Chapter 7
DOES THE ACLU REALLY
DEFEND THE 1ST AMENDMENT?
NOTES:
1. Source: Encyclopedia Britannica; articles on deism, history of the United States and various biographies of prominent 18th Century Americans. It is a very great historical error to equate belief in God as a universal Deity and Creator, with the terms "religion" and "church", as if they are interchangeable terms meaning the same thing. Which most unfortunately, is what the ACLU and many modern educators have a very myopic and dishonest habit of doing. It is entirely historically ludicrous to extrapolate these three distinct terms into pretending that Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, Washington and the other founding fathers would oppose free and open discussion of evidence for deliberate design in a public science classroom; especially Jefferson, who has long been credited for the opening lines of the Declaration of Independence, which very clearly imply that it is scientifically irrational to not believe in deliberate design. Every signer of the Declaration, by virtue of their signature, affirmed that they believed the evidence overwhelmingly indicates deliberate design, which upon such conclusion they based the entire premise and purpose of the American Revolution. This is very clearly what the Declaration of Independence expressly says, whether the ACLU and modern so-called "progressives" like it or not.
There is considerable historical evidence that in the minds and intentions of the Constitutional framers, the term "Creator", as used in the Declaration of Independence, referred to God as a universal Deity, above and beyond any and all organized and other religious conception. And, that they believed the evidence for creation is beyond rational dispute, which is the exact opposite of what many modern so-called "educators" pretend they believed. The term "religion", deliberately chosen for the 1st Amendment, rather than either "God" or "church", most likely referred to organized institutional religion, which is often what is intended when the same term is used today. While the term "church", found only once in a personal letter by one founding father, most probably referred to a particular state-endorsed type of Christianity and even in the most liberal stretch of historical reality, did not at all refer to belief in God as a universal creator Deity but rather, to one organized religion, such as Islam for example, being endorsed by the state at the expense of other institutional religions. In the historical experience of the founding fathers, European citizens were often persecuted not only because they were not Catholic and later, because they were not Protestant, but often also, because they adhered to the wrong brand of Protestantism and to a lesser degree, Catholicism. At various times in European history, it was dangerous to be a Calvinist as opposed to a Lutheran or, an orthodox as opposed to a reformed Catholic; it was almost always dangerous to be something other than Christian, such as Jewish, Islamic, agnostic or atheist.
According to the Britannica, many Europeans who considered themselves Deists believed in a pro-active Deity, while probably most of them tended to distrust organized religion. There is zero historical evidence that the the so-called "founding fathers" were Deists as the term is commonly understood to mean today and, it is both misleading and a great historical lie for modern educators to brand them as "Deists" with one quick broad brush, without explaining in detail what they really believed, based on their own writings and more importantly, actions. Based on their own writings and actions, the founding fathers overwhelmingly believed in a pro-active God, while at the same time, some of them harbored a strong suspicion of and perhaps distaste for, organized religion. Belief in God apart from organized religion might well be an example of Deism as understood in 18th Century Europe and America, but it is by no means an example of belief in a non-proactive Deity or atheism, as certain modern "progressive" educators pretend is the case. There is overwhelming evidence based on the subsequent known actions of the various Constitutional framers and others, such as Jefferson and Adams, that the 1st Amendment very clearly intends for U.S. citizens to be able to freely express any view they personally believe in any public science gathering or other public place at any time; some might even correctly argue, on any privately owned property within the borders of the United States, as well.
The incredibly narrow-minded and regressive ACLU notion of "separation of church and state", phrased only once in a private letter by one founding father, who was not even present when the Constitution or 1st Amendment was drafted, is as far away from their subsequent actions as the East is from the West. Freedom of speech to them, based on their own subsequent actions, very clearly meant that one can freely express one's personal religious or any other viewpoint anywhere, at anytime, without fear of recrimination of any kind whatsoever. Modern intellectuals who pretend that discussing evidence for design in a public classroom is against the intent of the 1st Amendment, are purveyors of tyranny and fascism, having no understanding of the 1st Amendment, the founding fathers themselves, freedom of speech or freedom of anything else. It is anti-human rights, for any human being to at any time or in any way, attempt to suppress any other human being's personal religious or other viewpoint.
