Separation of Church and State gets confusing in France
-
Red Stateler wrote:
As I predicted two posts above, you're suddenly abandoning the concept of separation of church and state for argumentative convenience.
No I'm not. Separation of church and state is still alive and well. When it comes to public school curriculum, the students should be taught science, without regard to whether religious groups have chosen to embrace all or parts of it. So the church remains separate from the state. The church can believe whatever it deems convenient; the state doesn't care.
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS
Al Beback wrote:
No I'm not. Separation of church and state is still alive and well. When it comes to public school curriculum, the students should be taught science, without regard to whether religious groups have chosen to embrace all or parts of it. So the church remains separate from the state. The church can believe whatever it deems convenient; the state doesn't care.
In modern times, the measure of science is consistently whether or not atheists approve of it. If any concept (science or not) is not approved of by atheists, it is considered theistic in nature and hence unsuitable for public schools. Case in point is the national prohibition of any parochical education in a public school and the legal blocking of vouchers because they could result in a parochial education. These are prohibited because atheists have invoked a separation of church and state in order to refuse education that is not specifically approved by the atheist religious power structure. The ONLY reason you're not invoking a separation of church and state here is because evolution is consistent with your dogma. As evidenced by numerous other cases, its atheistic approval that matters here. Nothing else.
-
No, we know what we know, and we know what we don't know. We just don't teach what we know we don't know.
Brady Kelly wrote:
No, we know what we know, and we know what we don't know. We just don't teach what we know we don't know.
How unique of you. :rolleyes:
-
Red Stateler wrote:
As I predicted two posts above, you're suddenly abandoning the concept of separation of church and state for argumentative convenience.
No I'm not. Separation of church and state is still alive and well. When it comes to public school curriculum, the students should be taught science, without regard to whether religious groups have chosen to embrace all or parts of it. So the church remains separate from the state. The church can believe whatever it deems convenient; the state doesn't care.
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS
Al Beback wrote:
When it comes to public school curriculum, the students should be taught science
Why? When did the state become responsible for promoting a single set of philosophical principles?
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
-
David Kentley wrote:
You are trying to stir debate where there is none. If two (or more) religious groups are pushing their own agendas in the school, the answer is simple: ignore them all and do whatever is best for the kids, which would be to teach science in a science classroom.
I completely expect there to be no debate from atheists because evolution is consistent with your dogma and therefore any religion that endorses it is supporting a dogma to which you don't object. But that's exactly the problem. Separation of church and state, which is what is invoked in order to keep theism out of public schools, demands that there is a debate. The fact that there isn't simply demonstrates that atheists are interested in pushing their dogma by using "separation of church and state" as a political tool. In fact, their use of it is contradictory to that concept as it seeks to establish atheism as the state religion.
Red Stateler wrote:
I completely expect there to be no debate from atheists because evolution is consistent with your dogma
No, evolution is consistent with science. It has nothing to do with personal belief systems. This is in fact supported by the story you linked: most religious people actually do recognize evolution as scientifically valid. They also recognize chemistry and physics as being valid. The fact that it should be taught in science classrooms has to do with one thing and one thing only: it is science. I do not advocate teaching that there is no god, which is what only the most mentally handicapped interpret evolution as being. You might as well toss out astronomy, physics and chemistry while you're at it.
Faith is a fine invention For gentlemen who see; But microscopes are prudent In an emergency! -Emily Dickinson
-
WTF? How did ID get onto the stage?
Brady Kelly wrote:
WTF? How did ID get onto the stage?
Because intelligent design (which I'm not defending, before it obviously straw-mans into that), was what was being pushed by certain Christian groups in science class...Not biblical creationism. You're claiming that you want to keep religion out of science class, but ID actually contradicted the bible. ID actually followed all the rules of science, but was rejected less by its lack of merit than for its violation of church and state. The only explanation for the widespread atheist uproar is that ID contradicted existing atheist dogma (by asking of the possibility of a theistic entity). If, as you say, your goal is simply to maintain the scientific method, then ID actually fit that mold and should be considered appropriate for science class.
-
Jonathan [Darka] wrote:
They don't overlap, it's just the Catholic Church realizing how pathetic and untrue the "theory" of Creationism is. If you believe in the lie of Creationism, then you should bow your head in shame.
Dogmatic to the core. It's odd how intolerant of other religions atheists are. It's almost...Islamic in nature.
Don't confuse dogma with truth. But knowing that you have a catholic background, I do understand that you have problems separating the two concepts.
-- Kein Mitleid Für Die Mehrheit
-
Red Stateler wrote:
I completely expect there to be no debate from atheists because evolution is consistent with your dogma
No, evolution is consistent with science. It has nothing to do with personal belief systems. This is in fact supported by the story you linked: most religious people actually do recognize evolution as scientifically valid. They also recognize chemistry and physics as being valid. The fact that it should be taught in science classrooms has to do with one thing and one thing only: it is science. I do not advocate teaching that there is no god, which is what only the most mentally handicapped interpret evolution as being. You might as well toss out astronomy, physics and chemistry while you're at it.
