A Victory...
-
Chris Losinger wrote:
please, for the record, tell us what you mean by "evolutionary theory".
As in natural selection being the sole driving force force between interspecial evolution. This may or may not be true (most likely true based on the evidence), but it is also subject to challenge. Scientists should be logical and open-minded...not the baffoons they have devolved into.
Chris Losinger wrote:
actually, it doesn't say that either. but please give us an example where "the courts" have stopped anyone from "praciticing religion".
Actually it does. The first amendment states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". That means every time the courts prohibit school prayer (for example), they are ignoring what the constitution explicitly states.
Chris Losinger wrote:
that's an intentional dodge on the IDists part. but, scratch an IDist, find a Christian
ad-hominem against Christians.
Chris Losinger wrote:
ah... here we go. out come the talking points.
Ad hominem
Chris Losinger wrote:
that makes no sense at all, except as a lame ad hominem attack on "evolutionary biologists".
I provided evidence, making your claim an ad hominem against me...How ironic.
Chris Losinger wrote:
but as long as we're talking about physics: how about that radiological dating ?
Radiological dating is fairly accurate (and I accept as generally reliable). however, even its creator admitted that it's flawed. By the way, I accept current evolutionary theory as strongly supported, but I am not fanatical materialist fundamentalist, so I'm open to challenging theories.
espeir wrote:
Scientists should be logical and open-minded...not the baffoons they have devolved into.
This is just dumb and almost as insulting as your intelligence, but not quite. When you have nothing enlightening left to say, resort to insults. Nice.
espeir wrote:
Actually it does. The first amendment states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". That means every time the courts prohibit school prayer (for example), they are ignoring what the constitution explicitly states.
So by allowing prayer in schools are we thus not respecting the establishment of religion? Maybe then we should ban it, right? Oh, but then again we're prohibiting free exercise in that case.
espeir wrote:
Radiological dating is fairly accurate (and I accept as generally reliable). however, even its creator admitted that it's flawed.
Who, then, created radiological dating? Where is his statement admitting it is flawed? Also, while you're doing that research, let me know how it is flawed.
-
thealj wrote:
The courts are maintaining the credibility of the educational curriculum.
...by forcing religion from school. In any case, where did the courts acquire any mandate to involve itself with educational curriculum? Where is that at in the constitution? For that matter, where the hell is public education mentioned in the constitution?
thealj wrote:
Science is neutral, religion is not. You cannot challenge religious ideals. They are faith-based and set. Science is, by definition, the opposite.
So what? That is a very secular world view, and I embrace it fervently. But, how does "separation of church and state" become "joined at the hip secularism and state"? Science may be neutral but if the state has assumed the power to push science as an alternative to religion, than the state is certainly not neutral at all - it has become overtly anti-religious and is therefore in violation of separation of church and state. "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot."
Darth Stanious wrote:
by forcing religion from school.
Removing ID from the curriculum is not removing or forcing religion from the schools. It is removing bogus and unscientific ideas from the educational system. While the curriculum may not be mentioned in the constitution, the task of setting school curriculums needs to be approved by an authoritative body. Clearly the assembly best-equipped to decide upon educational standards is a federal government. How else do you achieve standarized education? In fact, what possible argument could there be NOT to have the curriculum approved by a government body? You would prefer each state to have it's own role in that decision? Do you realize the nightmare that would create?
Darth Stanious wrote:
Science may be neutral but if the state has assumed the power to push science as an alternative to religion, than the state is certainly not neutral at all
Nobody, particularly the government, is forcing science upon anybody. Nor are they pushing science as an alternative to religion. The debate is soley about NOT teaching UNscientific ideas in a SCIENCE class. The distinction is clear. If the courts have to intervene in order to silence those that claim otherwise, then so be it. I don't like the fact that the courts are involved either, but I also cannot tolerate a bunch of uneducated people deciding and redefining what is and what is not science. Since they will not halt their "crusade", 3rd party intervention was needed. So to the courts it went.
-
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.
espeir wrote:
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.
Once again false statements laced with bits of truth. You are correct that the contstitution never says the actual phrase "separation of church and state". That phrase was introduced by Thomas Jefferson in 1802. However the first amendment does more than imply that there needs to be a separation.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
I'm not sure how you can say, after reading that, that the constitution doesn't imply there should be separation when it cannot legislate it. Jared Parsons jaredp@beanseed.org http://spaces.msn.com/members/jaredp/
-
Darth Stanious wrote:
by forcing religion from school.
