Separation of Church and State-How do you Feel?

[Jrew1223]

Have at it guys...

What do you believe about the Separation of Church and State... Im interested in reading your opinions of that area of the Constitution and also to the extent to where you feel its okay to draw the line and let your own personal religious views dictate policy for everyone (even those whom do not share your personal religion)...

[PeterMP]

There is along history of discussion of this topic in the tailgate. Maybe you could have done a search?

[skinfan13]

http://www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?t=157189

fell free to comb through that to see everyone's opinion

[dcnativenerd]

I'm quite fond of it, personality.

[Rdskn4Lyf21]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's not even in the Constitution....

[Jumbo]

The more the better.

[Toe Jam]

Another touchy subject in the tailgate.

What's new?

[Seabee1973]

is the Key word Of or from because people seem to think its from

[AsburySkinsFan]

The separation was originally intended to keep the nation from creating another Anglican church, as such the government stays out of churches, but this does not prevent the faithful from influencing government. As for its current interpretation and application, well that IMO seems a bit over blown in that Federal money to a relief organization like the Red Cross would not bee seen as the "government establishing a non-profit organization" but there are so many who are afraid that any involvement between the two constitutes the establishment of religion. As such the separation is much like a heart valve in that it is mostly a one way valve that does not flow back and forth.

Plus, yeah, its not in the Constitution, and those who see it there are looking at external sources and reading those influences onto the text of the Constitution.

As for me:
Against a government run church
Against the government telling me what I can and cannot believe in my church

For the ability of the church to actively utilize the Freedom of speech to influence, direct and correct policy.

[Henry]

I would like religion to stay out of the government as much as possible, though I concede that doesn't necessarily mean completely.

[PokerPacker]

religion should have no place in law. simple as that.

[NotABust]

How do you feel about the Separation of "Lord of the Rings" and State? Separation of "The Stranger" and State?

The day we start legislating based on a fiction book is the day I lose hope in our democracy.

[81artmonk]

Well there is no such thing as seperation of church and state in the constitution. It is a man-made phrase that has no bearing in law. In other words, there is no law based in the constitution that says there is seperation of church and state.

IMO, as long as there isn't a state run church like England did, than I don't think you can seperate them. regardless of what people may feel about the founding fathers, or what they believed, they held a belief in God and those beliefs governed cerntian choices that were made in the formation of this nation.

[Major Harris]

How do you feel about the Separation of "Lord of the Rings" and State? Separation of "The Stranger" and State?

The day we start legislating based on a fiction book is the day I lose hope in our democracy.

and the first real salvo has been fired. take cover.

[dcoles11]

I think instead of teaching silly things like, math, grammar, science, social studes, ect. School should just be a 7 hour Sunday school session.

We shouldn't be curious about why things happen, there is a simple answer, cause god wants it to happen, duh!

Since there are so many different religions but so little time, we'll just have to go with the majority on this one, what would that be?

Oh yeah, Christian!

So before class begins, you know when we teach that god created the earth in 6 days, we all come from Adam and Eve, and there was this really big flood but Noah was smart enough to round up 2 of every animal on earth and fit them on an ark, we are going to pray, don't worry if we aren't praying to the god you worship, you are in the minority, and you could always just convert, come on you know you want to, all the cool kids are Christian.

I believe with this plan American will grow intellectually and help us move into the future as a leader in medicine and innovation around the world.

Lets face it, if kids just knew how to pray better they would do better on the SATs and get into better colleges.

[Major Harris]

I think instead of teaching silly things like, math, grammar, science, social studes, ect. School should just be a 7 hour Sunday school session.

We shouldn't be curious about why things happen, there is a simple answer, cause god wants it to happen, duh!

Since there are so many different religions but so little time, we'll just have to go with the majority on this one, what would that be?

Oh yeah, Christian!

So before class begins, you know when we teach that god created the earth in 6 days, we all come from Adam and Eve, and there was this really big flood but Noah was smart enough to round up 2 of every animal on earth and fit them on an ark, we are going to pray, don't worry if we aren't praying to the god you worship, you are in the minority, and you could always just convert, come on you know you want to, all the cool kids are Christian.

I believe with this plan American will grow intellectually and help us move into the future as a leader in medicine and innovation around the world.

Lets face it, if kids just knew how to pray better they would do better on the SATs and get into better colleges.

you may have shot down one person's theory, i'm sure there's one out there. but he's not here, and never has been. so i don't know who the hell you're talking to or about.

[dcoles11]

you may have shot down one person's theory, i'm sure there's one out there. but he's not here, and never has been. so i don't know who the hell you're talking to or about.

of course it was an exageration, but you're kidding yourself if you don't think there is a group out there that wouldn't be for many of the things I mentioned in my satirical post.

Some people actually believe Noah's Ark is real, they think it is a historical event.

Some people think their should be prayer in school.

[Major Harris]

of course it was an exageration, but you're kidding yourself if you don't think there is a group out there that wouldn't be for many of the things I mentioned in my satirical post.

Some people actually believe Noah's Ark is real, they think it is a historical event.

Some people think their should be prayer in school.

hey, you joined the thread topic with that last line!

[dcoles11]

hey, you joined the thread topic with that last line!

what is taught in school is certainly under the topic of seperation of chuch and state.

Unless you have forgotten the whole debate over creationism and evolution.

everything I mentioned in my initial post falls under the discussion of seperation of chuch and state.

[Thiebear]

Atheist here:

I prefer we go with the common sense part of the Constitution.
Make no laws for, nor against.

Lets not spend 20 billion removing it from the money nor the roof of the Supreme Court.
Lets not spend 20 billion adding it every park.
The White House Tree is fine..
Just stop the militants on both sides and let the rest of us enjoy the day.

[Veretax]

I believe that the government should not prefer or be seen to endorse any particular sect or religion. I for one am Glad that public prayer is not forced on my child, but I also think those same individuals in the school should be allowed to pray if they feel moved of their own volition. Lately there has been too much attacking people's ability to free exercise and I think that is just wrong.

What was it Thomas Jefferson said?

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty
than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson

[Special K]

I think instead of teaching silly things like, math, grammar, science, social studes, ect. School should just be a 7 hour Sunday school session.

We shouldn't be curious about why things happen, there is a simple answer, cause god wants it to happen, duh!

Since there are so many different religions but so little time, we'll just have to go with the majority on this one, what would that be?

Oh yeah, Christian!

So before class begins, you know when we teach that god created the earth in 6 days, we all come from Adam and Eve, and there was this really big flood but Noah was smart enough to round up 2 of every animal on earth and fit them on an ark, we are going to pray, don't worry if we aren't praying to the god you worship, you are in the minority, and you could always just convert, come on you know you want to, all the cool kids are Christian.

I believe with this plan American will grow intellectually and help us move into the future as a leader in medicine and innovation around the world.

Lets face it, if kids just knew how to pray better they would do better on the SATs and get into better colleges.


^^^^^^ nope, make that 2

and the first real salvo has been fired. take cover.

[Special K]

I think instead of teaching silly things like, math, grammar, science, social studes, ect. School should just be a 7 hour Sunday school session.

We shouldn't be curious about why things happen, there is a simple answer, cause god wants it to happen, duh!

Since there are so many different religions but so little time, we'll just have to go with the majority on this one, what would that be?

Oh yeah, Christian!

So before class begins, you know when we teach that god created the earth in 6 days, we all come from Adam and Eve, and there was this really big flood but Noah was smart enough to round up 2 of every animal on earth and fit them on an ark, we are going to pray, don't worry if we aren't praying to the god you worship, you are in the minority, and you could always just convert, come on you know you want to, all the cool kids are Christian.

I believe with this plan American will grow intellectually and help us move into the future as a leader in medicine and innovation around the world.

Lets face it, if kids just knew how to pray better they would do better on the SATs and get into better colleges.
By the way, I forgot to ask: WTF are you talking about?

You were forced to learn about creation and Noah's ark and were forced to convert to Christianity in school?

[skinfan13]

I think instead of teaching silly things like, math, grammar, science, social studes, ect. School should just be a 7 hour Sunday school session.

We shouldn't be curious about why things happen, there is a simple answer, cause god wants it to happen, duh!

Since there are so many different religions but so little time, we'll just have to go with the majority on this one, what would that be?

Oh yeah, Christian!

So before class begins, you know when we teach that god created the earth in 6 days, we all come from Adam and Eve, and there was this really big flood but Noah was smart enough to round up 2 of every animal on earth and fit them on an ark, we are going to pray, don't worry if we aren't praying to the god you worship, you are in the minority, and you could always just convert, come on you know you want to, all the cool kids are Christian.

I believe with this plan American will grow intellectually and help us move into the future as a leader in medicine and innovation around the world.

Lets face it, if kids just knew how to pray better they would do better on the SATs and get into better colleges. your sarcasm fails, you're tone is anoying, and you are being very naive.

that cluster**** of smarty stuff is just meant to incite, way to be an idiot

[skinfan13]

what is taught in school is certainly under the topic of seperation of chuch and state.

Unless you have forgotten the whole debate over creationism and evolution.

everything I mentioned in my initial post falls under the discussion of seperation of chuch and state. except that it doesn't because that doesn't happen anywhere in the country and hardly anybody would advocate such nonsense. bring something to the table instead of trying to rile people up

[Zguy28]

The separation was originally intended to keep the nation from creating another Anglican church, as such the government stays out of churches, but this does not prevent the faithful from influencing government. As for its current interpretation and application, well that IMO seems a bit over blown in that Federal money to a relief organization like the Red Cross would not bee seen as the "government establishing a non-profit organization" but there are so many who are afraid that any involvement between the two constitutes the establishment of religion. As such the separation is much like a heart valve in that it is mostly a one way valve that does not flow back and forth.

Plus, yeah, its not in the Constitution, and those who see it there are looking at external sources and reading those influences onto the text of the Constitution.

As for me:
Against a government run church
Against the government telling me what I can and cannot believe in my church

For the ability of the church to actively utilize the Freedom of speech to influence, direct and correct policy.^^^^^Pretty much what I believe.

Religious orgs should not receive gov't money of any sort. I am against Faith-Based initiatives.

I'm really surprised a lot of Obama supporters gloss over the fact that he said he would support giving gov't money to churches and has in the past (in Chicago).


How do you feel about the Separation of "Lord of the Rings" and State? Separation of "The Stranger" and State?

The day we start legislating based on a fiction book is the day I lose hope in our democracy.This adds nothing to the conversation but to let everyone know how trollish you are. :2cents:


of course it was an exageration, but you're kidding yourself if you don't think there is a group out there that wouldn't be for many of the things I mentioned in my satirical post.

Some people actually believe Noah's Ark is real, they think it is a historical event.

Some people think their should be prayer in school.You're right, many people do believe Noah's ark was real. Probably more than don't. Even if you don't take the story literally, many believe the various versions have a root in reality. :)

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's not even in the Constitution....

You would be wrong. :)

[Henry]

By the way, I forgot to ask: WTF are you talking about?

You were forced to learn about creation and Noah's ark and were forced to convert to Christianity in school?


your sarcasm fails, you're tone is anoying, and you are being very naive.

that cluster**** of smarty stuff is just meant to incite, way to be an idiot

While I agree that his post was over the top, this line right here:


don't worry if we aren't praying to the god you worship, you are in the minority, and you could always just convert, come on you know you want to, all the cool kids are Christian.

is definitely a vibe I get a lot, being a non-Christian citizen of this country. Christians, especially American Christians, are capable of enormous good will and tolerance. But sometimes they still just don't get why some of us don't want to join them. Which is fine. I mean, that's probably true of most religions.

But because of that, I am very wary of Christianity being made the 'official' anything in this country. No offense, but as much as I appreciate good will and personal tolerance, I don't want to have to rely solely on it.

I don't know if this is making any sense, but I hope it does.

[Zguy28]

While I agree that his post was over the top, this line right here:



is definitely a vibe I get a lot, being a non-Christian citizen of this country. Christians, especially American Christians, are capable of enormous good will and tolerance. But sometimes they still just don't get why some of us don't want to join them. Which is fine. I mean, that's probably true of most religions.

But because of that, I am very wary of Christianity being made the 'official' anything in this country. No offense, but as much as I appreciate good will and personal tolerance, I don't want to have to rely solely on it.

I don't know if this is making any sense, but I hope it does.Interestingly enough most of the born-again Christian teens I know say they feel outcast in school for their faith and suffer ridicule from fellow students.

Similar to what NotABust posted:

How do you feel about the Separation of "Lord of the Rings" and State? Separation of "The Stranger" and State?

The day we start legislating based on a fiction book is the day I lose hope in our democracy.

Then again, I do live in the People Republic of Maryland.

[AsburySkinsFan]

religion should have no place in law. simple as that.

Honest question: what criteria do you use to establish or judge between what laws should be and what laws shouldn't be? What philosophical systems are you working with?

[skinfan13]

While I agree that his post was over the top, this line right here:



is definitely a vibe I get a lot, being a non-Christian citizen of this country. Christians, especially American Christians, are capable of enormous good will and tolerance. But sometimes they still just don't get why some of us don't want to join them. Which is fine. I mean, that's probably true of most religions.

But because of that, I am very wary of Christianity being made the 'official' anything in this country. No offense, but as much as I appreciate good will and personal tolerance, I don't want to have to rely solely on it.

I don't know if this is making any sense, but I hope it does. Its not really about Christianity being 'official', there aren't very many people in favor of making Christianity the official anything in government (or maybe there are and I'm just an idealistic fool ;) ). I think the problem alot of people have is prevelent deletion; the making of anything to do with Christianity in the public sphere off limits, and by proxy, no longer protected speech. not in a legal sense, but culturally and somewhat regulationwise, such as in the workplace or whithin the government.

its been hashed, rehashed, and beaten to death already but here it is: seperation is the Govt has no business regulating or running religion, and religion has no place regulating or running the govt. anything inbetween is fine. like there being a christmas tree on the elipse and so forth.

people have a right not to be forced to worship a God they don't want to, legally and spiritually speaking, but people do NOT have a right to not be offended :2cents:

[AsburySkinsFan]

I think instead of teaching silly things like, math, grammar, science, social studes, ect. School should just be a 7 hour Sunday school session.

Yeah, because mainstream Christians reject science and all that boogeyman stuff. :silly:

[AsburySkinsFan]

Its not really about Christianity being 'official', there aren't very many people in favor of making Christianity the official anything in government (or maybe there are and I'm just an idealistic fool ;) ). I think the problem alot of people have is prevelent deletion; the making of anything to do with Christianity in the public sphere off limits, and by proxy, no longer protected speech. not in a legal sense, but culturally and somewhat regulationwise, such as in the workplace or whithin the government.

its been hashed, rehashed, and beaten to death already but here it is: seperation is the Govt has no business regulating or running religion, and religion has no place regulating or running the govt. anything inbetween is fine. like there being a christmas tree on the elipse and so forth.

people have a right not to be forced to worship a God they don't want to, legally and spiritually speaking, but people do NOT have a right to not be offended :2cents:

Such logic, elloquence, and sensibility...can it be...is it really...a well thought out reasoned response to an issue that can and often does incite inflammatory remarks and off topic insults...my hope in Tailgate is being restored.

[skinfan13]

Such logic, elloquence, and sensibility...can it be...is it really...a well thought out reasoned response to an issue that can and often does incite inflammatory remarks and off topic insults...my hope in Tailgate is being restored. I try my best :)

[Henry]

Interestingly enough most of the born-again Christian teens I know say they feel outcast in school for their faith and suffer ridicule from fellow students.

My in-laws are born again Christian. I hear the stories.

Trust me. It's not the same thing. Not even close.

You all can argue amongst yourselves who is really a Christian and how disagreements within your demographic can cause resentment or whatever. Divisions within specific religions will always be around.

But at the end of the day 80% of this country is Christian. To my people, who make up 1.4% of the country, whether you pronounce it Thee or Thou doesn't really concern me. You are Christian and you dominate our culture and you always will. Again, that's fine with me, but whether or not you choose to exercise it, the ability of your 80% to oppress my 1% is incredibly strong, and the only thing that, to me, guarantees that not happening is keeping the government free of that influence. Well, as free as possible anyway.

At this point, the response I generally get is something along the lines of "don't worry if we aren't praying to the god you worship, you are in the minority, and you could always just convert, come on you know you want to, all the cool kids are Christian." :)

[Corcaigh]

Yeah, because mainstream Christians reject science and all that boogeyman stuff. :silly:

There's a VP candidate who doesn't support your argument.

