Showing posts with label separation of church and state. Show all posts
Showing posts with label separation of church and state. Show all posts
Sunday, May 27, 2012
Matthew LaClair: American Hero
Watch this documentary about student Matthew LaClair, who stood up to his Bible-thumping teacher (despite a lack of support from the school administration and fellow students) and struck a blow for the separation of church and state. The teacher, David Paszkiewicz, is exposed as a liar and a moron.
Sunday, January 15, 2012
Jessica Ahlquist - American Hero
Watch the video and tell me you aren't impressed with the quiet confidence and intelligence displayed by Jessica Ahlquist, victorious plaintiff in the Cranston, RI school prayer banner case.
Now contrast it with the threats and vituperation of Christians who wanted a different outcome.
Everybody's favorite moron neurosurgeon actually called Jessica a "pubescent brownshirt" and said she was worse than Nazi Youth. It's hard to imagine anything more vile.
The comparison between Ahlquist and her detractors illustrates the utter depravity induced by religion.
Now contrast it with the threats and vituperation of Christians who wanted a different outcome.
Everybody's favorite moron neurosurgeon actually called Jessica a "pubescent brownshirt" and said she was worse than Nazi Youth. It's hard to imagine anything more vile.
The comparison between Ahlquist and her detractors illustrates the utter depravity induced by religion.
Friday, June 24, 2011
More Egnorance
Just as I suspected, Egnor's blog provides even more hilarity.
Here he claims:
'Separation of church and state' is not in the Constitution and is not Constitutional Law.
Well, the words "separation of church and state" are not in the US Constitution, but neither are the words "right to a fair trial". Yet I doubt Egnor would make the same claim about the right to a fair trial.
It is a clear falsehood to imply that the concept of separation of church and state is not in the Constitution. Of course it is - right there in the First Amendment - and no reputable lawyer claims otherwise. It is just plain weird how someone can proclaim his religion with such pride, and yet violate its tenets so casually.
I really wonder why becoming unhinged about evolution means you also become unhinged about global warming, separation of church and state, etc.
Here he claims:
'Separation of church and state' is not in the Constitution and is not Constitutional Law.
Well, the words "separation of church and state" are not in the US Constitution, but neither are the words "right to a fair trial". Yet I doubt Egnor would make the same claim about the right to a fair trial.
It is a clear falsehood to imply that the concept of separation of church and state is not in the Constitution. Of course it is - right there in the First Amendment - and no reputable lawyer claims otherwise. It is just plain weird how someone can proclaim his religion with such pride, and yet violate its tenets so casually.
I really wonder why becoming unhinged about evolution means you also become unhinged about global warming, separation of church and state, etc.
Friday, October 22, 2010
Confusion about Separation of Church and State
I was once arguing with Eugene Volokh about the separation of church and state in the US. From his lawyer's perspective, he thought the really important issues at the church-state boundary concerned things like "parochiaid" - direct or indirect aid to religious schools - and probably most legal scholars agree with him.
But from my point of view, the really important issues concern things like "In God We Trust" on money, and "under God" in the pledge of allegiance. These seem trivial to people like Volokh, and they're often dismissed as "ceremonial deism". For example, in Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, Justice Brennan (dissenting) wrote "such practices as the designation of "In God We Trust" as our national motto, or the references to God contained in the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag can best be understood, in Dean Rostow's apt phrase, as a form a "ceremonial deism," protected from Establishment Clause scrutiny chiefly because they have lost through rote repetition any significant religious content".
But now go read this article about Christian prayers broadcast over a loudspeaker at football games at Soddy Daisy, a public high school, in Tennessee. This is a pretty clear violation of separation of church and state, right? Now look at what one local parent, Jim Rogers, uses to justify the practice: "Our country was founded on the principle of religious suffrage and the freedom to express that religion. They incorporated God into our money, the oath of office, our legal system, the Pledge of Allegiance. You cannot find one aspect of our secular government that doesn’t make reference to our creator."
Mr. Rogers clearly doesn't know a damn thing about the separation of church and state, and I doubt he could explain what "ceremonial deism" is. But he does know something that Prof. Volokh doesn't: small, creeping violations of separation have a lot of symbolic value. Rogers knows damn well that having "In God We Trust" on coins is full of "significant religious content".
Lawyers love to say De minimis non curat lex. But the average person knows that when school children are coerced every day into saying "one nation, under God, indivisible", this is more than just "minimis". That's why people in favor of separation need to speak out against the smallest violation. Every crack in the wall just leads to more cracks.
But from my point of view, the really important issues concern things like "In God We Trust" on money, and "under God" in the pledge of allegiance. These seem trivial to people like Volokh, and they're often dismissed as "ceremonial deism". For example, in Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, Justice Brennan (dissenting) wrote "such practices as the designation of "In God We Trust" as our national motto, or the references to God contained in the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag can best be understood, in Dean Rostow's apt phrase, as a form a "ceremonial deism," protected from Establishment Clause scrutiny chiefly because they have lost through rote repetition any significant religious content".
But now go read this article about Christian prayers broadcast over a loudspeaker at football games at Soddy Daisy, a public high school, in Tennessee. This is a pretty clear violation of separation of church and state, right? Now look at what one local parent, Jim Rogers, uses to justify the practice: "Our country was founded on the principle of religious suffrage and the freedom to express that religion. They incorporated God into our money, the oath of office, our legal system, the Pledge of Allegiance. You cannot find one aspect of our secular government that doesn’t make reference to our creator."
Mr. Rogers clearly doesn't know a damn thing about the separation of church and state, and I doubt he could explain what "ceremonial deism" is. But he does know something that Prof. Volokh doesn't: small, creeping violations of separation have a lot of symbolic value. Rogers knows damn well that having "In God We Trust" on coins is full of "significant religious content".
Lawyers love to say De minimis non curat lex. But the average person knows that when school children are coerced every day into saying "one nation, under God, indivisible", this is more than just "minimis". That's why people in favor of separation need to speak out against the smallest violation. Every crack in the wall just leads to more cracks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