Removing ID from the curriculum is not removing or forcing religion from the schools. It is removing bogus and unscientific ideas from the educational system. While the curriculum may not be mentioned in the constitution, the task of setting school curriculums needs to be approved by an authoritative body. Clearly the assembly best-equipped to decide upon educational standards is a federal government. How else do you achieve standarized education? In fact, what possible argument could there be NOT to have the curriculum approved by a government body? You would prefer each state to have it's own role in that decision? Do you realize the nightmare that would create?
Darth Stanious wrote:
Science may be neutral but if the state has assumed the power to push science as an alternative to religion, than the state is certainly not neutral at all
Nobody, particularly the government, is forcing science upon anybody. Nor are they pushing science as an alternative to religion. The debate is soley about NOT teaching UNscientific ideas in a SCIENCE class. The distinction is clear. If the courts have to intervene in order to silence those that claim otherwise, then so be it. I don't like the fact that the courts are involved either, but I also cannot tolerate a bunch of uneducated people deciding and redefining what is and what is not science. Since they will not halt their "crusade", 3rd party intervention was needed. So to the courts it went.
thealj wrote:
It is removing bogus and unscientific ideas from the educational system.
First you define ID as a fundamentally religious concept and than you say forcing it out of school is not forcing religion out. I think that is an intellectually indefensible position.
thealj wrote:
what possible argument could there be NOT to have the curriculum approved by a government body?
The argument that no government body has ever been granted the constitutional authority to do any such thing. The very notion that the government has some sort of vague mandate to both define a curriculum and use that curriculum to force a government sanctioned body of "knowledge" upon the citizens is trully horrifying.
thealj wrote:
You would prefer each state to have it's own role in that decision? Do you realize the nightmare that would create?
Yeah, I think that is a nightmare otherwise known as Jefferonian Democracy. I'm sure the concept is a great source of fear for the Marxist among us.
thealj wrote:
Since they will not halt their "crusade", 3rd party intervention was needed. So to the courts it went.
So the courts used this issue as an excuse to silence those with whom they disagree. Thanks for reminding my why I am a conservative. With any luck this will finally get to the Supreme Court and the new Justices will make sure this psycho decision is overturned. "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot." -- modified at 14:33 Tuesday 20th December, 2005
-
espeir wrote:
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.
Once again false statements laced with bits of truth. You are correct that the contstitution never says the actual phrase "separation of church and state". That phrase was introduced by Thomas Jefferson in 1802. However the first amendment does more than imply that there needs to be a separation.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
I'm not sure how you can say, after reading that, that the constitution doesn't imply there should be separation when it cannot legislate it. Jared Parsons jaredp@beanseed.org http://spaces.msn.com/members/jaredp/
Jared Parsons wrote:
I'm not sure how you can say, after reading that, that the constitution doesn't imply there should be separation when it cannot legislate it.
Why is teaching ID in a public school viewed as "establishing a religion" rather than "free exercise of religion" "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot."
-
Chris Losinger wrote:
please, for the record, tell us what you mean by "evolutionary theory".
As in natural selection being the sole driving force force between interspecial evolution. This may or may not be true (most likely true based on the evidence), but it is also subject to challenge. Scientists should be logical and open-minded...not the baffoons they have devolved into.
Chris Losinger wrote:
actually, it doesn't say that either. but please give us an example where "the courts" have stopped anyone from "praciticing religion".
Actually it does. The first amendment states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". That means every time the courts prohibit school prayer (for example), they are ignoring what the constitution explicitly states.
Chris Losinger wrote:
that's an intentional dodge on the IDists part. but, scratch an IDist, find a Christian
ad-hominem against Christians.
Chris Losinger wrote:
ah... here we go. out come the talking points.
Ad hominem
Chris Losinger wrote:
that makes no sense at all, except as a lame ad hominem attack on "evolutionary biologists".
I provided evidence, making your claim an ad hominem against me...How ironic.
Chris Losinger wrote:
but as long as we're talking about physics: how about that radiological dating ?
Radiological dating is fairly accurate (and I accept as generally reliable). however, even its creator admitted that it's flawed. By the way, I accept current evolutionary theory as strongly supported, but I am not fanatical materialist fundamentalist, so I'm open to challenging theories.
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
-
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:
by forcing taxpayers to pay for the practice of a religion they may not belong to.
