BlessedCause Main Index
BlessedCause home page
BlessedCause Main Index
BlessedCause home page
Memorandum of Law 4
INCOMPLETE Last update 8/7/04
This document is not fully Sheperdized and will be updated, pure rough form
David Silver, Associate Professor at the Universities of Delaware and Pennsylvania, also published, Religious Experience and the Facts of Religious Pluralism in which he writes:
"A defeater for Christian belief would be some other belief (or other epistemic state) the possession of which would make it rationally impossible to continue to believe in the truth of Christian doctrine...I will then argue that the facts of religious pluralism do provide a defeater for his version for Christian exclusivism, and indeed for any version of religious exclusivism that is similarly based on religious experience."
Not only has Silver conveyed that Christian "exclusivism" (of which the Bible supports) beliefs are impossible, but has begun the dubious expression, "rationally impossible" thus hinting to call into question the rational cohesiveness of Christians professing real faith. Considering the current politically charged conclusions admitted in DSM-IV and the APA, this dangerous direction is a clear and present threat heralding the destruction of our government, as the US Supreme Court justices "have staked the very existence of our country." McCollum v. Board of Education
The court further ruled, "To borrow the ultimate concern test from the free exercise context and use it with present establishment clause doctrines would be to invite attack on all programs that further the ultimate concerns of individuals or entangle the government with such concerns." Grove v. Mead School District, supra.
To apply the same standards, the same tests, is not "to borrow" but to apply fairly. The same Constitutional rights must be afforded FOR ALL.
The Court gave its opinion:
"The analytical difficulty with plaintiffs' approach is that it tends to divide the universe of value-laden thought into only two categories -- the religious and the anti-religious. By adopting this dualistic social outlook, and by denominating the anti-religious half of their universe as "secular," plaintiffs erect an insurmountable barrier to meaningful application of the establishment clause to controversies like this one." Grove v. Mead School District, supra
It is easily argued that by adopting a wall of separation between church and state, a controversy which still rages today, our nation has "erected an insurmountable barrier to meaningful application of the establishment clause to controversies like this one." To slowly establish pluralism as the only acceptable belief while continually strengthening a "wall" arguing that any other application would be insurmountable only displays the dire condition of government today. If the wall is to stand, then it MUST be fairly applied REGARDLESS of the cost. Of this we have staked the very existence of our nation! If this wall is "insurmountable" then the wall has been proved in error and must be torn down. To apply it unjustly at the unbalanced whim of judges is an utterly complete violation of the Constitution.
Throughout history the preservation of our Constitution and freedom for all has cost dearly. Our country underwent radical change when the slaves were freed, with Roe v. Wade, with the ruling for separation of church and state, tremendous changes were enforced on the people at deep cost. Does the wheels of justice suddenly come to a screeching halt when the same standards applied to Christians and Jews are asked to be implemented to protect religious freedom? Where does government draw the line on what Constitutional right is too hard?
If the court has staked our very existence on separation of state and religion, then the state’s opposing interests are secondary and in violation of religious freedom and must adhere to the Constitution, or tear down the wall. If religious freedom "impedes the state’s interests" then state interests must change. If there are rights and litigation to be adhered to, then it must be applied equally. Justice is for all.
Just as true belief in God has been painstakingly eradicated in public school, so must pluralism and all beliefs bent on assaulting the religious beliefs in philosophy classes, especially as philosophy is increasingly becoming "required" for degrees and credentials.
"This Court has previously recognized that the provisions of the First Amendment...were intended to provide the same protection against governmental intrusion on religious liberty" Everson v. Board of Education, supra
"Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments, or burthens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness..." 'Virginia Bill for Religious Liberty' by Jefferson, Id.
