Fixing America In 500 Words Or
Less
Chapter 7
DOES THE ACLU REALLY
DEFEND THE 1ST
AMENDMENT?
According to the 1st Amendment of the United States Constitution: “Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...” This amendment clearly meant something
entirely different to the Constitutional framers than the ACLU pretends it did. ¹
Jefferson edited the New Testament while a sitting president and, attempted to have his version become the official U.S.
government-endorsed version, ensuring it would be read in every public schoolhouse of his day. Madison stated he
believed the 1st Amendment would aid in the spread of Christianity ² and, Franklin openly complained the
framers were not seeking God's guidance enough while drafting the Constitution. ³
Many so-called “experts” interpret “religion” to mean belief in God, while it is far more likely it meant institutional
religion to the framers. Regardless, protection of free expression has nothing to do with what is actually true
about God, science or anything else. Whether modern evolutionary theory is true or just a poorly constructed
fairytale, is not relevant to 1st Amendment protections.
According to various polls, over 80% of adults and 50% of American educators believe in a Designer. Though several
major living scientists believe the evidence indicates design, the ACLU refuses to protect their highly credentialed
scientific viewpoint. Instead, they demand American educators deliberately lie to our children by omission,
leaving out the known fact that major historical and living scientists and every Declaration signer believe(d) the
scientific evidence indicates design.
The “God question” is central to the scientific thought and inquiry of virtually every major historical scientist,
including Darwin himself. Still, so-called “progressives” pretend God is not a question for science. To allow
only one myopic viewpoint is to teach children questioning what is true is not relevant to education. These are
the same “progressives” who are angry over the one-sidedness of talk radio.
Modern evolutionary theory does in fact, address the “God question”. Any theory assuming that everything in the
universe is a result of “natural” unguided processes is stating there is no God, not to mention, scientifically
completely wacko. Nobody from our perspective could possibly know the overall process is unguided. Atheism
has no more protection under the 1st Amendment than Catholicism. Is freedom of speech or science really being
served when only a non-evidenced based superstitious assumption is allowed? 4
According to biographer Walter Isaacson, Albert Einstein said: "I have a deep feeling of faith, a deep religiosity
that comes from my appreciation of the way the Lord made the universe." 5 Every signer of the Declaration of
Independence agreed the evidence of a Creator is beyond all rational dispute.
Should we forbid Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, DaVinci, Newton, Copernicus, Galileo, Faraday, Jefferson, Madison,
Franklin, Einstein and leading DNA expert Francis Collins to teach a public science class? Or, should we petition
our Creator to toss the ACLU into a bottomless black hole and throw away the key, allowing our children a proper
education without any further undue hindrance from the feeble-minded?
You decide.
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.
|