A Victory...
-
espeir wrote:
As in natural selection being the sole driving force force between interspecial evolution
what does "force force between interspecial evolution" mean ?
espeir wrote:
but it is also subject to challenge
well of course it is. but nobody has yet come up with anything better.
espeir wrote:
Scientists should be logical and open-minded...not the baffoons they have devolved into.
WTF ? you slander millions of people based on their profession ? that's just over-the-top ridiculous.
espeir wrote:
The first amendment states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".
you're right. i was thinking of the first part of the sentence. nonetheless...
espeir wrote:
That means every time the courts prohibit school prayer (for example), they are ignoring what the constitution explicitly states.
if a school requires prayer, it infringes on the religion of anyone who doesn't practice the school's favored religion both by requiring students who don't belong to that religion to participate and by forcing taxpayers to pay for the practice of a religion they may not belong to. you want to pray in school? go to a religious school. simple as that.
espeir wrote:
ad-hominem against Christians.
utter nonsense. that in no way insults Christians. it insults the liars who claim ID is not a front for Bible-based Creationism when it's plainly obvious, from the IDist's own words, that ID is Creationism doctored up to make it past the legal hurdles that it couldn't clear otherwise. ID is a fraud.
espeir wrote:
Ad hominem
statement of fact. the claim that there is some kind of conspiracy of scientists trying to keep down new theories is a staple IDist talking point. don't want to be accused of using them? don't use them.
espeir wrote:
I provided evidence, making your claim an ad hominem against me
nonsense. again, statement of fact. "The concept of fair and open discouse does not apply to evolutionary biologists" literally makes no sense, and can only be seen as
Chris Losinger wrote:
frankly, i don't believe you, since you've spent the majority of your past three posts slagging "current evolutionary theory".
Funny, I've been reading this and thinking 'Chris has missed the point'. It was obvious to me from the start that this guy probably believes in evolution, and he gives examples where people who challenge current thinking about evolution without suggesting anything like ID ( just that perhaps it happened a little differently to how we think now ), being ridiculed. His point was not that ID is correct, or even tenable, but that evolution is a theory that by it's nature is not scientific in that it cannot be reproduced, and that any sort of discussion on evolution, rational or not, is being stifled and this is bad. Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++
-
First, when you quote the establishment clause could you please quote the entire thing - "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" - that part is just as important.
jasontg wrote:
What exactly is your point?
The point is should the power to force us to pay taxes be construed as the power to coerce standards of behavior from us? First, the government takes our money away from us, and than says that because it took our money that therefore we can't have prayer in shcool. Thats actually pretty damned incredible. If we were not forced to pay taxes would it be ok to have prayers in school? If so, why isn't that an argument not to force us to pay taxes rather than allowing for state sanctioned defintions of religious practice? "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot."
Darth Stanious wrote:
If we were not forced to pay taxes would it be ok to have prayers in school?
Gosh, sounds like a good reason to dodge tax to me... To be honest, I don't see the big deal. Who cares if there is prayer in school ? Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++
-
Actually this is yet another perfect example of how the left has managed to defeat the concept of separation of church and state in order to use the state to promote its own overtly anti-religious agenda. It is the Secularist, not the religious, who are successfully using the state to force their moral world view upon all of us. "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot."
I wonder how many have actually read the consitution? http://www.law.cornell.edu[^] Article III Section 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office. Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects. and Bill of Rights Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. "Simplicity is more complicated than you think. But it’s well worth it” (Ron Jeffries)
-
This is exactly the type of attitude that scientists should not have. No good scientist is an absolutist. But yes...Newton was wrong. His theories are an approximation of a more accurate (but not necessarily "true") theory developed by Einstein. This is not an improvement, but a correction. Einstein's theories superscede Newton's. You obviously know very little about the subject to make such a statement. Secondly, science also demands reproducibility. Evolutionary theory cannot provide that any more than ID and is therefor unverified. It is certainly not "fact" and should never be treated as such. Remember when a cold fusion reaction was created in the 80's? Remember how it fell apart when it was proven irreproducable? It's amazing hos modern scientists have completely brushed aside this concept when it comes to evolution. Thirdly, the constitution never states or implies a separation of church and state. In fact, it state that congress shall not keep its citizens from praciticing religion, which it now frequently does via the courts. Fourthly, ID does not even violate the fabricated "separations clause" because it does not endorse any particular religion. Fifthly, it IS fanatical behavior because ANY challenge to current evolutionary theory is immediately attacked. The concept of fair and open discouse does not apply to evolutionary biologists. I remember reading a book a decade ago that simply challenged whether humans evolved on open plains (suggesting they had evolved in swamps) and the author was ridiculed in the scientific community for challenging the status quo, even though her evidence was quite compelling. Modern biologists need to take a clue from physicists and realize that their understanding of the world is anything but absolute. I swear the way they're behaving reminds me of the Christian reaction to evolution over a century ago.
If Newton was wrong, then why does this apple keep falling on my head. Einstein's theories improve the accuracy of Newton's equations. Saying Newton is wrong is being a little absolutist isn't it?
espeir wrote:
You obviously know very little about the subject to make such a statement.
lol. Riiight. The point with it all is that evolution proposes a framework which can be tested. I personally don't care if we evolved or if we arose from the belly button of Purusa. What I do care about is that whoever puts forward their theory must also put forward a means to test and validate that theory. I gave up following the ID debate because there never seemed to be any actual proposals for verification or theories on how to search for evidence. The "debate" just seemed to be a bunch of kindergarden kids calling each other names. cheers, Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
-
Chris Losinger wrote:
frankly, i don't believe you, since you've spent the majority of your past three posts slagging "current evolutionary theory".
Funny, I've been reading this and thinking 'Chris has missed the point'. It was obvious to me from the start that this guy probably believes in evolution, and he gives examples where people who challenge current thinking about evolution without suggesting anything like ID ( just that perhaps it happened a little differently to how we think now ), being ridiculed. His point was not that ID is correct, or even tenable, but that evolution is a theory that by it's nature is not scientific in that it cannot be reproduced, and that any sort of discussion on evolution, rational or not, is being stifled and this is bad. Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++
Christian Graus wrote:
His point was not that ID is correct, or even tenable, but that evolution is a theory that by it's nature is not scientific in that it cannot be reproduced, and that any sort of discussion on evolution, rational or not, is being stifled and this is bad.
but he's completely wrong on that point. and that's why my very first question to him was to get his definition of evolution. evolution, the theory, has a gigantic amount of evidence to back it up; everything from genetics to paleontology, morphology, psychology, developmental biology, virology, and epidemiology all support evolution - (and the timeframe required for evolution to have happened, according to models and the fossil record is supported by astronomy, physics and geology). there's no evidence for anything else. yes, there is still work to be done. and yes, the time scales required make direct observation difficult. but the direct observation is more than made up for by the rest of the evidence. so, to say, as he did, "Evolutionary theory cannot provide that any more than ID and is therefor unverified." shows either a total lack of knowledge about what "evolutionary theory" comprises (which is why I asked), or to simply not care (which is why I think he doesn't actually believe). i know you don't think evolution happened. and i know you think believing it did is a matter of faith. and i know arguing the issue with you is pointless. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
-
Christian Graus wrote:
His point was not that ID is correct, or even tenable, but that evolution is a theory that by it's nature is not scientific in that it cannot be reproduced, and that any sort of discussion on evolution, rational or not, is being stifled and this is bad.
but he's completely wrong on that point. and that's why my very first question to him was to get his definition of evolution. evolution, the theory, has a gigantic amount of evidence to back it up; everything from genetics to paleontology, morphology, psychology, developmental biology, virology, and epidemiology all support evolution - (and the timeframe required for evolution to have happened, according to models and the fossil record is supported by astronomy, physics and geology). there's no evidence for anything else. yes, there is still work to be done. and yes, the time scales required make direct observation difficult. but the direct observation is more than made up for by the rest of the evidence. so, to say, as he did, "Evolutionary theory cannot provide that any more than ID and is therefor unverified." shows either a total lack of knowledge about what "evolutionary theory" comprises (which is why I asked), or to simply not care (which is why I think he doesn't actually believe). i know you don't think evolution happened. and i know you think believing it did is a matter of faith. and i know arguing the issue with you is pointless. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
Chris Losinger wrote:
there's no evidence for anything else.
