Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
The Freedom From Religion Foundation is challenging another school district, this time in Ohio, over a mission statement that expresses a preference for religion. Part of the mission statement for Lake Public Schools in Uniontown, Ohio says:
We Value: Responsibility, honesty, respect, integrity, commitment, belief in God and religious freedom, our community, our partnerships, and every person as a unique individual with the ability to acquire and apply knowledge.
And the response:
Annie Laurie Gaylor, Freedom From Religion Foundation co-president, called the statement "shocking" and "one of the most egregious" violations she has seen of the Constitution's language separating church and state."They're saying they don't value you unless you believe in a god," Gaylor said. The statement vilifies nonbelievers, she contends.
The foundation, based in Madison, Wis., wants the phrase "belief in God" removed from any of the district's publications or Web postings. A letter to Superintendent Jeff Wendorf and Board of Education President Ken Brott ended with "we do need your assurances that your district will take immediate action to end this violation."
Wendorf said Thursday that school officials and their lawyers are investigating the complaint.
Officials want "to make sure that we're appropriate in our interpretation of the First Amendment," Wendorf said.
The phrase has been part of Lake Local's mission statement for many years, he said.
Freedom From Religion Foundation members haven't filed any legal action against the district.
Gaylor said filing a lawsuit would have to be the foundation's last option after exhausting requests for the district to stop using the phrase. If a lawsuit is filed, the foundation would need a plaintiff with children in the district to participate in the action.
Finding a plaintiff may be difficult.
Politics
Comments
When you say, "Finding a plaintiff may be difficult," do you mean they'd have a hard time finding a plaintiff who actually cares? Or do you mean they'd have a hard time finding a plaintiff who is willing to risk public exposure or death threats? Is a plaintiff able to find out if he can be a John Doe before he files suit?
Posted by: Brandon | September 5, 2009 9:41 AM
My money is on their finding a plaintiff.
Posted by: waldteufel | September 5, 2009 10:39 AM
Just why is it that the religious righters who hate government, want to keep it out of everything (including Medicare), and believe it can't do anything well......want to make sure it's intimately involved with the promotion of Christianity?
Posted by: James Hanley | September 5, 2009 11:28 AM
"Valuing belief in God" in not the same as getting the Government "intimately involved with the promotion of Christianity" -- just ask the religeous righters in Saudi Arabia.
Is it more proper for the "anti-religeous lefters" to use the Government to eradicate God from all public venues? Or should the Government follow the First Amendment and just stay out of the fight?
Posted by: Wol | September 5, 2009 12:09 PM
This is the reason FFRF isn't taken seriously all the time. Is it really,
My first reaction, of course, was to wonder why anyone would read a frickin' Mission Statement, much less parse them for contraband. The bit about non-theists not being "valued" is pretty good, too.
Posted by: kehrsam | September 5, 2009 12:19 PM
"Is it more proper for the "anti-religeous lefters" to use the Government to eradicate God from all public venues? Or should the Government follow the First Amendment and just stay out of the fight?"
So, how is a public school system (i.e.- part of the government) having a mission statement promoting belief in god "staying out of the fight"?
Posted by: Pohranicni Straze | September 5, 2009 12:24 PM
And by staying out of the fight, does that protect the freedom of all American including not-xian and non-theist citizens?
Posted by: MikeMa | September 5, 2009 12:40 PM
In other words, the Government may neither require nor forbid religeous expression or the embrace of any given religeon. A local school district's Mission Statement mentioning that they value belief in God does not compel religeous observance. There is no fight there.
So why should militant athiests bring the power of Government into play in order to force the public schools to adhere to the athiests' religeous tenet requiring that God not be mentioned?
Posted by: Wol | September 5, 2009 12:49 PM
Religious.
R-E-L-I-G-I-O-U-S
Religious.
One day I'll learn to spell that word.
Swear to God.
Posted by: Wol | September 5, 2009 12:54 PM
Also "atheist".
Swear to... uhhh...
Posted by: Wol | September 5, 2009 12:59 PM
Couldn't "belief in God and religious freedom" possibly mean "both belief and non-belief in God"? Maybe it's because I'm an atheist, but I like to think of religious freedom as the opposite of a belief in God... But I know that's likely not what was meant. Religious freedom tends to mean "any of a few similar flavours of Christianity... and on a good day, Judaism, but we're keeping a suspicious eye on you."
Posted by: pough | September 5, 2009 1:36 PM
It's this simple: if the school district truly valued religious freedom they wouldn't have added "belief in God".
Posted by: Moon Jaguar | September 5, 2009 1:56 PM
The school district removed all HTML instances of the mission statements for its web site within a day of receiving the letter. Several PDF documents available through still had it included, some of which were minutes of meeting where the mission statement was approved, so the could not remove those.
I looks like the district's lawyer told them to get rid of it.
Posted by: Ferrous Patella | September 5, 2009 2:02 PM
They should just go after the Ohio state constitution and be done with it.
"We, the people of the State of Ohio, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings and promote our common welfare, do establish this Constitution."
Posted by: tom van dyke | September 5, 2009 2:05 PM
s/It looks/I looks/
Posted by: Ferrous Patella | September 5, 2009 2:11 PM
Wol wrote:
Um. A public school IS the government. If what you want is the government to stay out of such matters, you should want to get rid of this mission statement because it does not do so.
Boy do I get tired of this idiotic framing of the argument. Separation of church and state is not a battle between Christians and atheists. There are Christians on both sides of the argument. Some of the most vocal defenders of strict separation have always been Christians, from colonial-era ministers like John Leland and Isaac Backus to modern-day ministers like Barry Lynn, Welton Gaddy and Bruce Prescott. Jewish attorneys have also traditionally been strong defenders of strict separation. The issue is not about religion vs atheism. Heck, you can even find some atheists on the anti-separation side, like many Straussians.
Having said all of that, I agree with Kehrsam about FFRF's absurdly inflated rhetoric. Yes, this is why I don't take that group particularly seriously in most cases.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | September 5, 2009 3:06 PM
MikeMa:
I'm not sure what protection you're looking for here. Do you mean "protecting the freedom of not-xian and non-theist citizens to believe as they do"? Certainly. "Congress shall make no law..." etc. Believe, or disbelieve, as you will. It's none of the Government's business.
Do you mean "protecting not-xian and non-theist citizens from exposure to symbols and ideas they find offensive"? I fervently hope not. It seems that there are people (e.g. Annie Laurie Gaylor, Freedom From Religion Foundation co-president) whose joy in life is getting their knickers in a knot over some perceived slight, even unto ferreting out the Mission Statements of out-in-the-boonies school districts and -- as kehrsam put it so well in post #5 --"parsing them for contraband" and siccing the Feds on them.
If there's truly some Constitutionally-guaranteed protection against being exposed to expression that pisses you off, hoo boy! Do I ever have a list!
Pough:
You are, of course, perfectly free to project upon the phrase "religious freedom" whatever nefarious subtext you like.
Moon Jaguar:
I hesitate to ask, but how is it "this simple" that an assertion of the value of belief in God is an infringement on anyone else's religious freedom?
(Hah! spelled it right every damn time!)
Posted by: Wol | September 5, 2009 3:10 PM
Ed Brayton:
It's easy to dismiss it as "an idiotic framing of the argument" but your dismissal is not valid. Theism and atheism are both religious positions, and the Government has no business using its legal authority -- ultimately, the force of arms -- to eradicate either one.
Read again the First Amendment. Posting a Mission Statement in a Government-run public school does not compel or prohibit any religious observance at all. Sending in the Feds to rout it out is to compel the observance of atheists' tenets.
(Besides, the God that most of the public schools' staff worship is Fed Almighty, and Obama is its Prophet, so what's the big deal?)
Posted by: Wol | September 5, 2009 3:25 PM
Boy, if anyone was at a loss for what to think about "Wol," these quotes sure settle the matter:
Forget reasonable discourse here.
(Side note: As someone who lives in the Midwest and teaches at a rural school, I think the second point is patently laughable. One of our co-presidents of the local teachers' union, which is associated with NEA, asked not to be re-nominated for the position because she strongly disapproved of many of the stances that NEA or NEA leadership have taken, and these were clearly conservative issues. Teachers and other staff generally work in education because they want to help children, and that sort of empathy is not limited to conservative, liberal, or otherwise.)