Humanism as Religion
Pluralism is a sect of humanism. The courts have found that the argument of humanism as a religion has merit. Footnote 11 of Torcaso v. Watkins exemplifies: "Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others. See Washington Ethical Society v. District of Columbia, 101 U.S. App. D.C. 371, 249 F.2d 127; Fellowship of Humanity v. County of Alameda, 153 Cal. App. 2d 673, 315 P.2d 394; II Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences 293; 4 Encyclopaedia Britannica (1957 ed.) 325-327; 21 id., at 797; Archer, Faiths Men Live By (2d ed. revised by Purinton), 120-138, 254-313; 1961 World Almanac 695, 712; Year Book of American Churches for 1961, at 29, 47." (emphasis mine) on Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488
In Grove v. Mead, the court agreed secular humanism is a religion, but denied the application of it as unconstitutional because the book in question did not contain the criteria that pluralism so aptly does:
"...remains an autobiographical novel only tangentially concerned with religion. The work "is still far removed from a comprehensive belief system laying claim to ultimate truth and supported by a formal group," id. at 212, which the Court was prepared to concede in Torcaso would constitute a religion. See also Womens Services, P.C. v. Thone, 483 F. Supp. 1022, 1034 (D.Neb.1979), aff'd, 636 F.2d 206 (8th Cir.1980), vacated on other grounds, 452 U.S. 911, 69 L. Ed. 2d 414, 101 S. Ct. 3043 (1981) (concluding that nontheistic beliefs are "religions" in constitutional terms only if characterized by tenets and organization)." Grove v. Mead School District, supra
Pluralism, as outlined above, DOES lay claim to a believed "ultimate truth" that all religions have equal value and as such denies any real truth. Pluralism IS supported by a formal group" the academic elite, and is characterized by pluralist tenets, enjoying the organizational structure of public education, impeded by The Pluralism Project of Harvard and mandated for curriculum and teaching credentials.
"Secular humanism may be a religion." See Rhode Island Federation of Teachers v. Norberg, 630 F.2d 850, 854 (1st Cir.1980).
The court ruled that "to pass constitutional muster, challenged state action (1) must have a secular purpose, (2) must have a primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion, and (3) must not foster excessive state entanglement with religion. Lemon, 403 U.S. at 612-13, 91 S. Ct. at 2111-12.
As shown above, (1) pluralism does not have a "secular" purpose. It fulfills current legal definitions of religion, (2) pluralism advances its own religious beliefs, unfairly advances select religions while inhibiting others and inhibiting true faith in all except pluralist conclusions, and (3) fosters extremely excessive state entanglement with pluralism. Thus pluralism fails in all three tests.
Rough notes to be incorporated and organized:
In Grove, Justice Canby concurred with the notation that plaintiffs did not dispute the definition that "One of the mandates of the First Amendment is to promote a viable, pluralistic society and to keep government neutral, not only between sects, but between believers and nonbelievers." Walz v. Tax Commission, 397 U.S. 664, 716, 90 S. Ct. 1409, 1436, 25 L. Ed. 2d 697 (1970) (Douglas, J., dissenting). Grove v. Mead School District, supra.
In 1970, pluralism was not openly adopted as the "achievement" that it is today, able to meet the criteria of an established religion. The court noted:
"n1 Neutrality is designed to protect religion as well as government. "[A] union of government and religion tends to destroy government and to degrade religion." Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421, 431, 82 S. Ct. 1261, 1267, 8 L. Ed. 2d 601 (1962)." Id.
This is precisely what is happening in public education today, the union of government and plurality purposefully degrades all other religions.