[Henry]

Its not really about Christianity being 'official', there aren't very many people in favor of making Christianity the official anything in government (or maybe there are and I'm just an idealistic fool ;) ). I think the problem alot of people have is prevelent deletion; the making of anything to do with Christianity in the public sphere off limits, and by proxy, no longer protected speech. not in a legal sense, but culturally and somewhat regulationwise, such as in the workplace or whithin the government.

its been hashed, rehashed, and beaten to death already but here it is: seperation is the Govt has no business regulating or running religion, and religion has no place regulating or running the govt. anything inbetween is fine. like there being a christmas tree on the elipse and so forth.

people have a right not to be forced to worship a God they don't want to, legally and spiritually speaking, but people do NOT have a right to not be offended :2cents:

I don't really disagree with any of this. Except for maybe the 'within the government' phrase. Depending on what you meant.

You have to realize, though, that Christianity isn't going anywhere. There are just too many of you. When you talk about 'prevelant deletion' you are talking about Christianity being given the same treatment that other religions have been given all along. There's no 'War on Christianity.' What there is, is an effort to show other religions the same respect Christianity already has.

[JMS]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's not even in the Constitution....

First line of the first ammendment..

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

I think the weakening of the separation of church and state will be one of the far reaching mistakes of the Bush administration. One which the nation isn't even fully aware of yet, because their have been so many...

A mistake which Obama and McCain are both on record supporting.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Its not really about Christianity being 'official', there aren't very many people in favor of making Christianity the official anything in government (or maybe there are and I'm just an idealistic fool ;) ). I think the problem alot of people have is prevelent deletion; the making of anything to do with Christianity in the public sphere off limits, and by proxy, no longer protected speech. not in a legal sense, but culturally and somewhat regulationwise, such as in the workplace or whithin the government.

its been hashed, rehashed, and beaten to death already but here it is: seperation is the Govt has no business regulating or running religion, and religion has no place regulating or running the govt. anything inbetween is fine. like there being a christmas tree on the elipse and so forth.

people have a right not to be forced to worship a God they don't want to, legally and spiritually speaking, but people do NOT have a right to not be offended :2cents:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

I think that protects both sides concerns. But, the idea that Christianity is being "deleted" from America is sort of silly, IMHO.

[Zguy28]

First line of the first ammendment..

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

I think the weakening of the separation of church and state will be one of the far reaching mistakes of the Bush administration. One which the nation isn't even fully aware of yet, because their have been so many...

A mistake which Obama and McCain are both on record supporting.Never thought I'd see the day I'd agree with you JMS.

I highlighted the last part for emphasis, hope you don't mind. :)

[JMS]

Yeah, because mainstream Christians reject science and all that boogeyman stuff. :silly:

Actually faith is by definition, in conflict with reason. Faith is by definition, belief in the absense of evidence. And yeah mainstream Christians in this country do reject some aspects of science because it contradicts dogma.

They reject when life begins as defined by the American Medical Aaaociation. They reject and have blocked research into stem cells which the scientific community has called among the most potentially promising field of medical research in all of science. They reject the overwhelming scientific consensus view of how life evolved.

It is not :silly:, to note that main stream respected Christian leaders have conflicted with science not only for the last 20 years, but the last 600 years. Likely ever. Why, because by definition the two belief system do conflict.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Actually faith is by definition, in conflict with reason. Faith is by definition, belief in the absense of evidence. And yeah mainstream Christians in this country do reject some aspects of science because it contradicts dogma.


Gotta disagree with you on that point, JMS. Most Christian theologians will tell you that reason is actually evidence of God, and that we need reason to know Him. The idea that faith contradicts reason is sort of a stereotype of what religious people (especially Christians from my POV) believe.

[Zguy28]

Actually faith is by definition, in conflict with reason. Faith is by definition, belief in the absense of evidence. And yeah mainstream Christians in this country do reject some aspects of science because it contradicts dogma.

They reject when life begins as defined by the American Medical Aaaociation. They reject and have blocked research into stem cells which the scientific community has called among the most potentially promising field of medical research in all of science. They reject the overwhelming scientific consensus view of how life evolved.Not to distract the conversation, but I would think Reason would go with the evidence correct?

Tell me why all of the focus is on the circumstantial potential of Embryonic Stem Cell research when the concrete evidence shows that Adult stem cells are curing diseases right and left?

Yet we continue to pursue in the media, the option that has obvious moral implications and no concrete potential to the detriment of what works. :whoknows:

[JMS]

Interestingly enough most of the born-again Christian teens I know say they feel outcast in school for their faith and suffer ridicule from fellow students..

Hope I don't shatter our new found concensus with this post...:)

I've been a christian all my life, and I've never felt like an outcast..

I'd say if someone feels like they are an outcast and disrespected for being a Christian in the United States, it's likely less because they believe in Christ and his teaching, and more because they disrespect others who don't share their beliefs. Worst case, and not an isolated worst case either, they use their evangelical views to justify and spread outright bigotry and hate against others.

Their is no doubt that many who have found comfort and a home inside the teachings of Jesus, feel very comfortable using those beliefs as a hammer to beat down others.

People like Coltier, Falwell, Robertson, and Hagee, really have given "Christianity" a bad name.

[Smoot Point Really]

How do you feel about the Separation of "Lord of the Rings" and State? Separation of "The Stranger" and State?

The day we start legislating based on a fiction book is the day I lose hope in our democracy.

Spoken like a true religious zealot...

[AsburySkinsFan]

Actually faith is by definition, in conflict with reason. Faith is by definition, belief in the absense of evidence. And yeah mainstream Christians in this country do reject some aspects of science because it contradicts dogma.
For me faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. That is not in conflict with reason, instead it understands that our ability to reason does not give us all the answers and that there are answers out there that reason cannot give us. Belief in the absence of evidence, see that's a loaded statement because I can give you cause for belief and evidence for belief but you reject those because they do not meet the criteria for "scientific belief". The reality is that very few people live lives structured by "scientific belief" but that doesn't make them wrong it just means they figured stuff out another way. Are there some who reject science because of their dogmas, sure, are they right...I don't believe so, because I believe that the study of creation will simply affirm the existence of the divine.


They reject when life begins as defined by the American Medical Aaaociation.
Well first off that judgment is an definition not a fact there is a difference between the two in that definitions are not static.


They reject and have blocked research into stem cells which the scientific community has called among the most potentially promising field of medical research in all of science. They reject the overwhelming scientific consensus view of how life evolved.
And from their point of view they would say that what you are advocating is the taking of human life to experiement, these are judgments not facts.


It is not :silly:, to note that main stream respected Christian leaders have conflicted with science not only for the last 20 years, but the last 600 years. Likely ever. Why, because by definition the two belief system do conflict.
I simply reject your conclusion, on the basis that it is misinformed. If you were to say that science and some dogmatic systems conflict then I would agree, but to say that faith in God necessarily conflicts with science then I'd simply reassert that I believe that science is simply the study of how God works.

[brianm23]

I think God should be in our politics about as much as Santa Claus should.


What do God and Santa Claus have in common? They are both make believe and tend to disappoint people wishing for things.:D

[JMS]

Not to distract the conversation, but I would think Reason would go with the evidence correct?

To clarify.. A reasoned argument does not rely on just "evidence", but specifically with an analysis of all the availible evidence. Reason applied narrowly to cherry picked evidence is more akin to rhetoric.



Tell me why all of the focus is on the circumstantial potential of Embryonic Stem Cell research when the concrete evidence shows that Adult stem cells are curing diseases right and left?


The effective boycott of embryonic stem cell research by the federal government has significanty styfled and misdirected research in this promising field of study for nearly a decade...

The question is not whether the reasearch which the federal government has allowed has shown promise and been benificial; the question is whether the people who are best suited to choose scientific direction of our research dollars, should be an isolated narrow dogmatic segment of the populuation who have no scholarly understanding of what they advocate for or against.



Yet we continue to pursue in the media, the option that has obvious moral implications and no concrete potential to the detriment of what works. :whoknows:

The moral implications are not that obvious to many, many even who are evangelical Christians. There are embrionic stem cells destroyed or marked for destruction every day in this country. Some even among the religous right have said it's immoral not to allow science to study these cells which will be destroyed anyway.

As for "no obvious concrete potential", that pretty much is an argument against all pure research.. It should be enough to know that scientists around the world believe this medical research is among the most promising in all of science.

[AsburySkinsFan]

I think God should be in our politics about as much as Santa Claus should.


What do God and Santa Claus have in common? They are both make believe and tend to disappoint people wishing for things.:D

Yay! More thoughtful and intelligent engaging posts like this please!!!
BTW, Santa is in our schools 1000% more than God is, so I guess its time to even up the score.

BTW, I don't want forced prayer in school, for the simple fact that I and my church will teach my son to pray. I wouldn't want a Wiccan child to be forced to pray to Yahweh any more than I would want a Christian child to be forced to pray to Mother Earth.

[Corcaigh]

Not to distract the conversation, but I would think Reason would go with the evidence correct?

Tell me why all of the focus is on the circumstantial potential of Embryonic Stem Cell research when the concrete evidence shows that Adult stem cells are curing diseases right and left?

Yet we continue to pursue in the media, the option that has obvious moral implications and no concrete potential to the detriment of what works. :whoknows:

Embryonic Stem Cell research has moral implications to you because of your particular religion.

ES cells have huge potential as a research tool. Why limit ourselves? Of course I'm biased having lost a perfectly healthy father to Alzheimers.

[Bang]

Religion is a private thing. And it should stay that way. Everyone is free to worship or not as they see fit, and I think that is all that needs to be said.

~Bang

[AsburySkinsFan]

the question is whether the people who are best suited to choose scientific direction of our research dollars, should be an isolated narrow dogmatic segment of the populuation who have no scholarly understanding of what they advocate for or against.

Ok, what I highlighted in red is a drastic overstatement, I cannot imagine that you really believe that there are no Christians who oppose stem cell research who have "no scholarly understanding" of what's going on. Furthermore, scientific research and exploration has always been about answering "can we" and rarely have they been about the question "should we" which is where in many places the faith comes into play, it is an important corrective against the over reaching in the name of science.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Religion is a private thing. And it should stay that way. Everyone is free to worship or not as they see fit, and I think that is all that needs to be said.

~Bang
Bang, religion to YOU is a private thing, but the way that I know my faith in holistic, both private and personal, and also communal (i.e. community) they are not mutually exclusive. What's more is that the out workings of our faith direct our lives as such they direct the way we think and as a result direct the way we judge policy. I'm afraid that the polarity that is created when well meaning folks try to separate private from public is simply an illusion.

[Corcaigh]

it is an important corrective against the over reaching in the name of science.

Strange ... where you see "an important corrective", I see "unwanted meddling" that runs the risk of holding back medical progress and preventing us finding cures to some of the terrible ailments that our friends and family suffer from.

Having watched my father suffer for the past decade, and knowing that he could continue to suffer for many decades more, I wonder about the morality of banning areas of research that could help him.

Each to his own.

[Zguy28]

Embryonic Stem Cell research has moral implications to you because of your particular religion.Given the diversity of our nation, it has moral considerations for our nation as a whole.

Its the same reasoning that is used to remove Christian prayer from public schools.


ES cells have huge potential as a research tool. Why limit ourselves? Of course I'm biased having lost a perfectly healthy father to Alzheimers.Of course you are.

I'm surprised you're letting emotion drive you. Its most irrational.

[Corcaigh]

Its most irrational.

http://www.heroestheseries.com/stills/zachary-quinto-spock-2.jpg

Is it?

Professional scientists, including devout Christians, see the potential in ES cell research.

I'll take their scientific council over yours on this subject.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Embryonic Stem Cell research has moral implications to you because of your particular religion.
And that's exactly right, and if his objections cannot trump yours then why should yours trump his?


ES cells have huge potential as a research tool. Why limit ourselves? Of course I'm biased having lost a perfectly healthy father to Alzheimers.

I am deeply sorry for your loss, truly I am, I too watched my step-mother's mother suffer from Alzheimers, it is a tragic disease to be sure and I feel for any who struggle with it.

You ask the question "Why limit ourselves?" and the answer is that there will always be limits and you yourself know this to be so, and know that there should be limits. I mean what if it was found that 5 year old children were found to have a particular cellular structure in their brains that could possibly with research cure epilepsy would we advocate the experimentation on 5 year old children? The point is that we will always wrestle with limits when it comes to research, and rightly so, as such the question is not, "should there be limits" but instead "where should the limits be". To answer that question we much rely on things other than science, we must turn to philosophy, ethics, and yes faith to answer that question.

[Zguy28]

Is it?

Professional scientists, including devout Christians, see the potential in ES cell research.

I'll take their scientific council over yours on this subject.Whooooaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I'm caught in the spin cycle!!!!!!!!!!!!

[JMS]

Belief in the absence of evidence, see that's a loaded statement because I can give you cause for belief and evidence for belief but you reject those because they do not meet the criteria for "scientific belief".


Websters define's faith as belief in the absense of evidence or proof, not me. I'm not arguing against faith. I'm just pointing out that faith has constantly stood in the way of science throughout history. The two philosophies are fundimentally in conflict and have historically lead to clashes.



Well first off that judgment is an definition not a fact there is a difference between the two in that definitions are not static.


I think the point is Science isn't confined to fact, in the absense of fact science will define the most likely truth based on the preponderance of the evidence.

I brought it up not to argue the merrits to the two positions, but to point out this as an example of science and mainstream Christians disagreeing.



And from their point of view they would say that what you are advocating is the taking of human life to experiement, these are judgments not facts.


Actually since the cells are going to be destroyed anyway, it's factually inaccurate to say you would be taking human life to experiment. The moral argument is whether science should be allowed to benfit from what will occur anyway.



I simply reject your conclusion, on the basis that it is misinformed. If you were to say that science and some dogmatic systems conflict then I would agree, but to say that faith in God necessarily conflicts with science then I'd simply reassert that I believe that science is simply the study of how God works.

Science may be a study of how God works, but we are not talking about God, we are talking about religoon. Religion relies on faith, and faith necesitates dogma, and dogma is a barrior to rational arguments.

Simple stated science is a philosophy which constantly questions it's beliefs. Religion is a belief system for many which draws boxes around answers where questions can not be asked. The two are in conflict where they intersect.

Historically speaking their is nothing controversial about what I am saying.

[brianm23]

Yay! More thoughtful and intelligent engaging posts like this please!!!
BTW, Santa is in our schools 1000% more than God is, so I guess its time to even up the score.

BTW, I don't want forced prayer in school, for the simple fact that I and my church will teach my son to pray. I wouldn't want a Wiccan child to be forced to pray to Yahweh any more than I would want a Christian child to be forced to pray to Mother Earth.


Santa Claus was never in any schools that I know of, so where do you get that at?

News flash buddy: GOD DOESN'T EXIST.

Just thought I'd point that out.

[JMS]

Bang, religion to YOU is a private thing, but the way that I know my faith in holistic, both private and personal, and also communal (i.e. community) they are not mutually exclusive. What's more is that the out workings of our faith direct our lives as such they direct the way we think and as a result direct the way we judge policy. I'm afraid that the polarity that is created when well meaning folks try to separate private from public is simply an illusion.

I guess it depends upon how you make your religion public. If you don't talk about religion and just allow your religion to direct you in life I don't think you will have a problem.

If you feel the need to talk about your religion publicly, then I don't think you should feel offended if people tell you that your religion is wrong, misguided, even destructive... regardless of the merits of those peoples accusations. After all you started the "sharing". Also, as I've said some folks who call themselves religous are preaching outright bigotry and hatred of other groups. And these folks aren't isolated either.

I don't think you and I agree on religion, but If I decided to direct you on your religous beliefs and then tried to interfere with your temporal interests because of our religous conflicts; I think I would expect to be chastized, oposed, even violently so if I persisted. Such behavior on my part would be disrespectul of you and your beliefs, even destructive... I think the preceeding example is the reasoning for the separation of church and state in this county. The separation of church and state is designed to protect freedom of religon. Any weekenning of that separation is a weekening of religous freedom in this country for everyone.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Websters define's faith as belief in the absense of evidence or proof, not me. I'm not arguing against faith. I'm just pointing out that faith has constantly stood in the way of science throughout history. The two philosophies are fundimentally in conflict and have historically lead to clashes.
Websters only represents what a majority opinion on a word is, they are definitions of reality, not reality themselves, and many Christians that I know find the definition of faith to be as I quoted earlier Hebrews 11:1. And when you have clashes it is not with faith, but with various dogmatic understandings of that faith.


I think the point is Science isn't confined to fact, in the absense of fact science will define the most likely truth based on the preponderance of the evidence.

I brought it up not to argue the merrits to the two positions, but to point out this as an example of science and mainstream Christians disagreeing.
The problem is that as a proof you brought up a definition, and it was not even a "most likely" truth, but a definition. Planet is a word that carries with it a particular definition, that once included the mass at the edge of our solar system, but now has been classified as something else. Did that change the fact that there is still a mass at the edge of our solar system or did it simply change the definition/classification of that mass. I bring that up to illustrate that it is not the facts that the Christians and the scientists are arguing about, but instead its the definition of those facts; i.e. the interpretation of them.