Posted by: Mr. B | September 5, 2009 3:44 PM
By the way, my take on all of this is that such a value statement is going to ostracize those students who are not religious or who do not believe in God. That is never a prudent move for schools to do, especially not as governmental entities. Now, IANAL, so I can't say whether or not this mission statement is unlawful, but I think FFRF is right to put pressure on the school in challenging it, and if it makes the school look closer at the statement and the assumptions that surround it, that will be a better thing for everyone but especially for those students most likely to find the mission statement alienating.
Posted by: Mr. B | September 5, 2009 3:49 PM
Mr B: First, I fail to see how the Mission Statement ostracizes anyone; if you don't believe in a god you just read around those words. More to the point, no one reads Mission Statements unless it's a condition of their employment, and certainly not schoolchildren.
Yes, it is better not to have the god bit in there to begin with. But if it is there, it is hardly going to shake the foundations of our democracy. Indeed, from their web page, it appears to have been easily correctable, and now corrected.
By the way, why does a school system need a MS? Other than, "Edumacate the kids," I mean?
Posted by: kehrsam | September 5, 2009 4:07 PM
Wol, the issue is quite simple - explicitly saying that they value belief in God, especially when they capitilize 'God', so as to make it seem like they're referring to the Christian deity, yet do not also say they value belief in Allah, YHWH, the teachings of Buddah, the Hindu beliefs, etc, etc, etc, plus their lack of including the idea that they value a lack of belief in any gods, heavily implies that they value belief in the Christian God, but do NOT value these alternative beliefs. This is a clear-cut encouragement to follow Christianity over any alternative religion, or, indeed, no religion at all. This is 'endorsement of religion', and is being done by a government entity, and so is 'government endorsement of religion', and thus falls foul of the First Amendment.
Posted by: Smidgy | September 5, 2009 4:21 PM
Now let's be fair: I never said that including such a statement within a mission statement (in itself not all that important a document) would "shake the foundations of our democracy." On the other hand, it will clearly communicate to any non-religious students that the school favors belief in God, and that seems to me to be antithetical to what schools ought to be striving to do: create a safe place for students where all students are valued, in order that education can happen. Yes, it's an easy thing to fix, and if (as reported) the school is correcting it, then that's exactly the kind of positive response that should come from this. It's just not a smart move to have something so potentially divisive in your mission statement. It's not like there aren't plenty of values (including many they listed) that are not so contentious.
Posted by: Mr. B | September 5, 2009 4:22 PM
Kehrsam,
I tend to agree with you on most of the issues Ed has posted where you have commented, but on this one I have to disagree.
By the way, why does a school system need a MS? Other than, "Edumacate the kids," I mean?
First, like any organization, a mission statement provides a core set of beliefs for the entity. They tend to reflect the emotional and intellectual core of the community for which they were created. In this case, to have the debated phrase in their does, in effect, tell the non-religious that the community and the school do not value them. A large number of school districts, at least the successful ones, do tend to put a lot of stake into their mission statements and create a lot of internal philosophy that tends to tie to those statements. Connections or community goals tend to lead to more efforts to involve the professional staff in the community, the parents in the school, and foster an overall cooperative effort. Other aspects, including the "belief in God" aspect, are likely to be incorporated into programs that the school district implements.
Again, in good school districts, the mission statement is not a hollow collection of words quickly forgotten.
-------------------
Yes, it is better not to have the god bit in there to begin with. But if it is there, it is hardly going to shake the foundations of our democracy. Indeed, from their web page, it appears to have been easily correctable, and now corrected.
Here I would argue that it has been easily hidden, not necessarily corrected. And, as I said above, it is more than a hollow phrasing of words, but generally reflects an integral part of how the district does business. I don't know anything about this district other than what I have read here, so perhaps it is an empty phrase that no one has looked at for years. I would be rather surprised if this were the case, unless this district is a disaster of public education.
-------------
Mr B: First, I fail to see how the Mission Statement ostracizes anyone; if you don't believe in a god you just read around those words. More to the point, no one reads Mission Statements unless it's a condition of their employment, and certainly not schoolchildren.
Finally, the point is, as a declaration by the government, it is inappropriate for them to state one way or the other. To establish this stance as a focal point of their overall mission is far more troubling.
Yet again, if this district has any cohesion, actual leadership, and the mission statement means anything to them, odds are very high that they are following the intent of this statement in a majority, if not all of their policies. That could be as simple as an administrator protecting a "Freshwater," to teachers "critiquing Darwinism," to teachers being hired because of their religious beliefs, to student clubs and organizations being suppressed (IE, a skeptics society, or GSA, etc.).
I know for a fact in districts where I've worked, there were teachers who avoided statements, interacting with student groups, sponsoring them, etc., because they knew that such a position could make their lives very difficult for them.
I can't speak for every district in the country, but in every district where I have worked, the mission statement(s), for both the districts and the individual sites, were seen as integral guiding principles for the schools and school district.
Posted by: dogmeatIB | September 5, 2009 4:39 PM
Wol wrote:
This is an entirely different argument from the one you made earlier. Unfortunately, it's still idiotic. Atheism is not a religious position, it is the lack of a religious position. As the old line goes, if atheism is a religion then bald is a hair color. Regardless, you're framing of the argument is still highly inaccurate. No one is advocating, nor has anyone attempted, the "eradication" of theism or atheism. Whether the government should take a position on religious questions has absolutely nothing to do with eradicating any religious position.
And if the first amendment only prohibited compelling or prohibiting religious observance, you might have a point. But it doesn't. The government can violate the first amendment in a thousand different ways without compelling or prohibiting religious observances. Surely you would agree that if the government officially declared that Christianity is true and that all non-believers will burn in hell, that would violate the first amendment. Yet that does not compel anyone to believe anything or to worship. Surely you would agree that the government cannot use tax dollars to fund the building of churches, yet this also does not compel anyone to believe anything or to worship.
This is hardly a novel idea. The courts settled this long ago. The first amendment does not merely prescribe religious coercion, it also prevents the government from advancing or aiding religion. There are some tricky situations at the margin, of course, and this particular case is one of them. But it is utterly absurd to claim that the only thing that violates the first amendment is coercing religious observance.
Utter nonsense. Strict separation of church and state is not an "atheist tenet" (atheism has no tenets, it is the mere lack of belief in god), nor is a desire for state validation of religion a Christian trait. You can find Christians and atheists on both sides of that issue. And preventing one religious group from having the government endorse their views does not violate their rights. No one has a right to government support for their beliefs, whether monetary, legal or merely rhetorical support.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | September 5, 2009 5:12 PM
I wonder if theocratic apologists would get it if one, just one school district attempted to put together a mission statement like this:
We Value: Responsibility, honesty, respect, integrity, commitment, disbelief in God and freedom from religious tyranny, our community, our partnerships, and every person as a unique individual with the ability to acquire and apply knowledge.
Of course most advocates of these theocratic statement simply don't seem to be able to put themselves in the shoes of others or to even recognize their lack of empathy. They just can't seem to consider the situation where they are a minority viewpoint or that protecting the viewpoint of the minority is, in fact, protecting their viewpoint.
What precisely is wrong with this version of the mission statement:
We Value: Responsibility, honesty, respect, integrity, commitment, our community, our partnerships, and every person as a unique individual with the ability to acquire and apply knowledge.
???
Posted by: dogmeatIB | September 5, 2009 5:18 PM
A mission statement for a public school is normally expected to be a very serious matter: not a vague unimportant document gathering dust on a shelf, but the guiding principle for every school decision involving time, money, and/or other resources.
So if a school declares that it chooses, for example, to "value optimum physical health," the school is obligated to spend time and money providing support to achieve the optimum physical health for its students and, quite likely, for its faculty and staff: wellness clinics, provision for exercise, etc.
If a school's mission statement says the school values "appreciation of literature" or "skills in math and science" or "belief in God" or whatever, the school would normally be expected to take specific actions to increase this appreciation and skill and belief in their students.