I don't think anyone was suggesting otherwise. It just seems to me that his claim of evolution as 'unscientific' was based entirely on the inability to test/reproduce it. Obviously, this is completely unviable, but I didn't read his comments as suggesting that this means it can't be true. It's just the nature of the theory.
Chris Losinger wrote:
"Evolutionary theory cannot provide that any more than ID and is therefor unverified."
No - he's right. Neither theory can provide the ability to run a test that proves it is true. Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++
-
Jared Parsons wrote:
Just because it was decided democratically doesn't make it correct, legal or constitutional.
But it does mean that it had, thankfully, already been defeated without any need what so ever for further government invovlment. The people had risen up and defeated it, the system had worked precisely the way Jefferson had envisioned (which I was very happy about). What the judge should have said was "Gee, looks like you guys already settled the issue, guess I can take the day off" rather than "Wow! Another opportunity to crush a few more religious cockroaches with my mighty secular gavel" (which made me very sad) "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot." -- modified at 18:26 Tuesday 20th December, 2005
Darth Stanious wrote:
But it does mean that it had, thankfully, already been defeated without any need what so ever for further government invovlment. The people had risen up and defeated it, the system had worked precisely the way Jefferson had envisioned (which I was very happy about).
This is still a flawed argument. If they had voted to legalize slavery again should the judge have stepped back and said "Gee, looks like you guys have already settled the issue, now back to your chains"?. Fuck no. Just because a group of religuous conservatives take over the board of education and get the majority on a ruling does not make it right. Nor does it mean the government should stay out of the issue. If the decision violates the constitution the government has not just the right but the responsibility to get involved. Jared Parsons jaredp@beanseed.org http://spaces.msn.com/members/jaredp/
-
Chris Losinger wrote:
frankly, i don't believe you, since you've spent the majority of your past three posts slagging "current evolutionary theory".
Funny, I've been reading this and thinking 'Chris has missed the point'. It was obvious to me from the start that this guy probably believes in evolution, and he gives examples where people who challenge current thinking about evolution without suggesting anything like ID ( just that perhaps it happened a little differently to how we think now ), being ridiculed. His point was not that ID is correct, or even tenable, but that evolution is a theory that by it's nature is not scientific in that it cannot be reproduced, and that any sort of discussion on evolution, rational or not, is being stifled and this is bad. Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++
Christian Graus wrote:
His point was not that ID is correct, or even tenable, but that evolution is a theory that by it's nature is not scientific in that it cannot be reproduced, and that any sort of discussion on evolution, rational or not, is being stifled and this is bad.
The idea that science requires things to be reproducible (in these sense of being able to rewind history and show evolution happening all over again) is simply wrong. Science requires that hypotheses have empirical implications that can be tested. The more novel, surprising and wide-ranging are the empirical implications, the greater confidence one can have in the hypothesis if those implications are confirmed. Evolution is discussed and debated every day by scientists and has been subject to modification from day one. Darwin knew nothing about genetics and hence what is called "Darwinian" evolution differs significantly from what Darwin himself wrote. Scientists aren't spending their time regurgitating the texbooks of one hundred years ago. They are in the laboratory, out in the field and poring over the explanations of themselves and others in a restless, never-ending quest for a more accurate and more complete understanding. What is going on in this debate is that people with a prior commitment to a super-natural explanation of origins are pretending to have scientific reasons for their views. They routinely propose ideas that the overwhelming majority of scientists consider to be without merit but these ideas of Creationists/IDers are unaffected by criticism because they are maintained as a matter of faith. Scientists find it offensive that people are pretending to do science when they are really doing something else and hence routinely violating the rules of science. Far from criticisms of evolution being stifled, they are being artificially injected into a scientific context by external forces. If the issue of origins was treated in the same way as any other scientific issue, Creationism would be regarded as a failed hypothesis of only historical interest and ID wouldn't be discussed at all unless as an example (for the purposes of contrast) of a non-scientific explanation. John Carson "To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." Thomas Paine
-
...for rational thinking and science. A defeat of stupidity. Finally a sound decision for the future of the U.S. and it's population. A court in the US has ruled against the teaching in schools of the theory of "intelligent design" alongside Darwinian evolution. Article[^]. The CNN article (here[^]) is even better. It highlights the lies, deceit and deception used by the religious advocates in order to try and ram this crap into the educational system. Not very Christian behaviour, I may add...tsk tsk...