Faith is a fine invention For gentlemen who see; But microscopes are prudent In an emergency! -Emily Dickinson
David Kentley wrote:
No, evolution is consistent with science. It has nothing to do with personal belief systems. This is in fact supported by the story you linked: most religious people actually do recognize evolution as scientifically valid. They also recognize chemistry and physics as being valid. The fact that it should be taught in science classrooms has to do with one thing and one thing only: it is science.
I generally accept evolution (but experience has given me a bias against the biological sciences, so I consider it "light" science). However, given that Intelligent design followed the scientific method, your argument states that intelligent design should therefore be taught in science class.
-
No, we know what we know, and we know what we don't know. We just don't teach what we know we don't know.
Brady Kelly wrote:
We just don't teach what we know we don't know.
Well, not entirely true. Should we not know for sure we 1) say so, 2) present the evidence as to why we believe why, and 3) allow other competing explanations Some will claim that 3) is false - especially those who claim that atheism is a dogma. What such people fail to realize is that not every marijuana induced theory doesn't cut it. There's always going to be some hippie scientist whining about not being heard etc. The reason that is, is that they don't have a case. The scientific community is very unforgiving - talk crap and you'll get crap. :)
-- Kein Mitleid Für Die Mehrheit
-
David Kentley wrote:
No, evolution is consistent with science. It has nothing to do with personal belief systems. This is in fact supported by the story you linked: most religious people actually do recognize evolution as scientifically valid. They also recognize chemistry and physics as being valid. The fact that it should be taught in science classrooms has to do with one thing and one thing only: it is science.
I generally accept evolution (but experience has given me a bias against the biological sciences, so I consider it "light" science). However, given that Intelligent design followed the scientific method, your argument states that intelligent design should therefore be taught in science class.
Red Stateler wrote:
However, given that Intelligent design followed the scientific method
No, it doesn't. They go as far as "Oooh, we can't explain this! It must be designed that way by some higher power!". Not very scientific.
-- Kein Mitleid Für Die Mehrheit
-
David Kentley wrote:
You are trying to stir debate where there is none. If two (or more) religious groups are pushing their own agendas in the school, the answer is simple: ignore them all and do whatever is best for the kids, which would be to teach science in a science classroom.
I completely expect there to be no debate from atheists because evolution is consistent with your dogma and therefore any religion that endorses it is supporting a dogma to which you don't object. But that's exactly the problem. Separation of church and state, which is what is invoked in order to keep theism out of public schools, demands that there is a debate. The fact that there isn't simply demonstrates that atheists are interested in pushing their dogma by using "separation of church and state" as a political tool. In fact, their use of it is contradictory to that concept as it seeks to establish atheism as the state religion.
Red Stateler wrote:
atheism as the state religion.
You have said that atheism is a religion. You clearer don't understand what atheism means. It means one is not a theist, one is atheist. Atheism, by definition, is the absence of theism.
-
Red Stateler wrote:
atheism as the state religion.
You have said that atheism is a religion. You clearer don't understand what atheism means. It means one is not a theist, one is atheist. Atheism, by definition, is the absence of theism.
jimwawar wrote:
You have said that atheism is a religion. You clearer don't understand what atheism means. It means one is not a theist, one is atheist. Atheism, by definition, is the absence of theism.
You're defining agnosticism. Atheism overtly has a belief system. It is not the lack of belief in a God, but rather the active belief that there is no God. Theology is the study of God and God's nature. Atheism, which states that there is no God, falls under theology in that it asserts a position on the nature of God. In addition to its belief structure, the dogmatic behavior of atheists tends to rival that of more extremist religions like Islam in that it specifically believes that its theology is special and that competing theologies should be destroyed.
-
Al Beback wrote:
When it comes to public school curriculum, the students should be taught science
Why? When did the state become responsible for promoting a single set of philosophical principles?
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
Stan Shannon wrote:
When did the state become responsible for promoting a single set of philosophical principles?
First of all, when it comes to science, the state is not promoting anything. It's teaching scientific fact. There's no philosophy behind it. There's no agenda behind it. I'll grant you, literature and history are a different story, but science is pretty cut and dry. Secondly, I believe that the state, when it's under the direction of elected officials, is in the best position to enact policy that accounts for and benefits the majority of its constituents. At least, that's how it should be. Furthermore, the state does not prevent someone with economic means the right to bypass the state's educational system in favor of alternate sources (eg, private schooling, parochial schooling, home schooling, etc.). So in essense, the state is just a choice.
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS
-
Red Stateler wrote:
atheism as the state religion.
You have said that atheism is a religion. You clearer don't understand what atheism means. It means one is not a theist, one is atheist. Atheism, by definition, is the absence of theism.
Yes, but that doesn't fit his argument - so he redefined the word.
-
Red Stateler wrote:
However, given that Intelligent design followed the scientific method
No, it doesn't. They go as far as "Oooh, we can't explain this! It must be designed that way by some higher power!". Not very scientific.