But it is the government forcing the taxpayers to pay, not the religion. Think about that for just a minute - because the government forces us to pay taxes it therefore has the power to regulate all those areas of our lives in which those confiscated revenues are spent? "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot."
-
espeir wrote:
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.
Once again false statements laced with bits of truth. You are correct that the contstitution never says the actual phrase "separation of church and state". That phrase was introduced by Thomas Jefferson in 1802. However the first amendment does more than imply that there needs to be a separation.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
I'm not sure how you can say, after reading that, that the constitution doesn't imply there should be separation when it cannot legislate it. Jared Parsons jaredp@beanseed.org http://spaces.msn.com/members/jaredp/
Jared Parsons wrote:
That phrase was introduced by Thomas Jefferson in 1802.
And is taken out of context. He actually defended freedom of religion in the obscure and private letter you're referring to, but encouraging state governments not to establish official religions (as the constitution clearly allows). Nowhere in any text does any founding father state that there must be an absolute separation of church and state as it is currently exercised (or anywhere near it). And neither are those words used by any other founding father in any other known instance.
Jared Parsons wrote:
I'm not sure how you can say, after reading that, that the constitution doesn't imply there should be separation when it cannot legislate it.
It implies no such thing and I challenge you to show how! It only states that Congress (the federal body that establishes laws on a federal level) may not specifically pass a law establishing a religion. That means congress cannot say that Christianity (or atheism) is the official religion of the nation. Likewise, it cannot pass a law saying that religion cannot be taught in public schools. It must remain neutral and is up to the public. It does not say that states cannot establish an official religion. Or that municipalities can't establish one. It only says that the congress can't. This is a right (by the 10th amendment) specifically given to the state and local governments to manage. The whole "separations" clause is just made up by atheists trying to shove their religion down everybodys' throats via tyrannical means.
-
Darth Stanious wrote:
by forcing religion from school.
Removing ID from the curriculum is not removing or forcing religion from the schools. It is removing bogus and unscientific ideas from the educational system. While the curriculum may not be mentioned in the constitution, the task of setting school curriculums needs to be approved by an authoritative body. Clearly the assembly best-equipped to decide upon educational standards is a federal government. How else do you achieve standarized education? In fact, what possible argument could there be NOT to have the curriculum approved by a government body? You would prefer each state to have it's own role in that decision? Do you realize the nightmare that would create?
Darth Stanious wrote:
Science may be neutral but if the state has assumed the power to push science as an alternative to religion, than the state is certainly not neutral at all
Nobody, particularly the government, is forcing science upon anybody. Nor are they pushing science as an alternative to religion. The debate is soley about NOT teaching UNscientific ideas in a SCIENCE class. The distinction is clear. If the courts have to intervene in order to silence those that claim otherwise, then so be it. I don't like the fact that the courts are involved either, but I also cannot tolerate a bunch of uneducated people deciding and redefining what is and what is not science. Since they will not halt their "crusade", 3rd party intervention was needed. So to the courts it went.
thealj wrote:
Removing ID from the curriculum is not removing or forcing religion from the schools
Did you read the ruling judges statements on this case? He stated exactly the opposite.
-
Chris Losinger wrote:
by forcing taxpayers to pay for the practice of a religion they may not belong to.
But it is the government forcing the taxpayers to pay, not the religion. Think about that for just a minute - because the government forces us to pay taxes it therefore has the power to regulate all those areas of our lives in which those confiscated revenues are spent? "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot."
Given:
Darth Stanious wrote:
But it is the government forcing the taxpayers to pay, not the religion.
and
Darth Stanious wrote:
it therefore has the power to regulate all those areas of our lives in which those confiscated revenues are spent
And taking into account
The first amendment wrote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion
What exactly is your point? -J
Think of a computer program. Somewhere, there is one key instruction, and everything else is just functions calling themselves, or brackets billowing out endlessly through an infinite address space. What happens when the brackets collapse? Where's the final 'end if'? Is any of this making sense? -Ford Prefect
-
thealj wrote:
It is removing bogus and unscientific ideas from the educational system.
First you define ID as a fundamentally religious concept and than you say forcing it out of school is not forcing religion out. I think that is an intellectually indefensible position.
thealj wrote:
what possible argument could there be NOT to have the curriculum approved by a government body?
The argument that no government body has ever been granted the constitutional authority to do any such thing. The very notion that the government has some sort of vague mandate to both define a curriculum and use that curriculum to force a government sanctioned body of "knowledge" upon the citizens is trully horrifying.
thealj wrote:
You would prefer each state to have it's own role in that decision? Do you realize the nightmare that would create?
