Seperation of Church and State?

[Benign Despot]

We've managed one very constructive religeous discussion in here, so maybe we can discuss this issue without a lot of finger pointing and name calling.

http://www.idsnews.com/news/story.php?id=38466&adid=city

In light of this being an Indiana story I'd be interested in hearing from some of our Colts visitors, as well as from some of the more religeous folks, and certainly the lawyers will have a relevent opinion.

I've spent all my life in Mass (with the exception of 9 Months in Missisippi when I was 9 years old) so I'm having a hard time figuring why the school district would think this practice would pass Constitutional muster. Is this a common practice in the midwest?

[cka203]

Well, this is the first I've seen/heard of it, so this is off-the-cuff, but...

My initial reaction is, what's the big deal? They're not forcing students to go, they're not forcing those who choose NOT to go to do something else (they've got free time), it's non-denominational...

Where's the beef?

The Midwest is considered the "Bible belt", and we tend not to jump on the ACLU bandwagon over every little thing, like our big-city counterparts. In fact, in my kid's school, we still have honest-to-God Christmas programs, and the music programs always throw in some religious songs, and (gasp!) we still pray at graduations, etc. Nobody has a beef with it. We use common sense. If you want to bow your head, fine. If you don't, fine.

Like everything else these days, I tend to think that some people just want to see their names in the papers and raise a big stink.

I'm willing to be objective and discuss further - like I said, this is just my initial reaction, and I really haven't looked into it deeply or put a lot of thought into it.

[Alcoholic9*]

Just like the tobacco companies....

"Get em while they're young and don't know any better." ;) :D

[The*Big*Lebowski]

Originally posted by Alcoholic9 on 10-18-2006 at 02:10 PM
Just like the tobacco companies....

"Get em while they're young and don't know any better." ;) :D

This was my initial reaction as well, but I was trying to stay out of this one!

[mgoblue101415]

Can't speak for the Midwest, or most of it, as I'm in the Chicago area and it's a hell of a lot different around here than even most of IL, let alone the rest of the Midwest.

There have been a few issues raised about this though, in the area, and the schools that wanted some sort of prayer or bible thing were told that no teacher could be involved and it had to be before or after school hours. I think at a couple schools the kids ended up meeting by the flag pole before school for a prayer.

Now, I am all for religion. As I've mentioned before, I'm Catholic, and am usually in church every week, not just on Easter or Christmas. That being said... Religion has no room in a PUBLIC school.

I think a kid can go a few hours during the day without having to crack open a bible. And if they really feel the need to have some religious contact during the day, they can say a silent prayer to themselves.

Most churches I know, usually have youth groups that meet at least a couple times during the week, other than Sunday. Then you could have prayer time at home before going to school. The family could have a bible study at home following dinner. There is absolutely no reason to have religious study in a public school unless it's a theology course, which is completely different than bible study or prayer sessions.

And if a parent or child feel that they're still not getting enough religion into the child's life, between home and church, then send them to a parochial school. Most of them now actually have financial aid and payment plans.

Religion is fine, just keep it out of public schools. And government buildings. Course that's a whole other debate. Before senate sessions, on money, being sworn in during a trial... We should not have a government endorsed religion, which is pretty much what we have. But like I said... That's a whole other can of worms.

[Mr NFLfan]

Originally posted by cka203 on 10-18-2006 at 02:05 PM
Well, this is the first I've seen/heard of it, so this is off-the-cuff, but...

My initial reaction is, what's the big deal? They're not forcing students to go, they're not forcing those who choose NOT to go to do something else (they've got free time), it's non-denominational...

Where's the beef?

The Midwest is considered the "Bible belt", and we tend not to jump on the ACLU bandwagon over every little thing, like our big-city counterparts. In fact, in my kid's school, we still have honest-to-God Christmas programs, and the music programs always throw in some religious songs, and (gasp!) we still pray at graduations, etc. Nobody has a beef with it. We use common sense. If you want to bow your head, fine. If you don't, fine.