thealj wrote:
A Victory...for rational thinking and science.
I sometimes wish all of the ID proponents would simultaneously get an appendicitis. :laugh: I'm not wishing anything fatal on them, just enough to give them a wake up call, and provide some ironic humour for the rest of us :laugh: :laugh::laugh:
-
Darth Stanious wrote:
If we were not forced to pay taxes would it be ok to have prayers in school?
Gosh, sounds like a good reason to dodge tax to me... To be honest, I don't see the big deal. Who cares if there is prayer in school ? Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++
Don't get me wrong - I'm totally opposed to prayer in school, as is virtually everyone else I know, christian or otherwise. All I'm argueing is the basis for its exclusion. "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot."
-
Chris Losinger wrote:
there's no evidence for anything else.
I don't think anyone was suggesting otherwise. It just seems to me that his claim of evolution as 'unscientific' was based entirely on the inability to test/reproduce it. Obviously, this is completely unviable, but I didn't read his comments as suggesting that this means it can't be true. It's just the nature of the theory.
Chris Losinger wrote:
"Evolutionary theory cannot provide that any more than ID and is therefor unverified."
No - he's right. Neither theory can provide the ability to run a test that proves it is true. Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++
Christian Graus wrote:
based entirely on the inability to test/reproduce it
Stephen Hawkins can't reproduce a black hole either, but that does not invalidate any of his theories. "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot."
-
Christian Graus wrote:
based entirely on the inability to test/reproduce it
Stephen Hawkins can't reproduce a black hole either, but that does not invalidate any of his theories. "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot."
Darth Stanious wrote:
Stephen Hawkins can't reproduce a black hole either, but that does not invalidate any of his theories.
Hey, I'm not arguing. I just commented because I think Chris misunderstood the original poster. I don't think he or I said that evolution is invalidated by the inability to test it, in fact I thought I went to lengths to say otherwise. But that's what I took his comment to mean. Then, he's become strangely silent, maybe I should shut up as well... Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++
-
Don't get me wrong - I'm totally opposed to prayer in school, as is virtually everyone else I know, christian or otherwise. All I'm argueing is the basis for its exclusion. "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot."
OK - what's the kerfuffle about then ? Who is actually pushing for something as pointless as prayer in schools ? Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++
-
Darth Stanious wrote:
The government has no more vested interested in the overt promotion of science than it does any other set of philosophical principles. What does and does not get taught as science should not be imposed from on high
Apparently the founding fathers felt they had a vested interest in the promotion of science in at least one area and possibly in many areas: U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8 - Powers of Congress 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; To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Obviously I was referring to the promotion of science as a state sanctioned philosophical framework promoted in state controlled schools. What you cite proves my point. They wanted science promoted as a free market, intellectual property issue, not as a state sanctioned belief system presented as an alternative to competitvie philosophical frameworks. If they had desired otherwise, they would clearly have said so in this very paragraph. "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot."
-
Darth Stanious wrote:
But it does mean that it had, thankfully, already been defeated without any need what so ever for further government invovlment. The people had risen up and defeated it, the system had worked precisely the way Jefferson had envisioned (which I was very happy about).
