US Supreme Court Bans Government Funding for Science; Separation of Church and State

[BillyTheMountain]

The growing recognition that the practice of Science is a matter of deep religious Faith has led the US Supreme Court to ban any government funding of scientific research [Details in last paragraph below].

In response, many Scientists have applied for grant money from the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA). The NEA has funded a variety of performance artists, including magicians, and Scientists are seeking some of this money.

Magicians have issued a statement expressing how insulted they are, claiming Scientists are basically charlatans with no artistic merit.

Details: BillyTheMountain v. United States of America (545 U.S. 469 (2009)) was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the use of government funding for science research. The case arose from the growing recognition that scientific belief is a matter of Faith, like Atheism or any other Faith. The Court held in a 5-4 decision that the general benefits the Scientific community enjoyed from government funding qualified as a violation under the establishment clause [see McCollum v. Board of Education Dist. 71, 333 U.S. 203 (1948)]

Engel v. Vitale, 82 S. Ct. 1261 (1962) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engel_v._Vitale
was seen as central to this Decision. In that case the Supreme Court decided that "Any kind of prayer, composed by public school districts, even nondenominational prayer, is unconstitutional government sponsorship of religion."

The decision was widely criticized by American politicians and the general public. Many members of the public viewed funding for Science Research as a gross violation of Freedom of Thought, and felt their taxpayer dollars were unfairly distributed to one Faith over others. This was seen as largely a matter of Science Lobbyists, the consequence of which had been to benefit large universities at the expense of churches, mosques, temples and synagogues. Some in the legal profession construe the public's outrage as being directed not at the interpretation of legal principles involved in the case, but at the broad moral principles of the general outcome.

Other relevant Decisions considered included:

McCollum v. Board of Education Dist. 71, 333 U.S. 203 (1948)
Court finds religious instruction in public schools a violation of the establishment clause and therefore unconstitutional.

Burstyn v. Wilson, 72 S. Ct. 777 (1952)
Government may not censor a motion picture because it is offensive to religious beliefs.

Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961)
Court holds that the state of Maryland can not require applicants for public office to swear that they believed in the existence of God. The court unanimously rules that a religious test violates the Establishment Clause.

Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963)
Court finds Bible reading over school intercom unconstitutional and Murray v. Curlett, 374 U.S. 203 (1963) - Court finds forcing a child to participate in Bible reading and prayer unconstitutional.

Epperson v. Arkansas, 89 S. Ct. 266 (1968)
State statue banning teaching of evolution is unconstitutional. A state cannot alter any element in a course of study in order to promote a religious point of view. A state's attempt to hide behind a nonreligious motivation will not be given credence unless that state can show a secular reason as the foundation for its actions.

Lemon v. Kurtzman, 91 S. Ct. 2105 (1971)
Established the three part test for determining if an action of government violates First Amendment's separation of church and state: 1) the government action must have a secular purpose; 2) its primary purpose must not be to inhibit or to advance religion; 3) there must be no excessive entanglement between government and religion.

Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980)
Court finds posting of the Ten Commandments in schools unconstitutional.

Wallace v. Jaffree, 105 S. Ct. 2479 (1985)
State's moment of silence at public school statute is unconstitutional where legislative record reveals that motivation for statute was the encouragement of prayer. Court majority silent on whether "pure" moment of silence scheme, with no bias in favor of prayer or any other mental process, would be constitutional.

Edwards v. Aquillard, 107 S. Ct. 2573 (1987)
Unconstitutional for state to require teaching of "creation science" in all instances in which evolution is taught. Statute had a clear religious motivation.

Allegheny County v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573 (1989)
Court finds that a nativity scene displayed inside a government building violates the Establishment Clause.

Lee v. Weisman, 112 S. Ct. 2649 (1992)
Unconstitutional for a school district to provide any clergy to perform nondenominational prayer at elementary or secondary school graduation. It involves government sponsorship of worship. Court majority was particularly concerned about psychological coercion to which children, as opposed to adults, would be subjected, by having prayers that may violate their beliefs recited at their graduation ceremonies.

Church of Lukumi Babalu Ave., Inc. v. Hialeah, 113 S. Ct. 2217 (1993)
City's ban on killing animals for religious sacrifices, while allowing sport killing and hunting, was unconstitutional discrimination against the Santeria religion.

BillyTheMountain

[JJuggle]

Oh, the injustice:

[harper]

I just kind of scanned your verbose, cut-and-pasted post, Billy, and from it I gather that by a 5-4 Supreme Court decision it is constitutional for me to hunt clergy for sporting purposes. This is good news to me as I was always concerned about the legality. Perhaps I misread it and instead it's telling me that the Supremes are courting a decision to collect tax dollars to fund a new film centered about forcing children to practice gross faith. Regardless, good show, Billy.

[BillyTheMountain]

Science Journal says it. I believe it. That settles it.

[Bumper sticker seen on Maestro8's car]

[maestro8]

Scientific research has, on the whole, saved millions of lives with inventions like vaccines, surgical techniques, water purification techniques, advancements in farming technology.

Religious zealotry has, on the whole, killed millions of people with phenomena such as faith healing, stampedes and wars

Quite odd, isn't it? That a concept based on a "loving god" leads to so much death, while a largely "godless" community saves so many lives? What correlation might one draw here?

What I gather you're saying, Billy, is that you'd rather watch millions of people die every year than allow anyone to advance the sustainability and longevity of the human race? Surely, you must be the devil!

[BillyTheMountain]

if you must distort history to support science against religion, you show yourself to be an enemy of the Truth and thus an enemy of Science.

[JJuggle]

Originally Posted by BillyTheMountain

if you must distort history to support science against religion, you show yourself to be an enemy of the Truth and thus an enemy of Science.

And I ask you again, Billy. Do you still beat your wife?

[mscalisi]

The mantra of BTM: Everybody MUST have a faith or religion. Therefore I will call science and atheism religion to force non-religious people into a religious category. I will completely disregard logic and use relentless amounts of spin to this end.

Never mind that the scientific method is, almost by definition, the antithesis of faith.

(BTW can almost certainly be counted on to disregard logic and distort meanings to disprove the previous statement).

Rinse and repeat.

[BillyTheMountain]

Originally Posted by mscalisi

The mantra of BTM: Everybody MUST have a faith or religion. Therefore I will call science and atheism religion to force non-religious people into a religious category. I will completely disregard logic and use relentless amounts of spin to this end.

Never mind that the scientific method is, almost by definition, the antithesis of faith.

(BTW can almost certainly be counted on to disregard logic and distort meanings to disprove the previous statement).

Rinse and repeat.

Well, there is a bit of Faith to our belief that the Scientific Method is the Path to Truth. But that's small, and a good number of scientists (even if they believe in GOD) do not need Faith in Science.

The people who need Faith in Science are those who accept weird ideas on blind authority of Scientists, and Journals. Like 99% of students who get their Bachelors Degrees in Science have never seen a neutrino and have no reason to believe in their existence, have no reason to believe a nuclear particle can be in two places at once, have no reason to believe there's any relationship between time and gravity or movement, have no reason to believe lots of kooky stuff.

Billy

[tumbles]

Personally I think its high time we banned science. I mean really what has it contributed? Science is nothing more than some hocus pocus that really..doesn't exist. It has NEVER produced ANY results that have ever helped mankind...BAN IT

well...except for this computer I'm using...I'm sure that's a just a coincident of good planning.

Furthermore, I really think we should stop teaching it in school, but along with that we should also stop teaching art, any course that mentions religion, literary courses and so on...lets just stick to math and...WAIT ban math I can't see numbers so I can't prove they are there.

I really think we'd be better off without science and just stuck to blind quessing to come up with all our solutions. I mean seriously, why should we preform a series of actions that is recognized worldwide as acceptable and then test things until we can quantify results....hogwash, a load of bull.