Like everything else these days, I tend to think that some people just want to see their names in the papers and raise a big stink.

I'm willing to be objective and discuss further - like I said, this is just my initial reaction, and I really haven't looked into it deeply or put a lot of thought into it.

I think thats where the beef is. I believe this woman doesn't want her child losing instructional time while they all sit around waiting for the "holly rollers" :D to get back. Perhaps they can schedule the bible study class directly after school then this poor little 8 yr old won't be tramatized any more. Well you get my drift.

This kid is going to grow up a pussy if mommy keeps stepping into things all the time. Let the kid handle his own emotions, he'll find a way to over come his emotional scaring. ROFL

[JD10367]

The key here is that it's on school time. It's apparently an hour in the middle of the school day. No matter how you slice it, they're gonna come up on the wrong side of that one. If you want to do it before or after school that's one thing, but when the government demands your child's presence in school and then some of that time is allotted to a specific religion, that ain't gonna fly.

Now, on the other hand, if they wanted to have a NON-DENOMINATIONAL religious "hour", that'd be different. One in which Christians can go to their Bible class, Muslims and Hindus can do what they want, little pagan children can read up on wicca, LOL... that I can see. Or have a religious class which covers all religions over the course of a semester--Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, all the "isms" they can find. Then you're actually teaching something--not just giving time for Christians to go do their thing while everyone else stands around like Charlie Brown without a date. :D

[dropKickMurphy]

I can't stand the ACLU and people who expect courts to protect them from ever having to encounter any hint of religion.

It pisses me off when I read about some kindergarten kid getting suspended for drawing a picture of Jesus hanging out with the Power Rangers. Or when some anti-religious bigot sues the school after their little Susy was traumatized by hearing a Christmas Carol on school property.

However, I do have a problem with this particular religious group. It seems to me that they're trying to stir up trouble.

Constitutional issues aside, I don't see the sense in disrupting the school day by running this religious program during school hours.

What's wrong with Sunday School...or Saturday School, or Tuesday night CCD?!?! I don't remember anyone having a problem with this (especially the kids who were smoking bones in the woods when their parents thought they were at CCD).

You want formal religious instruction as part of the school curriculum, you can always send your kids to a religious school.

[cka203]

Let's spice this up a bit...

I'm not saying it's 100% applicable in all cases, but I do think there's a direct correlation between the removal of anything remotely religious from school, and the increase in violence in school, and kids behaviour in general.

I'm only 46, but when I was in school, it was no big deal to sing Christmas songs, etc. We even had Easter egg hunts, Halloween parties, etc. We didn't have to worry about being sued if we said the word God or prayer on school property.

And we also didn't have NEAR the drug problem we do today. We didn't have gangs. We didn't have to worry about school shootings.

I'm just saying...

[#1Patsfan_chica]

I don't have a problem with it. If the parents don't mind sending their kids to Bible study for an hour, that's great. The kids that don't go should take the hour to do some homework or read a book.

[ColtFan81]

I agree MGO...

Just for reference,I'm from a small indiana town just about 5 minutes from Indianapolis. I'm Catholic and went to classes after church on Sunday for 11yrs..

Anyway...While I think a Lawsuit is over the top, I agree with the mothers reasoning. Taxpayers paid for the education these children are recieving, so from the time the bus picks them up until it drops them off they are on the taxpayers watch. Standardized test in Indiana are below average. Teachers often complain that with the current cirriculum, there is no time to get these kids where they need to be before they start the next grade. There is plenty of time after and before school for a prayer group.

Children at that age are very sensitive to seclusion. I don't think traumatized is a good word to described this kids feeling but I am sure he is feeling leftout and a little embarrassed that he isn't going to these classes.

As far as the lawsuit goes....how can you sue for something taxpayers pay for??? If you win, who is paying you? The local government that collected from taxpayers?

[Alcoholic9*]

Originally posted by cka203 on 10-18-2006 at 02:56 PM


I'm not saying it's 100% applicable in all cases, but I do think there's a direct correlation between the removal of anything remotely religious from school, and the increase in violence in school, and kids behaviour in general.