This is still a flawed argument. If they had voted to legalize slavery again should the judge have stepped back and said "Gee, looks like you guys have already settled the issue, now back to your chains"?. Fuck no. Just because a group of religuous conservatives take over the board of education and get the majority on a ruling does not make it right. Nor does it mean the government should stay out of the issue. If the decision violates the constitution the government has not just the right but the responsibility to get involved. Jared Parsons jaredp@beanseed.org http://spaces.msn.com/members/jaredp/
Jared Parsons wrote:
This is still a flawed argument. If they had voted to legalize slavery again should the judge have stepped back and said "Gee, looks like you guys have already settled the issue, now back to your chains"?. f*** no.
No, because the 13th amendment to the constitution overtly outlaws slavery, so it cannot be reinstated by any amount of voting (well, not without repealing the 13th amendment, which isn't likely thanks to our modern capitalistic economy)
Jared Parsons wrote:
If the decision violates the constitution the government has not just the right but the responsibility to get involved.
But the only thing being violated is an interpretation of the constitution. "Separaton of church and state" is a very controversial interpretation based loosely on secondary documentation from Jefferson and Madison and not the constitution itself. The very people who wrote the first amendment flagrantly violated modern interpretaions of it. I repeat that the concept of separation of church and state does not mean that the state therefore is empowered to promote some other philsophcial system which overtly contradicts religion. If you want to amend the constitution to make science the only legal beleif system we are allowed to publically profess, than by all means be my guest. "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot."
-
Jared Parsons wrote:
This is still a flawed argument. If they had voted to legalize slavery again should the judge have stepped back and said "Gee, looks like you guys have already settled the issue, now back to your chains"?. f*** no.
No, because the 13th amendment to the constitution overtly outlaws slavery, so it cannot be reinstated by any amount of voting (well, not without repealing the 13th amendment, which isn't likely thanks to our modern capitalistic economy)
Jared Parsons wrote:
If the decision violates the constitution the government has not just the right but the responsibility to get involved.
But the only thing being violated is an interpretation of the constitution. "Separaton of church and state" is a very controversial interpretation based loosely on secondary documentation from Jefferson and Madison and not the constitution itself. The very people who wrote the first amendment flagrantly violated modern interpretaions of it. I repeat that the concept of separation of church and state does not mean that the state therefore is empowered to promote some other philsophcial system which overtly contradicts religion. If you want to amend the constitution to make science the only legal beleif system we are allowed to publically profess, than by all means be my guest. "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot."
Darth Stanious wrote:
No, because the 13th amendment to the constitution overtly outlaws slavery, so it cannot be reinstated by any amount of voting (well, not without repealing the 13th amendment, which isn't likely thanks to our modern capitalistic economy)
The 1rst Amendment blocks the passing of laws that establish religion. This is a backdoor attempt at creationism and as such is also a violation of the constitution to pass a law to allow and mandate such teachings.
Darth Stanious wrote:
But the only thing being violated is an interpretation of the constitution. "Separaton of church and state" is a very controversial interpretation based loosely on secondary documentation from Jefferson and Madison and not the constitution itself.
While the separation clause is not as verbatum as some people make it out to be it's also not nearly so loose as you make it out to be. The 1rst Amendment clearly states congress shall pass no laws that establish religion. That's irrespective of Jefferson's letter and precedent. Jared Parsons jaredp@beanseed.org http://spaces.msn.com/members/jaredp/
-
OK - what's the kerfuffle about then ? Who is actually pushing for something as pointless as prayer in schools ? Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++
Christian Graus wrote:
Who is actually pushing for something as pointless as prayer in schools ?
No one I know. But it remains an important philosophical issue. The constitution demands that the congress not establish a national religion but equally strongly says the federal government cannot prohibit the free exercise of religion. Through out most of American history school prayer was interpreted as a free exercise of religion to be decided at the local level. It has only been since about the 1940's that it was viewed as an "establishment of religion" and prohibited by the fedeal government. My basic POV is that neither religion nor the federal government should be in the schools, but honestly I feel more threatened by the power of the state forcing a single philsophy via the schools than I do by an occasional local school board authroizing an "official" prayer or two. Anyway, I've got to go to bed. "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot."
