Jim foley replied:
>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.
>
Maybe I'm overlooking something here, but how does discussing scientific
evidence of intelligent design in a science class get interpreted as
"making a law respecting an establisment of religion"? Prohibiting such a
discussion seeems to fall more in the area of abridging fredom of speech.
Jim Hopper
Jim Hopper
hopper@k12.wcsu.ctstateu.edu