Umm.... religion has caused more violence and suffering than all wars combined and multiplied by like 1000.

[grog]

If you are going to take religion out of school, then don't make compromises. If you are going to allow religion in school, then don't filter out certain religions.

I think the safest thing to do is allow kids some quiet time to pray or meditate or do just chill out. Anything more than that can be done outside of school time. The government already injects enough non-essential materials in the school day.

But, if you are not going to allow these kids to attend this class, then you also shouldn't allow the little Jewish boy to wear his beanie thing to school or the Muslim girl to wear her head/face covering thing to school either. These are religious in nature and if your nto got allow one thing, then you shouldn't allow anything.

[O.Z.O.]

I don't think that this should be done in the middle of the day, but rather, as some have suggested, either before or after school. What irritates me is that if this were some other religion (besides Judaism) it wouldn't be an issue, but rather chalked up to 'Cultural Diversity Awareness'-:Eason:

That being said-

ever since the cretins at the ACLU got themselves entwined with S-Ps, crap like this has been on the march. First came promoting the idea that the Constitution spells out a specific seperation of Church and State (you guys all seem pretty bright, so I'm assuming that you know that it doesn't- rather states that the government shall not establish or promote any religion). Meanwhile, our public school system is in a constant state of decline- have any of you seen the Fed Ex commercial where the guy can't find China on a map? I personally think that this commercial is idiotic, but that's a clear statement as to the quality of education that kids are getting. Self-esteem and social promotion are the order of the day, who gives a **** if the kid can read or do simple math? As long as they feel good about themselves is all that counts.

- all right, I'm sorry, I'm spouting off far too much for this subject-

[dropKickMurphy]

Originally posted by Alcoholic9 on 10-18-2006 at 03:11 PM
Umm.... religion has caused more violence and suffering than all wars combined and multiplied by like 1000.

To be fair, religion has also been the source of most of the great cultural works of man....Art, music, architecture, literature, etc.

Not to mention the great number of the world's schools, universities, and hospitals that have been founded and run by religious groups.

[RavenZ]

Originally posted by cka203 on 10-18-2006 at 02:56 PM
Let's spice this up a bit...

I'm not saying it's 100% applicable in all cases, but I do think there's a direct correlation between the removal of anything remotely religious from school, and the increase in violence in school, and kids behaviour in general.

I'm only 46, but when I was in school, it was no big deal to sing Christmas songs, etc. We even had Easter egg hunts, Halloween parties, etc. We didn't have to worry about being sued if we said the word God or prayer on school property.

And we also didn't have NEAR the drug problem we do today. We didn't have gangs. We didn't have to worry about school shootings.

I'm just saying...

Well, since we're spicing things - I couldn't disagree more. It's certaintly probable that the increase of violence in school/kid's behaviour is due to removal of anything religious from the HOME not the school.
Religion doesn't belong in a public school; kids should not be removed from class for non-denominational bible study, which is ridiculous anyway since not all religions study the bible. The point of PUBLIC school is education with a curriculum that includes all students; I would be pissed if my kid sat around for an hour with nothing to do during the school day because I didn't want him studying the bible - if you want your kids to study the bible on school time, there are private schools for that.
In this particular case I think it should try to be handled without calling the ACLU; things have certainly got out of hand with the lawsuits.
But back to the first point generally kids look first to their parents for guidelines on how to behave and treat others, when not to shoot up the school, etc. Religious studies in school that emphasize only one or two (i.e., not a general course studying the different religions in a non-judgmental manner) would only promote divisiveness, IMO.

[grog]

Originally posted by Alcoholic9 on 10-18-2006 at 03:11 PM
Umm.... religion has caused more violence and suffering than all wars combined and multiplied by like 1000.

Wrong! People misinterpreting religion have caused the violence.