I agree completely, if the cells (read eggs) are going to be destroyed then turn them over to be tested, but to harvest for the purpose of testing is much more problematic.


[quote=JMS}Science may be a study of how God works, but we are not talking about God, we are talking about religion. Religion relies on faith, and faith necesitates dogma, and dogma is a barrior to rational arguments.
I obviously don't share your conclusion, because for me faith is interacting with God, and my dogma is a reflection of that and my religion is a reflection of that. You want now to separate religion from God and that is a non sequitur.


Simple stated science is a philosophy which constantly questions it's beliefs. Religion is a belief system for many which draws boxes around answers where questions can not be asked. The two are in conflict where they intersect.
Well if that's whay you think religion is then you're right, but the problem is that you're only drawing a caricature of religion, because we all the time ask all the questions, there are no questions that cannot be asked, and I'm really not sure where you got that idea. Further, no one lives their life according to the philosophy that continually questions it's beliefs, if you did you'd never get out of bed.


Historically speaking their is nothing controversial about what I am saying.
We'll just have to disagree here, because I don't accept the idea that the caricature you paint of faith and religion is reflected in reality except with the possibility of finding it on the fringes.

[Baculus]

I believe Secularism it is very important for our American Western democracy, for various reasons that have already been discussed.

Furthermore, we have to remember that Enlightenment-era thinking was a response to European theocracy and state-established churches that long controlled the destiny of mankind.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Santa Claus was never in any schools that I know of, so where do you get that at?
Have you been in a public school in the United States during December?


News flash buddy: GOD DOESN'T EXIST.

Just thought I'd point that out.
Oh thank you so much! And here I've been waiting for someone like you to come and open my eyes with such insight, such overwhelming wisdom and vast understanding of the universe and all we are...I feel so much better now...

BTW; God does exist, and He still loves you even though you say mean things about Him.

Just thought I'd point that out.

[Zguy28]

Santa Claus was never in any schools that I know of, so where do you get that at?

News flash buddy: GOD DOESN'T EXIST.

Just thought I'd point that out.That will convince people.

[JMS]

Ok, what I highlighted in red is a drastic overstatement, I cannot imagine that you really believe that there are no Christians who oppose stem cell research who have "no scholarly understanding" of what's going on.


That's not what I said, What I said is the oposition of the scientific research is rooted in a religous veiw, not a scientific one. And that religious fiew is isolated, dogmatic, narrow, and not representitive of the country's opinion, nor is it in the countries interest as broadly agreed by the majority of citizens in the country.



Furthermore, scientific research and exploration has always been about answering "can we" and rarely have they been about the question "should we" which is where in many places the faith comes into play, it is an important corrective against the over reaching in the name of science.

I would argue ethics in science is a very important and vibrant field of study. Religion in general is not the determining factor of scientific ethics however because religions do not find typically find consensus.

I don't disagree with you that ethics should play a part in scienctifc discovery. I just disagree with the reality of the last eight years, that those ethics should be the reflection of a dogmatic view of a politically well connected minority.

[brianm23]

Have you been in a public school in the United States during December?


Oh thank you so much! And here I've been waiting for someone like you to come and open my eyes with such insight, such overwhelming wisdom and vast understanding of the universe and all we are...I feel so much better now...

BTW; God does exist, and He still loves you even though you say mean things about Him.

Just thought I'd point that out.

I went to a christian school my early years and public school the rest of the way so the answer is yes.

Hey, do you also believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny? I have it on a good reliable source they do indeed exist. I'll show you my proof if you show my yours.

Your god is a cruel sadistic son of a ***** that allows kids to get raped and murdered, allows millions of people to be slaughtered because they were a different ethnic, allows people like Bush to murder our soldiers so him and his buddies can profit. I don't want your god to love me. He can go **** himself.



That will convince people.


http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=96494242&blogID=423506562&Mytoken=29EC9E61-75A1-4362-9F4014717E769E2E68224450

Maybe they should read this then. Might clear things up a bit.

[AsburySkinsFan]

I guess it depends upon how you make your religion public. If you don't talk about religion and just allow your religion to direct you in life I don't think you will have a problem.
Ok, then we'll just have a problem then. I'm good with that.


If you feel the need to talk about your religion publicly, then I don't think you should feel offended if people tell you that your religion is wrong, misguided, even destructive... regardless of the merits of those peoples accusations. After all you started the "sharing". Also, as I've said some folks who call themselves religous are preaching outright bigotry and hatred of other groups. And these folks aren't isolated either.
I don't get offended when people tell me I'm wrong about God, I used to be wrong about God too so I cut them some slack. And, the bigotry and and hatred from people is far from acceptable.


I don't think you and I agree on religion, but If I decided to direct you on your religous beliefs and then tried to interfere with your temporal interests because of our religous conflicts; I think I would expect to be chastized, oposed, even violently so if I persisted.
Violently? Not from me...but then what you describe is not something that the church historically is unfamiliar with. However, you could and should very well expect to hear from us. ;)


Such behavior on my part would be disrespectul of you and your beliefs, even destructive... I think the preceeding example is the reasoning for the separation of church and state in this county. The separation of church and state is designed to protect freedom of religon. Any weakenning of that separation is a weakening of religous freedom in this country for everyone.

The problem is that the way I believe cannot be separated from my faith, as such my faith very much directs my politics, and if my politics were so radical and repressive that the government felt the need to shut me down by force then I suppose they would be well within their job description, however, such is NOT the case and fear of the boogeyman (state church) should not trump my freedom to express the outworkings of my faith in my politics.

[AsburySkinsFan]

That's not what I said, What I said is the oposition of the scientific research is rooted in a religous veiw, not a scientific one. And that religious view is isolated, dogmatic, narrow, and not representitive of the country's opinion, nor is it in the countries interest as broadly agreed by the majority of citizens in the country.
That is certainly your opinion, and you are entitled to have that opinion regardless of its merits. BTW, popularity has never been the determining factor is whether something should be done.


I would argue ethics in science is a very important and vibrant field of study. Religion in general is not the determining factor of scientific ethics however because religions do not find typically find consensus.
That's right they don't, but to eliminate their voices from the ethical discussion would do a great disservice to humanity, which is what I object to.


I don't disagree with you that ethics should play a part in scienctifc discovery. I just disagree with the reality of the last eight years, that those ethics should be the reflection of a dogmatic view of a politically well connected minority.
If you're referencing Bush then that's a whole other issue, because then you have to get into why Bush did so little to further the pro-life agenda while in office, that's a political (in the worst sense of the word) thread.

[AsburySkinsFan]

I went to a christian school my early years and public school the rest of the way so the answer is yes.

Hey, do you also believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny? I have it on a good reliable source they do indeed exist. I'll show you my proof if you show my yours.
We exist.....now its your turn to pony up the evidence.


Your god is a cruel sadistic son of a ***** that allows kids to get raped and murdered, allows millions of people to be slaughtered because they were a different ethnic, allows people like Bush to murder our soldiers so him and his buddies can profit. I don't want your god to love me. He can go **** himself.
The question of theodicy...the question of why...indeed one of the hardest theological questions that there has ever been to answer, and yet one of the most evident. We so often reject the idea of a god that would control everything and yet we curse the God that chooses to allow us free will...such is the paradox of the human heart.

Brian, I'm a Christian and have been since I was 18, I ignored God and cursed him as you do...but I now humbly call myself His servant and a pastor to his people in the church I serve. I'm sorry you feel such hatred for the God that is only trying to draw you closer so that the brokeness may be reconciled, truly I am sorry for you and it is my hope and prayer that you will find the peace and love of God that surpasses all understanding, all strife, all pain, and all hatred.

Peace be to you.

[techboy]

How do you feel about the Separation of "Lord of the Rings" and State? Separation of "The Stranger" and State?

The day we start legislating based on a fiction book is the day I lose hope in our democracy.


This comment amuses me for two reasons.

First, even skeptical scholars routinely turn to the texts of the Bible as historical sources, so "fiction" is a pretty silly classification, even if one does not accept everything claimed by those texts.

Second, if you think that great works of fiction don't influence thinking and policy (I'm sure there are many here that wish that Atlas Shrugged had more influence than it does), and rightly so, then you haven't been paying attention.

Of course, I'm aware that you don't really want an answer to your angry diatribe, any more than you really want to see any evidence that God exists despite saying so, but I couldn't help myself in responding. Sorry. :)

[Zguy28]

I went to a christian school my early years and public school the rest of the way so the answer is yes.

Hey, do you also believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny? I have it on a good reliable source they do indeed exist. I'll show you my proof if you show my yours.

Your god is a cruel sadistic son of a ***** that allows kids to get raped and murdered, allows millions of people to be slaughtered because they were a different ethnic, allows people like Bush to murder our soldiers so him and his buddies can profit. I don't want your god to love me. He can go **** himself.





http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=96494242&blogID=423506562&Mytoken=29EC9E61-75A1-4362-9F4014717E769E2E68224450

Maybe they should read this then. Might clear things up a bit.Sure, I'll read it.

And I suggest you read this: http://www.amazon.com/Case-Christ-Journalists-Personal-Investigation/dp/0310209307/ref=pd_bxgy_b_img_b

If you would like, I'll even send you a copy for free. PM your info if interested. :)

[JMS]

Websters only represents what a majority opinion on a word is, they are definitions of reality, not reality themselves, and many Christians that I know find the definition of faith to be as I quoted earlier Hebrews 11:1. And when you have clashes it is not with faith, but with various dogmatic understandings of that faith.


I'm not talking about your religion, cause I don't know what your religoun is other than broadly. The broad definition of faith will suffice for my arguement.



The problem is that as a proof you brought up a definition, and it was not even a "most likely" truth, but a definition.


All rational beliefs by definition have some basis in evidence. I brought up the belief, not a definition and it is supported by a logically constructed rationally oranized chain of evidence. That's what science is.



I agree completely, if the cells (read eggs) are going to be destroyed then turn them over to be tested, but to harvest for the purpose of testing is much more problematic.


Many evangelicals do agree, most do not.



I obviously don't share your conclusion, because for me faith is interacting with God, and my dogma is a reflection of that and my religion is a reflection of that. You want now to separate religion from God and that is a non sequitur.


You are confusing your faith with faith in general. Do you think my faith is interacting with God? I do. How about Osama bin Laudin's faith. He certainly does.



Well if that's whay you think religion is then you're right, but the problem is that you're only drawing a caricature of religion, because we all the time ask all the questions, there are no questions that cannot be asked, and I'm really not sure where you got that idea. Further, no one lives their life according to the philosophy that continually questions it's beliefs, if you did you'd never get out of bed.


Not a caricature, but a generality perhaps. A generality which is what I'm discussing. Dogma and Religions in general not specifically.



We'll just have to disagree here, because I don't accept the idea that the caricature you paint of faith and religion is reflected in reality except with the possibility of finding it on the fringes.

I think we have numerous examples of "main stream" christians saying bigoted things without being condemned by others in their movement.


Coltier saying Jews need to be Perfected.
Hagee saying the Catholic Church is the great whore of history.
Robertson saying Islam is a religion of hatred and of the devil
Falwell saying Gay people are a abomination before God.
I don't think you can say this type of hate speach is isolated on the fringes of america's religous movement, much less religoin globally which like wise has many troubling episodes executed in the name of religion.
911 for one.

[dcoles11]

your sarcasm fails, you're tone is anoying, and you are being very naive.

that cluster**** of smarty stuff is just meant to incite, way to be an idiot

What is annoying is the fact that you and others are blind to the fact that if people like Palin continue to gain power in this country, that the satirical post I made will become less and less an exageration and more a reality.

There are already plenty of people out there that think creationism should be taught in public schools and are fighting for it to be taught.

Religion makes people intellectually lazy, especially when god is the answer to everything.

The more we leave things into the hands of faith and the more we reject science the worse off we will all be.

Do yourselves a favor and look back in history and see how many times religion stood in the way of science.

Hell, there was a time you were thrown in prison for having the believe that the earth wasn't the center of the universe, oopps it isn't.

Religion and faith don't cure illness, science does.

I am not an athiest, I fully believe that there is something greater than us, but I will never try to prove it or force that opinion on someone else because it can't be done, there is no proof.

To say "we" are the the proof god exist is ridiculous, thats not proof, and I don't have to point out all the holes in that arguement, you all know them.

If your faith is enough proof for you to believe in god then by all means go for it, that is awesome for you, but stop trying to prove the existence of god to other people with your faith.

[JMS]

That is certainly your opinion, and you are entitled to have that opinion regardless of its merits. BTW, popularity has never been the determining factor is whether something should be done.


That's not an opinion. That's a fact. The vast majority in this country supports embrionic stem cell reasearch. The wishes of that vast majority have been eclipsed over the last eight years by the dogmatic beliefs of an isolated politically connected few.



That's right they don't, but to eliminate their voices from the ethical discussion would do a great disservice to humanity, which is what I object to.


I don't think anybody's voice should be eliminated from the debate. I just don't think minorities who are politically well connected should be allowed to dictate their views to the rest of the country without a concensus. Which is what they've been doing...

I actually think creationism should be taught in schools along with evolution because I think the merits of the two theories speak for themselves. I also think it's important for any thinking rational man to be well versed in both.



If you're referencing Bush then that's a whole other issue, because then you have to get into why Bush did so little to further the pro-life agenda while in office, that's a political (in the worst sense of the word) thread.

I'm not talking about Bush, I was talking about the folks who suported him.

[IbleedBnG83]

IMO, there can't be enough seperation between church and state. Unfortunately, the country was founded with religion as an underlying factor and is ingrained in our government and its rules. However, I think the country needs to keep moving forward to seperate itself from the church as much as possible.

I dont' say this as the idea as to not offend anyone. I say this because it gives religious groups advantages. Inevitably, people are treated unfairly like homosexuals.

:2cents:

[brianm23]

We exist.....now its your turn to pony up the evidence.

You exist. Your god does not. I asked for proof that your GOD existed, and I would then show you proof that Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny also exist. Get back to me when you have proof.



The question of theodicy...the question of why...indeed one of the hardest theological questions that there has ever been to answer, and yet one of the most evident. We so often reject the idea of a god that would control everything and yet we curse the God that chooses to allow us free will...such is the paradox of the human heart.

Brian, I'm a Christian and have been since I was 18, I ignored God and cursed him as you do...but I now humbly call myself His servant and a pastor to his people in the church I serve. I'm sorry you feel such hatred for the God that is only trying to draw you closer so that the brokeness may be reconciled, truly I am sorry for you and it is my hope and prayer that you will find the peace and love of God that surpasses all understanding, all strife, all pain, and all hatred.

Peace be to you.

I didn't ignore god, I was a christian until I became educated. Funny how the two correspond with each other. I don't feel hatred for a person that doesn't exist my man, I'm just merely pointing out the fallacy of your "loving god". Besides, don't feel sorry for me, I'm doing just fine by myself.

[81artmonk]

You would be wrong. :)

No you would be wrong, it isn't in the constitution. There is no seperation of church and state. It was a phrase coined by a politician.

[JMS]

Gotta disagree with you on that point, JMS. Most Christian theologians will tell you that reason is actually evidence of God, and that we need reason to know Him.

And yet an entire age of western history was defined by men of faith burning rational thinkers at the stake... Gallelao famously escaped being burned, others were not so fortunate.

Faith is belief in the absense of evidence or proof.
Reason is the weighing of evidence or proof to form a belief.

The two are diametrically oposed. The corectness or blind following of one without the other is one of the great themes of literature. Mary Shelly's Dr. Frankenstein followed this theme, so did Jewel's Vern Capt Nemo, and Ayn Rand's John Gault.



The idea that faith contradicts reason is sort of a stereotype of what religious people (especially Christians from my POV) believe.

I would argue that taken in moderation, faith tempors reason; in the form of ethics in science. Just as reason tempors faith. It's when the two belief systems come into conflict and are not tempored where the problems occur. Things like bloody Mary Tutor's reunification with Rome, the spanish inquisition, or the Crusades, Hittler's genetic experiments during WWII, or The US defense department feeding orphins radioactive eliments in their cerial in the 1950's...

It's the extremes of any one belief system in the absense of moderation which is to be guarded against.

[dcoles11]

except that it doesn't because that doesn't happen anywhere in the country and hardly anybody would advocate such nonsense. bring something to the table instead of trying to rile people up

Really? Hardly anyone would?

In 2000, a People for the American Way (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_for_the_American_Way) poll among Americans found that

16% believe public schools should teach creation only.

13% believe public schools should teach both evolution and creationism in science class

29% believe public schools should teach evolution in science class but can discuss creationism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism) there as a belief

4% believe public schools should teach both but are not sure how



Sucks when numbers get in the way of your arguement doesn't it :rolleyes:

[Hooper]

Religion and politics should never mix IMO -- and that goes for any country. Only leads to problems.

[JMS]

No you would be wrong, it isn't in the constitution. There is no seperation of church and state. It was a phrase coined by a politician.