Yeah, I think that is a nightmare otherwise known as Jefferonian Democracy. I'm sure the concept is a great source of fear for the Marxist among us.
thealj wrote:
Since they will not halt their "crusade", 3rd party intervention was needed. So to the courts it went.
So the courts used this issue as an excuse to silence those with whom they disagree. Thanks for reminding my why I am a conservative. With any luck this will finally get to the Supreme Court and the new Justices will make sure this psycho decision is overturned. "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot." -- modified at 14:33 Tuesday 20th December, 2005
Darth Stanious wrote:
The very notion that the government has some sort of vague mandate to both define a curriculum and use that curriculum to force a government sanctioned body of "knowledge" upon the citizens is trully horrifying.
Then you must be mortified by No Child Left Behind. Glad to hear it.
-
Jared Parsons wrote:
I'm not sure how you can say, after reading that, that the constitution doesn't imply there should be separation when it cannot legislate it.
Why is teaching ID in a public school viewed as "establishing a religion" rather than "free exercise of religion" "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot."
A distinction made in the article was that it was wrong to teach ID in a public school Science class. -J
Think of a computer program. Somewhere, there is one key instruction, and everything else is just functions calling themselves, or brackets billowing out endlessly through an infinite address space. What happens when the brackets collapse? Where's the final 'end if'? Is any of this making sense? -Ford Prefect
-
thealj wrote:
The courts are maintaining the credibility of the educational curriculum.
...by forcing religion from school. In any case, where did the courts acquire any mandate to involve itself with educational curriculum? Where is that at in the constitution? For that matter, where the hell is public education mentioned in the constitution?
thealj wrote:
Science is neutral, religion is not. You cannot challenge religious ideals. They are faith-based and set. Science is, by definition, the opposite.
So what? That is a very secular world view, and I embrace it fervently. But, how does "separation of church and state" become "joined at the hip secularism and state"? Science may be neutral but if the state has assumed the power to push science as an alternative to religion, than the state is certainly not neutral at all - it has become overtly anti-religious and is therefore in violation of separation of church and state. "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot."
Darth Stanious wrote:
For that matter, where the hell is public education mentioned in the constitution?
Congress is granted broad and sweeping Constitutional powers in two areas: 1) provide for the common defense, 2) promote the general welfare. Education is merely one example where Congress has chosen to promote the general welfare.
-
Jared Parsons wrote:
I'm not sure how you can say, after reading that, that the constitution doesn't imply there should be separation when it cannot legislate it.
Why is teaching ID in a public school viewed as "establishing a religion" rather than "free exercise of religion" "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot."
At least you're admitting that ID constitutes exercise of religion rather than a legitimate scientific theory... In any case, it would be establishing a religion because, as much as they might try to scrub it clean of overt references to Christianity, ID is still being pushed as a part of the Christian belief system. Requiring a Muslim, Buddhist, Jewish, Satanist, Jedi, atheist -- whatever -- to learn Christian mythology as part of a science curriculum in a public school would certainly send the message that, to our government, Christian beliefs are held equal to scientific theory. I think this might be considered state-sponsorship of a religion, if not a specific denomination. All the sane among us are asking -- a group, incidentally, that includes a significant percentage of the devoutly religious, as well as my fellow raving, foaming-at-the-mouth secularist, Marxist, leftist (did I leave any "-ist"s out?) bastards -- is that our public school science teachers be allowed to actually teach science, and that the teaching of religion is left to parents, churches, and private schools. In my opinion, that is the free exercise that our constitution guarantees.
-
...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...
*** Sorry I posted this message on the wrong message board *** Finally, an intelligent judge banned "Intelligent Design" from being allowed in the public schools. All Intelligent Design does is say: "I don't know how evolution happened and I am to feeble to understand such complicated things so it must be magic". Horrible, I thought we were past explaning things with mystical refrences. Maybe kids growing up today will have a fighting chance if the government dosn't fill there heads with mystical tall tales and fables. Matthew Hazlett
-
Darth Stanious wrote:
The very notion that the government has some sort of vague mandate to both define a curriculum and use that curriculum to force a government sanctioned body of "knowledge" upon the citizens is trully horrifying.
Then you must be mortified by No Child Left Behind. Glad to hear it.