Freedom of speech means "free" to speak without fear of recrimination of any kind, just as it implies. It makes sense that in a science class, we can't teach everybody's opinion, just as in a history class, we can't include a biography of every American citizen. However, it is neither Constitutional nor does it make any rational sense at all, to allow what some scientists and educators believe the evidence indicates, while suppressing what other equally or greater credentialed scientists and educators believe. If we had true separation of church and state in the United States, there would be no tax exemptions for religious organizations. And, if we had true separation of church and state, both the view of scientists and educators who believe in deliberate design and, the view of those who don't, would be included in a public school science textbook.
Education theoretically is supposed to provide a fair representative cross-section of what various credentialed authorities believe and, the history of science theoretically includes the beliefs of major historical scientists. Belief in creation based on the evidence is not a minority non-scientific viewpoint, when over 50% of all American scientists and educators believe in God, when virtually every major historical scientist believed in God and, when every signer of the Declaration of Independence agrees. And even if only one scientist or educator believes the evidence indicates design, he or she has every right under the 1st Amendment, to freely express that view in a public science class when possessing equal or greater credentials. The ACLU has neither the right nor the credentials to decide for the rest of us what science is or is not. And, the ACLU has neither the right nor the credentials to pretend that "God is not a question for science", when Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, DaVinci, Newton, Copernicus, Galileo, Faraday, Jefferson, Franklin, Edison, Darwin, Einstein, Stephen Hawking and Francis Collins very clearly, based on their own words and actions, all believe God is a central question for science.
2. Source: In Search of America; Peter Jennings and Todd Brewster.
3. Source: America's Three Regimes; Morton Keller.
4. There is a difference between a teacher stating their opinion, as opposed to a teacher pretending their opinion is scientific fact. Based on the 1st Amendment, a public school teacher should not be allowed to present their personal opinion as the official U.S. school system version, on any subject to their students. However, every public school teacher should be allowed to freely express their own personal opinions regarding any and every subject, as well as every student should be granted the same freedom. That is very clearly, what the 1st Amendment says. If and when, enough Americans decide that the 1st Amendment needs to be revised, there is a process left in place by the Constitutional framers to either modify or re-write it entirely. The Constitution is not subject to arbitrary private interpretation and editing, just because certain modern intellectual Neanderthals are unhappy with the freedom it allows. Opinions of how human beings arrived on our planet are just that, non-proven and most probably, non-provable opinions.
Their is virtually no geologic or fossil record of the first 800 million years of the earth's existence, when life is theorized to have first arisen. Modern scientific speculation ranges from life arriving here on asteroids or comets, to life appearing first in the ocean, in caves, in or near fresh water, in clay and even perhaps, first under the earth's surface. Some scientists believe what causes life to form may be very common rather than rare and that life may be able to appear where ever there is a little wetness; others speculate that the earth was originally shrouded in a thick cloud cover and the subsequent "greenhouse" effect was conducive to the formation of life and thus, the earth is no longer conducive to original life forming.
The process of how life arose on this planet is unknown; whether life evolved from a single primary source or several, hundreds or millions or even trillions of primary sources, is also unknown. It is believed that the early earth was bombarded by untold millions of external planetary objects. Thus, if life itself or the building blocks of life arrived via comet or asteroid, life may have "originated" all over the earth, rather than from a single primary source. And, life may well have originated in diverse places anyway, even if external solar objects weren't part of the process. Any and all theories regarding the origin of life on Planet Earth are entirely speculative, not scientifically proven or most probably, even provable; there is no general scientific or other consensus, nor should students ever be taught that there is.
Modern intellectuals and others who pretend that there is some sort of unified scientific theory on the origin of life are plainly liars. Educators who believe we should lie to our children, rather than tell them modern science doesn't really know, should be forced out of their profession, where they cannot harm our children any further. Because many educated people believe that the universe is a product of design, while other people with degrees believe it is a product of chance, that is what we should teach our children. If there is no general consensus or proven or provable theory, that is what we should tell our children. To teach them anything else is to deliberately lie to them.
Education is not about including every origin theory in science class, anymore than education is about including the biography of every American who was ever born in history class. However, education is most definitely about including diverse theories and opinions that are held by prominent scientists, just as education is about including the biographies of prominent Americans, such as George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. If over 50% of American educators or even, if only 10% of modern scientists believe in God, then theories regarding evidence of design belong in every United States science classroom. The 1st Amendment very clearly guarantees fair representation of both majority and minority viewpoints.
5. Source: Einstein: His Life and Universe; Walter Isaacson.
Other Books by Richard Aberdeen Click Here to eMail the Author Copyright © by Richard Aberdeen Copyright © by Freedom Tracks Music |