Wednesday, September 28, 2005
Intelligent Design & the 1st Amendment
The 1st amendment to the constitution states that the government shall not establish a religion. That means forcing everybody to support that religion and/or practice it using the force of the state to make it happen. The old canard about a wall of separation between church and state is a wall that is supposed to protect religion from the government, not the other way around. The government has all the armies, not the church.
In Harrisburg, the news is focusing on the Dover School Boards decision to present Intelligent Design as part of the 9th grade biology lesson on evolution. The teacher is to read a statement of about 100 words that states, basically, "There are holes in the theory of evolution. Some people say that they are there naturally or that we just haven't found the things in between. Other people say that the jumps are the work of a designer."
There is no religion in that statement. There is the opportunity for students to find out more about it. (As if many 9th graders are going to want to sit through a slog of reading Of People and Pandas.) There is no statement that the children must believe that there is a creator. There is not even a mention of who this creator may be. For all that is in the statement, the designer could be Ralph Lauren.
Where is the entanglement of state and church? Even if, as alleged, the partiers behind the decision are motivated by Faith there is no coercion involved in this case further than the coercion of the kid having to be enrolled in school. If we want a reading of the first amendment big enough to make this 30-60 second statement the establishment of a religion, then the free association clause should be broad enough that mandatory school laws can be struck down because the students sure don't want to be forced to associate with the teachers. Of course, maybe that would be a good thing since it would finally break the government monopoly of the schools and parents would have better options to send their children to and could eliminate all the taxes that go to line the pockets of the teachers unions.
In Harrisburg, the news is focusing on the Dover School Boards decision to present Intelligent Design as part of the 9th grade biology lesson on evolution. The teacher is to read a statement of about 100 words that states, basically, "There are holes in the theory of evolution. Some people say that they are there naturally or that we just haven't found the things in between. Other people say that the jumps are the work of a designer."
There is no religion in that statement. There is the opportunity for students to find out more about it. (As if many 9th graders are going to want to sit through a slog of reading Of People and Pandas.) There is no statement that the children must believe that there is a creator. There is not even a mention of who this creator may be. For all that is in the statement, the designer could be Ralph Lauren.
Where is the entanglement of state and church? Even if, as alleged, the partiers behind the decision are motivated by Faith there is no coercion involved in this case further than the coercion of the kid having to be enrolled in school. If we want a reading of the first amendment big enough to make this 30-60 second statement the establishment of a religion, then the free association clause should be broad enough that mandatory school laws can be struck down because the students sure don't want to be forced to associate with the teachers. Of course, maybe that would be a good thing since it would finally break the government monopoly of the schools and parents would have better options to send their children to and could eliminate all the taxes that go to line the pockets of the teachers unions.