On the college level at least, the mission statement is crucial to accreditation. It guides and controls essentially everything that happens at that school. Every portion of it is translated into a number of goals to be achieved, with specific methods of achievement and methods of measuring the degree of achievement. Schools are judged on the degree to which they turn their self-chosen mission statements into actual behavior.
Posted by: JuliaL | September 5, 2009 5:22 PM
Acknowledging [the existence of] God was never seen as a violation of the First Amendment until later 20th century jurisprudence. Acknowledging God is not the same as the "church" in "church and state," or at least wasn't through most of American history.
[See the preamble of the constitution of the State of Ohio above, which remains in force. At least for now.]
That said, "belief" in God in the mission statement is unnecessarily provocative. The spirit of religious liberty in American history has always been the freedom of the individual conscience, and implicitly elevating belief over disbelief violates that spirit.
Posted by: tom van dyke | September 5, 2009 5:44 PM
Duly chastised, I yield the field and will henceforth turn my attention to boring, tautological and content-free assertions whenever possible. I had never before realized that there was a little-known 10th Muse, Humdrumsia, to serve as the inspiration for such things. All is better now.
Posted by: kehrsam | September 5, 2009 5:46 PM
That's an important point, JuliaL, and one that has persuaded this atheist that the argument to remove the portion is valid, contrary to my previous view that it was kinda nitpicking.
Posted by: trog69 | September 5, 2009 5:47 PM
Silly kehrsam, everyone knows that the Tenth Muse is Anne Bradstreet ("Lately" Sprung Up in America).
Posted by: Mr. B | September 5, 2009 5:55 PM
"Acknowledging [the existence of] God was never seen as a violation of the First Amendment until later 20th century jurisprudence. Acknowledging God is not the same as the "church" in "church and state," or at least wasn't through most of American history."
Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit. There is no way you could possibly "acknowledge the existence of God" without it being a de facto endorsement of a certain religious position. Using "God" in that manner conclusively says, "Hindus, Buddhists, atheists, etc. are wrong and monotheists like Christians, Jews, and Muslims are correct." That is the definition of establishment of religion.
Posted by: Sean Micheal | September 5, 2009 6:35 PM
"Acknowledging [the existence of] God was never seen as a violation of the First Amendment until later 20th century jurisprudence. Acknowledging God is not the same as the "church" in "church and state," or at least wasn't through most of American history."
Historical fact. But for clarity's sake, please amend and omit "is," although the Supreme Court has not yet taken that final step. We still have "ceremonial deism," at least for now.
But thank you for your opinion, Sean.
Posted by: tom van dyke | September 5, 2009 7:29 PM
Most likely the fact that acknowledging the existence of God wasn't a problem in the past has to do with increasing diversity in American culture.
And Kersham,
Sorry, but I just can't go along with that. I used to wonder why Boy Scout leaders, for instance, didn't just shut up about their atheism. That's pretty much what I have always done.
But the silent uncomfortable squirming gets to you after a while. When you are afraid to let others know what you believe, or take issue with their idiotic generalizations, it really does eat away at you.
And I'm not a middle school student whose first and foremost priority is to fit in with the other kids.
Part of the problem, as always, is the fact that religious people can't get their heads around how somebody could possibly not believe something so "obvious." (Their own indoctrination, just as obvious to me, completely escapes their notice.)
When I worked in a grocery store, a customer said to me (about the "Under God" issue with the pledge) "I don't understand what all the fuss is about. Everybody has a god, even Hindus have gods."
Since I was working, I didn't ask her if she had even heard of atheists. I imagine that if I had, she just would have said that they don't count.
Posted by: BaldApe | September 5, 2009 7:42 PM
But the silent uncomfortable squirming gets to you after a while. When you are afraid to let others know what you believe, or take issue with their idiotic generalizations, it really does eat away at you.
Amen. It's the same way being a Republican among the liberals in Los Angeles. Or commenting at most lefty blogs.
There oughtta be a law.
Posted by: tom van dyke | September 5, 2009 7:44 PM
Amen. It's the same way being a Republican among the liberals in Los Angeles. Or commenting at most lefty blogs.
There oughtta be a law.
Huge difference here Tom, with both of your examples you're talking about private individuals, private blogs, etc., they all have a right to express their positions, make their arguments, etc. In this case we're talking about a government entity expressing an opinion/position that represents the specific faith beliefs of one group arguably at the expense of others. Not by any stretch of the imagination the same thing. In fact, the Boy Scouts can be just as bigoted and obnoxious as they want to be, right up to that point where they start receiving special benefits from the government (jamborees on military bases, $1 rent for facilities, etc.). The instant that happens, they have to either change their policies, or pay their way just like every other group that gets to express its opinion.
Posted by: dogmeatIB | September 5, 2009 7:52 PM
Oh, it was the "idiotic generalizations" part that caught my fancy---I wasn't serious. But as to your argument, that depends on whether you're a pluralist or a neutralist. "Neutralism" is actually more suppressive and coercive in my view, and free exercise is often wrongly seen as a zero-sum game.
I admit I'm not up on the legal status of the Boy Scouts. Whichever way the courts would rule on this or that wouldn't surprise me. The federal government has its hooks into just about everything by some justification or another.
Posted by: tom van dyke | September 5, 2009 8:20 PM
tom van dyke:
What makes you think I'm just going to trust you when you say it's a "historical fact" ? Why do you think you have any goodwill with me whatsoever, in light of your constant and unending condescending asshole routine?
Yes, "ceremonial deism" exists. So what? That doesn't mean that it isn't wrong. That doesn't mean that it isn't an example of constitutionality being upheld incorrectly -- all that indicates is that our overwhelmingly Christian dominated judiciary is, with some exceptions, blind to the special privileges it receives, and then when it's pointed out, they either project it onto someone else ("those militant atheists are trying to destroy religion and Christianity! Christians are so persecuted!!") or hide behind some bullshit post-hoc rationale (no doubt you're familiar with that) like "the Ten Commandments are not a religious symbol" nonsense that Scalia and Co. love so much.
You need to actually demonstrate your claims and provide evidence for what you're saying, and -- more importantly -- make the case that that interpretation is actually the best one.
Posted by: Sean Micheal | September 5, 2009 9:25 PM
Ed Brayton:
I'll accept that atheism is not a religious position. I called it "religious" because it's a faith-based* belief about an attribute of God -- in this case, "nonexistence." But the dictionary won't back me up. The online 1913 Webster's [www.hyperdictionary.com/search.aspx?define=religion] definitions all specify or imply ...recognition of the existence of a god or of gods...
(In fact the second definition is
All those Jews and Muslims and Buddhists are sure going to be suprised to find out that they don't have a religion! But, hey, you can't argue with the Dictionary!)*(Of course it's faith-based. Having no evidence of God's existence, you have chosen not to believe in God. Fair enough. Absence of evidence is a perfectly acceptable reason not to believe in something. Especially not to believe in a big-ticket belief like God. Absence of evidence is evidence -- but in no way proof -- of absence. In the end, you figure the odds, place your bet where you think it will pay off, and spin the wheel. Lacking proof, you must act on faith.)
But I digress...
Depends on what you mean by "the Government officially declaring it." Do you mean if the President said it in a State of the Union address? Or if some Congresscritter read it into the Congressional Record? Then, no, I'd say that they have every right, under the First Amendment, to say it. If you mean that the Government mandated that it had to be declared to a captive audience forced to listen to it, like over the P.A. in a prison, or to students in a Public school, then I'd agree that it was an egregious violation of the First Amendment.
Note that reading such an assertion of religious dogma to a classroom full of kids is not at all the same thing as a tepid three-word clause buried in a Mission Statement (surely the most useless fad ever to be inflicted on the American business climate by some nameless, Satan-spawned, coke-snorting, pointy-haired MBA back in the late eighties, may he roast. Nothing ennobles the manufacture and distribution of prefabricated septic tanks like a rousing Mission Statement. But I digress, again...)
When I was a kid in Public School, there were Bibles in the school library. Was that a violation of the First Amendment? What about the Koran? The Book of Mormon? The Bhagavad Gita? The Collected Works of L. Ron Hubbard? Stranger in a Strange Land? Where's the line?
