Separation of church and state: Its in the Constitution. I dont play a constitutional lawyer on television, I am one*, but it seems to me anyone can read the Constitution and see. Especially if one understands that the Constitution sets up a limited government, that is as Madison described, one that can do only what is delegated to it. The Constitution is a short document.
First, in the Preamble, it is made clear that the document is a compact between citizens: We the people . . . do ordain and establish this Constitution . . . The usual role of God ordaining (in some western nations) is altered, intentionally. It is not God who establishes this government, but you and I, together. From teh first words of the Constitution, there is separation of church and state.
Second, in Article 1, the legislative branch is given no role in religion; neither is any religion given any role in the legislature. In Article 2, the executive branch gets no role in religion, and religion gets no role in the executive branch. In Article 3, the judicial branch gets no role in religion, and religion gets no role in the judicial branch. In Article 4, the people get a guarantee of a republican form of government in the states, but the states get no role in religion, and religion gets no role in state government. This is, by design, a perfect separation of church and state.
Third, in Article VI, the hard and fast rule that no religious test can be used for any office in government, federal, state or local, means that no official will have a formal, governmental role in religion, and no religion can insist on a role in any officials duties.
Fourth, Amendment 1 closes the door to weasling around it: Congress is prohibited from even considering any legislation that might grant a new bureaucracy or a new power to get around the other bans on state and church marriage, plus the peoples rights in religion are enumerated.
Fifth: In 1801 the Baptists (!) in Danbury, Connecticut, grew concerned that Connecticut would act to infringe on their church services, or teachings, or right to exist. So they wrote to President Jefferson. Jefferson responded with an official declaration of government policy on what the First Amendment and Constitution mean in such cases. Jefferson carefully constructed the form of the device as well as the content with his Attorney General, Levi Lincoln, to be sure that it would state what the law was. This letter is the proclamation. Its an official statement of the U.S. government, collected in the presidents official papers and not in his personal papers. Make no mistake: Jeffersons letter to the Danbury Baptists was an official act, an official statement of the law of the United States. Jefferson intended it to assuage the Baptists in Danbury, to inform and warn the Connecticut legislatures, and to be a touchstone to which future Americans could turn for information. It was only fitting and proper for the Supreme Court to use the letter in this capacity as it has done several times.
Sixth: The phrase, separation of church and state dates back another 100 years and more, to the founding of Rhode Island. It is the religion/state facet of the idea of government by consent of the governed without interference from religious entities, expressed so well in the Mayflower Compact, in the first paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence, and carried through in the Constitution (see especially the Preamble, above).
No, the phrase separation of church and state never appears in the Constitution. The principles are part of the warp and woof, and history, of the document, however. The law is clear, was clear, and denying the Constitution says what it says wont change it or make it go away.
Consequently, John Freshwater, an agent of the government, had no right, duty, privilege, instruction, nor any other legal foundation for his actions. Speaking as a Christian, I would say he has no Biblical foundation, either. Whether there is any other moral foundation, I doubt. (Pauls the philosopher here; Ill let him talk about other moral foundations.)
Its sad to see a teacher licensed to teach who doesnt understand the legal duties of the job, who acts insubordinately to place his employer in legal jeopardy, and who shirks the duties he signed an oath to perform. Its sad to see a teacher so completely unfamiliar with the content of what he is supposed to teach.
Darwin saw the appearance of design in nature, too. He studied nature to see what causes that appearance of design, and discovered evolution. Evolution is one of the best documented, most thoroughly understood of the chief theories of science. Additionally, evolution is one of the outstanding ideas of western civilization, leading to scientific advances in medicine and agriculture that allow us to have a human population so large as this planet has now. Students need to understand the great ideas of western civilization, both scientifically and culturally.
I cannot think of a good religious reason to teach garbage to children and shock them with a device that warns it should never be used in contact with humans. By most international law, that would be deemed torture.
When I got my teaching license, torture was not one of the prescribed methods of teaching.
Reading assignments: The Constitution of the United States of America (try Findlaw.com, NARA.gov, there are lots of sites); Darwin, On the Origin of Species and chapter 5 (development of morality) of Descent of Man (both available online at several sources); The Boy Scout Law (heres a good source:
404 Error Page ); Ohios science standards (hope this fits):
http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/Templ...picRelationID=334&ContentID=834&Content=32645
* Im also a licensed, certified teacher of history, government, and other social studies, if youre curious.
This is supposed to be satire isn't it?
