However, if this prediction turns out to be true in a future thread, don’t say I didn’t warn ya.

Who are the creationists in this argument?

Another creationist tactic. Though to be fair, most of them don’t do that one on purpose.

Let my try and explain my overnight conversion. It came from the part of your post I didn’t address before my last post.

The First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”

What I think you have said, and I now see, is that this statement, by removing the right of Congress promote or limit religious freedom acknowledges (does not grant) the right to religious freedom US citizens have.

Then the Fourteenth Amendment says no state can abridge the privileges or immunities of the citizens and the First Amendment acknowledged that very privilege. So therefore the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the states from infringing upon those rights previously acknowledged. With that in mind, I don’t think the Fourteenth Amendment then directly extends the First Amendment, but it does logically. I don’t think it’s necessary to try and tie the two together, but that’s irrelevant now.

To me then, it would seem that any promoting of religion in a state or federally funded institution of any kind should be entirely prohibited. Laws allowing “equal opportunity,” as it were, for religious promotion shouldn’t exist because of the vagueness involved.

For anyone just reading this, please keep in mind that I never advocated the teaching of religion in any school. This was merely a debate on the constitutionality of it.

I think you went unnecessarily far in your last post addressed to me, and said things which aren’t true, but no big deal.

I still disagree that the words of the Constitution and Bill of Rights are unclear.

TheBlackCat: “You have provided lots of reasons why we should only base it on the words of the constitution itself, but my interpretation fits that criteria at least as well as yours does (in my opinion).”

Tip for arguing on the Internet: It’s okay to concede defeat, but you should never compromise.

I’m going to mark this on my calendar. I believe this is the first time anyone has ever won an argument on the Internet and actually had the loser admit it.

It’s called “tact” or “diplomacy”. Brad Henry is a Democrat, elected governor of a rural, conservative state. He is centrist and plays to the middle. Also note that the wording of the bill was slightly different than your previous blog post version:

“students may express their beliefs about religion in homework, artwork and other written and oral assignments free from discrimination based on the religious content of their submissions. Homework and classroom assignments shall be judged by ordinary academic standards of substance and relevance and against other legitimate pedagogical concerns identified by the school district. Students shall not be penalized or rewarded on account of the religious content of their work.”

Note the bolded part. One could reasonably interpret this legislation to protect, for instance, a child drawing a picture of Noah’s Ark as part of an art class, or a high school English student exploring the “Christ-like symbollism of The Old Man and the Sea.” * While I do think the intent behind the law was to protect creationism, the particular wording was ambiguous enough to be argued that factual statements could be graded wrong without violating it. This ambiguity would have created lots of ground for lawsuits. It could also allow well-meaning citizens to support the law if they were unaware of the writers’ intent and fell for the ambiguity. It’s the current Creationist ploy, protecting “free expression”.

*I actually had an essay test question in high school about this very topic. Fortunately, all I had to do was regurgitate the teacher’s discussion on the topic, because I thought the examples given were pretty thin.

I believe you are confused over the meaning of “notwithstanding”. To rephrase Article VI:
\2\This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made [to detail and enact said Constitution]; and all Treaties [currently] made, or which shall be made [in the future], under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in
every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary [included].

“Notwithstanding” means “not left out”. Judges in every State are bound by the “Supreme Law of the Land” regardless of any other comments in either the Constitution or in State Law. Ergo, the 14th does not remove the “notwithstanding” line, it reinforces it.

Since Article VI defines the Constitution as the supreme law of the United States, and all States formed under the authority of the Constitution, Amendment XIV merely clarifies the point- “bringing it to the front burner” as it were. As the supreme law, the Constitution applies to the states- Amendment XIV effectively removes the “any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding” clause.

That doesn’t actually help in the case of the first amendment, since the law in the case of the first amendment only applies to congress. That is where the 14th amendment comes in. Article 6 makes it so the states cannot write laws that violate the rules of the constitution, amendment 14 expands that so states cannot write laws that violate the rights listed in the constitution. This is particularly important for the 1st amendment since the rights are universal but the rules are specific to congress.