I respectfully disagree with Pough #11 above. The ACLU (among others) seems to interpret "Religious Freedom" to mean "freedom of any religion at all whatsoever as long as it's not Christianity because that would be a violation of the separation of Church and State." I suspect that, of the books named above, the ACLU would expunge the Bible on the grounds of enforcing Separation of Church and State (if, indeed, they haven't already... does anybody out there know?) and fight to retain all the others on the grounds of defending Freedom of Religion.
I also agree that the Government should not use tax dollars to build churches, and I wish they'd stop. Churches presently enjoy a tax exemption that seems to be blatantly unconstitutional, but God help the hapless pol who tries to take it away. Between the Catholics and the Mormons, the guy would probably burst into flames live on CSPAN.
Posted by: Wol | September 5, 2009 10:38 PM
Are you seriously suggesting that your lack of belief in all logically possible propositions (and even some logically impossible ones, which would include certain conceptions of god, and certainly the one that most people believe in) that lack evidence for their existence is a "faith-based" position?
That is effectively what you are saying, and it is even more ridiculous given that "proof" is not a concept that science deals with. That is the realm of mathematics and logic. And in any case, it's trivially easy to disprove the existence of most of the god's that are believed in. There are massive contradictions between many of the divine attributes that people usually ascribe to god. You don't even need to refer to evidence, at all.
Posted by: Damian | September 5, 2009 11:14 PM
What makes you think I'm just going to trust you when you say it's a "historical fact" ?
Oh, heavens, please don't, Sean. Look them up for yourself, with proving me wrong in mind. I have faith in you.
Posted by: tom van dyke | September 5, 2009 11:47 PM
tom van dyke wrote:
Thomas Jefferson certainly saw it as a violation of the First Amendment and he said so. Madison did as well despite his own hypocrisy in caving to political pressure to issue such declarations while he was president. Others disagreed, of course, most obviously Washington and Adams. The courts never ruled that such acknowledgments were a violation of the First Amendment until well into the 20th century, it's true, but they never had the opportunity to do so either because no one ever filed a suit on that point. Going back to the founders, there was a split between the first four presidents on the matter and both the strict separation and accommodationist positions can trace themselves back to those four giants.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | September 5, 2009 11:51 PM
First, the burden of proof is on you, because you made the assertion.
Second, dear god, you are a goddamn fucking asshole, so fuck you. I'm sure you'll respond with some sarcastic, holier-than-thou comment about my "civility", but I've tried to engage you honestly and you've never bothered to repay me in kind. So I'm finished, fuckhead. Fuck you and the theocratic horse you rode in on, assface.
Posted by: Sean Micheal | September 5, 2009 11:54 PM
Okay, that was a little harsh. Or a lot harsh. So I'm sorry, but I meant it when I said I wasn't going to bother debating you anymore.
Posted by: Sean Micheal | September 5, 2009 11:57 PM
Wol wrote:
I mean an official declaration, as in a piece of legislation or an official proclamation of some sort. Of course individual legislators and presidents have every right to offer their own opinions, as they do every day without anyone trying to stop them. But now you are broadening your definition of what constitutes a violation of the first amendment. You first claimed that unless the government actually compels a religious observance, it has not violated the first amendment. Now we can at least agree that official government declarations about religion can also violate the first amendment. So what, then, is the distinction between my hypothetical situation and this situation? Declaring belief in God is every bit as much a religious statement as declaring belief in heaven and hell, is it not?
But why is it not at all the same? A mission statement by a school board is, in fact, an official government declaration. Surely you can't deny that. And you've already admitted that official government declarations endorsing religious beliefs are, at least sometimes, unconstitutional. So why is this one constitutional and others unconstitutional? What is the dividing line? Is it must a matter of vagueness? A vague declaration is more constitutional than a specific one?
The line is quite simple: if the school allowed any of those books but refused to allow the others, that would be a violation. The fact that it allows all religious books to be in the library means there is no message of endorsement and thus no violation. The mere act of putting a book in the library cannot be an endorsement of the contents of that book; otherwise the government would be endorsing contradicting positions any time two books disagreed.
But you would be wrong. The ACLU routinely defends the free exercise rights of Christians and staunchly opposes any attempts at censoring what books can be in a library. You cannot find a single example of the ACLU ever trying to remove a Bible from any library. And the ACLU also files suit against government actions that violate the first amendment on behalf of any other religion as well. At this very moment they are suing a Muslim charter school in Minnesota for violating the establishment clause.
Posted by: Ed Braytons | September 6, 2009 12:02 AM
dogmeatIB and JuliaL:
You say that the Mission Statement is an Important Thing in today's schools. Since I'm not embedded in the public school systems, I can't disagree, cuz I don't know anything about it.
I personally have trouble taking the whole "Mission Statement" fad very seriously. I remember those halcyon days of the early eighties when nobody had or needed a Mission Statement. The Mission was well-known: Buy low, sell high, do a good job, and make a butt-load of money.
Some nameless, soulless yuppie in the late eighties decided that his Foreign Exchange Brokerage Firm needed a more exalted-sounding raison d'etre than "To make a butt-load of money" and the Mission Statement meme was born, and spread like scabies in a daycare center.
Remember the Mission Statement Generator in the old Dilbert website? It took a handful of corporate buzzwords like paradigm and empowerment, added a few grammatical rules, shook well, and poured out meaningless corporate-speak bafflegab that wouldn't have raised a single eyebrow if you saw it on a plaque in the Company's foyer.
If you say that the school systems now take the Mission Statement meme seriously, and think it's meaningful and necessary, I have no choice but to believe you.
But I look at the syntax of blog comments web-wide (this one is a happy exception) and I can't help but think that the only Mission Statement that the schools really need (and more often than not, fail to meet) is the one that kehrsam suggested: Edumacate the kids!
Posted by: Wol | September 6, 2009 12:02 AM
I should add that I tend to agree with you about the non-importance of mission statements. I find the whole idea of them laughable. But as a legal matter, that can't be where the line is drawn. If official government declarations in favor of religious beliefs are not allowed, then they are not allowed. The law can't say "they're not allowed unless the particular form of the government declaration is viewed as a silly one by some people."
Posted by: Ed Brayton | September 6, 2009 12:04 AM
Damian:
Yes. I have faith, absent any proof whatsoever, that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is not, even as I type, preparing to burst through my window and tear my soul out through my nose. I live my life according to that faith, and it has served me well, even though I acknowlege the possibility that the next minute may prove me wrong.
I think the word faith has connotations that raise some people's hackles. To them, it just reeks of medieval superstition, and therefore must be shunned by the Modern Enlightened Person.
Logically, it's impossible to "disprove the existence" of anything. The closest you can get is to fail to prove its existence, and continue to fail, and eventually get sick of trying and just take it on faith that it doesn't exist.
Posted by: Wol | September 6, 2009 12:19 AM
The high school where I did my student teaching actually formed its Mission Statement based on the MS generator on the Dilbert site (with appropriate modifications). The statements are necessary for accreditation and funding, but as far as I've seen, don't actually impact teaching.
Posted by: argystokes | September 6, 2009 12:59 AM
No, the problem is that you are making up your own definitions, which is extremely frustrating in communication. Wikipedia defines "faith", as :
I just don't see how a lack of belief, based on a lack of evidence, as well as deep philosophical problems — some of which really do establish a logical impossibility — can be construed as faith — at least, not unless you redefine the word. To be sure, new evidence can always change my mind, but it is simply twisting words beyond all recognition to claim that it requires faith to lack a belief in at least certain propositions, though not all.
And as I've already said, science doesn't deal in proof, so you are using an impossible standard. There is a reason why your definition isn't used by most people, and that's because you will run it all sorts of conceptual difficulties with it.
The law of non-contradiction (A is B and A is not B) says that you are wrong. So for instance, China cannot be both to the north of New Zealand and to the south of it, at the same time. Therefore it is logically impossible.
The same is true, as I've said, when considering many of god's supposed divine attributes, although it is much trickier to establish. And of course, a theist is able to redefine one or both of the attributes to escape the logical consequence. However, that means that they are slightly closer to realizing that the thing that they believe in is no longer worth worshiping as it sounds less and less impressive each time.