The term Freedom of religion isn't mentioned in the constitution either does that mean it's just made up to?

The first line of the first ammendment..



Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion


makes it clear. Government is out of the religion business, in order to creat a religously free country.

[dcoles11]

No you would be wrong, it isn't in the constitution. There is no seperation of church and state. It was a phrase coined by a politician.

I want to better understand what you want. If the restraints of the seperation between chruch and state were lifted tomorrow, what would a typical day in a public school be like in your ideal world? Please be specific.

[81artmonk]

[QUOTE=dcoles11;5744695]There are already plenty of people out there that think creationism should be taught in public schools and are fighting for it to be taught.

Religion makes people intellectually lazy, especially when god is the answer to everything.


There once was a time when teaching creation and talking about God in school was fine. Do honestly have an issue with teaching both theories in school?? I thought school was a place where information was KING and kids were allowed to make up there own minds.


The more we leave things into the hands of faith and the more we reject science the worse off we will all be.

Do yourselves a favor and look back in history and see how many times religion stood in the way of science.


I don't think religious people on the whole are rejecting science. They are just scared of how science is working to eliminate God from the equation.




I am not an athiest, I fully believe that there is something greater than us, but I will never try to prove it or force that opinion on someone else because it can't be done, there is no proof.

To say "we" are the the proof god exist is ridiculous, thats not proof, and I don't have to point out all the holes in that arguement, you all know them.

If your faith is enough proof for you to believe in god then by all means go for it, that is awesome for you, but stop trying to prove the existence of god to other people with your faith.


This is where I lose you. Science can't prove alot either. A working theory or idea isn't proof.

How did the world begin?? scienctists have some really good ideas and theories, but they cannot prove it 100%.

Did man evolve from a single cell organism?? Scientists have some really compelling evidence, and some great theories, but cannot prove it 100%. I've been told that even though scientists cannot prove these things 100% they still have enough proof so that we should accept them as viable. If you can't prove it, you can't prove it.

IMO you can come up with some really plauable ideas about something, but if you can't prove it, with concrete proof, than it's still an idea or theory.

yet we as christians are told we should accept this as truth since science is truth and religion is mumbo jumbo.:doh:

religious people don't reject science. They just realize that some things cannot be answered or explained. Which is where belief comes in.

What's Ironic is scientists and religious people are really alike, because neither can prove anything beyond a shadow of a doubt, yet they believe their belief is the one true way.

[outbaksean]

If the restraints of the seperation between chruch and state were lifted tomorrow, what would a typical day in a public school be like in your ideal world? Please be specific.

There would actually be decent teachers teaching a decent curiculum instead of the crap on going now even at the good ones.

that was off topic, so I'll add that I'm all for seperation of church and state; I don't think it matters whether teachers teach creationism or evolution in public schools though, it's not like kids would be learing that before high school anyway and by that time they should realize that a lot of what they're being taught is bs anyway.


and kids were allowed to make up there own minds. You said it better than me.

[81artmonk]

I want to better understand what you want. If the restraints of the seperation between chruch and state were lifted tomorrow, what would a typical day in a public school be like in your ideal world? Please be specific.

First there are no restraints of seperation of church and state since it doesn't exsist in the contitution.

Not too different from what it is today. People would be allowed to practice their particular religion freely beign that it didn't intrude upon learning time.

Both creation and evolution would be taught as two viable theories of how things began.

That's pretty much it for now, if I think of anymore, I'll get back with you. :)

[JMS]

I want to better understand what you want. If the restraints of the seperation between chruch and state were lifted tomorrow, what would a typical day in a public school be like in your ideal world? Please be specific.

Don't we already have a few hundred historical models to know exactly what would happen?

We'd start the day with the plede of allegence, Then we would have some sort of pugalism or general contest of political influence to determine which of the following we would read next..


The bible
The Torah
The Bhagavad Gita
The Qur'an
Karma Sutra... ( I would propose that one ).
Figure for the first decade or so some Christians would be mostly happy and nobody else would, maybe 20% happy. A decade after that nobody would be happy. Shortly after that we would start to see physical conflcits in order to get their books read to the exclusions of the others..

[81artmonk]

The term Freedom of religion isn't mentioned in the constitution either does that mean it's just made up to?

The first line of the first ammendment..



makes it clear. Government is out of the religion business, in order to creat a religously free country.

You miss the point. The constitution does not state there is a seperation of church and state. That may be how people interpret it, but it isn't there.

[dcoles11]

First there are no restraints of seperation of church and state since it doesn't exsist in the contitution.

Not too different from what it is today. People would be allowed to practice their particular religion freely beign that it didn't intrude upon learning time.

Both creation and evolution would be taught as two viable theories of how things began.

That's pretty much it for now, if I think of anymore, I'll get back with you. :)

Actually there are restraints.

[JMS]

There are already plenty of people out there that think creationism should be taught in public schools and are fighting for it to be taught.

Religion makes people intellectually lazy, especially when god is the answer to everything.


I would argue teaching the two conflicting theories of how species came into being would be a great excersize in scientific theory and would lead to much scientific understanding than teaching either theory in isolation...

The majority of the supreme court and a majority of both houses of congress and the presidency at times have all been creationists. I would argue in the real world students need to know the merits along with the pro's and cons of both of these theories in order to inter-react with the world...

I would also argue that this debate is perfectly suited for a classroom discussion because the theories are so disconnected from each other, and both so easy to explain.

I would lastly argue both theories Creationism, and Evolution as proposed by Darwin are so easy to tear down...

[JMS]

There are already plenty of people out there that think creationism should be taught in public schools and are fighting for it to be taught.

Religion makes people intellectually lazy, especially when god is the answer to everything.


I would argue teaching the two conflicting theories of how species came into being would be a great excersize in scientific theory and would lead to much scientific understanding than teaching either theory in isolation...

The majority of the supreme court and a majority of both houses of congress and the presidency at times have all been creationists. I would argue in the real world students need to know the merits along with the pro's and cons of both of these theories in order to inter-react with the world...

I would also argue that this debate is perfectly suited for a classroom discussion because the theories are so disconnected from each other, and both so easy to explain.

I would lastly argue both theories Creationism, and Evolution as proposed by Darwin are so easy to tear down...

[Predicto]

I think the ACLU has it exactly right.

People's rights to express their religious beliefs must never be infringed.

The government must never endorse any of those beliefs.

Clean, simple and effective. :applause:

[dcoles11]

[/i]

I would argue teaching the two conflicting theories of how species came into being would be a great excersize in scientific theory and would lead to much scientific understanding than teaching either theory in isolation...

The majority of the supreme court and a majority of both houses of congress and the presidency at times have all been creationists. I would argue in the real world students need to know the merits along with the pro's and cons of both of these theories in order to inter-react with the world...

I would also argue that this debate is perfectly suited for a classroom discussion because the theories are so disconnected from each other, and both so easy to explain.

I would lastly argue both theories Creationism, and Evolution as proposed by Darwin are so easy to tear down...

I have no problem with having a class debate on the two, I think it would be a great exercise. But you have to be a strong teacher that has control of your class to do so because there is going to be a lot of immature and heated statements coming from both sides.

Unfortunately I think you'd find that most principals and school board members would suggest that you stay away from such a debate. The establishment hates dealing with angry parents.

I taught world history and there is a unit on relgion. I made it clear before I started the lesson that we are only going to discuss what each religion believes and their customs, we will have no discussion on whether you agree or disagree with their beliefs.

[dcoles11]

I think the ACLU has it exactly right.

People's rights to express their religious beliefs must never be infringed.

The government must never endorse any of those beliefs.

Clean, simple and effective. :applause:

I don't believe it could be said any better than that.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

No you would be wrong, it isn't in the constitution. There is no seperation of church and state. It was a phrase coined by a politician.

I'm glad to know you did a google search.

Separation of church and state is clearly evident in the First Amendment which says that Congress cannot make a law in support of or against religion. The actual words are not. But it is the exact same thing.

[JMS]

You miss the point. The constitution does not state there is a seperation of church and state. That may be how people interpret it, but it isn't there.

And you don't think the fact that the constitution doesn't mention "Freedom of Religion" either is meaningful to your point?

The intent of the founding fathers was clear in both instances from thier writings..

The founding fathers did not agree on religion, and they all feared being told what to believe by their government if their government came under the influence of one or the other of their diverse members.

So they agreed the government would stay out of the religous business, and the country would have less to fear from one group pusecuting the other.

Thus Freedome of Religion and Separation of Church and State ideals were codified into the constutition, yet not explicitely jingoistically stated as such.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

And yet an entire age of western history was defined by men of faith burning rational thinkers at the stake... Gallelao famously escaped being burned, others were not so fortunate.

Faith is belief in the absense of evidence or proof.
Reason is the weighing of evidence or proof to form a belief.

The two are diametrically oposed. The corectness or blind following of one without the other is one of the great themes of literature. Mary Shelly's Dr. Frankenstein followed this theme, so did Jewel's Vern Capt Nemo, and Ayn Rand's John Gault.



I would argue that taken in moderation, faith tempors reason; in the form of ethics in science. Just as reason tempors faith. It's when the two belief systems come into conflict and are not tempored where the problems occur. Things like bloody Mary Tutor's reunification with Rome, the spanish inquisition, or the Crusades, Hittler's genetic experiments during WWII, or The US defense department feeding orphins radioactive eliments in their cerial in the 1950's...

It's the extremes of any one belief system in the absense of moderation which is to be guarded against.

I think its a little unfair to compare religions today with the absolute worst religion has had to offer in history. :2cents:

[Tulane Skins Fan]

You miss the point. The constitution does not state there is a seperation of church and state. That may be how people interpret it, but it isn't there.

It is there.

Establishment Clause + Free Excercise Clause = separation of church and state.

You want to look at it from an "originalist" view? What were the founding father's thinking? Gee, they just revolted against a kingdom in which the king was also the head of the religion.... I wonder if they took that into account.

Or are you like Scalia and only appreciate "originalist construction" when it supports your own personal views?

Edit: Honestly, I think this is the first time I've heard anyone argue that separation of church and state is not in the Constitution. That is so far out in right field, it is mindblowing.

[Zguy28]

I think the ACLU has it exactly right.

People's rights to express their religious beliefs must never be infringed.

The government must never endorse any of those beliefs.

Clean, simple and effective. :applause:I agree, but unfortunately its not black and white like that.

The gray comes with values. I agree that school led prayer would be against the First Amendment. But what about values that stem from religion? For instance: Adultery.

Can you outline a purely secular or scientific reason to prohibit or punish (or make socially unacceptable) adultery?

Yet adultery is part of our divorce laws.

[JMS]

I have no problem with having a class debate on the two, I think it would be a great exercise. But you have to be a strong teacher that has control of your class to do so because there is going to be a lot of immature and heated statements coming from both sides.


I don't think it would be that hard. I mean both theories can be stated easily in a sentence or two, both have pro's and both have cons. Being versed in and understanding both theories don't require one to express the correctness of either; although scientifically a preponderance of the evidence is on the side of evolution; scientifically a preponderance of the contradictions also fall on evolution.

But I think that is the real science in the discussion. What is evolution, Why do evolutionists believe this, where are the holes. Same for Creationism.

Bottom line though, we don't teach thinking skills in school anymore, just dogmatism. The only controversy is whether we teach popularly accepted trusims in the absense of understanding, or less popularly accpeted trusims.



Unfortunately I think you'd find that most principals and school board members would suggest that you stay away from such a debate. The establishment hates dealing with angry parents.


Agreed, but that's not a good thing... Hell invite them to sit in the classes. I don't think you would need to mandate a conclusion if you taught and tested the theories on their merits. You could even invite the dissenters into teh classrooms to present their arguments.



I taught world history and there is a unit on relgion. I made it clear before I started the lesson that we are only going to discuss what each religion believes and their customs, we will have no discussion on whether you agree or disagree with their beliefs.

Religions has played such an important role in history it's hard to teach history without some understanding of Religion. Science is the same. Science is both formed by history and religion. It's a shame we can't tackle the subjects in the classroom in a responsible manor to inform the students of both world views.

[Predicto]

I agree, but unfortunately its not black and white like that.

The gray comes with values. I agree that school led prayer would be against the First Amendment. But what about values that stem from religion? For instance: Adultery.

Can you outline a purely secular or scientific reason to prohibit or punish (or make socially unacceptable) adultery?

Yet adultery is part of our divorce laws.

Sure I can. Family stability is a social good that is independent of religious belief. Besides, aldultery is not a crime - it is just a factor in evaluating the rights of the parties in a divorce - which makes sense from a contractual point of view.

[JMS]

I think its a little unfair to compare religions today with the absolute worst religion has had to offer in history. :2cents:

I think it's fair to compare religion today with religion historically, both pro and con. What I don't think would be fair would be to define religion today by religion from history.

I only brought up these historical events and modern religion because the theme of reason conflicting with faith; is a recurring one. It recurs in literature, history, and current events...

The original position I was trying to make was to just document this conflict, not affix blame or cast aspersians.

[JMS]

I agree, but unfortunately its not black and white like that.



The gray comes with values. I agree that school led prayer would be against the First Amendment. But what about values that stem from religion? For instance: Adultery.



Can you outline a purely secular or scientific reason to prohibit or punish (or make socially unacceptable) adultery?



Yet adultery is part of our divorce laws.





That's a very interesting argument. Interesting and valid One.



Specifically with regards to adultery, the old testiment in writings against adultery have less to do with abstract morality or hurt feelings and more to do with perserving of the blood line. Blood lines were important for perserving the fairthful and maintaining the religion. Making sure society knows and the family support structure knows who's the father. Women were equated more with chattle as the ten commandments clearly demonstrate..






Though shall not covet they neighbors wife, nor his ass, nor his oxen.





clearly equating women with chattle.



Now what we have going on is a practical law, becomeing a moral law, and now returning to a more practical law.





I think your point is well taken though. Laws typically inspired by both the practical and from a religously inspired moral perspective. When the two conflict, it's not predictable historically which will win out.

[JMS]

duplicate post

[China]

Besides, aldultery is not a crime -

Well, maybe not in California, but it is in some jurisdictions (such as Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, etc.). In fact in Michigan, you can theoretically be punished by up to life in prison:

http://web.archive.org/web/20070206173058/http://freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070115/COL04/701150333

[techboy]

You exist. Your god does not. I asked for proof that your GOD existed, and I would then show you proof that Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny also exist. Get back to me when you have proof.

Well, now you've got me curious. May I see your proof that Sanata and the Easter Bunny exist now, even if ASF didn't meet your challenge to your standards?

Or is this more of a rhetorical trick where you replace the word "God" with "Easter Bunny" in whatever argument he makes?

Or maybe is it kind of a "you'll never offer proof so I don't have to" thing?

[JMS]

Well, now you've got me curious. May I see your proof that Sanata and the Easter Bunny exist now, even if ASF didn't meet your challenge to your standards?

Or is this more of a rhetorical trick where you replace the word "God" with "Easter Bunny" in whatever argument he makes?

Or maybe is it kind of a "you'll never offer proof so I don't have to" thing?


I think you should ask him to first prove he exists, then he can move on to Santa and the Easterbunny....

We know Santa exists cause he just signed a contract with Tyson's Corners for an extention.

[AsburySkinsFan]

You exist. Your god does not. I asked for proof that your GOD existed, and I would then show you proof that Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny also exist. Get back to me when you have proof.
The very fact that we are is proof of God's existence, all that you see around you had to come from somewhere, Big Bang still can't account for where the material came from, unless you argue for spontaneous mass on a universal scale.


I didn't ignore god, I was a christian until I became educated. Funny how the two correspond with each other. I don't feel hatred for a person that doesn't exist my man, I'm just merely pointing out the fallacy of your "loving god". Besides, don't feel sorry for me, I'm doing just fine by myself.
I have a bachelor's degree and will in May I will have my master's degree...I still believe in God, and guess what I've been educated about all the objections to God's existence, I read Christopher Hitchens too...funny how the smartest minds on the planet leave room for the existence of God. And the so called "fallacy of your loving god" well, if you think you've proved something then you might want to check your math, because the only thing you've proven is that you are human and do not understand the mind of God. BTW, we all do fine by ourselves....for a season.

[skinfan13]

Really? Hardly anyone would?

In 2000, a People for the American Way (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_for_the_American_Way) poll among Americans found that

16% believe public schools should teach creation only.

13% believe public schools should teach both evolution and creationism in science class

29% believe public schools should teach evolution in science class but can discuss creationism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism) there as a belief

4% believe public schools should teach both but are not sure how



Sucks when numbers get in the way of your arguement doesn't it :rolleyes:
easy to pull up a biased survey with low numbers huh? considering the source, I'm not to concerned with those numbers. and even so, those are all probably the weird home-schooling crazies anyway :silly:

those are low numbers, and I'm sure you can find similar percentages for other issues as well. I think I read somehwere that 80% of Americans describe themselves as being religious in som way or another. so taking that into account, not alot of religious people hold those beliefs.

nice try though, must suck when the numbers you post get in the way of your own argument :silly:

[AsburySkinsFan]

I'm glad to know you did a google search.