Ed Gadziemski wrote:
Then you must be mortified by No Child Left Behind. Glad to hear it.
I don't know if I would say 'moritified', but I am certainly very much opposed to it. "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot."
-
At least you're admitting that ID constitutes exercise of religion rather than a legitimate scientific theory... In any case, it would be establishing a religion because, as much as they might try to scrub it clean of overt references to Christianity, ID is still being pushed as a part of the Christian belief system. Requiring a Muslim, Buddhist, Jewish, Satanist, Jedi, atheist -- whatever -- to learn Christian mythology as part of a science curriculum in a public school would certainly send the message that, to our government, Christian beliefs are held equal to scientific theory. I think this might be considered state-sponsorship of a religion, if not a specific denomination. All the sane among us are asking -- a group, incidentally, that includes a significant percentage of the devoutly religious, as well as my fellow raving, foaming-at-the-mouth secularist, Marxist, leftist (did I leave any "-ist"s out?) bastards -- is that our public school science teachers be allowed to actually teach science, and that the teaching of religion is left to parents, churches, and private schools. In my opinion, that is the free exercise that our constitution guarantees.
All of which I agree with completely - until we get to the part that, therefore, the court is mandated to force my beliefs on christians rather than forcing theirs on me. "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot."
-
A distinction made in the article was that it was wrong to teach ID in a public school Science class. -J
Think of a computer program. Somewhere, there is one key instruction, and everything else is just functions calling themselves, or brackets billowing out endlessly through an infinite address space. What happens when the brackets collapse? Where's the final 'end if'? Is any of this making sense? -Ford Prefect
jasontg wrote:
A distinction made in the article was that it was wrong to teach ID in a public school Science class.
I agree completely, I just don't understand how doing so in any way represents the federal government establishing a religion. "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot."
-
Given:
Darth Stanious wrote:
But it is the government forcing the taxpayers to pay, not the religion.
and
Darth Stanious wrote:
it therefore has the power to regulate all those areas of our lives in which those confiscated revenues are spent
And taking into account
The first amendment wrote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion
What exactly is your point? -J
Think of a computer program. Somewhere, there is one key instruction, and everything else is just functions calling themselves, or brackets billowing out endlessly through an infinite address space. What happens when the brackets collapse? Where's the final 'end if'? Is any of this making sense? -Ford Prefect
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."
-
Jared Parsons wrote:
That phrase was introduced by Thomas Jefferson in 1802.
And is taken out of context. He actually defended freedom of religion in the obscure and private letter you're referring to, but encouraging state governments not to establish official religions (as the constitution clearly allows). Nowhere in any text does any founding father state that there must be an absolute separation of church and state as it is currently exercised (or anywhere near it). And neither are those words used by any other founding father in any other known instance.
Jared Parsons wrote:
I'm not sure how you can say, after reading that, that the constitution doesn't imply there should be separation when it cannot legislate it.
It implies no such thing and I challenge you to show how! It only states that Congress (the federal body that establishes laws on a federal level) may not specifically pass a law establishing a religion. That means congress cannot say that Christianity (or atheism) is the official religion of the nation. Likewise, it cannot pass a law saying that religion cannot be taught in public schools. It must remain neutral and is up to the public. It does not say that states cannot establish an official religion. Or that municipalities can't establish one. It only says that the congress can't. This is a right (by the 10th amendment) specifically given to the state and local governments to manage. The whole "separations" clause is just made up by atheists trying to shove their religion down everybodys' throats via tyrannical means.
espeir wrote:
Nowhere in any text does any founding father state that there must be an absolute separation of church and state as it is currently exercised (or anywhere near it). And neither are those words used by any other founding father in any other known instance.
Hmmm.I seem to recall reading something about a big fight to keep "God" out of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Guess who won? The word "God" appears only in the introduction to the Declaration. Certainly the founding fathers would have expected anyone holding office to have religious beliefs, and to wear them proudly. But they certainly would not have wanted a Quaker President to make or encourage policy that would treat Quakers more favorably than Baptists, Catholics, Deists, or atheists. Or that would favor Christians, and discriminate against Muslims, for instance.
espeir wrote:
Likewise, it cannot pass a law saying that religion cannot be taught in public schools.
Ahh, so you're in favor of religious segregation. You do realize that is exactly what would happen if the dominant community religion were taught in public schools, don't you? As for your common, but nonetheless ridiculous, assertion that atheism is a religion, I refer you here[^].