[dchester]

FWIW, I just checked the back of my One Dollar Bill. Among other things, it says: "In God We Trust".
________
Toyota Classic history (http://www.toyota-wiki.com/wiki/Toyota_Classic)

[RavenZ]

Grogsox has a good point. I would think a class on the different religions and their various POVs would be a good thing. Hate is usually caused by fear and misunderstanding, as well as the prejudices learned at home. Some non-biased (though there's the rub) education on why others don't believe as you do would be a good thing.

[Steve-o]

Having grown up 28 years in Indiana, and being on the opposite end of the majority on this issue, I couldn't wait to get out of the lash of the Bible belt.

It amazes me that there are still people with the gall to pull crap like this. Here is the problem: this is on school time, so there's no such thing as "free" time. The teachers are still earning their tax dollars leading prayer sessions, and the kids who aren't attending these are sitting there getting no education for those dollars. So, even if you're not Christian, you're paying for other people to be.

I truly don't understand why school prayer is even an issue. I'm not religious, but if I was, I would want to be the one giving my son his daily lessons in morality, rather than some teacher.

Demanding prayer in school is simply another shirking of parental responsibilities, in my opinion.

(heh. Good ol' IDS. I spent three semesters workin' for that paper!)

[Steve-o]

Originally posted by dchester on 10-18-2006 at 03:30 PM
FWIW, I just checked the back of my One Dollar Bill. Among other things, it says: "In God We Trust".

But our country wasn't founded on it. We were almost at our first centennial before that got tacked on.

http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-sheets/currency/in-god-we-trust.shtml

[Patriots44]

CKA - great way to spice it up! ;)

Many things have changed since I was a grade schooler (I'm 40) and people often point to our schools when they want to make a point over something they don't like (violent video games, violence on TV, Rock/Rap/Heavy Metal, helicopter parents, etc).

I'm not religious myself, didn't attend church except weddings and funerals, didn't go to CCD. I also didn't belong to a gang, didn't blow up my school, and didn't get in trouble with the police. (I did steal beers from the fridge when the parents weren't looking... but hey, who didn't do that!)

I lean towards believing that if kids are raised to respect teachers, police and "elders", and get punished when they act like spoiled brats, that might help more then "the fear of god".
I honestly don't know anyone who ever didn't do something because they thought they would go to hell. Maybe they figured they could just mention it during confession and get off the hook!

I'll have to check out that other religion-based thread mentioned above. I may have more "thoughts" to add!
:D

[blantyr]

What happens when a rabbi, a mullah, a witch, an ACLU lawyer and a football coach show up at the school to talk to any kids who don't want to go to the Bible class? At what age should it be the kid's choice, rather than the parent's?

I'll go along with the 'too many lawsuits' and 'not on school property during school hours' viewpoints. Alas, unless you have some mechanism such as lawsuits, the majority will try to impose their own culture.

[Alcoholic9*]

Originally posted by grogsox on 10-18-2006 at 03:27 PM
Wrong! People misinterpreting religion have caused the violence.

So pretty much everybody then. ;)

[Alcoholic9*]

Originally posted by Steve-o on 10-18-2006 at 03:39 PM
But our country wasn't founded on it. We were almost at our first centennial before that got tacked on.

http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-sheets/currency/in-god-we-trust.shtml

You have to admit christianity is THE government sponsored religion though, which totally goes against the constitution. However, as long as there are millions of christians in this country, who will toss their vote to whatever politician mentions Jesus in his speeches, there's not much that can be done about it.

[Umfold]

Originally posted by blantyr on 10-18-2006 at 03:59 PM
Alas, unless you have some mechanism such as lawsuits, the majority will try to impose their own culture.
That's it, right there. That's the key. It has nothing to do with spirituality. And everything to do with culture.

Just about every religion is based on some yahoo claiming to speak for god. And this yahoo who claims to speak for god invariably says in effect, 'God favors your culture above all others.'

Whether it’s not working on Sunday, or making women cover their faces, or telling certain people that they can’t get married, these are cultural issues that have nothing to do with a supreme being.



I say if anybody wants to teach the bible on school grounds they have to first prove it's the word of god.