Separation of church and state is clearly evident in the First Amendment which says that Congress cannot make a law in support of or against religion. The actual words are not. But it is the exact same thing.

Woah! Flag on that play...establishment is NOT the same thing as support not by a long shot, and if you think so then you are fumbling with relativism on a grand scale.

fight=peace
make=destroy
love=hate
Why...because I said so

This is the game you're playing.

[81artmonk]

I'm glad to know you did a google search.

Separation of church and state is clearly evident in the First Amendment which says that Congress cannot make a law in support of or against religion. The actual words are not. But it is the exact same thing.

That would be your interpretation of the 1st. And I would disagree with that assessment. I wouldn't call it separation, but rather guidelines in which govt and religion can co-exsist.

[81artmonk]

[QUOTE]So they agreed the government would stay out of the religous business, and the country would have less to fear from one group pusecuting the other.

Thus Freedome of Religion and Separation of Church and State ideals were codified into the constutition, yet not explicitely jingoistically stated as such.


Like to told another poster, serparation isn't what the 1st is talking about. It is merely some guidelines for govt and religion to co-exsist.

[PeterMP]

I don't think it would be that hard. I mean both theories can be stated easily in a sentence or two, both have pro's and both have cons. Being versed in and understanding both theories don't require one to express the correctness of either; although scientifically a preponderance of the evidence is on the side of evolution; scientifically a preponderance of the contradictions also fall on evolution.

Creationism is not a scientific theory. There is no testable prediction that results from Creationism.

[81artmonk]

It is there.

Establishment Clause + Free Excercise Clause = separation of church and state.

You want to look at it from an "originalist" view? What were the founding father's thinking? Gee, they just revolted against a kingdom in which the king was also the head of the religion.... I wonder if they took that into account.

Or are you like Scalia and only appreciate "originalist construction" when it supports your own personal views?

Edit: Honestly, I think this is the first time I've heard anyone argue that separation of church and state is not in the Constitution. That is so far out in right field, it is mindblowing.

Well I consider yours and others who share your view that they see the separation of church and state in the 1st like people who go to see a shrink and they are given an ink blot test. They see what they want to see. Doesn't mean it's there.

[HOF44]

The very fact that we are is proof of God's existence, all that you see around you had to come from somewhere, Big Bang still can't account for where the material came from, unless you argue for spontaneous mass on a universal scale.

You have to be careful about thinking in linear terms with time. Sometimes effect can come before causation. Time as we perceive it locks us into certain thought patterns. Sometimes perception is not reality.

I've always wondered why you can argue that God has always existed and came from nothing, but the same argument can't be made for the universe.

[PeterMP]

I always find these arguements funny. Those in favor of a "strict" reading of the Constitution claim the Supreme Court has decided something unconstitutional, but the Constitution itself does not leave that as a possiblity. Any strict reading of the Constitution would cause one to believe that the Supreme Court is infallible w/ respect to the Constitution (except in cases in which a crime was convicted, which should result in an impeachment, and as we are innocent until proven guilty, that hasn't occured).

The end result is that the no matter how much one dislikes a Supreme Court decision, it can't be wrong or unconstitutional.

[AsburySkinsFan]

I think you should ask him to first prove he exists, then he can move on to Santa and the Easterbunny....

That was my next question, I have no reason to conclude that brianm is an actual person whatsoever, and anything he offers can and should according to a scientific model be viewed with scepticism, yet for some strange reason I'm sure that he will indeed insist that he exists regardless of my belief in him, what's more is that regardless of my belief in him he will either 1) continue to exist dispite my disbelief or 2) continue to not exist. The plain truth of it is that human beings are not dependant upon logical truths to found our beliefs. What's more is that reality can and does exist outside of the narrow framework that we establish to sort our predetermined "valid" and "invalid" evidences. If I have the presupposition that the number 6 does not exist yet in my life I have found the problem 3+3 then I must conclude that I have not really found 3+3 regardless of what my experience of 3+3 actually is simply on the basis that 6 does not exist therefore 3+3 cannot exist.

[sleazye]

Really? Hardly anyone would?

In 2000, a People for the American Way (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_for_the_American_Way) poll among Americans found that

16% believe public schools should teach creation only.

13% believe public schools should teach both evolution and creationism in science class

29% believe public schools should teach evolution in science class but can discuss creationism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism) there as a belief

4% believe public schools should teach both but are not sure how



Sucks when numbers get in the way of your arguement doesn't it :rolleyes:

So what you're telling me is the 29% of Americans believe that Creationism should be taught in a science class. Yep, that's about as low as I thought it would be.

By your logic, since 25% of Americans don't believe that it was 19 Al-Qaeda hijackers who flew planes into the twin towers and the pentagon- then we should teach the whackjob conspiracy theories in our classrooms. There is probably more scientific proof of that than there is for Creationism.

[AsburySkinsFan]

You have to be careful about thinking in linear terms with time. Sometimes effect can come before causation. Time as we perceive it locks us into certain thought patterns. Sometimes perception is not reality.
Give an example of effect preceeding cause.


I've always wondered why you can argue that God has always existed and came from nothing, but the same argument can't be made for the universe.
I guess if you wanted to argue for the eternality of the universe you could do that, but as we know the universe didn't always exist, instead there is a point when the universe did not exist.

[youngestson]

I am all for it.

[JMS]

Creationism is not a scientific theory. There is no testable prediction that results from Creationism.

There is no testible experiment to prove evolution either, that's why it's a theory rather than a fact.

Creationism was accepted scientific truth for hundreds of years globally well into the 20th century, and it as a theory is still favored by a very influencial minority of people today including as I've said recently a magority in all three branches of government. It's rather redicoulous to claim no other theory can be introduced to compete with Evolution, when Evolution itself was bared from discussion for nearly 100 years because of the entrenched dogma of the Creationists....

Lastly, every general chemisty and physic text book I've ever owned began with the Greek's contribution to those fields... Specifically Aristotle.... the supposed father of chemisty and physics.

Aristotle got everything wrong in Chemisty and in Physics, yet he's still deemed important for a historical perspective... It's absurd Creationism is avoided, yet we still teech Greek contributions to science.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Creationism is simply a 7 day creation belief repackaged, sorry, but it has been shown that those who wrote the Creationism "text books" were directly quoting 7 day creation accounts and just changing the language. I can' remember the documentary, or 20/20, Primetime or something that actually followed the whole court case about Creationism but it illustrated the irrefutable fact that they were simply rewording a literalist account.

Not the best day for Christians IMO.

[Tut77]

The words "separation of church and state" do not appear in the Constitution. In interpreting the Constitution though, the courts look to the intent of the framers when trying to decide the meaning of clauses. The establishment clause (Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...), was drafter primarily by Madison, whose earlier writings had evidenced his belief in a total separation of the church from the state. Jefferson has similar writings. I think the intent was to prevent a repetition of the Church of England situation where the government and church were significantly intertwined. It was left broad and vague to accomodate future situations which hadn't yet been foreseen.

The separation of church and state has been eroded pretty significantly by the Rehnquist court though, and socially conservative Supreme Court justices (Roberts and Alito in particular) can be expected to further erode that separation if they follow the lines of precedent set up by Rehnquist.

[Zguy28]

Give an example of effect preceeding cause.
Well...if send out these little things called tachyons...:silly:

[JMS]

Like to told another poster, serparation isn't what the 1st is talking about. It is merely some guidelines for govt and religion to co-exsist.

200 years of legal precident disagree's with you. Also several journals, one state constitution, and the federalist papers...

Separation of Church and State and Freedom of religion go hand and hand in the constitution. Weaken one and you weeken the other.

[Zguy28]

Creationism is simply a 7 day creation belief repackaged, sorry, but it has been shown that those who wrote the Creationism "text books" were directly quoting 7 day creation accounts and just changing the language. I can' remember the documentary, or 20/20, Primetime or something that actually followed the whole court case about Creationism but it illustrated the irrefutable fact that they were simply rewording a literalist account.

Not the best day for Christians IMO.Creationism is not limited to just Young Earth theories. Creationism is kind of like the word Christian, there are more than one flavor.

[PeterMP]

There is no testible experiment to prove evolution either, that's why it's a theory rather than a fact.

Creationism was accepted scientific truth for hundreds of years globally and it's a theory still favored by a very influencial minority of people today including as I've said recently a magority in all three branches of government.

Lastly, every general chemisty and physic text book I've ever owned began with the Greek's contribution to those fields... Specifically Aristautle....

Aristautle got everything wrong in Chemisty and in Physics, yet he's still deemed important for a historical perspective... It's absurd Creationism is avoided, yet we still teach Greek contributions to science.

Evolution suggests several things that were directly testable and verified. At its most basic, evolution requires several things:

1. That there is something inside the organism that controls the physical characteristics of that organism.

2. The entity that does so can be changed.

3. That entity is also passed down to off spring.

4. That changes in that entity can result in new traits in the off spring w/o changing the parent.

Today we know all of these things to be true for DNA. Darwin had no idea what DNA was.

That's the key to science. You can't prove anything. You can only disprove things. Evolution suggested things that could have been wrong, but we found to be true. The samething is not true for Creationism.

Your analogy w/ respect to Airistotle is badly flawed. Aristotle might be discussed, but if so, it is in the context of him being wrong. That isn't going to make the creationism supporters happy.

[brianm23]

Well, now you've got me curious. May I see your proof that Sanata and the Easter Bunny exist now, even if ASF didn't meet your challenge to your standards?

Or is this more of a rhetorical trick where you replace the word "God" with "Easter Bunny" in whatever argument he makes?

Or maybe is it kind of a "you'll never offer proof so I don't have to" thing?

No. I said I would indeed provide proof gathered he provide me FIRST with proof his god exists. I'll disclose that evidence when I see his.



The very fact that we are is proof of God's existence, all that you see around you had to come from somewhere, Big Bang still can't account for where the material came from, unless you argue for spontaneous mass on a universal scale.

Evolution, not god is why we exist. I guess you think there was a snake in the garden of eden that talked to Eve as well? Wonder is she was in the Slithern clan like Malfoy? Most likely Adam was Gryffindor hence why Eve had to relay the message. :rolleyes: Still need to see this proof of god. Could you at least get me a photograph of him? Possibly a autograph? A DNA sample? Anything beyond something he "supposedly" created.



I have a bachelor's degree and will in May I will have my master's degree...I still believe in God, and guess what I've been educated about all the objections to God's existence, I read Christopher Hitchens too...funny how the smartest minds on the planet leave room for the existence of God. And the so called "fallacy of your loving god" well, if you think you've proved something then you might want to check your math, because the only thing you've proven is that you are human and do not understand the mind of God. BTW, we all do fine by ourselves....for a season.

I didn't say I was an atheist. I said YOUR god doesn't exist. There could very well be some off chance that a higher being may exist. If he does and he's omniscient and all powerful, then he's a sick son of a *****. I'd equate him to a big kid with a magnifying glass.

You are totally right. I don't understand the mind of a god that is portrayed to be a loving god and a merciless one, yet allows all the horrors in the world to happen? Hell, I don't think you even understand the mind of your own god.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Creationism is not limited to just Young Earth theories. Creationism is kind of like the word Christian, there are more than one flavor.

That I'll grant, however the understanding most commonly associated with the word was a fraud, and not even a very good one.

[JMS]

Creationism is simply a 7 day creation belief repackaged, sorry, but it has been shown that those who wrote the Creationism "text books" were directly quoting 7 day creation accounts and just changing the language. I can' remember the documentary, or 20/20, Primetime or something that actually followed the whole court case about Creationism but it illustrated the irrefutable fact that they were simply rewording a literalist account.

Not the best day for Christians IMO.

I think you are thinking of "Inteligent Design"?

[techboy]

I've always wondered why you can argue that God has always existed and came from nothing, but the same argument can't be made for the universe.

There was a time when the theist wishing to pursue this angle would have to point to the idea that God, being timeless and immaterial, is a far more likely "always existed" than the Universe, which is material.

Now, though, the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem has demonstrated that the Universe cannot be infinite, and must have had a beginning.

That's where my knowledge of the Physics ends, though. I read one of Vilenkin's books, and he goes the same place you do by invoking "imaginary time", which is his way of getting around the issue of the universe being finite and yet somehow uncaused, but "imaginary" time seems to my admittedly untrained eye to be rather ad hoc, and in any case is apparently rather controversial.

Hopefully, the LHC will shed some light on this (if it doesn't kill us all first. ;)). :)

In any case, I don't really think that the atheist has much ground to stand on these days, vis a vis the "eternal universe" argument. There's no reason to think it's so, and much reason to think it's not.

[techboy]

No. I said I would indeed provide proof gathered he provide me FIRST with proof his god exists. I'll disclose that evidence when I see his.

Humor me?

[PeterMP]

I think you are thinking of "Inteligent Design"?
It is essentially irrelevant. It has the same exact flaw. It can't be falsified.

[AsburySkinsFan]

No. I said I would indeed provide proof gathered he provide me FIRST with proof his god exists. I'll disclose that evidence when I see his.
Which every single one of who read it and you as well knows that any evidence that I offer you'll dismiss regardless of the merit. This is the problem, you claim to be open to new evidence but you've already made up your mind.


Evolution, not god is why we exist. I guess you think there was a snake in the garden of eden that talked to Eve as well? Wonder is she was in the Slithern clan like Malfoy? Most likely Adam was Gryffindor hence why Eve had to relay the message. :rolleyes: Still need to see this proof of god.
Wow, ok, so you're going to equate a literal Genesis translation to me, even though I may not interpret Genesis 1 and 2 that way? Ok, so exactly how big is this strawman you're building...I'd love to see it.


Could you at least get me a photograph of him? Possibly a autograph? A DNA sample? Anything beyond something he "supposedly" created.
Ahhh...and there it is nothing can exist unless it fits my predetermined criteria for proof. Did you know that stuff actually exists outside of your ability to prove it or disprove it. Take for instance the stuff in my top right drawer you can call me a liar when I tell you what's in there and you can doubt that what I tell you is true but it doesn't stop it from existing. Sorry mate, but as much as you'd like to think it, you don't know it all.


I didn't say I was an atheist. I said YOUR god doesn't exist. There could very well be some off chance that a higher being may exist. If he does and he's omniscient and all powerful, then he's a sick son of a *****. I'd equate him to a big kid with a magnifying glass.

You are totally right. I don't understand the mind of a god that is portrayed to be a loving god and a merciless one, yet allows all the horrors in the world to happen? Hell, I don't think you even understand the mind of your own god.
Ahh see now we're getting somewhere, because once you allow for the possibility of the existence of God then you have to allow for the possibility of the existence of Yahweh (Judeo-Christian God). And if that God does exist with the loving characteristics you then have to question whether or not you fully understand that God and leave open the possibility that the problem in the understanding of God is not God's fault but yours.

[HOF44]

I guess if you wanted to argue for the eternality of the universe you could do that, but as we know the universe didn't always exist, instead there is a point when the universe did not exist.

How do we know this? Some notable theories in physics are heading toward the fact that the Big Bang was not the start of the universe. Again all theory, but at least with some math and logic to give it some validity. To be proven or debunked when technology for experimentation catches up with the theories.

It's just that so many in the religious world take God having always existed and not been created from nothing as a given. If you mention this may be true of the universe most are incredulous.

[AsburySkinsFan]

How do we know this? Some notable theories in physics are heading toward the fact that the Big Bang was not the start of the universe. Again all theory, but at least with some math and logic to give it some validity. To be proven or debunked when technology for experimentation catches up with the theories.

It's just that so many in the religious world take God having always existed and not been created from nothing as a given. If you mention this may be true of the universe most are incredulous.

You don't see a difference between the divine and matter? Plus the problem that you've created is that you now have a faith element on your side of the game.

I still want to see the effect preceeding the cause example though.

[JMS]

Evolution suggests several things that were directly testable and verified. At its most basic, evolution requires several things:


Testing intermediate hypothesis's is not deterministic proof or even convincing proof of the theory in general. Fact is as we've discussed before Evolution as proposed by Darwin and which won over scientists starting in 1859 through 1930's is no longer thought to be true. Darwin wrote six revisions to Origin of the species in his lifetime, and then after he died their still changing his theory.

In all six of Darwin's revisions natural selection and survival of the fitest played key roles in the evolution of species. Modern evolutionists no longer believe this; they believe natural disasters and isolated populations are as important or more important than advantagous characheristics.

Science believes there are many holes in Evolutionary thought today not yet explained.