-- Kein Mitleid Für Die Mehrheit
Joergen Sigvardsson wrote:
No, it doesn't. They go as far as "Oooh, we can't explain this! It must be designed that way by some higher power!". Not very scientific.
My understanding is that ID attempts to discredit evolution through independent randomness, thereby introducing the possibility of external (but undefined) influence. Most theories are challenged in this way and they consistently used the scientific method. Therefore, by the arguments listed here it should be appropriate for science class. Naturally, no atheist agrees because that contradicts their dogma.
-
Brady Kelly wrote:
WTF? How did ID get onto the stage?
Because intelligent design (which I'm not defending, before it obviously straw-mans into that), was what was being pushed by certain Christian groups in science class...Not biblical creationism. You're claiming that you want to keep religion out of science class, but ID actually contradicted the bible. ID actually followed all the rules of science, but was rejected less by its lack of merit than for its violation of church and state. The only explanation for the widespread atheist uproar is that ID contradicted existing atheist dogma (by asking of the possibility of a theistic entity). If, as you say, your goal is simply to maintain the scientific method, then ID actually fit that mold and should be considered appropriate for science class.
Intelligent design an an explanation for our instantiation is like saying that what we accept is caused by gravity is actually caused by intelligent falling.
-
Brady Kelly wrote:
We just don't teach what we know we don't know.
Well, not entirely true. Should we not know for sure we 1) say so, 2) present the evidence as to why we believe why, and 3) allow other competing explanations Some will claim that 3) is false - especially those who claim that atheism is a dogma. What such people fail to realize is that not every marijuana induced theory doesn't cut it. There's always going to be some hippie scientist whining about not being heard etc. The reason that is, is that they don't have a case. The scientific community is very unforgiving - talk crap and you'll get crap. :)
-- Kein Mitleid Für Die Mehrheit
Thanks Joergen, you elucidated it better than me.
-
Intelligent design an an explanation for our instantiation is like saying that what we accept is caused by gravity is actually caused by intelligent falling.
Brady Kelly wrote:
Intelligent design an an explanation for our instantiation is like saying that what we accept is caused by gravity is actually caused by intelligent falling.
In relation to gravity, intelligent design is akin to saying that a curvature of space is an inadaquate explanation for gravity for reason X. The message atheists sent to students around the world was that you can't question existing science.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
When did the state become responsible for promoting a single set of philosophical principles?
First of all, when it comes to science, the state is not promoting anything. It's teaching scientific fact. There's no philosophy behind it. There's no agenda behind it. I'll grant you, literature and history are a different story, but science is pretty cut and dry. Secondly, I believe that the state, when it's under the direction of elected officials, is in the best position to enact policy that accounts for and benefits the majority of its constituents. At least, that's how it should be. Furthermore, the state does not prevent someone with economic means the right to bypass the state's educational system in favor of alternate sources (eg, private schooling, parochial schooling, home schooling, etc.). So in essense, the state is just a choice.
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS
Al Beback wrote:
First of all, when it comes to science, the state is not promoting anything. It's teaching scientific fact. There's no philosophy behind it. There's no agenda behind it. I'll grant you, literature and history are a different story, but science is pretty cut and dry.
As the intelligent design debate demonstrated, there is a clear agenda, and that is to promote atheism.
Al Beback wrote:
Secondly, I believe that the state, when it's under the direction of elected officials, is in the best position to enact policy that accounts for and benefits the majority of its constituents. At least, that's how it should be.
States have, time and time again, passed laws to allow for public-school paraochial education and vouchers to give students the means to achieve that. Time and time against, atheists have undemocratically blocked those laws through the judiciary by invoking "separation of church and state".
Al Beback wrote:
Furthermore, the state does not prevent someone with economic means the right to bypass the state's educational system in favor of alternate sources (eg, private schooling, parochial schooling, home schooling, etc.). So in essense, the state is just a choice.
With an emphasis on economic means. Many can't afford private schools, and the voucher program would enable them to. Leftists, however, blocked and and all voucher programs through lawsuits.
-
jimwawar wrote:
You have said that atheism is a religion. You clearer don't understand what atheism means. It means one is not a theist, one is atheist. Atheism, by definition, is the absence of theism.
You're defining agnosticism. Atheism overtly has a belief system. It is not the lack of belief in a God, but rather the active belief that there is no God. Theology is the study of God and God's nature. Atheism, which states that there is no God, falls under theology in that it asserts a position on the nature of God. In addition to its belief structure, the dogmatic behavior of atheists tends to rival that of more extremist religions like Islam in that it specifically believes that its theology is special and that competing theologies should be destroyed.
I would call an atheists those who do not believe God does exist. Not one who believes God does not exist. An agnostic is not the absence (or lack) of theism, it is the belief God (the ultimate nature) is unknowable.
-
Yes, but that doesn't fit his argument - so he redefined the word.
Dan Bennett wrote:
Yes, but that doesn't fit his argument - so he redefined the word.
What argument?