And um, lots a luck trying to do that.

[cka203]

Originally posted by Patriots44 on 10-18-2006 at 03:43 PM
CKA - great way to spice it up! ;)

:D

:D See what happens when I get bored?

[Steve-o]

Originally posted by Alcoholic9 on 10-18-2006 at 04:13 PM
You have to admit christianity is THE government sponsored religion though, which totally goes against the constitution. However, as long as there are millions of christians in this country, who will toss their vote to whatever politician mentions Jesus in his speeches, there's not much that can be done about it.

Well, hey, the farther along time goes, the farther away from the ideas of the real Patriots in this country.

You know, the guys in the funny hats who had a tea party and fought the British. They were pretty smart guys, and they didn't have a lot of schools, but they wouldn't want religion in them, if they did.

Questioning how they founded this country is unAmerican!

:Pat: :D

[JD10367]

Originally posted by Peytonsux on 10-18-2006 at 03:21 PM
First came promoting the idea that the Constitution spells out a specific seperation of Church and State (you guys all seem pretty bright, so I'm assuming that you know that it doesn't- rather states that the government shall not establish or promote any religion).

And therein lies the crux (pardon the pun) of the problem: the U.S. is essentially a Christian country masquerading as a non-denominational one.

I find the whole thing pretty funny. We have "In God We Trust" on our money. If you go to court, you have to put your hand on a Bible and swear, "So help me God". The 'Pledge Of Alliegance' states "One nation under God". You have a crappy (IMO) president who likes to trot out God in his speeches (when it suits him, of course). Etcetera. And yet there's supposedly a separation between church and state.

I don't particularly care one way or another. I could care less if the U.S. was Christian, Jewish, atheist, or Buddhist. I just find it funny that so many of these clashes stem from the fact that the U.S. really IS a religious country.

[Benign Despot]

Religion is a cultural phenomenon. It is related to belief and spirituality, but in the end in an institution, like government, with many of the same plusses and minuses

Whenever I read a story like this I want to ask the "religious" folks the following question.

"If you were a Christian, living in say Iran, and the Mullah said that the Koran would be taught in public school regardless of how you felt about it would you think that was fair or not?" So that we might be free to follow our conscience and practice whichever faith our heart chooses it is not the place of government (of which the schools are a part) to place one religion (in this case Christianity) above another.

So if this school were offering Koran study and Torah study (and perhaps a comparative religion course for the unaffiliated) along side bible study I think I'd have less of a problem with it, but Christianity is a religion and claiming that the bible study is non-denominational is disingenuous.

To those who say that there is no Constitutional separation of Church and State (our lawyer friends can correct me if I'm wrong) the Courts are charged by the Constitution with interpreting the law, and the Courts, through precident have said there is.

Finally a few folks have critisized the mother for filing a lawsuit. If this were her first step I'd agree, but if she approached the school (and the school board) about this issue and was told to go suck an egg what choice did she have?

[Wandering Athol]

Originally posted by Peytonsux on 10-18-2006 at 03:21 PM
Meanwhile, our public school system is in a constant state of decline- have any of you seen the Fed Ex commercial where the guy can't find China on a map? I personally think that this commercial is idiotic, but that's a clear statement as to the quality of education that kids are getting. Self-esteem and social promotion are the order of the day, who gives a **** if the kid can read or do simple math? As long as they feel good about themselves is all that counts.

A 25-year-old blue collar worker asked me yesterday how to write "one hundred and six thousand" :blink: . I sheeeet you not. He couldn't figure out how to do it....and he was the foreman. :eek:

It renewed my confidence that I will continue to have access to high-ish-paying jobs in the future....or at least until my industry is outsourced to China or India. :sulk:

I suggest you have your kids bone up on Buddhist, Hinduist, and Chinese folk religions/cultures. ;)

[patfanallan]

Would there be a war in Iraq? How many terrorists would blow themselves up if they didn't believe in an afterlife?

Religion is a form of brainwashing. Your religion depends on who is doing the brainwashing. Some people have figured this out.

