While secularists often see the goal of the first amendment being =
"religious containment", a government effort to restrict religion to the =
private sphere in order to protect the government from its influence, =
original intent indicates that the purpose was to promote religious =
freedom. Indeed, religious speech is the single most protected kind of =
speech.
There are always controversial cases, where rights conflict and so =
forth, but unless we remember that -the whole point- of "congress shall =
make no law respecting an establishment of religion" (commonly, but a =
bit misleading, referred to as the "no establishment" clause) was not to =
-restrict- religious freedom, but to -enhance- it, we're liable to miss =
the boat completely in applying it.
After all, the experience of the founders didn't lead many of them =
to fear that religious principles would control the government, but that =
the government would control religious principles, and thereby control =
or oppress the people.
Along these lines, in properly resisting the injection of sectarian =
doctrine into the public school classroom, it is no less severe an error =
to impose secularism, which is in a real sense a worse error, since that =
is not only a tyranny, but a tyranny of the minority over the majority. =
(That's one thing I notice that seems common with the ACLU: they tend to =
defend fringe points of view against the majority, seeing minority =
rights as trumping majority rights. I once heard one defend this by =
saying "the majority can look out for itself". This sounds noble, until =
one realizes that what they often end up doing is replacing some hint of =
a tyranny of the majority with the established fact of a tyranny of the =
minority. Myself, I always thought it was better to do -less- harm than =
-more- harm, harm -fewer- rather than -more- people.)
That said, I agree that creation science shouldn't be taught in the =
speech
>>>>> On Fri, 26 Apr 1996 17:34:29 -0500, Chuck Warman
>>>>> <cwarman@sol.wf.net> said:
>> 2. I believe that *you and I both know* that the ACLU has a double
>> standard regarding free speech; specifically that "religious speech"
>> should be more restricted than generic speech.
But doesn't that "double standard" come directly from the constitution?
Religious speech *should* be restricted in cases where it could be
construed as an endorsement by the government (i.e. in public school
science classes). At least, that seems to be the way the constitution
is interpreted nowadays.
For reference:
AMENDMENT I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of =
speech,
or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and =
to
petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
--=20
Jim Foley Symbios Logic, Fort Collins, CO
Jim.Foley@symbios.com (970) 223-5100 x9765
I've got a plan so cunning you could put a tail on it and call
it a weasel. -- Edmund Blackadder