1. VOICES OF SCIENCE: PZ Myers - Buy it now on DVD

Comment #218437 by wfr on July 25, 2008 at 12:45 pm

Allow me to correct myself. The US Constitution mentions religion in two places. The other one is this: "...no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

My mistake.

-WFR

2. VOICES OF SCIENCE: PZ Myers - Buy it now on DVD

Comment #218430 by wfr on July 25, 2008 at 12:38 pm

"...it derives from the 1st Ammendment to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights."

That is an OPINION, shared by many Americans, including Mr Jefferson.

Just for reference, here is the only clause in the Constitution that refers to religion: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

What actually is derived from this clause is a body of judicial decisions which answer specific questions. Can we teach religion in public schools? No. Can we release pupils during the school day to receive religious instruction elsewhere? Yes. Can we use religion as an excuse not to pay taxes? No. Etc.

I suppose we could call this body of decisions the "separation of church and state," but the application of this label does not define the limits of the separation.

While the court decisions are "embedded in US law," the separation doctrine is not embedded at all.

Roger, thank you for the dialogue. I fear that we are abusing our privileges by carrying it out in this forum. Feel free to contact me at the hotmail address, fulda304.

3. VOICES OF SCIENCE: PZ Myers - Buy it now on DVD

Comment #218352 by wfr on July 25, 2008 at 9:45 am

No. The Dover decision was on the subject of teaching religion in Science class. The practice of teaching religion in publically-funded schools, where attendance is compulsory, violates freedom of religion.

My only point is that the phrase "separation of church and state" originated in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson. It has no statutory existence in our Constitution, nor in any Federal Law. Professor Dawkins's use of the words "constitutional separation of church and state" reflects a misunderstanding shared by many Americans. The professor, being British, can be excused for this misunderstanding. The Americans can not.

4. VOICES OF SCIENCE: PZ Myers - Buy it now on DVD

Comment #218285 by wfr on July 25, 2008 at 6:45 am

Roger, forgive me for being unclear.

The point of my previous comment was that there is no basis for the doctrine of separation in the Constitution. In fact, there is no legal basis for it at all.

The practical separation which we Americans enjoy (with various degrees of success in various jurisdictions) is due to the opinion of our third President in 1802.

The doctrine of separation is a fine tradition, but it is merely a tradition. It works fairly well despite its lack of legal status. Sort of like the British government.

5. VOICES OF SCIENCE: PZ Myers - Buy it now on DVD

Comment #218256 by wfr on July 25, 2008 at 6:00 am

At about 00:31 in the interview with PZ, Professor Dawkins expresses an interest in the American "constitutional separation of church and state."

There is no such thing.

The famous phrase was penned by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to a church in the state of Connecticut, fourteen years after the Constitution was adopted. The story of this letter, and of Jefferson's reasons for writing it, are fascinating.

The Constitution itself guarantees freedom of religion. Nothing else on that topic.