Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The US Constitution, as it was originally written and ratified by the colonies, did not include the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights was added two years later at the insistence of the States. The founding fathers did not write the US Constitution to protect anyone's rights.
You should actually consider taking the course you mentioned above, because it is very obvious that you have not.
I wasn't talking about the "Bill of Rights."
"That among these [rights] are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness — That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
That is a clear statement that the purpose of government, in the view of the Founders, was to secure those unalienable rights. It's interesting that the "Bill of Rights" more clearly defined and expanded on the "unalienable rights" described in the Declaration:
"The American Founders understood the right to religious liberty as an inalienable natural right and the practice of religion itself as essential to the preservation of a free society. The right to freedom of religion or conscience is limited: No reasonable religion would ask its adherents to trample on the natural rights of others. In other words, any religion whose believers demean themselves as good citizens is acceptable in a free society and should be encouraged.
Three main principles guided the Founders’ understanding of economics. The first is the natural right to acquire and possess private property. The second is the establishment and protection of free markets. The third is a stable money supply, based on a gold or silver standard.
The Founders thought the government had a role in promoting good character among the citizen body, because the liberty which it is government’s job to protect is inseparable from virtue. Moral education or character formation, which begins with the family, is necessary for the preservation of a free society."
— Thomas G. West, Hillsdale College, overview of week 5 lecture, Constitution 101, "To Secure These Rights: Economics, Religion and Character."
What exactly are legitimate religions, those based on the writings of people that lived a few thousand years ago with their own biases. Starting legitimate and religion in one sentenced is laughable since they are based on belief not facts.
The last thing the courts or a school district wants to get involved in is the definition, that is exactly why religions should be kept out of the classroom.
Let me answer by providing this quote from Thomas G. West, professor of politics, Hillsdale College, in his overview of the week 5 lecture series, Constitution 101, "To Secure These Rights: Economics, Religion and Character."
The American Founders understood the right to religious liberty as an inalienable natural right and the practice of religion itself as essential to the preservation of a free society. The right to freedom of religion or conscience is limited: No reasonable religion would ask its adherents to trample on the natural rights of others. In other words, any religion whose believers demean themselves as good citizens is acceptable in a free society and should be encouraged.
Three main principles guided the Founders’ understanding of economics. The first is the natural right to acquire and possess private property. The second is the establishment and protection of free markets. The third is a stable money supply, based on a gold or silver standard.
The Founders thought the government had a role in promoting good character among the citizen body, because the liberty which it is government’s job to protect is inseparable from virtue. Moral education or character formation, which begins with the family, is necessary for the preservation of a free society. [Emphasis mine]
I would say that according to this, Islam doe not fall under the protection of the First Amendment, because it 1) Advocates the overthrow of the government of the United States. 2) Advocates for the killing of "infidels" (all those who do not accept Islam). 3) Considers criticism of Islam, or of Mohammad, a crime punishable by death (violates the First Amendment protection of free speech). 4) Preaches "Jihad" against American citizens and Western civilization in general. 5) Subjugation of women, trampling their unalienable rights.
Any "religion" or cult that does these things does not come under First Amendment protections.
As for your comment about "the writings of people who lived a few thousand years ago," at what point do you draw a line and disregard all historical accounts prior to that time, considering them invalid?
Ehm - perhaps a guy who didn't set out specifically to prove the accuracy of the Old Testament would be considered slightly less biased. Albright's work has been criticized fairly harshly.
Has it? By whom?
From Wikipedia:
"Albright's view was novel among scholars at the time, but it has prevailed over a wide front, though there are detractors.[2] His student George Ernest Wright followed in his footsteps as the leader of the biblical archaeology movement, contributing definitive work at Shechem and Gezer. Albright also inspired, trained and worked with the first generation of world-class Israeli archaeologists, who have carried on his work, and maintained his perspective."
"Albright and his students achieved a very wide reach and were highly influential in American higher education from the 1940s through the 1970s"
"W.F. Albright created, advanced and soundly established the new discipline of Biblical Archaeology, which is taught now at major and even elite universities on a worldwide basis and has exponents across national, cultural and religious lines." [Empahsis mine]
But Albright is not the only one I could cite. There are others.
But, why shouldn't archaeology be studied in conjunction with, and in order to discover the validity of, the Biblical record? Would you find it more acceptable to ignore the Biblical (historical) record and draw some false conclusions which are arrived at by ignoring such a resource? I prefer to know whether I can trust the Biblical accounts.
Who enters into a study to discover the history of man, and ignores major written accounts, rejecting them as invalid due to personal bias? The work of such a person would be discredited immediately, I would think.
Here is my two cents. It's better to allow everything than censor everything. Besides, there are certainly ways around such a requirement. The schools could simply have Christian, or other religious organizations, started by THE STUDENTS. There is no law against that, and it takes away the requirement to allow other religious groups not affiliated with the school to proselytize. Groups like the Freedom from Religion Foundation probably mean well, but sometimes certain religious groups have a legitimate place in public life. It would be a good idea, though, to let the students choose.
Which ones, and in what capacity? I don't recall any government entity or function that would be a legitimate home for a religious group or activity.
"Superseded" is not really correct, as they each have two entirely different purposes; but, the Declaration of Independence, in the principles contained in it's preface, is "the soul of America's founding," and what became "the moral basis of the State and Federal Constitutions." [Thomas G. West, professor of politics, Hillsdale College, "Constitution 101, "The Theory of the Declaration and the Constitution."]
The Constitution did not "replace" or supersede the Declaration, therefore; but, the Constitution was built upon it's principles. [my words, not West's] This is why they are inseparable.
You are right, superseded was not the right term. Under the Articles of Confederation, all Declarations such as the Declaration of Independence were laws. However, when the US Constitution was ratified it replaced the Articles of Confederation, and by doing so made all Declarations enacted under the Articles of Confederation no longer legally binding. The Declaration of Independence does indeed contain the founding principles that are also embodied within the US Constitution.
I am not diminishing the Declaration of Independence as an important historical document, and I do not dispute that it contains the founding principles. I am merely saying that none of the Declarations under the Articles of Confederation (including the Declaration of Independence) legally bound the newly created US government once the US Constitution was ratified.
The Declaration of Independence was a legal document when enacted on July 4, 1776, and ceased to be a legal document when the US Constitution was ratified on June 21, 1789.
I am not diminishing the Declaration of Independence as an important historical document, and I do not dispute that it contains the founding principles. I am merely saying that none of the Declarations under the Articles of Confederation (including the Declaration of Independence) legally bound the newly created US government once the US Constitution was ratified.
In a nutshell. Mr. Glitch and I have had our differences in the past, but this is as neat of a recap as can be asked for.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
