Comments - Islam and school vouchers - Civil Discourse Now2024-03-28T14:21:35Zhttp://civildiscoursenow.com/profiles/comment/feed?attachedTo=6316350%3ABlogPost%3A5701&xn_auth=noPaul,
I agree we should look…tag:civildiscoursenow.com,2011-08-10:6316350:Comment:54122011-08-10T10:05:53.647ZMark Smallhttp://civildiscoursenow.com/profile/04vjqivrcsdny
<p>Paul,</p>
<p>I agree we should look at the Indiana Cnstitution for greater protection. However, my point on the United States Constitution is that people have changed. Our socirety has changed. The views on religion of people over 200 years ago should not lock us in now. But if we are to look at the intent of the Founders, as opposed to the Framers, we need to consider many non-Judeo-Christian beliefs. That is a problem with originalism. Do we confine ourselves to all the people at the time,…</p>
<p>Paul,</p>
<p>I agree we should look at the Indiana Cnstitution for greater protection. However, my point on the United States Constitution is that people have changed. Our socirety has changed. The views on religion of people over 200 years ago should not lock us in now. But if we are to look at the intent of the Founders, as opposed to the Framers, we need to consider many non-Judeo-Christian beliefs. That is a problem with originalism. Do we confine ourselves to all the people at the time, or only those few who either were at the Convention, at a state ratification convention, or able to vote for delegates? If we exclude African Slaves and indigenous peoples, in particular, we exclude many non-Judeo-Christian beliefs. </p> Mark, surely you don't think…tag:civildiscoursenow.com,2011-08-09:6316350:Comment:54082011-08-09T14:49:40.511ZPaul K. Ogdenhttp://civildiscoursenow.com/profile/PaulKOgden
<p>Mark, surely you don't think the orginal intent of those people behind the First Amendment's Establishment Clause was to prohibit any religion mixing in government as that Clause has come to be interpreted since Everson. First, they used the word "establish," a clear reference to ESTABLISHING a national church like merry old England had. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>Second, the federal First Amendment didn't even apply to the states until Everson decision in the 1950s. In fact the entire Bill of…</p>
<p>Mark, surely you don't think the orginal intent of those people behind the First Amendment's Establishment Clause was to prohibit any religion mixing in government as that Clause has come to be interpreted since Everson. First, they used the word "establish," a clear reference to ESTABLISHING a national church like merry old England had. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>Second, the federal First Amendment didn't even apply to the states until Everson decision in the 1950s. In fact the entire Bill of Rights didn't apply to states at all until the 14th Amendment. Several states had official state religions long after the First Amendment was adopted.</p>
<p>Third, the history is filled with religion intermixing with politics in that era. They started off each day of the Constitutional Convention with a prayer. The delegates quoted from scripture during debates. The First Congress that passed the Bill of Rights and the state legislatures that ratified them started their days off with prayer. </p>
<p>It is pretty clear to me that they intended the the Establishment Clause to apply to the establishment of a national religion. They were trying to prevent fighting among the various religous sects that dominated the country at the time. The far flung interpretation of Everson which prohibits government from being seen as "endorsing or promoting" religion doesn't follow from the history.</p>
<p>Does Everson reflect good policy? I think it probably does. I don't think it's a good idea for our public schools to be innundated with religiosity. But it's not up to our courts to adopt policies for us that they think is good, cloaking that improper legislative function as some pretend requirement "found" in our constitution or its history.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Really, Indiana's constitutional version of the establishment clause is the one you should look at. That's clearly more restrictive than the federal one. But if you allow people to use taxpayer funded scholarships at private, religious universities, I don't see how you bar them from using them at the K-12 level. (FYI, isn't your Depauw University affiliated with the Methodist Church?) It's the same thing.</p>