious belief is unconstitutional. That answers the very question you posed.
no, preaching a specific religions belief is unconstitutional.
steen said:
And here is then the crux of the matter:
II
The Establishment Clause forbids the enactment of any law "respecting an establishment of religion." 3 The Court [SIZE=-1][482 U.S. 578, 583] [/SIZE]has applied a three-pronged test to determine whether legislation comports with the Establishment Clause. First, the legislature must have adopted the law with a secular purpose. Second, the statute's principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion. Third, the statute must not result in an excessive entanglement of government with religion.
A class teaching a specific religion will violate these points. Your claim fails. Suck it up and move on.
it violates none of these points.
teaching a class about christianity for the sake of teaching students about an important part of our history and our culture is a secular purpose.
teaching it from a nuetral perspective niether advances nor inhibits religion.
teaching it in a public school is not an excessive entanglement of government and religion.
steen said:
It is about the separation of church and state.
yes, but it doesnt show how a class on religion violates seperation of chuch and state.
steen said:
And violates the separation of Church and State.
yes, but it doesnt show how a class on religion violates seperation of chuch and state.
steen said:
It confirms the separation of Church and State, which is specified in the EDWARDS v. AGUILLARD, 482 U.S. 578 (1987) which is the second case I referenced.
yes, but it doesnt show how a class on religion violates seperation of chuch and state.
steen said:
But it confirms the separation of Church and State. The specifics about teaching is outlined in the EDWARDS v. AGUILLARD case as specified above, where it is clearly showed that the 3-prong evaluation will rpohibit your suggested class.
yes, but it doesnt show how a class on religion violates seperation of chuch and state.
