Re: Stealth attack on evolution

>>> > If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation,
> > it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe
> > what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion .
> > or other matters of opinion... .
> >
> > That statement, to me, is what c-s separation is all about.
>
> David Campbell replied: "An obvious problem is that he is prescribing
what shall be orthodox with that statement."
>
> For the life of me, I do not understand your comment.

He, being an official, declares it to be unorthodox for an official to declare
something unorthodox. There's a problem here.>>

Darned if I see it. Jackson, certainly an "official," says that prescribing something to the populace that must be orthodox, i.e. followed under penalty of coercive law, is forbidden by the constitution.

Jackson was, of course, speaking of religious / political dogma. Clearly an official (govt) can prescribe driving normally on the right side of the road as orthodox.

In the Gobitas case, the official (the state) was prescribing to schoolchildren what they must say they give their allegience to. Billy Gobitas saw this as a denigration of the God he worshipped. SCOTUS finally understood the issue in 1944. Jackson write the majority opinion. Qualifiers to make it a complete logical statement would have detracted form its eloquence.

<G>

JB

___________________________________________________________________
Speed up your surfing with Juno SpeedBand.
Now includes pop-up blocker!
Only $14.95/month -visit http://www.juno.com/surf to sign up today!
Received on Wed Mar 2 18:36:36 2005