|
MarcEsadrian -> RE: Dominance in other Countries? (11/8/2008 8:28:32 AM)
|
Hi Nemesis,
Just to be specific, we were talking about the First Amendment of the Constitution, precisely where it relates to the "Establishment Claus".
I don't see it as a "change in the constitution" after or a "wrong interpretation" prior. I do see the modern interpretation as a finer point on something that inevitably needed to be clarified, particularly with religious ideas growing more divergent and secular thought gaining more traction in the twentieth century, the first spark of which appeared in its early years.
A Bible and a reader where ideas grandfathered in from colonial days; preexisting the Constitution. It was neither right nor wrong, but simply was. The lower courts ruling in favor of teaching Christian creationism over evolution in a case from the twenties was a clear violation of the First Amendment—a Perry Mason moment, if you will—leading to our need to make a textual interpretation of the Establishment Claus more clearly.
This debate got rolling from whether my use of the idea of separation of church and state was a result of modern construct or the spirit in which the First Amendment was intended. I feel framing it as a "choice" between either or is fallacious, believing they are really one and the same. Others vehemently assert that's wishful thinking, claiming the state is not and never was granted protection from the church in the First Amendment. The argument goes on.
In regards to your second question, one would assume, particularly in 2008, we are well protected from the spiritual beliefs of our statesmen or their constituents, but I contend recent years have vibrantly proven the contrary. The Obama administration or the new faces in Congress won't necessarily prove to be any better. Time will tell.
|
|
|
|