The court also noted:
"n2 Plaintiffs' position that government should be prohibited from establishing non-theistic ideologies in the schools, just as it is prohibited from establishing traditional theistic practices, is not without support. See Abington School Dist. v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 313, 83 S. Ct. 1560, 1619, 10 L. Ed. 2d 844 (1963) (Stewart, J., dissenting) (viewing refusal to permit religious exercises as arguably the establishment of a "religion of secularism"); Abington, 374 U.S. at 306, 83 S. Ct. at 1615 (Goldberg, J., concurring) (warning that "untutored devotion to the concept of . . . noninvolvement with the religious" can become "a brooding and pervasive devotion to the secular"); see, e.g., Whitehead & Conlan, "The Establishment of the Religion of Secular Humanism and its First Amendment Implications," 10 Tex.Tech.L.Rev. 1 (1978); but cf. Davidow, "Secular Humanism as an Established Religion: A Response to Whitehead & Conlan," 11 Tex.Tech.L.Rev. 51 (1979)." Grove v. Mead School District, supra
The court gave a history of humanism less combative to Christianity, but included in their assessment of humanism:
"More generally, the term has come to signify any doctrine or set of values which rejects supernaturalism, asserts the essential dignity and worth of each human being, and commits itself to the achievement of individual self-realization and aggregate human welfare through reason and the scientific method. See 4 Ency. of Philosophy 69-72 (1967). [**18] Grove v. Mead School District, supra
This definition concurs with the courts acceptance of religion being defined with a "Supreme Being" as "the supreme expression of human nature; it is man thinking his highest, feeling his deepest, and living his best." United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163 (1965)
Include Opt Out Denial
"Christian" Endorsements of Pluralism
"It is not within the judicial function and judicial competence to inquire whether the petitioner or his fellow worker more correctly perceived the commands of their common faith. Courts are not arbiters of scriptural interpretation. Thomas v. Review Bd. Ind. Empl. Sec. Div., 450 U.S. 707 (1981)
Thus Courts have ruled that they will not scrutinize religious beliefs. However should the endorsement of claimed Christian organizations be used as a defense, then the authenticity of the Christian group comes into question.
It can be argued that "Christian" organizations have endorsed Pluralism, but one must measure the sincerity of "Christian" by what is taught in the Bible. If one claims to follow Christ, the authenticity of that claim can only be verified by a match with what the Bible teaches. The First Commandment states , "I am The Lord your God, Who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before Me...you shall not bow down yourself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD your God am a jealous God." (Exodus 20:2) "You shall not go after other gods, of the gods of the people which are round about you; (For the LORD your God is a jealous God among you) lest the anger of the LORD your God be kindled against you, and destroy you from off the face of the earth." (Deut 6:14) "Take heed that you are not snared and that you inquire not after their gods, saying, ‘How did these nations serve their gods?…for every abomination to the Lord which He hates they have done to their gods" (Deut. 12:30) "Thus says the Lord: ‘Do not learn the way of the heathens" (Jeremiah 10:2) "You shall not walk in the manner of the nations which I cast out before you" (Lev 20:23) "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ." (Col. 2.8) Christ reiterated the commands of God, so to be "pluralist" is to defy all that is God. Pluralism of religions is an abomination to God, Christ and those who truly follow Christ. (God does invite ALL from all beliefs, but training His children in public school to bow to other gods is most definitely an abomination.)
Pluralist organizations claiming to be Christian will argue that all religions should be studied that the Bible can be included, even though treatment of Judeo-Christian beliefs have proved reprehensible. The Houghton Mifflin textbook series actually states that Old Testament prophets "could not tell the future." (Exhibit C) These are not Judeo-Christian beliefs. The Bible documents that God revealed the future through His prophets. California’s textbooks, rewrite Bible stories explaining miracles to be devoid of God and achieved by the efforts of man.(Exhibit C) PLURALIST organizations have actually applauded the textbook under the banner of "Christian."
* Disclaimer: BlessedCause/ Jen Shroder is not a licensed attorney and cannot and does not provide legal advice. You should seek counsel from an attorney licensed to practice within your state. All content of this Memorandum of Law, including dictionary, thesaurus, literature, geography, case quotes and other reference data is for informational purposes only. This information should not be considered complete, up to date, and is not intended to be used in place of a visit, consultation, or advice of a legal, medical, or any other professional. BlessedCause is not responsible for misuse of any information given.