Reply #151: Communism is not a religion yet "inhibits religion"... [View All]

"The First Amendment reads: 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.

"Since science is not a religion, teaching science in no way constitutes and "establishment" of religion, nor does teaching science in any way prohibit the free exercise of religion."

As SCOTUS has chosen the Lemon test to determine this, I'll skip comment here to get to where you discuss Lemon.

"As for your other arguements, they were answered earlier by other posters:

"As articulated by the Supreme Court, under the Lemon test, a government-sponsored message violates the Establishment Clause of the First Ammendment if: (1) it does not have a secular purpose; (2) its principle or primary effect advances or inhibits religion; or (3) it creates an excessive entanglement of the government with religion. Lemon, 403 U.S. at 612-13." (Page 90 Of Judge Jones' decision).

"The teaching of science:
"(1) has a SECULAR purpose; it's PURPOSE is not to advance or denigrate any religious belief"

I've not contested Item 1 in the Lemon test. I assume the purpose is secular.

"(2) has a PRIMARY effect of teaching the scientific method and the current state of observations arrived at by that method."

This does not address the matter of whether "the principle or primary effect" of teaching science "inhibits religion". I think it is clear that it inhibits those whose religious beliefs include a literal interpretation of the Bible.

"(3) Since science is not a religion, teaching it does not create an "excessive" entanglement of the Government with religion. To state that it does, one would have to conclude that all curriculem that conflicts with some religious belief or another is an "excessive" entanglement."

Communism is not a religion either, yet "inhibits religion" regardless. That science is not a religion does not preclude it from a similar charge. While the Establishment Clause prevents one religion being raised up against the others, it also precludes the suppression of a religion.

"It seems to me that it is your contention that the teaching of science somehow "inhibits" religion that is illiberal, since you seem to be seeking a special status for the beliefs of ONE religious sect. THAT, it seems to me, is illiberal in the extreme in that it constitutes a special status equivalent to "establishement" of that religious viewpoint as deserving of special respect and status."

Unless we wish to posit that the government is free to inhibit any religion it wishes, I don't see how you escape a prohibition that prevents the state from inhibiting any religion. To say 'we won't protect this religion because it's antagonistic towards science and we're not' sounds very much like we would like the state to play favourites with religion. It doesn't matter whether we're talking about "ONE religious sect" or many, the principle of protecting religion from the state applies to all, or it applies to none.

(edit: overlooked the last paragraph...corrected the oversight)