[SteelerFan87]

Originally posted by Alcoholic9 on 10-18-2006 at 04:13 PM
You have to admit christianity is THE government sponsored religion though, which totally goes against the constitution. However, as long as there are millions of christians in this country, who will toss their vote to whatever politician mentions Jesus in his speeches, there's not much that can be done about it.

Is there a law that says you have to be a Christian? Is there a church anywhere that calls itself the "official church of the US"? If you aren't a Christian, do you automatically get put in jail/executed/persecuted? No? Then I guess there's no government sponsored religion. There may be a religion that the majority of our government officials believe in, but in no way is anyone forced to believe in a certain faith. The people who wrote the Constitution believed in God. They may not have all been Christians, but they all believed in God. To say that they opposed religion is about as wrong as you can get. They opposed official government religions, and laws that limited religious freedom, but they did not oppose religion.

And yes, there are millions of Christians who's faith influences how they vote, but isn't that the point of democracy? In a democracy you don't impose the views of a minority on the majority that thinks differently. People will vote according to what they think is right, and that's how democracy works. If the people support Christianity, you can't just say "nope, I don't care what you all think, I'm going to say you can't have what you want, and we're going to do things my way."

As for this particular story, I think the school should do something for the kids who don't go to this bible study thing, but I don't think there's a problem with offering it. And I also have to wonder, did the kid really have a problem with the bible study, or did his mom just insist that he not go, and she's the one that's offended?

[dchester]

Originally posted by Benign Despot on 10-18-2006 at 04:55 PM
Whenever I read a story like this I want to ask the "religious" folks the following question.

"If you were a Christian, living in say Iran, and the Mullah said that the Koran would be taught in public school regardless of how you felt about it would you think that was fair or not?" While I can't speak for anyone else, I'd have no problem with it. FWIW, I pay some significant money each year to send my son to a Catholic school instead of the public schools, and trust me, I'm not Catholic, (and since I'm not trying to get into a pissing contest with anyone who might be Catholic, I won't list the problems I have with the Catholic religion).

From my point of view, the people whining about the possibilty of themselves (or their kids) exposed to some religious speech, are the intolerant ones. That being said, I'd have no problem with Congress actually getting a set, and dealing with this whole issue and pass a law stating if we have "Separation of Church and State", and of course define what that actually means. Of course, as long as they ignore the whole issue, the court can make up whatever they want, and get away with it.
________
gm foods (http://gmfoods.info/)

[aloyouis]

Originally posted by Alcoholic9 on 10-18-2006 at 02:10 PM
Just like the tobacco companies....

"Get em while they're young and don't know any better." ;) :D


...which is why Mass schools pound the kids with Darwinism and communism as soon as kindergarten!

[Alcoholic9*]

Originally posted by aloyouis on 10-18-2006 at 08:15 PM
...which is why Mass schools pound the kids with Darwinism and communism as soon as kindergarten!

Well at least those things don't involve invisible beings that live in the sky or whatever. :D

[aloyouis]

Originally posted by Alcoholic9 on 10-18-2006 at 03:11 PM
Umm.... religion has caused more violence and suffering than all wars combined and multiplied by like 1000.

A9....I guess if you make me I can do the research to defend what I am about to say but that statement up above is completely ridiculous.

Oh wait......you mean to include thousands of years ago? Not relevant. With the exception of Radical Muslims, what religion causes so much suffering today? Indeed it is the radical leftists of the world that have done by far the MOST damage,carnage and murder........