(1) The earth simply isn't old enough to account for all the genetic diversity found here.
(2) In all of recorded history we've only seen diversity shrink, not expand as Darwin predicts.
(3) Speciation... ( We've never witnesed in all of recorded time one species becomeing another as Darwin hypothesisis, not a single one ).
(4) The fossil record clearly shows the evolutionary trend in species consists of long periods of stagnantion followed by short periods of great change.. Something not explained or predicted by Darwin.
(5) The lack of intermediate types in the fossil record. According to Darwin we should see gradually changing species diverging an ever branching tree. What we see is significantly different species appearing and disappearing throughout time without intermediate trasitional types predicted by evolution.

There are many scientific stones to be thrown at Darwin and evolution. Stones which are controvercial among scientists today which still have no good answers.



That's the key to science. You can't prove anything. You can only disprove things. Evolution suggested things that could have been wrong, but we found to be true. The samething is not true for Creationism.


Evolution suggested things which have proven to be right and wrong.
Evolution is also silent on the fundimental question of how life began.



Your analogy w/ respect to Airistotle is badly flawed.
Aristotle might be discussed, but if so, it is in the context of him being wrong. That isn't going to make the creationism supporters happy.

So sad, too bad. I think the weaknesses of the Creationist argument should be put on full display. I think bogus evidence creationists might try to introduce should be denied entry or exposed as bogus and explained why they are so.

Likewise however, the flaws in Evolutionary thought should be exposed. Both the flaws which stymied Darwin in his time and which have since been resolved in his favor, and the flaws which continue to cast doubt on Evolutionary theory today which have not been resolved.

Think of that, Students who actually are given the tools to think, rather than being condemned to a lifetime of dogmatically agreeing with one side or the other.

[techboy]

Oh, just for fun (and if any non-Physicists here would like to make their heads explode), here's a short paper by Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin (http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0110/0110012v2.pdf).

[PeterMP]

Testing intermediate hypothesis's is not deterministic proof or even convincing proof of the theory in general. Fact is as we've discussed before Evolution as proposed by Darwin and which won over scientists starting in 1859 through 1930's is no longer thought to be true. Darwin wrote six revisions to Origin of the species in his lifetime, and then after he died their still changing his theory.

I'm not going to get into evolution w/ you, and I never said it was proof that it was true. It is a method of falsification, which isn't possible for creationism or intelligent design, and is the basis for science.

[techboy]

I have to admit I didn't really see PeterMP vs. JMS round 300 (how long will it take for JMS to cite the dictionary as a source this time? :silly:) coming. I must be rusty. :)

[mbws]

Have at it guys...

What do you believe about the Separation of Church and State... Im interested in reading your opinions of that area of the Constitution and also to the extent to where you feel its okay to draw the line and let your own personal religious views dictate policy for everyone (even those whom do not share your personal religion)...



I feel they are not separate enough.

[techboy]

I feel they are not separate enough.

Actually, for all the blow-ups we have in the press, I actually think we've got it down pretty well right now. I actually tend to agree with Predicto on this.

[HOF44]

You don't see a difference between the divine and matter? Plus the problem that you've created is that you now have a faith element on your side of the game.

Thats true, but just as plausible as the existence of God.


I still want to see the effect preceeding the cause example though.

With causation it involves a light cone carrying information forward. Since that information can't travel faster than light, its effects are limited by that speed.

It has been found that particles at a distance can react before light has time to have reached them. This sets up a situation that has effect preceding cause.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Well I consider yours and others who share your view that they see the separation of church and state in the 1st like people who go to see a shrink and they are given an ink blot test. They see what they want to see. Doesn't mean it's there.

Well, that's all fine. But I would suggest actually studying the first amendment before spouting off on it.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Woah! Flag on that play...establishment is NOT the same thing as support not by a long shot, and if you think so then you are fumbling with relativism on a grand scale.

fight=peace
make=destroy
love=hate
Why...because I said so

This is the game you're playing.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." That pretty much is Congress shall make no laws that support religion. If you can't make laws "respecting" an establishment of a religion, you can't really support them.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Thats true, but just as plausible as the existence of God.
But not scientific. ;)


With causation it involves a light cone carrying information forward. Since that information can't travel faster than light, its effects are limited by that speed.

It has been found that particles at a distance can react before light has time to have reached them. This sets up a situation that has effect preceding cause.
What are the particles, and what is their "reaction", of course by definition, what the particles are doing is not reacting at all. I'd like to see more info on this.

[AsburySkinsFan]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." That pretty much is Congress shall make no laws that support religion.
That's an interpretation and a liberal one at that. And not liberal as in divisive politics liberal.



If you can't make laws "respecting" an establishment of a religion, you can't really support them.

Sure you can, if the Fed gives money to the Red Cross are they establishing the Red Cross, no...what's more is that I believe the founding fathers had the word support in their lexicon of words to use, if they wanted the Constitution to say support then they very well could have written it that way. Instead the Constitution says establishment: which is setting up, or founding or creating State churches like the Anglican church which is exactly what they were fighting against.

[JMS]

It is essentially irrelevant. It has the same exact flaw. It can't be falsified.

My point was Intelligent Design is the equivelent theory as Creationism detailed in the bible... Creatinists coined the term Intelligent Design to get around the teaching of a biblical theory in a secular classroom.

[Predicto]

I'm sorry, but there are 200 years of Supreme Court cases analyzing and applying the Establishment Clause. The answer is found there - the basic framework for the discussion is set. You can't just ignore that jurisprudence and start over from the beginning.

[JMS]

I have to admit I didn't really see PeterMP vs. JMS round 300 (how long will it take for JMS to cite the dictionary as a source this time? :silly:) coming. I must be rusty. :)

Dictionary is a good refference when discussing well defined terms.

[JMS]

I'm sorry, but there are 200 years of Supreme Court cases analyzing and applying the Establishment Clause. The answer is found there - the basic framework for the discussion is set. You can't just ignore that jurisprudence and start over from the beginning.

One would hope, but If McCain get's to appoint the next two or three justices then I think you easilly could and would be proved wrong.

[Predicto]

One would hope, but If McCain get's to appoint the next two or three justices then I think you easilly could and would be proved wrong.

Even then the change would be incremental, at least in this area. There is too much precedent out there to deal with.

(in other areas, like the right to privacy or due process, I think the changes could come fast and furious)

[Corcaigh]

Oh, just for fun (and if any non-Physicists here would like to make their heads explode), here's a short paper by Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin (http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0110/0110012v2.pdf).

Be careful, you might hurt someone with that.

At least get them started on a primer (http://www.stanford.edu/%7Ealinde/1032226.pdf) by one of the physicists (Andrei Linde) who wrote a number of the references in that paper.

You might also enjoy his musings on what the inflationary model means (http://www.stanford.edu/%7Ealinde/SpirQuest.doc)

Or to start really east, try this (http://www.lifesci.sussex.ac.uk/home/John_Gribbin/cosmo.htm).

[JMS]

I'm not going to get into evolution w/ you, and I never said it was proof that it was true. It is a method of falsification, which isn't possible for creationism or intelligent design, and is the basis for science.

As I've said Evolution was only achieved it's current monopoly in the classroom in the last 50 years or so. Before the early 20th century evolutionists were being arrested and jailed for teaching their theory. It's commically cylindrical that that is currently being proposed for creatinists.

What makes something reasonable for being taught in science class is not whether or not it adheres to scientific principles. We still teach Aristotle, which is equally flawed with regard to scientific theory. It's not the correctness of the theory, we still teach Galilao and Newton even though Einstein has proven them wrong. What makes something reasonable to be taught in schools is how informative it is to the subject, and how relivent it is to the topic....

Based on our newspapers Creationism is very relivent.

[Tut77]

Instead the Constitution says establishment: which is setting up, or founding or creating State churches like the Anglican church which is exactly what they were fighting against.

Actually, it says "respecting the establishment of..." which broadens the interpretation considerably. And while there are 200 years of jurisprudence on the establishment clause, that jurisprudence has morphed considerably. The modern understanding of the establishment clause didn't realy come about until the 1970s and conservative justices (Rehnquist in particular) issued a number of opinions, where he was first a lone dissenter, then a more heavily supported dissenter, and finally writing for the majority, that have begun removing bricks from the wall separating church and state. Alito and Roberts can be expected to continue the trend, as can any socially conservative justice appointed in the future.

[JMS]

Even then the change would be incremental, at least in this area. There is too much precedent out there to deal with.

(in other areas, like the right to privacy or due process, I think the changes could come fast and furious)

Never Assume. You and I were alive when Roe vs Wade changed the laws and legalized abortion overnight in most of the country... ( NY and California had legalized Abortion a year before Roe)...

The law could definitely slam closed that quicly.. I wouldn't put it passed Scalia, Roberts, or Thomas.

McCain sponsored a constitutional ammendment a few years back to outlaw abortion.

Anyway for the terms of this discussion. Separation of Church and State is pretty much dead. The federal governement now gives churches millions of tax payers money and Obama and McCain support that.

The other shoe to fall will be freedom of religion.

[techboy]

Dictionary is a good refference when discussing well defined terms.

I was going to respond to this, but I have decided to let it wait until the next inevitable time it is I who is in the role today played by PeterMP. :)

[techboy]

Be careful, you might hurt someone with that.

Yes, that was the idea. :silly:

Actually, though, if I was forced to seriously recommend a work on the subject for the layman, I'd suggest doing what I did and picking up Vilenkin's Many Worlds in One at the library. Tough stuff, but engagingly written. I very much enjoyed his recounting getting into a passionate argument with Hawking which spilled over into dinner at Hawking's mother's house. :)

[Predicto]

Never Assume. You and I were alive when Roe vs Wade changed the laws and legalized abortion overnight in most of the country... ( NY and California had legalized Abortion a year before Roe)...

The law could definitely slam closed that quicly.. I wouldn't put it passed Scalia, Roberts, or Thomas.

McCain sponsored a constitutional ammendment a few years back to outlaw abortion.



That is exactly why I said that the right to privacy could change very fast. Abortion is a subset of the privacy issue. No question that Roe v. Wade could be gone with a sweep of the pen.

I specifically was contrasting privacy rights and due process rights with church/state issues, which I do not think would change nearly as quickly. IMO.




Anyway for the terms of this discussion. Separation of Church and State is pretty much dead. The federal governement now gives churches millions of tax payers money and Obama and McCain support that.

The other shoe to fall will be freedom of religion.


Separation of church and state is not dead at all. The fight now is around the margins. The fact that some government aid is filtered through religious groups does not defeat the underlying principle - it defines the edges of the principle.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I like this question because it is not the least bit broad.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

I'm sorry, but there are 200 years of Supreme Court cases analyzing and applying the Establishment Clause. The answer is found there - the basic framework for the discussion is set. You can't just ignore that jurisprudence and start over from the beginning.

Apparently some people can.


That's an interpretation and a liberal one at that. And not liberal as in divisive politics liberal.

Sure you can, if the Fed gives money to the Red Cross are they establishing the Red Cross, no...what's more is that I believe the founding fathers had the word support in their lexicon of words to use, if they wanted the Constitution to say support then they very well could have written it that way. Instead the Constitution says establishment: which is setting up, or founding or creating State churches like the Anglican church which is exactly what they were fighting against.

That is a pretty standard interpration. I think its pretty clear what the sentence says.

As for the red cross. If the Constitution said "Congress may make no law respecting the establishment of charity," is there any question that that law you described would be unconstitutional?

Its important to note that the First Amendment does not say the "establishment of A religion" but "establishment of religion." Establishment is a noun. Its a thing. Congress may not make a law in support of the thing of religion.

[skins4eva]

Well there is no such thing as seperation of church and state in the constitution. It is a man-made phrase that has no bearing in law. In other words, there is no law based in the constitution that says there is seperation of church and state.

IMO, as long as there isn't a state run church like England did, than I don't think you can seperate them. regardless of what people may feel about the founding fathers, or what they believed, they held a belief in God and those beliefs governed cerntian choices that were made in the formation of this nation.

We should cure your ignorance right now--separation of Church and State has a huge barring in law and significant portion of our jurisprudence is based upon the concept. You should the Federalist Papers, which were published as a way to explain the underlying rationale of the Constitution to the various states that were voting on weather to ratify it.

Next, you should read some of what our founding fathers wrote.

The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. --Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, Query 17, 1782

The civil rights of none, shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext infringed. --James Madison, proposed amendment to the Constitution, given in a speech in the House of Representatives, 1789

[PeterMP]

As I've said Evolution was only achieved it's current monopoly in the classroom in the last 50 years or so. Before the early 20th century evolutionists were being arrested and jailed for teaching their theory. It's commically cylindrical that that is currently being proposed for creatinists.

What makes something reasonable for being taught in science class is not whether or not it adheres to scientific principles. We still teach Aristotle, which is equally flawed with regard to scientific theory. It's not the correctness of the theory, we still teach Galilao and Newton even though Einstein has proven them wrong. What makes something reasonable to be taught in schools is how informative it is to the subject, and how relivent it is to the topic....

Based on our newspapers Creationism is very relivent.
Again, if Aristotle is taught it is taught with the explict idea that he was wrong. For Newton and Galielo, there are basic principles that are still true with respect to their studies that can be taught. Realistically, Einsten can't be taught to 9th graders (or even most college freshman).

I don't care what the public thinks of the relevance. Creationism doesn't meet the basic requirements of science. It can't be falsified. The same is not true of evolution. Teaching Creationism or intelligent design in a science class iin the same context as evolution is a mistake. At best, they should be mentioned as examples what is and isn't science in some class dealing with the scientific method/science philosophy.

[Zguy28]

So just to recap, we have:

evolution vs. creationism
infinite universe vs. finite universe
church vs. state
religion vs. atheism
roe vs. wade

Did I miss any? :lol:

[HOF44]

So just to recap, we have:

evolution vs. creationism
infinite universe vs. finite universe
church vs. state
religion vs. atheism
roe vs. wade

Did I miss any? :lol:

And you know what I may not agree with you, but I like you religious guys!

Especially Techboy, Zguy28, and Asbury. Much respect to you and your beliefs. Even if sometimes it doesn't sound that way. :cheers:

[81artmonk]

200 years of legal precident disagree's with you. Also several journals, one state constitution, and the federalist papers...

Separation of Church and State and Freedom of religion go hand and hand in the constitution. Weaken one and you weeken the other.

You can say it all you want, there is not separation of church and state in the constitution. It's interpretation, one which you agree with and one which I disagree with.

However, I've come to learn that certain people believe theirs is "THE WAY" and all others must kneel. But to coin a political phrase, you can put lipstick on a pig all you want it's still a pig

[81artmonk]

Well, that's all fine. But I would suggest actually studying the first amendment before spouting off on it.

Look, just becuase you think it's so doesn't make it so.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Look, just becuase you think it's so doesn't make it so.

Just because you think it isnt, doesn't make it not.

[81artmonk]

We should cure your ignorance right now--separation of Church and State has a huge barring in law and significant portion of our jurisprudence is based upon the concept.

That may be true but the constitution doesn't say separation of church and state. It is something people have interpreted it to say.

Just like people have interpreted the 2nd to mean we all can have guns for whatever reason, which isn't what it was intended for either. yet another interpretation form supporters of the 2nd

[81artmonk]

Just because you think it isnt, doesn't make it not.


very true. :D of course this would lead us into a circular arguement

[Tulane Skins Fan]

That may be true but the constitution doesn't say separation of church and state. It is something people have interpreted it to say.

Just like people have interpreted the 2nd to mean we all can have guns for whatever reason, which isn't what it was intended for either. yet another interpretation form supporters of the 2nd

It doesn't say the words, but it says the Congress cannot promote or inhibit... is there something besides those two options?

[Larry]

So just to recap, we have:

evolution vs. creationism
infinite universe vs. finite universe
church vs. state
religion vs. atheism
roe vs. wade

Did I miss any? :lol:

Sorry. I saw roe v. wade and now I can't remember the others. :)

[Larry]

Actually, one point that occurred to me a few months back about the establishment clause and current political issues.

At least as it was explained to be in High School, (No, it was not a one-room school house.), the specific thing the Framers were thinking about when they wrote that clause was the formation of the Church of England. And the reason that Church was formed, was because one of the King Henreys wanted to divorce his wife and marry a different one, and the Church wouldn't let him. So a created his own Church. One that allowed divorced people to remarry.

In short, the establishment clause was specifically created to prevent the government from deciding who could and couldn't get married.

:halo:

[dcoles11]

easy to pull up a biased survey with low numbers huh? considering the source, I'm not to concerned with those numbers. and even so, those are all probably the weird home-schooling crazies anyway :silly:

those are low numbers, and I'm sure you can find similar percentages for other issues as well. I think I read somehwere that 80% of Americans describe themselves as being religious in som way or another. so taking that into account, not alot of religious people hold those beliefs.

nice try though, must suck when the numbers you post get in the way of your own argument :silly:

You said hardly anyone. So I was responding to your words. Those numbers are clearly higher than "hardly anyone".