You know what's even worse?? When people combine science and faith with belief...what is so silly about that is..even if people have blind faith in science (which so many do), it still doesn't make science any less credible because all that work still produces results that can be tested.

Let me give you the definition of Science:science refers to any systematic knowledge-base or prescriptive practice which is capable of resulting in a prediction or predictable type of outcome.

ok soooo who cares if people have faith in science,..its no way a religion is it?

religion: religion is an organized approach to human spirituality which usually encompasses a set of narratives, symbols, beliefs and practices, often with a supernatural or transcendent quality, that give meaning to the practitioner's experiences of life through reference to a higher power or truth.


hmmm it seems we have apples and oranges

at least when people have blind faith in science its because it is knowledge based, and is tested and re-tested...I'm not sure if I would call that faith


Faith: belief that is not based on proof - well lets not talk about theories that are still not proven...but faith in gravity? doesn't work we can prove it. Faith in science..no bad combination of words...science is based on proving results


So can we finally stop combining two topics that don't relate and act like we understand the definitions of simple words....HOGWASH

people who have blind faith in science are an oxymoron,...its a poetic irony

[tumbles]

Originally Posted by BillyTheMountain

if you must distort history to support science against religion, you show yourself to be an enemy of the Truth and thus an enemy of Science.

Billy you must see the connection between the exploitation of religion for personall gain which has been repeated so many times, and the widespread distrust in the authority of religious leaders.

When people used science as personal gains it still is on a different topic..you must admit there is a separation between the practice of science, and it is a practice, and faith in religion...you MUST be rational enough to separate these topics.

People have also bashed science for the destruction of mankind, just like many have bashed religion...its a seperate topic though

Yes there have been equal exploitation of science, but we don't go to lab every sunday and pray to steven hawkins...you must be able to see the separation here.

[crazyjoe]

Didn't the government sort of declare "war" on cancer? Does this mean the war is over since they won't be funding any more research to fight it? And if it's over, and cancer is still around, I guess we lost.

[tumbles]

Originally Posted by crazyjoe

Didn't the government sort of declare "war" on cancer? Does this mean the war is over since they won't be funding any more research to fight it? And if it's over, and cancer is still around, I guess we lost.

well I have certainly had enough of the military budget

On another note...

In that case the Supreme Court decided that "Any kind of prayer, composed by public school districts, even nondenominational prayer, is unconstitutional government sponsorship of religion."

as stated above

umm pledge ..."under god'
money
prayer during inaugeration....

can the governemnt start being consistant for once? I'm sorry thats an oxymoron too

also- please note the above long rant is regarding the govenrment and not billy's personal opinion he has expressed in other like threads

[phlegm]

Originally Posted by tumbles

ok soooo who cares if people have faith in science,..its no way a religion is it?

religion: religion is an organized approach to human spirituality which usually encompasses a set of narratives, symbols, beliefs and practices, often with a supernatural or transcendent quality, that give meaning to the practitioner's experiences of life through reference to a higher power or truth.

Scientific theories are "narratives" that use defined "symbols" to express scientific "belief" and to guide "practice".

The "transcendent quality" and "higher truth" of science is an actual coherent universe.

The difference for me: religion is science applied. Science is the framework of understanding, and religion is the living out of that understanding. Physics is science, and building a bridge is religion. Christian theology is science, and being a Christian is religion.

[JJuggle]

Originally Posted by phlegm

Physics is science, and building a bridge is religion.

I happen to be in a very bad mood right now, so you'll forgive me if you please for saying that the above is the only sentence in your post that comes close to being coherent but still is a whole lot of hooey.

Here's my take:

Science is writing out your work on the test and demonstrating that you understand the process and hard work necessary to arrive at the correct answer.

Religion is guessing on a multiple choice test, getting the answer right, and feeling really good about your inspiration.