Posted by: Damian | September 6, 2009 1:24 AM
I think the word faith has connotations that raise some people's hackles. To them, it just reeks of medieval superstition, and therefore must be shunned by the Modern Enlightened Person.
True, but that's because people with an intellectually deficient sort of "faith" will tend to get their jollies by equivocating with the word "faith". "You have faith in something, I have faith in something else, there you go we both have faith so were both intellectual peers! Whoopy-doo da!!"
Posted by: 386sx | September 6, 2009 1:43 AM
Damien:
My use of the word faith in this context conforms exactly to the definition you supplied:
In this case, faith refers to the confident belief and trust in the truth and trustworthiness of the idea that "God (and/or the Flying Spaghetti Monster) does not exist."
The idea of contradiction is not the same thing as the idea of nonexistence. I agree that China cannot both be, and not be, North of New Zealand. (Although I would not agree that it cannot be both North and South of New Zealand. South Africa manages to be simultaneously North, South, East, and West of Lesotho -- and vice versa -- and neither country has yet conceded their logical impossibility and disappeared.)
What cannot be proven is a proposition like "There exists NO invisible, impalpable, massless Earth-sized planet halfway between the Earth and the Moon." That proposition could be disproven -- just demonstrate the planet's existence. I have tried, and failed, to disprove this proposition until I felt it not worth my time to continue the effort -- some may say I gave up too quickly -- and I now take it on faith -- I have confident belief in the truth and trustworthiness of the idea -- that no such planet exists.
Logic, at bottom, is nothing but a set of rules for manipulating symbols. If you start will all of the necessary true premises, and no not-true premises, you can logically reach a true conclusion. Otherwise, as Heinlein said, "Logic is an organized way of going wrong with confidence."
Posted by: Wol | September 6, 2009 2:19 AM
Ed:
Your post deserves a more thoughtful reply than I can manage right now; it's getting late.
I'm happy to be corrected about the ACLU's not favoring "every century but this, and every country but its own."
Posted by: Wol | September 6, 2009 2:28 AM
I suspect that, of the books named above, the ACLU would expunge the Bible on the grounds of enforcing Separation of Church and State (if, indeed, they haven't already... does anybody out there know?) and fight to retain all the others on the grounds of defending Freedom of Religion.
Yes Wol, that is true. The ACLU does not like Bibles at all, probably because they think they have the "cootie bugs" or something.
Posted by: 386sx | September 6, 2009 3:03 AM
And that's where you are going wrong.
You have no idea what the epistemic status of a persons atheism (or any other belief or lack there of) is. What if I don't have a confident belief in the truth of the idea that God does not exist? Or, what if the only God's that I have ever heard of are contradictory or incoherent? Also, is a lack of belief the same as a belief? This is my point. If you stretch a definition far enough it becomes incoherent, and therefore meaningless. That's what you are doing.
I don't need faith to cover the epistemic status of my lack of belief, and it is certainly presumptuous to claim that I do, given that you have no idea what its epistemic status is, as I haven't told you how I arrived at it. If you define — as you appeared to earlier — faith to mean anything that isn't mathematically provable, as I've said, it loses all meaning — it's no longer worth using the word. So congratulations, you've just made redundant a perfectly well defined word, and for what?
Also, you appear to have ignored — whether purposely, I don't know — the fact that the "definition" isn't meant to be cherry picked. As it quite clearly says, directly after the part that you chose to suit your argument:
The bold part in particular completely invalidates your argument, yet it is part of the same definition. Lack of belief rests almost entirely on logical analysis, as well as a lack of material evidence. Very few philosophers — if any, I certainly don't know of one — have argued that a lack of belief can properly be described as a faith-based position. That's because you are lumping all kinds of disparate knowledge (and the lack of) into one giant category, when faith was never meant to be the over-arching descriptive word that you are arguing for it. We already have words to describe that. As I said, you're mangling the English language.
You've just contradicted yourself in this very passage, which is rather ironic. :) You "agree that China cannot both be, and not be, North of New Zealand", And yet, you also state that "contradiction [cannot be] the same thing as the idea of nonexistence"? So, can China both be and not be North of New Zealand, or not? Or are we not talking about existence?
As for the part in brackets, clearly it means that if it is A, it cannot also be not A at the same time. So if it was all to the North, it cannot also be all to the South (a better way to see that is to think of a specific point in the country).
But that isn't what I have argued for, and your example certainly isn't universal, which is why it is strange that you chose it. I didn't say that I could prove that no God exists, I said that numerous conceptions of God are logically impossible, and they are. That's a very different proposition to the one that you are using as an example.
For a start, I use what others have told me exists, rather than making a blanket statement that no such entities — however defined — can exist. And that because, as I've said, you can always change the definition, which is why no philosopher ever frames their argument as a disproof of all God's. They first define their terms, and then go on to show that it cannot exist.
So if you define God for me, I'll tell you whether it is logically possible, and we'll go from there. That's the only way to do it. Surely you agree that some things are logically impossible? If so, some things cannot exist.
And you appear to be slightly confused by epistemology. Of course different propositions have different epistemic value. But that rather contradicts your contention that all knowledge — except for that which can be proved mathematically, or disproved scientifically — is faith-based. The very fact that there are different grades of epistemic value suggests that not all knowledge is equal. Therefore, it only makes sense to define it differently, thus invalidating your contention.
Indeed, but what does this have to do with anything?
Posted by: Damian | September 6, 2009 4:17 AM
1. A rock does not believe in god, by virtue of not having a brain.
2. A rock cannot follow a religion, by virtue of not having a brain.
3. By not believing in god, a rock is an atheist, but...
4. By not having a brain, it does not follow a religion.
Or to put it another way: you, Wol, presently do-not-believe in an essentially infinite number of premises, largely because you haven't heard or thought of most of them. Do you believe that the earth is made of intelligent marshmallow and answers the the name of Harold? I'm guessing you didn't a minute ago, and that my statement hasn't made you change that position. I could go on for the rest of our lifetimes with such proposals, things that you didn't believe in before you started reading this, and will continue not believing when you finish.
You must be a very religious person, to not-believe in so many things...
Non-belief in god is not faith, it's not religion. A proposition has been put to me, and I do not find it convincing. I did not believe in god when the poor abused(*) Mormon fellers knocked on my door, and I still didn't believe when they thanked me for my tea and went on their way.
I do not think I have evidence that there is no god - that's impossible. I simply lack sufficient reason to start believing. If a giant Monty Python foot came down and stomped my enemies, I would have no firmly entrenched position to overcome - I'd say "ahh, now THERE'S some evidence(**) I can believe in", and I'd be hailing maries with the best of 'em. But tradition, wishful thinking and indoctrination have not, so far, been sufficient in my case.
(* The Orthodox and Catholic neighbors on either side give them hell. One yells at them and calls their religion (the Mormons' religion, that is) "nutty" - to which I answer "well I think you all believe pretty nutty things, so I don't have a horse in that particular race. I just like being nice to people". They take that pretty well).
(** Of course, in that case I'd think I was probably insane - but if a god exists it would easily have the power to reach into my head and switch the Believe switch to On, so the arguments about sufficient proof are fairly irrelevant. I'll stick with my giant foot).
Posted by: Magpie | September 6, 2009 5:48 AM
Non-belief in god is not faith, it's not religion.
Yeah, but it is a view about religion, therefore it is a religious view.
See how the trick works? The view-about-religion "religious view" is the same words as the having-a-religion "religious view", and then... the buck stops there. That's good enough for some people. They see that one word is the same as the other word, and that's good enough for them to pull the ol' switcheroo. If someone has a religious view, then that means they have a religion. Bada-bing bada-boom.
So yes, non-belief in god is a religion because it's a religious view.
Posted by: 386sx | September 6, 2009 6:34 AM
Wol -
I most certainly don't have faith that there isn't a god or gods - I just don't see evidence to support there being a god and have seen a lot of evidence that flat contradicts some, in most cases several aspects of the dogma of every revealed religion I have studied into. Based on that lack of supporting evidence and the contradictory evidence, I find it exceedingly unlikely that any kind of interventionist gods exist. I find it moderately less unlikely that some sort of godlike being or beings exist, but at that point it becomes pointless conjecture. After nearly thirty years of struggling with religious conceptualizations, I just don't give a damn any more.
That is, I would agree, a religious position. My position on religion being "I don't buy it." It is not however, a position of faith. I have had faith. I have had Faith so intense that I maintained that Faith in the face of reams of evidence that made me constantly change the object of my Faith and at times refuse to accept the evidence that contradicted it. When I was younger, I had a Faith of such zealotry as to be comparable to the Faith of people who strap bombs to their chests for their gods - my god just never asked me to do things like that. I don't need some lecture on the definition of Faith, from someone who obviously hasn't the faintest clue what he is trying to apply it to or what most everyone who calls themself an atheist actually believes.
Here's a clue - I have yet to meet an atheist who doesn't accept that there is a possibility that a god or gods exist. I have never met an atheist who, in the face of actual, tangible evidence that a god or gods do exist, wouldn't believe it. No faith here and no religion.
A question though, for both you and Van Dyke:
Why do you need this recognition of gods in the schools and other public entities? Are your gods so weak, that not having them recognized by the state somehow diminishes them? Is your Faith so weak that not having that selfsame recognition might break it?
Why is it so important to you, that the state not simply remain completely neutral on the whole notion?
TVD -
Acknowledging [the existence of] God was never seen as a violation of the First Amendment until later 20th century jurisprudence.
Gee, that wouldn't have anything to do with the proportional likelihood that anyone bringing a relevant suit would be lynched, now would it? For fucks sake, people who bring suits today are routinely threatened and occasionally have to leave town for doing so. Only now at least, the lynchers are rarely given carte blanc by local law enforcement to commit such attacks. As late as the sixties and spilling over into the seventies, it was not uncommon for the police to be complicit, much less turn a blind eye to it.
But that wouldn't have a damned thing to do with it, now would it? Because we all know that the courts can just magically make pronouncements without suits being filed...
Posted by: DuWayne | September 6, 2009 8:02 AM
The enslavement of African Americans was held legal despite constitutional protections that would seem obvious to us today (how about "being deprived of liberty or property without due process of law"). Indeed, I doubt that the nineteenth amendment would be necessary today, as the denial of womens' suffrage would likely be seen as a violation of the 14th's 'equal protection' clause.
It's called privilege. It makes it quite possible to not see obvious contradictions between one's high-minded principles (and laws) and the reality of how you're applying them.
Posted by: DaveL | September 6, 2009 9:55 AM
Wol,
I can't help but think that the only Mission Statement that the schools really need (and more often than not, fail to meet) is the one that kehrsam suggested: Edumacate the kids!
-----
And Ed,
I should add that I tend to agree with you about the non-importance of mission statements. I find the whole idea of them laughable.
I really have to ask, do either of you have any experience in education? Do you know anything about the purpose of Mission Statements in education? Wol, you mention that you really have no idea, yet you then make comments that suggest you feel competent to dismiss the purpose of a mission statement?
I see a number of people posting here who tie them to business, but without any evidence to support doing so, and in the face of two educators posting comments that suggest these statements actually do play a significant role in education, why assume you have any idea what you're talking about?
How do we just "edumacate the kids?" How do you best accomplish this? You could argue any of a dozen different ways to do this, but which is right for what area?
A well crafted mission statement accomplishes this. I have seen districts where the mission statement is directly tied to goals for bonuses. Where tutoring programs, assistance for at-risk kids, low income kids, etc., are all tied directly to aspects of the mission statement and are worded in a way that reflects the impact of the statement. I've seen, staff, students, and parents, who were quite aware of the focal points of the mission statement even when they couldn't tell you what the statement was or even if the school had one.
Realistically I would argue that a struggling school or school district likely treats its mission statement like the idiotic business version that you two hold in such derision while successful schools and districts have crafted mission statements that actually reflect the values, beliefs, and purposes of that organization.
----------
Tom, you stated:
But as to your argument, that depends on whether you're a pluralist or a neutralist. "Neutralism" is actually more suppressive and coercive in my view, and free exercise is often wrongly seen as a zero-sum game.
Care to provide an example of "Neutralism" and it being suppressive and coercive? A neutral position in this case would have simply been to leave out the half dozen words mentioning God and religion. How would have have adversely impacted either the mission statement or the religious?
-----
I admit I'm not up on the legal status of the Boy Scouts. Whichever way the courts would rule on this or that wouldn't surprise me. The federal government has its hooks into just about everything by some justification or another.
The Boy Scouts have the ability to be as discriminating as they want, as I said. They can discriminate against homosexuals, against atheists, they can promote evangelical Christianity. They have every right to do so. The problem arises when the Boy Scouts obtain special access to government facilities. For years they've held jamborees on Federal military installations, they've enjoyed low rent/no rent access to facilities (Philadelphia and San Francisco were examples if I remember correctly).
In those circumstances, they have to make a choice. Either their discriminatory policies have to go, or they don't get to have special access to facilities. The Scouts have tried to fight a number of these cases and, understandably, lost. This also isn't a matter of the "Federal Government sticking its nose in," these cases have Federal Court jurisdiction from the beginning but are often filed by individuals, local communities, or the scouts themselves.
Another example, but from the free expression and/or free speech aspects. There is the idiotic former chaplain who showed up at rallies in uniform and gave speeches as a member of the armed forces advocating a specific point of view. You don't get to do that. For example, let's say you were a member of the armed forces and a loyal member of the Ku Klux Klan. You can be a member of the Klan, hate anyone and everyone you want to hate, Jews Catholics, African Americans, etc. BUT, when in uniform, you don't get to discriminate, you don't get to express those beliefs as a representative of the state.
You get to freely have and express your viewpoint, just not on the government's time, the government's dime, or using your position as a representative of the government to support your personal viewpoint.
Posted by: dogmeatIB | September 6, 2009 1:39 PM
Oh, dear.
Wok says,
Yes, I remember it. It was very funny. The reason it was funny is that the mission of almost every business is "Make money" - a rather easily measured achievement. The mis-named business "mission statements" appeared to be intended either to disguise the actual mission or to state the general means by which the actual mission was to be accomplished.
To the contrary, the mission statement of a school is a focusing device to establish which of the millions (or billions, etc.) of the possible aspects of education the school is committing itself to achieve. If someone with a graduate degree in physics cannot describe the distinguishing characteristics of some particular country's 16th century architecture, does that mean he/she is uneducated and the school that gave the physics degree should be closed? I'd think not, provided the school had made clear that the program focuses on physics and not on the history of architecture. Nobody can learn everything, and no school can teach everything.
Ed says,
And yet a college can lose certain accreditation for failing to sufficiently support its self-chosen mission statement. That's usually pretty important. The pre-college situation is not so dire. But the fact remains that in the school system, unlike in businesses, a mission statement (by whatever name) is a necessary declaration of what the school intends to teach and therefore both a promise and fair warning of what its money is to be spent on. The days when there was near universal agreement that the local school would teach reading, writing, arithmetic, and maybe a little history is long gone.
The idea that "educate somebody" is, for almost any practical purpose, a sufficiently clear statement of what a school intends to accomplish, what it may reasonably spend its money on, and by what standards it should be judged by those who provide the money (in government schools, largely the taxpayers) is ... is, well, I'll just say, is inaccurate. It's the equivalent of claiming that it's sufficient definition to say the job of the legislature is to "say something about laws about whatever," the job of the president is to "in whatever way, enforce some kind of rules or laws," and the job of the courts is to "make some people or other do stuff."
Posted by: JuliaL | September 6, 2009 2:48 PM
For what it's worth, I think secularists would be equally disgusted by:
We Value: Responsibility, honesty, respect, integrity, commitment, lack of belief in God and religious freedom, our community, our partnerships, and every person as a unique individual with the ability to acquire and apply knowledge.
While advocating a belief in a deity is problematic, so is advocating a non-belief in a deity or belief in the non-existence of a deity. However, FFRF aren't suggesting the school do any of those things, instead they suggest that deities be left out of the discussion whatsoever.
Posted by: Mod | September 6, 2009 2:51 PM
The courts never ruled that such acknowledgments were a violation of the First Amendment until well into the 20th century, it's true, but they never had the opportunity to do so either because no one ever filed a suit on that point.
Dunno about that one, Mr. Brayton. If I may crib from the internet,
In 1900, the U.S. Supreme Court held in the case of Maxwell v. Dow that the first 10 amendments to the Constitution ``were not intended to and did not have any effect upon the powers of the respective states,'' adding dismissively, ``This has been many times decided.''
There was no need for the SC to even hear such cases.
It was only later jurisprudence that brought in the 14th Amendment and applied it to the First, which read "Congress shall make no law..."
Posted by: tom van dyke | September 6, 2009 3:10 PM
Wol, the kind of atheist that you seem to think all atheists are...well, put it this way, I'm not one, and I've never met anyone who is. I, and every other atheist that I have ever met, are atheists for much the same reason we are a-unicornists and a-fairyists - that being that the evidence offered in support of the existence of gods, unicorns and fairies is extremely far from convincing or reliable. Going by what you've said, I can tell you about the Hooloovoo, which is an alien race that takes the form of a hyperintelligent shade of the color blue, and, if you say they don't exist, you're taking it 'on faith' that this is so. In reality, you're actually following the evidence - which is that there is absolutely none that they actually exist, and all your experience of how the universe works tells you that colors cannot be sentient creatures, whether they're a 'hyperintelligent shade' or not. You would be correct to say they don't exist, as they're a fictional race from Douglas Adams' Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.
To go back to your example in post #52, 'There exists NO invisible, impalpable, massless Earth-sized planet halfway between the Earth and the Moon', the position that this planet does not exist cannot be proven, true, but, as you, yourself, pointed out, it can be disproven. As such, you can easily come to the conclusion that the planet does not exist with the only thing taken on 'faith' being the fairly basic principle that the evidence gathered is correct. Conversely, if this planet is truly 'invisible, impalpable and massless', disproving the idea that the planet DOES exist is not possible, even hypothetically, but proving that it does is no less impossible than in the first scenario. In scientific terms, this would be considered an unfalsifiable conjecture - which is also what most, if not all, religions would be considered.
As for the importance or unimportance of this Mission Statement, I have zero clue on that matter. However, as Ed pointed out, even if these Mission Statements are utterly unimportant in every way, it is still a statement being made by a government entity speaking in an official capacity. Therefore, the importance or unimportance of this statement is utterly irrelevant - it still got made.
There is another thing I'd like to address, Wol, and that is your attempt to equate this with something that is said in passing by an individual member of government. This is not such a comment. The Mission Statement, whatever you think of the worth of such things, is supposed to be Lake Public Schools, as a whole, setting out what it hopes to achieve and what values it bases itself on, and it quite clearly includes 'we value belief in God'. In other words, this is a government entity, not an individual, clearly expressing a preference for Christianity over all other religious viewpoints, whilst clearly speaking in an official capacity.
Posted by: Smidgy | September 6, 2009 3:26 PM
I wrote:
And tom van dyke replied:
This is a nonsensical answer. I wasn't talking about incorporation, I was talking about how to interpret the first amendment, whether it applies to the federal government or the states. I am not aware of any case that ever challenged government declarations (or "acknowledgments" as you call them - they aren't merely acknowledgments, they are expressions of opinion and endorsement of a particular belief) from the federal government prior to incorporation either. After the 14th amendment, it still took several decades for a case to test the question of incorporation. But this is a separate question from the proper interpretation of the first amendment, distinct from the level of government that interpretation could be applied to.
We can debate the purpose of the 14th amendment if you'd like, but I've documented repeatedly the fact that the 14th amendment was intended by its authors and explained to the public at the time as applying the first 8 amendments to the states. The courts have agreed with me. But again, this is a different question than what the first amendment forbids; whatever it properly forbid at the federal level it also forbid, after the 14th amendment, at the state and local level. But the question of whether it forbid, at any level, government declarations in support of religion, was never tested until just the last few decades because no one ever brought a suit to test it. And even then, the answer has been decidedly mixed.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | September 6, 2009 4:02 PM
Well, I've resisted [and will continue to] calling the other fellow's remarks nonsense, so you have me at a disadvantage, Ed. But your assertion that "no one ever filed a suit on that point" until the 20th century is a fact not in evidence.
As for your assertion that your [and presumably Jefferson's] view of the First Amendment is the correct one, America's first 150 years of custom and practice favored accommodation over strict separation.
Which was my only point.
As for your argument that the "14th amendment was intended by its authors and explained to the public at the time as applying the first 8 amendments to the states. The courts have agreed with me," it sounds interesting. But if this is your argument
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2005/05/the_historical_basis_for_14th.php
the second half of the essay appears to be about how the courts have not agreed with you, that they had it wrong and you have it right.
See also Sonia Sotomayor on Cruikshank [1876], incorporation, and the 2nd Amendment.
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/134772.html
the courts did not agree with you immediately after ratification, see Cruikshank [1875].
Posted by: tom van dyke | September 6, 2009 4:49 PM
Toejam VD:
"Well, I've resisted [and will continue to] calling the other fellow's remarks nonsense, so you have me at a disadvantage, Ed. But your assertion that "no one ever filed a suit on that point" until the 20th century is a fact not in evidence."
Well, Ed's not been overly insulting, I certainly will be.
You're a time wasting crank whose level of scholarship re: constitutional law is right up there with your understanding of what atheism IS. You certainly don't have to take my word for it, there are a number of honest to GOD educators and attorneys, as well as a number of atheists whose arguments you can't even parse, never mind refute.
You really should share your wit and wisdom with people who might genuinely think you have something to say; but for so long as you continue to insinuate your nonsense into threads here, I (or someone else) will keep telling you, "Shut your pie-hole, you fucking moron!"
Posted by: democommie | September 6, 2009 9:37 PM
Well, Ed, I'm still learning the rules of the Bearded Spock Universe here. Perhaps I'd get more respect if I gave this fellow what's he seems to be begging for.
Some of them want to use you
Some of them want to get used by you
Some of them want to abuse you
Some of them want to be abused
...but that's a little too kinky for me, sorry.
Thx for sending me to the books on the 14th, and as previously acknowledged, your argument is interesting, and this fellow
http://works.bepress.com/richard_aynes/21/
completely supports your thesis, and might be helpful. At some point, perhaps we'll pick it up again. I do hope you've noticed I've sent along concurrences with your conclusions, albeit not signing on fully to the opinions. [In this case, that "belief" is unnecessarily provocative.]
That seems to get missed, and for the record, I don't believe I've addressed atheists or atheism or the problem of God atall. I don't have such discussions in fora like this. Mt 7:6, you understand. Peace, I'm out.
[I withdraw my final remark in my previous. It was part of the first draft that got unfortunately through, and was amended as I checked out your argument more thoroughly. I look forward to your savaging Justice Sotomayor over her apparent embrace of Cruikshank, that the states can limit the right to bear arms.]
Posted by: tom van dyke | September 6, 2009 10:05 PM
tom van dyke wrote:
Well, I have, as far as I know, read every church/state case the Supreme Court has ever rendered in our nation's history and I am unaware of any such challenges prior to the second half of the 20th century. I could be wrong, of course, and if there was such a challenge I would very much like to know of the case so I can look it up.
I actually never asserted that my view, or Jefferson's, was the correct one. To the contrary, I admitted, as I have always done, that both the accommodationism of Adams and Washington and the strict separationism of Jefferson and Madison are legitimate interpretations of the first amendment. I would argue that the courts should give more deference to strict separationism today than accommodationism simply because we are a far more religiously diverse nation now than we were 200 years ago and separationism is the best way to give genuine meaning to the idea that all religious views are equal in the eyes of the government.