[dcoles11]

So what you're telling me is the 29% of Americans believe that Creationism should be taught in a science class. Yep, that's about as low as I thought it would be.

By your logic, since 25% of Americans don't believe that it was 19 Al-Qaeda hijackers who flew planes into the twin towers and the pentagon- then we should teach the whackjob conspiracy theories in our classrooms. There is probably more scientific proof of that than there is for Creationism.

The problem is, you didn't read the post that lead me to post this. The guy I was responding to said that hardly anyone wants Creationism to be taught in public schools.

I believe those numbers, though not the majority, are clearly greater than "hardly anyone"

[brandymac27]

I read this entire thread earlier, and for some reason, all I can think about now is the Grue Paradox.

[81artmonk]

It doesn't say the words, but it says the Congress cannot promote or inhibit... is there something besides those two options?

Most people are missing the point. Your right, but does that constitute a separation? I don't think it is saying that govt and religion should never mix, but rather how govt and religion can co-exsist without one, ruling over the other.

I understand you to be saying that it states, it is to keep both apart and separate never crossing paths and preventing it from doing so.

Maybe I can clear this up alittle. Whatever you believe the 1st says, would you agree that having a christmas tree with a manora on the lawn of the whitehouse or some govt building is breaching what you call a separation??

Or having the ten commandments on the wall of an office in a high school or any school for that matter as breaching the 1st??

I wouldn't. Now if the govt came in and said they had to on either instance, I believe would breach the 1st. But I don't believe the actual act of either is a breach. wouldn't you agree??

[DCSaints_fan]

It doesn't say the words, but it says the Congress cannot promote or inhibit... is there something besides those two options?

Well it doesn't say anything about what the President or the States can or can't do. :)

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Well it doesn't say anything about what the President or the States can or can't do. :)

Huh? The Constitution doesn't say what the President can and can't do?

[techboy]

Huh? The Constitution doesn't say what the President can and can't do?


I think he's suggesting that the 1st ammendment addresses only Congress, not the Executive or Judicial Branches. I hope the smiley indicates a joke, since neither the President nor the Courts are supposed to make law, certain Presidents and Court members opinions notwithstanding.

[Henry]

Actually, one point that occurred to me a few months back about the establishment clause and current political issues.

At least as it was explained to be in High School, (No, it was not a one-room school house.), the specific thing the Framers were thinking about when they wrote that clause was the formation of the Church of England. And the reason that Church was formed, was because one of the King Henreys wanted to divorce his wife and marry a different one, and the Church wouldn't let him. So a created his own Church. One that allowed divorced people to remarry.

In short, the establishment clause was specifically created to prevent the government from deciding who could and couldn't get married.

:halo:

....


....


.... I'm sorry ... but did you just spell 'Henry' with a second 'e'?

I may have to track you down and kill you. :)

[Tulane Skins Fan]

....


....


.... I'm sorry ... but did you just spell 'Henry' with a second 'e'?

I may have to track you down and kill you. :)

Wow, don't be too hard on Larrey.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Actually, one point that occurred to me a few months back about the establishment clause and current political issues.

At least as it was explained to be in High School, (No, it was not a one-room school house.), the specific thing the Framers were thinking about when they wrote that clause was the formation of the Church of England. And the reason that Church was formed, was because one of the King Henreys wanted to divorce his wife and marry a different one, and the Church wouldn't let him. So a created his own Church. One that allowed divorced people to remarry.

In short, the establishment clause was specifically created to prevent the government from deciding who could and couldn't get married.

:halo:

wow... I wonder if anyone advocating for gay marriage has made that argument. That the first amendment was actually intended to prevent the government from getting involved in marriage... although, I could actually see that going both ways, i.e. "its left up to the states." Interesting though.

[GSF]

Well there is no such thing as seperation of church and state in the constitution. It is a man-made phrase that has no bearing in law. In other words, there is no law based in the constitution that says there is seperation of church and state.


You have got the be the king of making stuff up to support your opinions.

Here is a quote from Thomas Jefferson in a letter he wrote in 1802 describing the First Amendment and what it means:


"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State."

The phrase "separation of church and state" wasn't created by some politician as you claimed in another 1 of your posts in this thread. The phrase was in fact created by Jeffereson when he used it as a description of the First Amendment of our Bill of Rights.

This is American History 101 here 81.

[GSF]

BTW, Jefferson and several others of the Founding Fathers were not particularly religous guys as the Religous Right would like us to believe. This country was not founded on religion, but on freedom of religion. It's a huge difference.

[DCSaints_fan]

Huh? The Constitution doesn't say what the President can and can't do?

As techboy noted, I was referring specifically to the 1st amendment. I wonder why the framers chose those specific words "Congress shall make no law...." while they chose not to use those words for the other amendments. Perhaps because they did want to override existing state laws ?

[81artmonk]

Here is a quote from Thomas Jefferson in a letter he wrote in 1802 describing the First Amendment and what it means:


"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State."

The phrase "separation of church and state" wasn't created by some politician as you claimed in another 1 of your posts in this thread. The phrase was in fact created by Jeffereson when he used it as a description of the First Amendment of our Bill of Rights.


:doh: And people thought I said stupid stuff.

[Zguy28]

BTW, Jefferson and several others of the Founding Fathers were not particularly religous guys as the Religous Right would like us to believe. This country was not founded on religion, but on freedom of religion. It's a huge difference.That's up for debate. I believe it with Jefferson himself.

You should read America's God and Country (http://books.google.com/books?id=BtGzlMatpUUC&dq=america%27s+god+and+country&pg=PP1&ots=-d1PEOjMS3&sig=b8etWRzd__cix28ToStIJ33NLjA&hl=en&prev=http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=active&rls=com.microsoft:en-US&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=America%27s+god+and+country&spell=1&oi=print&ct=title&cad=one-book-with-thumbnail#PPR9,M1)

[Zguy28]

I wonder why the framers chose those specific words "Congress shall make no law...." while they chose not to use those words for the other amendments. Perhaps because only the Legislative Branch is tasked to make federal law and not the other branches? ;)

[GSF]

:doh: And people thought I said stupid stuff.

What part of what I said was stupid?

[AsburySkinsFan]

What part of what I said was stupid?

That Thomas Jefferson wasn't a politician.

[Zguy28]

That Thomas Jefferson wasn't a politician.:owned:

[Larry]

:doh: And people thought I said stupid stuff.

And when people point it out, repeat it. :)

[gbear]

Tulane,
MD recently tried to get out of the business of marriage and only have civil unions. It was filabustered too death in our Senate :-(.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Tulane,
MD recently tried to get out of the business of marriage and only have civil unions. It was filabustered too death in our Senate :-(.

As odd as it may sound, I'm actually for that. I'd be more than happy to not perform a civil ceremony as part of a wedding in the church. I have zero issues with that what-so-ever.

[GSF]

That's up for debate. I believe it with Jefferson himself.

You should read America's God and Country (http://books.google.com/books?id=BtGzlMatpUUC&dq=america%27s+god+and+country&pg=PP1&ots=-d1PEOjMS3&sig=b8etWRzd__cix28ToStIJ33NLjA&hl=en&prev=http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=active&rls=com.microsoft:en-US&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=America%27s+god+and+country&spell=1&oi=print&ct=title&cad=one-book-with-thumbnail#PPR9,M1)

I have read that book, as well as some others about Jefferson and the Founding Fathers, including my personal favorite, "The Founding Fathers, The Essential Guide to the Men that Made America".

Understand that I am not saying that Jefferson didn't believe in God. I am saying that from what I've read, he believed that God and faith was a private issue to be dealt with between an individual and his God. Jefferson was not a supporter of organized religion or Christianity, and there are many writings of his to back this up.

[JMS]

BTW, Jefferson and several others of the Founding Fathers were not particularly religous guys as the Religous Right would like us to believe. This country was not founded on religion, but on freedom of religion. It's a huge difference.

Neither Jefferson nor Franklin along with at least two other founding fathers were Christians. I wouldn't go so far as to say they weren't religous. Jefferson actually rewrote the bible taking out refferences to super natural events. Jefferson believed in a Spinoza type of natural god, rather than a intelligent holly father of the bible. Franklin and two other founding fathers were Unitarians, who do not believe in the divinity of Christ. Among the rest of the founding fathers (*) we have eleven represented religions. None claimed to be agnostic or atheist.

Episcopalian/Anglican......................88.....54.7%
Presbyterian..................................30.. ...18.6%
Congregationalist............................27... ..16.8%
Quaker...........................................7 .....4.3%
Dutch Reformed/German Reformed.......6.....3.7%
Lutheran.........................................5 .....3.1%
Catholic.......................................... 3.....1.9%
Huguenot........................................3. ....1.9%
Unitarian......................................... 3.....1.9%
Methodist........................................2 .....1.2%
Calvinist......................................... .1.....0.6%


(*) There were three foundation documents to American independence.

Articles of Confederation,
Declaration of independence
The Constitution.


There were 141 signatures on these documents representing 118 people. Not all of the deligates in attendance signed the documents so there are actually a few more than 118 founding fathers technically.
http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html


The reasoning behind the separation of church and state, and the freedom of religion was codified into the constitution wasn't because of athiest and agnostic influences. It's because the founding fathers were very religous, they just didn't agree on religion. They didn't want some central authority to interceed on the religous matters..

We in 21st century tend to catagorize all these folks as Christians.. Fact is all these folks expereined repression at the hands of Christians in the not so distant passed. They didn't agree and they feared their fellow christians telling them how to worship.

[GSF]

Neither Jefferson nor Franklin along with at least two other founding fathers were Christians. I wouldn't go so far as to say they weren't religous. Jefferson actually rewrote the bible taking out refferences to super natural events. Jefferson believed in a Spinoza type of natural god, rather than a intelligent holly father of the bible. Franklin and two other founding fathers were Unitarians, who do not believe in the divinity of Christ. Among the rest of the founding fathers (*) we have eleven represented religions. None claimed to be agnostic or atheist.

Episcopalian/Anglican......................88.....54.7%
Presbyterian..................................30.. ...18.6%
Congregationalist............................27... ..16.8%
Quaker...........................................7 .....4.3%
Dutch Reformed/German Reformed.......6.....3.7%
Lutheran.........................................5 .....3.1%
Catholic.......................................... 3.....1.9%
Huguenot........................................3. ....1.9%
Unitarian......................................... 3.....1.9%
Methodist........................................2 .....1.2%
Calvinist......................................... .1.....0.6%


(*) Thre foundation documents to American independence. Articles of Confederation, Declaration of independence and the Constitution. There were 141 signatures on these documents representing 118 people. Not all of the deligates in attendance signed the documents so there are actually a few more than 118 founding fathers technically.
http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html

I didn't say they weren't religous, I said they weren't particularly religous. Jefferson, Franklin, and a few others were not Christians as you say.

[brianm23]

You have got the be the king of making stuff up to support your opinions.

Here is a quote from Thomas Jefferson in a letter he wrote in 1802 describing the First Amendment and what it means:


"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State."

The phrase "separation of church and state" wasn't created by some politician as you claimed in another 1 of your posts in this thread. The phrase was in fact created by Jeffereson when he used it as a description of the First Amendment of our Bill of Rights.

This is American History 101 here 81.

81artmonk just got :owned:

[AsburySkinsFan]

I didn't say they weren't religous, I said they weren't particularly religous. Jefferson, Franklin, and a few others were not Christians as you say.

They were however in the minority, and the term I believe you're looking for is Deistic (Deism), which simply is a conclusion reached during the Enlightenment, all powerful being that started everything and then stepped back from creation.

[AsburySkinsFan]

81artmonk just got :owned:
Except for the fact that GSF thinks that Thomas Jefferson wasn't a politician.:silly:

[brianm23]

The problem is that the way I believe cannot be separated from my faith, as such my faith very much directs my politics


This is the exact reason why we don't need religious nuts in the white house. We don't need them appointing judges or governing our land based on what they think their religion tells them to do. Point and case, most religious people believe it's wrong to have an abortion. So why should the general population be forced to suffer because of something YOU believe in as a politician? If politicians can't separate church and state,they should not ever hold office.

[GSF]

That Thomas Jefferson wasn't a politician.

I never said that. I thought it was pretty clear that 81 was referring to a more modern politician when he said this:


No you would be wrong, it isn't in the constitution. There is no seperation of church and state. It was a phrase coined by a politician.

81 also said this in this thread:


You miss the point. The constitution does not state there is a seperation of church and state. That may be how people interpret it, but it isn't there.

I provided a quote from Jefferson himself, one of the main people responsible for the creation of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights explaining the First Amendment. Here's the quote again:


"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State."

Now, what part of what I said was stupid? Yes of course Jefferson was a politician, but that's obviously not who 81 was referring to. I would say Jefferson would be a pretty good authority on the meaning of the First Amendment and what it provides for.

[Teller]

I believe that "Congress shall make no law with respect to the establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the FREE EXERCISE THEREOF," is pretty self-explanatory.

[GSF]

This is the exact reason why we don't need religious nuts in the white house. We don't need them appointing judges or governing our land based on what they think their religion tells them to do. Point and case, most religious people believe it's wrong to have an abortion. So why should the general population be forced to suffer because of something YOU believe in as a politician? If politicians can't separate church and state,they should not ever hold office.


This is one of the main reasons why separation of church and state was provided for in the Bill of Rights.

Most Christians believe on some level it is their duty to try to convince non-believers to accept Jesus as their savior. They are compelled to push their religous beliefs on others because they believe they are helping others by doing so. The problem is there are many Americans that don't share their beliefs and don't want to be "saved".

[Kilmer17]

People who believe there is a Separation always quote Jefferson. As if he alone is the sole determining factor.

What they always conveniently fail to acknowledge is this.

1- More FFs disagreed with him on religion.
2- Since he was the "principal" writer blah blah blah, why didnt he put that in the Constitution? Why do those believing this lie always have to point to extemp writings to make their point?


No, the Constitution is very clear. 1- CONGRESS (important) can make no LAW regarding the ESTABLISHMENT of religion.

It's a very simple phrase (unlike the second amendment which is vague on purpose). It means CONGRESS (ie, not all parts of Govt) cant make a law establishing a single religion as the law of the land.

It was meant to keep govt out of religion, not to keep religion out of govt.

[JMS]

I didn't say they weren't religous, I said they weren't particularly religous. Jefferson, Franklin, and a few others were not Christians as you say.

I think you are confusing non Christian and not religious and I think you are wrong. As I said if Jefferson wasn't perticularly religous why would he take the time to create his own version of the Bible?

A recent congressman from Minn. (Keith Ellison) First Muslim congressman, was looking for a Quran to be swarn into office on.. He used Thomas Jefferson's Quran from Montichello. Jefferson was very religious, He was exceptionally well read for his day and for today on religion. Accomplished even. He just wasn't a conformist. Jefferson was very religious, only he like most of the founding fathers he disagreed on religion.

I therefore believe the separations of church and state wasn't installed into the constitution to reflect the apathy of the founding fathers to religion; quite the oposite. It was put in place to demonstrate how profoundly they felt about religion, their own religion. And how strongly they were against anybody interjecting state policies on their personal freedom of Religions as reflected by addressing this in the first half of the first sentence to the first ammendment of the constitution.

Separation of Church and state is the primary mechanism to protect freedom of religion in this country, something obviously profoundly important to the diverse worshipers represented in the founding fathers.

[Predicto]

No, the Constitution is very clear. 1- CONGRESS (important) can make no LAW regarding the ESTABLISHMENT of religion.

It's a very simple phrase (unlike the second amendment which is vague on purpose). It means CONGRESS (ie, not all parts of Govt) cant make a law establishing a single religion as the law of the land.

It was meant to keep govt out of religion, not to keep religion out of govt.


It is not "simple." You posit one interpretation (and not the prevailing one).

If the language said establishment of "A STATE" religion or even establishment of "A" religion, you would have a much stronger argument.

But the language doesn't say that. It says what it says.

[JMS]

2- Since he (Jefferson) was the "principal" writer blah blah blah, why didnt he put that in the Constitution? Why do those believing this lie always have to point to extemp writings to make their point?


Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Indepenence, not the Constitution. The primary author of the constitution was Jefferson's protoche, James Madison.




It's a very simple phrase (unlike the second amendment which is vague on purpose). It means CONGRESS (ie, not all parts of Govt) cant make a law establishing a single religion as the law of the land.


Technically I agree with you, only Congress is the only branch of government which has teh authority to pass laws... so the (ie. not all parts of Govt) part is not meaningful.



It was meant to keep govt out of religion, not to keep religion out of govt.

It was meant to do the latter to accomplish the former. It was meant to do both. If government didn't / couldn't enter into religion, the public was protected from any governemnt interference in their religion.

[Kilmer17]

It is not "simple." You posit one interpretation (and not the prevailing one).

If the language said establishment of "A STATE" religion or even establishment of "A" religion, you would have a much stronger argument.

But the language doesn't say that. It says what it says.

