In a debate over whether or not the Founders would agree that "science is a religion", the means by which Congress may promote science are irrelevant. The fact that Congress has such power with regard to science - whereas it does not have such power with regard to religion - is the point. Maybe this will help you:
Congress shall have Power... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
Simple question: Do you think the Founders would agree with the other poster's claim that "science is a religion"?
The "other poster" made a logical assertion. Let him defend the logic of his assertion, and you criticize the logic of his assertion.
He never replied, so perhaps he saw his mistake. You, OTOH, can't seem to stop shooting yourself in the foot.
Do you think your bullying can impose silence by the sheer force of your personality?
Your question makes no sense. I've been trying to get you speak up on a simple question, but it is you who insist on silence.
Bring paper, pencil, and a timer, if you wish to administer a test. See who answers the bell and acknowledges your authority to give it.
Son, you've been taking the character test since your #366. You received your grade in my last post.
Not when someone is trying to make more out of a constitutional provision than the text allows or the creators intended. You can’t use the patent and copyright clause to argue that Congress is empowered to promote science in a way it is not empowered to promote religion when both science materials and religious materials alike may be issued copyrights, and Congress may not do anything for the one that it cannot do for the other under the authority of this clause. You’re trying to give a significance and a cast to the clause that it simply does not possess. You might as well try to fit a tutu on a water buffalo.
”Maybe this will help you:”
And you go on to cite the Constitutional clause on patents and copyrights, then follow with the establishment provision of the First Amendment, as though either has much of anything to do with the other (see above). You’ve acquired an obsessive-compulsive fixation on a connection between the Establishment Clause and the Article I clause on patents and copyrights that is non-existent, and would be pointless if it did exist.
All you’ll need to do is to suck up to the Stalinists, the insane anarchists, and all the other Marxist/Socialist crazies who infest our university campi like maggots on a carcass, and they will be pleased to confer a special status on Science and provide it with extra funding. You will have to go along with the Global Warming (“Climate Change”) con game, and all the other “scientific” funding for political purposes, but there should be plenty left over, and you’ll never have to worry about the intrusion of religion. The “useful Arts” may provide some competition, but that will consist mostly of “Diversity” studies, “Black” studies, “Feminine” studies, and the like. Those are going to happen no matter what you do, so you might as well relax and make things easy for yourself. As compensation for the junk “studies” that passes for culture on the college campus of today, you will see the same continuing decline of Western Civilization cultural influence that has been going on for the last fifty years. One more generation and Science should altogether be entirely safe from the insidious influence of Western Civilization.
The Constitution is neither a “living” document (it never was) nor an enduring document (I want to say it once was, but I guess that’s not strictly true since it no longer endures). It is now simply an historical document, of some slight occasional interest as a curiosity. But do not despair. You can still use it from time to time to achieve your ends (you’ll have to tolerate others doing the same, but don’t worry – a majority of nine black robes should keep you reasonably safe). It will be another generation or so before there is a serious push to do away with it entirely.
”Simple question: Do you think the Founders would agree with the other poster's claim that "science is a religion"?”
Simple answer: I thought I had made it clear that I do not intend to go galloping down the sidetracks you set up for me.
”He [the “other poster”] never replied, so perhaps he saw his mistake.”
Perhaps he did. I won’t pretend to read his mind, but it strikes me that he never intended to frame his remark in a constitutional context, and when he saw what a maladroit mess you were making out of the proposition, he may have decided that the candle was not worth the game.
” You, OTOH, can't seem to stop shooting yourself in the foot.”
I’m not the one trying to fit a tutu on a water buffalo.
”Son, you've been taking the character test since your #366.”
Spoken like an elitist who has made a fool of himself and hasn’t the sense to know when to make as quiet and as dignified an exit as he can manage. You’ve not the gravitas, either intellectually or morally, to presume to administer me a test or to issue a grade. Nor do you have the cachet to pretend you’re the alpha male in this pack. All you can do is try to usurp a status you don’t possess or deserve, by using the language of a superior addressing his junior. You may think that it gives you the appearance of haut monde, but all it does is unmask your pretentiousness. To this point in the discussion, you’ve done nothing but display most of the least appealing traits of a Liberal: assuming an air of inherited superiority; changing the subject (presumably to one more to your comfort); misdirection (here! here! look over here! don’t look over there!); shifting the burden (in the hopes of forcing the other fellow to defend or explain the issue, freeing you to attack); ignoring the crucial question; vilifying your correspondent; positing a distinction possessing no difference; invoking the automatic disqualifier; and the scrambling of meanings and terms. All in the finest tradition of the Goebbels model of avoiding the point.
I, on the other hand, have no need to administer you a character test even if I were presumptuous enough to do so. You’ve laid it out there for all to see without the need of my participation.
This thread has gone to crickets. Further discussion will get us nowhere. You may have the last word if your ego permits you to think that it’s OK for you to inflict further pain on this forum.
Good night Mrs. Malaprop (and Dr. Stadler), where ever you are.