I think you need to read that essay more carefully. My disagreement was with the court's Slaughterhouse ruling, which dealt not with the incorporation of the first 8 amendments but with the reach of the privileges and immunities clause and the definition of citizenship. It's a terrible decision that should have been overturned, but instead the courts have merely accomplished incorporation under the terms of the due process clause rather than the privileges and immunities clause. On the question of the incorporation of the first 8 amendments, the courts have consistently applied them to the states for the last century (and they are correct to do so because that is exactly what the 14th amendment intended to do and was said to do prior to ratification).
I didn't bother to read the article you linked to, but if Sotomayor takes the position that the 2nd amendment is not incorporated, I will happily condemn that position. It is absolutely wrong. In fact, the case for second amendment incorporation is even stronger than for some of the other amendments because the authors of the 14th amendment quite explicitly referred to this right as one they sought to extend to all citizens at the state level (for the obvious reason that many Southern states were then passing legislation to forbid ex-slaves from owning guns). I support the second amendment and its incorporation.
By the way, having said that, your framing of that question betrays a misunderstanding of constitutional law. Even if the second amendment is incorporated, that does not mean that the states (or the federal government) can't limit the right to bear arms. The fact that a given right is made explicit does not mean there can be no limits on that right. The first amendment right to free speech is as explicit as it could possibly be, but that does not mean that libel or perjury laws are unconstitutional. Even where a right is made absolutely explicit, there are still constitutional limits that may be placed on that right. So yes, the second amendment is incorporated against the states by the 14th amendment, but that does not mean that all possible restrictions on that right are automatically unconstitutional.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | September 7, 2009 1:25 AM
I don't have such discussions in fora like this. Mt 7:6, you understand.
I don't get it. Mt 7:6 doesn't say anything about casting hogwash before the fora. I don't get the relevance of Mt 7:6.
Posted by: 386sx | September 7, 2009 2:22 AM
Thx for your courteous reply, Ed. My original proposition
Acknowledging [the existence of] God was never seen as a violation of the First Amendment until later 20th century jurisprudence. Acknowledging God is not the same as the "church" in "church and state," or at least wasn't through most of American history.
remains unmolested, despite the filth that was thrown at it and me.
I repeat my thx for your argument re the 14th, and lent support to it, and I've also lent at least concurrence to several of your arguments.
We shall pick up the First and the Fourteenth at a later date, if we continue to reciprocate respect and courtesy, both of which I paid forward by looking up your post cited above on my own initiative.
Yr argument about the 14th was fresh and refreshing. I look forward to engaging it---and with substantial agreement, so I don't do the Sword of Damocles thing---but surely not at comment #71.
Best,---Tom
Posted by: tom van dyke | September 7, 2009 3:48 AM
Tom, hate to tell you this; your pearls are made of plastic :) - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | September 7, 2009 6:12 AM
tom van dyke states @ 68:
I could not find Sotomayor directly writing or speaking to Cruikshank. I would greatly appreciate a citation to Sotomayor writing or directly discussing this case, especially where she deserves "savaging". Cruikshank was brought up by Sen. Orin Hatch in the Senate Committee hearings as a part of some long, multi-part question he frequently does as a superstar pontificator. Sotomayor's joining the majority in Maloney is consistent in acknowledging state regulatory powers which is also consistent with Heller's acknowledgment of such. So why go after one mere justice in Sotomayor rather than the Scalia majority in Heller?
The Heller majority held:
Here was Sotomayor's perspective in Day 4 of her nomination hearing which I think is relevant:
SEN. COBURN: . . . So the question I'd like to turn to next is, in your ruling, the 2nd Circuit ruling on—and I'm trying to remember the name of the case—Maloney—the position was is that there's not an individual fundamental right to bear arms in this country. Is that—is that a correct understanding of that?
JUDGE SOTOMAYOR: No, sir.
SEN. COBURN: Okay. Please educate me, if you would.
JUDGE SOTOMAYOR: In the Supreme Court's decision in Heller, it recognized an individual right to bear arms as a right guaranteed by the Second Amendment, an important right, and one that limited the actions a federal—the federal government could take with respect to the possession of firearms. And in that case we're talking about handguns.
The Maloney case presented a different question, and that was whether that individual right would limit the activities that states could do to regulate the possession of firearms. That question is addressed by a legal doctrine. That legal doctrine uses the word "fundamental," but it doesn't have the same meaning that common people understand that word to mean. To most people, the word, by its dictionary term, is: critically important, central. Fundamental: it's sort of rock basis. Those meanings are not how the law uses that term when it comes to what the states can do or not do. The term has a very specific legal meaning, which means: Is that amendment of the Constitution incorporated against the states?
SEN. COBURN: Through the 14th Amendment?
JUDGE SOTOMAYOR: Through—and others, but the—generally. I shouldn't say "and others"; through the 14th.
The question becomes whether and how that amendment of the Constitution, that protection, applies or limits the states to act. In Maloney, the issue for us was a very narrow one. We recognized that Heller held—and it is the law of the land right now in the sense of precedent—that there is an individual right to bear arms, as it applies to government, federal government, regulation. The question in Maloney was different for us.
SEN. COBURN: Okay.
JUDGE SOTOMAYOR: Was that right incorporated against the states? And we determined that, given Supreme Court precedent, precedent that had addressed that precise question and said it's not—so it wasn't fundamental in that legal doctrine sense—that was the court's holding.
SEN. COBURN: Did the Supreme Court say in Heller that it definitely was not, or did they just fail to rule on it?
JUDGE SOTOMAYOR: Well, they failed to rule on it, you're right, but I—
SEN. COBURN: Okay. There's a very big difference there.
JUDGE SOTOMAYOR: I agree.
SEN. COBURN: Okay. Let me continue with that. So I sit in Oklahoma in my home, and what we have today as law in the land as you see it is, I do not have a fundamental incorporated right to bear arms; as you see the law today.
JUDGE SOTOMAYOR: It's not how "I" see the law.
SEN. COBURN: Well, as you see the interpretation of the law today. In your opinion of what the law is today, is my statement a correct statement?
JUDGE SOTOMAYOR: No, it's not my interpretation; I was applying both Supreme Court precedent deciding that question and 2nd Circuit precedent that had directly answered that question and said it's not incorporated.
The issue of whether or not it should be is a different question, and that is the question that the Supreme Court may take up. In fact, in his opinion, Justice Scalia suggested it should. But it's not what "I" believe; it's what the law has said about it.
SEN. COBURN: So, what does the law say today about the statement? Where do we stand today about my statement that I have—I claim to have a fundamental, guaranteed, spelled-out right under the Constitution, that is individual and applies to me, the right to own and bear arms. Am I right or am I wrong?
JUDGE SOTOMAYOR: I can't answer of incorporation other than to refer to precedent. Precedent says—
SEN. COBURN: I understand.
JUDGE SOTOMAYOR: -- as the 2nd Circuit interpreted the Supreme Court's precedent—
SEN. COBURN: I understand that.
JUDGE SOTOMAYOR: -- that it's not a—it's not incorporated.
It's also important to understand that the individual issue of a person bearing arms is raised before the court in a particular setting.
SEN. COBURN: Context, yes.
JUDGE SOTOMAYOR: And by that I mean what the court will look at is a state regulation of your right and then determine can the state do that or not. So, even once you recognize a right, you're always considering what the state is doing to limit or expand that right, and then decide is that okay constitutionally.
[Back to Michael Heath] There is continued dialogue between Corburn and Sotomayor on the 2nd amendment, but it's mostly related to Sotomayor's refusal to provide her positions in a vacuum and her reiterating Scalia's majority opinion in Heller:
For the record, I think Heller was correctly decided though I'm extremely respectful of the arguments made by Justice Stevens with the exception that both opinions continue to seek rights in the Constitution rather than define the limitations of government power and its obligation to weigh government's obligation to defend the superior rights of some over others. The Stevens' opinion ignored this aspect completely while the Scalia majority effectively did so as well with the exception they inferred the superior rights of the public in some settings with Holding #2's acknowledgment of federal and state powers to regulate/prohibit gun ownership or use in certain instances.
Posted by: Michael Heath | September 7, 2009 12:16 PM
I'd like to see where in my reply to Tom @#60 I was in any way "molesting" or "throwing filth." The only thing I see that I was in that post was ignored.
Posted by: dogmeatib | September 7, 2009 1:30 PM