Leaving that be for a moment. If I agree with you, it still speaks of Congress establishing religion. NOWHERE does it say anything about not allowing religion at all. Congress is forbidden from taking the action. Not the other way around. And certainly LIMITTED to Congress.

[GSF]

I think you are confusing non Christian and not religious and I think you are wrong. As I said if Jefferson wasn't perticularly religous why would he take the time to create his own version of the Bible?

A recent congressman from Minn. (Keith Ellison) First Muslim congressman, was looking for a Quran to be swarn into office on.. He used Thomas Jefferson's Quran from Montichello. Jefferson was very religious, He was exceptionally well read for his day and for today on religion. Accomplished even. He just wasn't a conformist. Jefferson was very religious, only he like most of the founding fathers he disagreed on religion.

I therefore believe the separations of church and state wasn't installed into the constitution to reflect the apathy of the founding fathers to religion; quite the oposite. It was put in place to demonstrate how profoundly they felt about religion, their own religion. And how strongly they were against anybody interjecting state policies on their personal freedom of Religions as reflected by addressing this in the first half of the first sentence to the first ammendment of the constitution.

Separation of Church and state is the primary mechanism to protect freedom of religion in this country, something obviously profoundly important to the diverse worshipers represented in the founding fathers.

You are right JMS, and I was not using the word religous in properly. From what I've read, Jefferson did not participate in organized religous gatherings, and was concerned about organized religion and how it had led to persecution in the past. I believe he did have some level of personal religion as you've explained.

[Kilmer17]

An airport putting upa Christmas Tree, or a town putting up a nativity is not what even Jefferson thought about when writning the Danbury letter.

[Zguy28]

Leaving that be for a moment. If I agree with you, it still speaks of Congress establishing religion. NOWHERE does it say anything about not allowing religion at all. Congress is forbidden from taking the action. Not the other way around. And certainly LIMITTED to Congress.And it is very clear that is says they shall make no LAW regarding it.

[Predicto]

An airport putting upa Christmas Tree, or a town putting up a nativity is not what even Jefferson thought about when writning the Danbury letter.

You are correct. Jefferson never even considered the possibility of airports.

Which is why originalist legal thought is so vapid. :)

[Kilmer17]

You are correct. Jefferson never even considered the possibility of airports.

Which is why originalist legal thought is so vapid. :)

I disagree. Ive seen the cavedrawing of him next to airplanes delivering supplies to the great pyramids.

[GSF]

An airport putting upa Christmas Tree, or a town putting up a nativity is not what even Jefferson thought about when writning the Danbury letter.

I would guess that you are probably right, however, I think things like prayer in public schools are the exact types of things Jefferson was thinking about.

[Kilmer17]

I would guess that you are probably right, however, I think things like prayer in public schools are the exact types of things Jefferson was thinking about.

Yes, if you mean that the schools cant deny the right to say prayers.

They certainly can allow them.

[Henry]

I disagree. Ive seen the cavedrawing of him next to airplanes delivering supplies to the great pyramids.

Stop giving away secrets Remlik.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

To those who keep saying that there is no separation of church and state, tell me what church is linked to our state? I mean, what type of religious theocracy are we? And where does it say in the Constitution that we are said theocracy? Keep in mind that the Constitution works to prevent the government from doing things which aren't mentioned in it. So, if its not mentioned in the Constitution, the federal government isnt that... or can't do said thing.

[GSF]

Yes, if you mean that the schools cant deny the right to say prayers.

They certainly can allow them.


My guess is that Jefferson would be in favor of allowing children to quietly pray to themselves, but would strongly oppose any organized prayer in school, especially if the school led the prayer.
Do you agree?

[Busch1724]

You have got the be the king of making stuff up to support your opinions.

Here is a quote from Thomas Jefferson in a letter he wrote in 1802 describing the First Amendment and what it means:


"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State."

The phrase "separation of church and state" wasn't created by some politician as you claimed in another 1 of your posts in this thread. The phrase was in fact created by Jeffereson when he used it as a description of the First Amendment of our Bill of Rights.

This is American History 101 here 81.

It is correct that the phrase "separation of church and state" doesn't appear in the constitution, but has been applied in law thousands of times in court. It is practiced as law even though not stated that way in the constitution because Jefferson thought as written, that "make no law respecting an establishment of religio, or prohibiting the free excercise thereof," needed clarification and hence the practice of "separation of church and state" has been practiced in courts. So even though it's not officially law separation of church and state has been applied as a law since the bill of rights was guaranteed to the citizens.

[81artmonk]

What part of what I said was stupid?


The phrase "separation of church and state" wasn't created by some politician as you claimed in another 1 of your posts in this thread. The phrase was in fact created by Jeffereson when he used it as a description of the First Amendment of our Bill of Rights.



That one.

[81artmonk]

Now, what part of what I said was stupid? Yes of course Jefferson was a politician, but that's obviously not who 81 was referring to. I would say Jefferson would be a pretty good authority on the meaning of the First Amendment and what it provides for.

Yeah I was. :)

[dcoles11]

Yeah I was. :)

I'm going to call BS on that. I think the context in which you made the statement "that some politician made it up" that it's pretty clear you were referring to some liberal.

[mboyd784]

The taxation of religion will end the deficit and the recession. Let's hope we have enough courage to save our country at the risk(benefit?) of losing religion.

[Hiro]

Completely for it. To me, religion should have no place in the world of government and legislature. As long as there isn't a singular type of religious faith ruling our government, I'm good. :)

[GSF]

I'm going to call BS on that. I think the context in which you made the statement "that some politician made it up" that it's pretty clear you were referring to some liberal.

Exactly! You are full of bull 81. If you knew it was Jefferson you would have said so, not "some politician".

[81artmonk]

I'm going to call BS on that. I think the context in which you made the statement "that some politician made it up" that it's pretty clear you were referring to some liberal.


Whatever

http://www.darkfire.net/~mrb/images/retarded.jpg

[81artmonk]

Exactly! You are full of bull 81. If you knew it was Jefferson you would have said so, not "some politician".


Notice I said politician and not some liberal. If I was really interested in pointing out some democrat liberal wingnut wouldn't I have said it. What has stopped me in the past from doing such things?? Nothing. So you will get one too.

http://www.darkfire.net/~mrb/images/retarded.jpg

[GSF]

I think it's going to be tough to convince any of us you were talking about Jefferson when you claimed the phrase was coined by some politician.

Call me retarded all you want. Your posting history in this thread and many others speaks for itself.

[81artmonk]

I think it's going to be tough to convince any of us you were talking about Jefferson when you claimed the phrase was coined by some politician.

Call me retarded all you want. Your posting history in this thread and many others speaks for itself.

The picture was sort of a sumation of how pointless it is to argue on the net. But of course we still do it anyway...right :)

[desioreo87]

i like the fact that people still believe that this country was founded on christian principles when that couldn't be farther from the truth.

Religion has no place in the schools or in government. It clouds perceptions and makes people make stupid judgments based on irrational ideas.

[XSean21TaylorX]

there is none. church values run deep in out government,

[techboy]

i like the fact that people still believe that this country was founded on christian principles when that couldn't be farther from the truth.

Your perspective is as skewed, simplistic, agenda-driven, and just plain wrong as the Christians that seem to think that the Founding Fathers actually intended the Bible to be the Constitution, and just didn't communicate the idea clearly enough.

As is usually the case, the issue is a lot more messy, complicated, and certainly not easily summed up in trite one-liners like yours.

P.S. Please spare us the citation of the treaty of Tripoli as proof-text, as countries' diplomats say a lot of things that may or may not be true in order to secure agreements. Thanks. :)

[AsburySkinsFan]

Whatever



Jesus loves that little kid in the pic 81, which means he should be the butt of your joke.

[Seabee1973]

of course it was an exageration, but you're kidding yourself if you don't think there is a group out there that wouldn't be for many of the things I mentioned in my satirical post.

Some people actually believe Noah's Ark is real, they think it is a historical event.

Some people think their should be prayer in school.


Has it ever been proven it wasnt real?

[Seabee1973]

Yay! More thoughtful and intelligent engaging posts like this please!!!
BTW, Santa is in our schools 1000% more than God is, so I guess its time to even up the score.

BTW, I don't want forced prayer in school, for the simple fact that I and my church will teach my son to pray. I wouldn't want a Wiccan child to be forced to pray to Yahweh any more than I would want a Christian child to be forced to pray to Mother Earth.


Thats the problem Pagenism Wiccan and all those other crap is slowly being introduced into schools and nothing is being done about it

[AsburySkinsFan]

Has it ever been proven it wasnt real?

The argument you'll be hit with momentarily is that the person who is proposing a belief is the one that is responsible for the proof. If you want to take it by faith then so be it, but don't use the "you can't disprove it therefore its real" argument because it simply allows for anyone to make any claim and require it to be taught as fact even though no evidence can be found for or against. And that is simple intellectual dishonesty.


Thats the problem Pagenism Wiccan and all those other crap is slowly being introduced into schools and nothing is being done about it
If that's the case then something should be done, but I have not heard of that happening on as grand a scale as what I hear being pushed by Christians.

[AsburySkinsFan]

The picture was sort of a sumation of how pointless it is to argue on the net. But of course we still do it anyway...right :)

No, that pic is insensitive, insulting, degrading and rude. I hated it when it showed up in the Owned thread and I hate it more now, do not use his disability as a derogatory slur especially while quoting scripture in your sig.

[81artmonk]

No, that pic is insensitive, insulting, degrading and rude. I hated it when it showed up in the Owned thread and I hate it more now, do not use his disability as a derogatory slur especially while quoting scripture in your sig.

Well guess what? I have a child with downsyndrome and I still think the pic make a statement and is funny.

[81artmonk]

No, that pic is insensitive, insulting, degrading and rude. I hated it when it showed up in the Owned thread and I hate it more now, do not use his disability as a derogatory slur especially while quoting scripture in your sig.

I enjoy people who like to use the religious slant when pointing fingers as if being a christian means we aren't allowed to argue back.

I'm sorry, I wasn't aware God said we christains aren't allowed to be sarcastic!

[dcoles11]

The picture was sort of a sumation of how pointless it is to argue on the net. But of course we still do it anyway...right :)

You call it arguing because you got caught in a lie. This wasn't an interent "who is the bigger badass" match. Like you are trying to paint it to be.

You had no idea it was Jefferson that said that, anyone that understands context knows this.

For the entire thread you were complaining about liberals taking god and church out of schools. Then when someone quotes a line about seperation of church and state you say, "some politician made it up"


You were clearly speaking of another one of those god hating liberals, who make stuff up to keep Jesus out of school.

When speaking of Jefferson, nobody would ever plainly call him, "some politician" If you knew it was Jefferson, you would have said it and you damn well know it.

Call it internet bullying or whatever you like, but you sir, are a liar.

[dcoles11]

Has it ever been proven it wasnt real?

Yes it has, they have also proven that gravity exist and that the world is not the center of the universe.

Get on board the common sense bus, there is plenty of room. :silly:

[dcoles11]

Well guess what? I have a child with downsyndrome and I still think the pic make a statement and is funny.

What is funny is you are a bible thumper and a person that thinks kids with downsyndrome are comic material.

You obviously have a dislike for me and others who don't believe for a second that you knew Jefferson was the one that made that statment.

So you equate people you don't like with making fun of a child that is participating in an event, despite his limitations, and by all accounts having a great time. All for a laugh, to quote Pee Wee Herman, it's so funny that I forgot to laugh.

I may not be able to quote bible versus, I may not attend church, I may not do a lot of things you think are the bench mark of a good person.

But I guarantee you I live my life in a way that makes me proud, i've done countless things athletics wise with the type of child you decided to make the subject of a joke and like others I find it disgusting that you think that picture is even remotely funny. It shows that your maturity level is certainly not on par with your age.

What is even more sad, is that instead of just admitting the picture you posted was wrong, and aplogoize, you continue to try to defend it, as if there is something worth defending in that picture.

You sir are not only a liar, you're a jerk, and I count myself lucky to only have to interact with you in this manner, I doubt very seriously that i'd enjoy your company in person.

edit: so do you remind your child that he is still retarded after he does something? That is the theme of the picture you posted that you think is so funny, incase you're wondering.

[Jumbo]

So far, there has been enough legitimacy to the context to allow for the back-n-forth to get heated, but I encourage people to protect their posting privileges by being smart.

[Seabee1973]

I
A recent congressman from Minn. (Keith Ellison) First Muslim congressman, was looking for a Quran to be swarn into office on.. He used Thomas Jefferson's Quran from Montichello. Jefferson was very religious, He was exceptionally well read for his day and for today on religion. Accomplished even. He just wasn't a conformist. Jefferson was very religious, only he like most of the founding fathers he disagreed on religion.
.



The reasonings Ellison Gave for Swearing in on that Quran were a lie Jefferson wasnt reading because he liked Muslims. Adams and Jefferson Had argued over the best way to deal with them As presidnet Adams decided tyo pay them to keep them from attacking us
Jefferson said nope we are going to war with them and deafeted them.

Marine Corps song from the Halls of montezouma to the shores of tripoli were from thew marines and there battles against Muslims in that area at that time frame.

Anyway he came to the conclusion that so many people would disagree with today that they were violent.

RFead Jefferson war for good reading book

End thread hijack

[81artmonk]

[QUOTE=dcoles11;5759281]You call it arguing because you got caught in a lie. This wasn't an interent "who is the bigger badass" match. Like you are trying to paint it to be.

You had no idea it was Jefferson that said that, anyone that understands context knows this.

I have no clue WTF you are talking about.



For the entire thread you were complaining about liberals taking god and church out of schools. Then when someone quotes a line about seperation of church and state you say, "some politician made it up"


You were clearly speaking of another one of those god hating liberals, who make stuff up to keep Jesus out of school.


might want to fact check on that comment. I never said any of the things you are accusing me of. literacy is a wasted talent.


When speaking of Jefferson, nobody would ever plainly call him, "some politician" If you knew it was Jefferson, you would have said it and you damn well know it.

Call it internet bullying or whatever you like, but you sir, are a liar.

You are most definetly right. I dind't know it was jefferson. When Whoever it was pointed it out, I remebered. And I love how people put words in my mouth. also, thoughts in my mind. If you know what I was thinking, than why do you need to repsond to me. You already know what I'm saying.

And how does any of this make me a liar??

[81artmonk]

[QUOTE=dcoles11;5759312]What is funny is you are a bible thumper and a person that thinks kids with downsyndrome are comic material.


You tire me. Bible thumper huh? prove it. Show me where I have stated something bible outside of ANY conversation of the topic. Becuase the term relates to someone who preaches without prompting. Every time I have stated something religion related, it has been within a thread where that was the topic or the topic came up. That my friend isn't bible thumping.



You obviously have a dislike for me and others who don't believe for a second that you knew Jefferson was the one that made that statment.

This is obviously a mental lapse on your part. Why would I dislike you just becuase you disagree with me. I mean, c'mon, that is ridiculous.


So you equate people you don't like with making fun of a child that is participating in an event, despite his limitations, and by all accounts having a great time. All for a laugh, to quote Pee Wee Herman, it's so funny that I forgot to laugh.


:doh:

I may not be able to quote bible versus, I may not attend church, I may not do a lot of things you think are the bench mark of a good person.


But I guarantee you I live my life in a way that makes me proud, i've done countless things athletics wise with the type of child you decided to make the subject of a joke and like others I find it disgusting that you think that picture is even remotely funny. It shows that your maturity level is certainly not on par with your age.


How high stung are you?? Like I said, my daughter has downsyndrome and I didn't think the pict was bad. Obviously you are easily offended.


What is even more sad, is that instead of just admitting the picture you posted was wrong, and aplogoize, you continue to try to defend it, as if there is something worth defending in that picture.

Humm.....the term WHATEVER comes to mind.


You sir are not only a liar, you're a jerk, and I count myself lucky to only have to interact with you in this manner, I doubt very seriously that i'd enjoy your company in person.

edit: so do you remind your child that he is still retarded after he does something? That is the theme of the picture you posted that you think is so funny, incase you're wondering.

And no I don't have to remind my child that she is retarded, becuase every day she wakes up she still is. But peace and love to you my child. :rolleyes:

[Seabee1973]

Yes it has, they have also proven that gravity exist and that the world is not the center of the universe.

Get on board the common sense bus, there is plenty of room. :silly:


I dont think it has been proven not real

[AsburySkinsFan]

I enjoy people who like to use the religious slant when pointing fingers as if being a christian means we aren't allowed to argue back.

I'm sorry, I wasn't aware God said we christains aren't allowed to be sarcastic!

81, when did I once say that you couldn't argue back, and for crying out loud why would I of all people say you couldn't argue. You know what my point is, and it has nothing to do with sarcasm it has everything to do with making fun of a child with down syndrome, and other people with mental disabilities. It's not nice, and it certainly falls short of loving them.