-
Darth Stanious wrote:
No, because the 13th amendment to the constitution overtly outlaws slavery, so it cannot be reinstated by any amount of voting (well, not without repealing the 13th amendment, which isn't likely thanks to our modern capitalistic economy)
The 1rst Amendment blocks the passing of laws that establish religion. This is a backdoor attempt at creationism and as such is also a violation of the constitution to pass a law to allow and mandate such teachings.
Darth Stanious wrote:
But the only thing being violated is an interpretation of the constitution. "Separaton of church and state" is a very controversial interpretation based loosely on secondary documentation from Jefferson and Madison and not the constitution itself.
While the separation clause is not as verbatum as some people make it out to be it's also not nearly so loose as you make it out to be. The 1rst Amendment clearly states congress shall pass no laws that establish religion. That's irrespective of Jefferson's letter and precedent. Jared Parsons jaredp@beanseed.org http://spaces.msn.com/members/jaredp/
Jared Parsons wrote:
The 1rst Amendment clearly states congress shall pass no laws that establish religion. That's irrespective of Jefferson's letter and precedent.
But some local school in Pennsylvania wanting to have some short note referring to a text with an alternative POV that doesn't even mention religion hardly equates to congress establishing a religion. If the federal government sent you a letter tomorrow ordering you to give money to your local Baptist church that would be the establishment of a state religion. Any notion to the contrary is a gross exageration of the obvious intent of the amendment. I will continue to insist that such gross exagerations are rendered specifically to achieve just the opposite result - to in fact promote a state sanctioned secular belief system intended specifically to marginalize religious beliefs. And since we are forced by the government to finance the schools where that belief system is promulgated, it is the secularist who are most certainly in violation of the spirit of the first amendment to a far greater and more dangerous extent than is any religion. "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot."
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Who is actually pushing for something as pointless as prayer in schools ?
No one I know. But it remains an important philosophical issue. The constitution demands that the congress not establish a national religion but equally strongly says the federal government cannot prohibit the free exercise of religion. Through out most of American history school prayer was interpreted as a free exercise of religion to be decided at the local level. It has only been since about the 1940's that it was viewed as an "establishment of religion" and prohibited by the fedeal government. My basic POV is that neither religion nor the federal government should be in the schools, but honestly I feel more threatened by the power of the state forcing a single philsophy via the schools than I do by an occasional local school board authroizing an "official" prayer or two. Anyway, I've got to go to bed. "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot."
Darth Stanious wrote:
The constitution demands that the congress not establish a national religion
And yet I would imagine that in the minds of most people who wrote it, it would have seemed pretty much normal that everyone believed in the same God, roughly, and just argued about the details. Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++
-
Jared Parsons wrote:
The 1rst Amendment clearly states congress shall pass no laws that establish religion. That's irrespective of Jefferson's letter and precedent.
But some local school in Pennsylvania wanting to have some short note referring to a text with an alternative POV that doesn't even mention religion hardly equates to congress establishing a religion. If the federal government sent you a letter tomorrow ordering you to give money to your local Baptist church that would be the establishment of a state religion. Any notion to the contrary is a gross exageration of the obvious intent of the amendment. I will continue to insist that such gross exagerations are rendered specifically to achieve just the opposite result - to in fact promote a state sanctioned secular belief system intended specifically to marginalize religious beliefs. And since we are forced by the government to finance the schools where that belief system is promulgated, it is the secularist who are most certainly in violation of the spirit of the first amendment to a far greater and more dangerous extent than is any religion. "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot."
Darth Stanious wrote:
promote a state sanctioned secular belief system intended specifically to marginalize religious beliefs. And since we are forced by the government to finance the schools where that belief system is promulgated, it is the secularist who are most certainly in violation of the spirit of the first amendment to a far greater and more dangerous extent than is any religion
Thank, you, Lord, for the secularists, for, without them, we would be subject to the dictatorship of evil Stanious and his devil spawn Potatohead, er, Punkinhead.