Separation of Church and State gets confusing in France
-
Red Stateler wrote:
It's odd how intolerant of other religions atheists are.
Athiesm is not a religion you should look it up.
Red Stateler wrote:
It's almost...Islamic in nature.
I'd say Islam and Christianity have far more in common (e.g. people believing a load of crap) than Athiesm does with any religion. regards,
Jonathan Wilkes Darka [Xanya.net]
Jonathan [Darka] wrote:
I'd say Islam and Christianity have far more in common (e.g. people believing a load of crap) than Athiesm does with any religion.
Yup. Totally Islamic in nature.
-
Al Beback wrote:
Science should be taught it schools. Whether it's church doctrine or not is irrelevant. Get it?
As I predicted two posts above, you're suddenly abandoning the concept of separation of church and state for argumentative convenience. It's not simply an argument of science, but also of church doctrine, which cannot be taught in schools regardless of whether its in or out of a science class. In this case we have overlapping church doctrine and atheist dogma. The fact that you no longer invoke separation of church and state is illustrative of the fact that your beliefs are, in fact, dogma of its own breed.
Red Stateler wrote:
you're suddenly abandoning the concept of separation of church and state for argumentative convenience.
A bit like Christianity abandoning sound scientific reason for a load of indoctrinated creationist crap. I love creationists, they are soooo funny with their funny little notions.
Jonathan Wilkes Darka [Xanya.net]
-
David Kentley wrote:
I have an idea: how about the science that is actually based on science is taught as science.
But atheists complain whenever something resembling church doctrine enters a public school (like a Bible). What do we do when the two dogmas overlap? It seems apparent that atheists are, in fact, hypocritical in that their argumentative basis is that anything contradicting their ideals be restricted.
I have nothing against a Bible (or any holy book) entering a public school, it just mustn't be used as source in the Science class.
-
Jonathan [Darka] wrote:
I'd say Islam and Christianity have far more in common (e.g. people believing a load of crap) than Athiesm does with any religion.
Yup. Totally Islamic in nature.
So, you racist too then? or just an idiot christian - oh, hang on that's the same thing.
Jonathan Wilkes Darka [Xanya.net]
-
David Kentley wrote:
I have an idea: how about the science that is actually based on science is taught as science.
But atheists complain whenever something resembling church doctrine enters a public school (like a Bible). What do we do when the two dogmas overlap? It seems apparent that atheists are, in fact, hypocritical in that their argumentative basis is that anything contradicting their ideals be restricted.
Red Stateler wrote:
But atheists complain whenever something resembling church doctrine enters a public school (like a Bible). What do we do when the two dogmas overlap? It seems apparent that atheists are, in fact, hypocritical in that their argumentative basis is that anything contradicting their ideals be restricted.
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.
Faith is a fine invention For gentlemen who see; But microscopes are prudent In an emergency! -Emily Dickinson
-
So, you racist too then? or just an idiot christian - oh, hang on that's the same thing.
Jonathan Wilkes Darka [Xanya.net]
Jonathan [Darka] wrote:
So, you racist too then? or just an idiot christian - oh, hang on that's the same thing.
Islam is a race? You should tell John Hicks, genius.
-
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.
I'm very tolerant of most faiths, and I accept the meaning of the word faith over knowledge. You and every other religious person are most welcome to believe anything you want, and to teach that faith to interested parties[1], but you are not welcome to teach your belief as fact. [1] Cue conspiracy argument about the minds of interested parties being killed off by the commie atheist lefties.
-
I have nothing against a Bible (or any holy book) entering a public school, it just mustn't be used as source in the Science class.
Brady Kelly wrote:
I have nothing against a Bible (or any holy book) entering a public school, it just mustn't be used as source in the Science class.
That argument doesn't hold up. Intelligent design is nowhere in the Bible and actually contradicts it.
-
Red Stateler wrote:
But atheists complain whenever something resembling church doctrine enters a public school (like a Bible). What do we do when the two dogmas overlap? It seems apparent that atheists are, in fact, hypocritical in that their argumentative basis is that anything contradicting their ideals be restricted.
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.
Faith is a fine invention For gentlemen who see; But microscopes are prudent In an emergency! -Emily Dickinson
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.
-
Al Beback wrote:
Science should be taught it schools. Whether it's church doctrine or not is irrelevant. Get it?
As I predicted two posts above, you're suddenly abandoning the concept of separation of church and state for argumentative convenience. It's not simply an argument of science, but also of church doctrine, which cannot be taught in schools regardless of whether its in or out of a science class. In this case we have overlapping church doctrine and atheist dogma. The fact that you no longer invoke separation of church and state is illustrative of the fact that your beliefs are, in fact, dogma of its own breed.
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
-
I'm very tolerant of most faiths, and I accept the meaning of the word faith over knowledge. You and every other religious person are most welcome to believe anything you want, and to teach that faith to interested parties[1], but you are not welcome to teach your belief as fact. [1] Cue conspiracy argument about the minds of interested parties being killed off by the commie atheist lefties.
Brady Kelly wrote:
but you are not welcome to teach your belief as fact.
It's interesting how atheists believe that they have unique access to this right, isn't it?
-
Jonathan [Darka] wrote:
So, you racist too then? or just an idiot christian - oh, hang on that's the same thing.
Islam is a race? You should tell John Hicks, genius.
Red Stateler wrote:
genius
Unlike you of course, where as you believe in a made up story, now that is funny and letting it control your life is even better.
Jonathan Wilkes Darka [Xanya.net]
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
And, of course, there is absolutely no possibility of indoctrination of children by the state using science to promote its own agenda.
AFAIK, the only agenda being promoted by the state is to join the armed forces to help pay for college. If you have additional examples, please list them.
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS
Evolution, abortion, homosexuality, race,gender,global warming pick a topic. The government uses science to promote a state sanctioned belief system on virtually every issue you could mention.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
-
Brady Kelly wrote:
but you are not welcome to teach your belief as fact.
It's interesting how atheists believe that they have unique access to this right, isn't it?
Red Stateler wrote:
atheists believe
Athiests don't believe, we know.
Jonathan Wilkes Darka [Xanya.net]
-
Red Stateler wrote:
genius
Unlike you of course, where as you believe in a made up story, now that is funny and letting it control your life is even better.
Jonathan Wilkes Darka [Xanya.net]
Jonathan [Darka] wrote:
Unlike you of course
Islam is a race, champ...Yeah...That's it.
-
Red Stateler wrote:
atheists believe
Athiests don't believe, we know.
Jonathan Wilkes Darka [Xanya.net]
Jonathan [Darka] wrote:
Athiests don't believe, we know.
This statement proves beyond any reasonable doubt the fact that atheism is a religion to you.
-
Jonathan [Darka] wrote:
Athiests don't believe, we know.
This statement proves beyond any reasonable doubt the fact that atheism is a religion to you.
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:
I have nothing against a Bible (or any holy book) entering a public school, it just mustn't be used as source in the Science class.
That argument doesn't hold up. Intelligent design is nowhere in the Bible and actually contradicts it.
WTF? How did ID get onto the stage?
-
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: