Friday, November 28, 2014

Brayton Hits Barton Again

Check it out here. A taste:
[Vidal v. Girard’s Executors] involved a wealthy man who left a large sum of money to the city of Philadelphia to established a school for orphans, on the condition that no religious leader could ever hold a position at the school. When that condition was challenged, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that this restriction was in no way a violation of either Pennsylvania law or the Constitution, precisely the opposite of what Barton claimed[.]


Tom Van Dyke said...

This has nothing to do with religion and the Founding.

Michael Heath said...

Tom Van Dyke writes: This has nothing to do with religion and the Founding.

The issue Ed Brayton raised in his blog post on David Barton was David Barton's statement on religion in public schools, partly quoted here: In 1844, the U.S. Supreme Court had case called Vidal v. Girard’s Executors and what you had was a government-operated school that was not going to teach the Bible and the Supreme Court came back with an unanimous 8-0 decision and the Supreme Court said well, if you don’t want to teach the Bible, you don’t have to teach the Bible but you do have to become a private school. We’re not going to fund any public school that won’t teach the Bible.

Certainly this case isn't about the "Founding". However here's Tom Van Dyke justifying his own post-founding blog post on Joseph Story:Story's work is admittedly from the post-Founding period, but it was James Madison himself who wanted the deliberations on the Bill of Rights kept secret, so that these laws would find their own feet: Just as we acknowledge that how the Ratifiers understood the language of the amendments is more important than the understanding of the Framers themselves, so too Madison contends that until laws are put into custom and practice and a common understanding is achieved, they aren't quite finalized. Custom and practice are the final establishment of the understanding of a law.
Therefore, although the post-Founding era is technically beyond the scope and focus of this blog, it's not until 1833 or so do we see the work of Madison, et al., on the Bill of Rights "settle in," by standards that Madison himself endorsed.


Does Ed's the Story opinion in Vidal meet Tom's criteria? Vidal v. Girard' Executors is a key church-state Supreme Court case, and one frequently hyped by Christianists arguing that Christian indoctrination in public schools is a founding 'Christian Nation' principle. Here's an article on Vidal v. Girard's Executors by Christianist Jay Sekulow celebrating U.S. Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story's support of biblical indoctrination against public school students:

jimmiraybob said...

Barton - "Secular education is brand new in America. We never had that before. That’s the new thing … In 1844, ..."

By 1844 in Philadelphia, two issues had bearing on the case: 1) whether the catholic or protestant Bible's were to be used in public education (the broader issues were Protestant evangelization in public schools and anti-Catholic bigotry) and 2) trustee ownership of church property (a Protestant position) vs. ownership by ecclesiastic institutions (a Catholic position).

I think that the themes fit perfectly well with the founding principles of individual conscience and religious liberty within the context of American church/state relationships, constitutionalism and federalism. And even the founding concern over destabilizing sectarian conflict and sectarian violence if you count the anti-Catholic riots in 1844 Philadelphia.

The bigger, more truthful story would be interesting if anyone has the time to expand on it.

Tom Van Dyke said...

Does Ed's the Story opinion in Vidal meet Tom's criteria?

Not if you actually read my original post, which thanks for reminding us

is excellent. Justice Story is explaining, from a time closer to it than ours, the circumstances surrounding the First Amendment. Excellent reading.

I am flattered the amount of time you spend stalking me, though.

Michael Heath said...

Tom Van Dyke to me, "I am flattered the amount of time you spend stalking me, though."

This is a new sentiment. Given your incredible level of dishonesty, I'm going to conclude you're lying on this point as well. In the past you've regularly demanded I go away when I expose your logical fallacies and defamation of others in blog posts published by Jon Rowe.

Your obvious hypocrisy demanding one standard for others that you flagrantly violate yourself is not flattering. It just provides another data point that your symptomatic rate of Brayton Derangement Syndrome is at 100%, not that this is the only syndrome that results in your posting comment posts predominately dependent on rhetorical fallacies. It's merely the one type I choose to rebut in the comment posts I publish in response to yours.

Tom Van Dyke said...

Back to the Bearded Spock Universe with you.