Mao Ze-Dong (China, 1958-61 and 1966-69) 49,000,000 ("great leap forward" and "cultural revolution")
Jozef Stalin (USSR, 1934-39) 13,000,000 (the purges)
Adolf Hitler (Germany, 1939-1945) 12,000,000 (concentration camps and civilians WWII)
Hideki Tojo (Japan, 1941-44) 5,000,000 (civilians WWII)
Pol Pot (Cambodia, 1975-79) 1,700,000
Kim Il Sung (North Korea, 1948-94) 1.6 million (purges and concentration camps)
Menghistu (Ethiopia, 1975-78) 1,500,000
Ismail Enver (Turkey, 1915) 1,200,000 Armenians
Yakubu Gowon (Biafra, 1967-1970) 1,000,000
Leonid Brezhnev (Afghanistan, 1979-1982) 900,000
Jean Kambanda (Rwanda, 1994) 800,000
Suharto (East Timor, 1976-98) 600,000
Saddam Hussein (Iran 1980-1990 and Kurdistan 1987-88) 600,000
Yahya Khan (Pakistan, 1971) vs Bangladesh 500,000
Fumimaro Konoe (Japan, 1937-39) 500,000? (Chinese civilians)
Savimbi (Angola, 1975-2002) 400,000
Mullah Omar - Taliban (Afghanistan, 1986-2001) 400,000
Idi Amin (Uganda, 1969-1979) 300,000
Benito Mussolini (Ethiopia, 1936; Yugoslavia, WWII) 300,000
Mobutu Sese Seko (Zaire, 1965-97) ?
Charles Taylor (Liberia, 1989-1996) 220,000
Foday Sankoh (Sierra Leone, 1991-2000) 200,000
Slobodan Milosevic (Yugoslavia, 1992-96) 180,000
Michel Micombero (Burundi, 1972) 150,000
Hassan Turabi (Sudan, 1989-1999) 100,000
Jean-Bedel Bokassa (Centrafrica, 1966-79) ?
Richard Nixon (Vietnam, 1969-1974) 70,000 (vietnamese civilians)
Efrain Rios Montt (Guatemala, 1982-83) 70,000
Papa Doc Duvalier (Haiti, 1957-71) 60,000
Hissene Habre (Chad, 1982-1990) 40,000
Chiang Kai-shek (Taiwan, 1947) 30,000 (popular uprising)
Vladimir Ilich Lenin (USSR, 1917-20) 30,000 (dissidents executed)
Francisco Franco (Spain) 30,000 (dissidents executed after the civil war)





Thats over 92 million people!!!! And that's just the last 100 years or so......


Indeed, it is religion that that sponsers much of the good that is done in the world today.

Of course, the ACLU is doing it's socialist best to wipe out religion in our country. A country founded on religion by men of religion.

[Mr NFLfan]

Originally posted by cka203 on 10-18-2006 at 02:56 PM
Let's spice this up a bit...

I'm not saying it's 100% applicable in all cases, but I do think there's a direct correlation between the removal of anything remotely religious from school, and the increase in violence in school, and kids behaviour in general.

I'm only 46, but when I was in school, it was no big deal to sing Christmas songs, etc. We even had Easter egg hunts, Halloween parties, etc. We didn't have to worry about being sued if we said the word God or prayer on school property.

And we also didn't have NEAR the drug problem we do today. We didn't have gangs. We didn't have to worry about school shootings.

I'm just saying...

Well Spice you want then spice you'll get. :D I grew up in Southern NH and attended a private Catholic school grades 1-8. When I attended my first day at the public high school I was amazed at what those kids got away with. At the Catholic school you got a smack up aside the head for just about any infraction from disobedience to not completeing an assignment or not doing your home work to forgetting to wear a tie to school. Those old cranky Nuns grabbed you by the hair or the ears even by the cheeks and they did this in front of the entire class. Its a wonder I'm not traumatized and even able to function in everyday life! lol I saw a marked difference in violence between the private school and the catholic school with the catholic school being more violent than any public school I've attended. With both parents having attended the same Catholic school I learned very quick that if you got a beating from a Nun that you never ever complain about it to mom or dad. Their theory was if the Nun hit you you did something wrong and you'd get another dose of punishment at home. I often wonder why a student hasn't gone back to that school with an assult rifle and arrainged for those frustrated old nuns to meet their maker. Less violence? Not in the Catholic school I was sentenced to for 8 miserable years. St Josephs School this ones for YOU :4321:

[aloyouis]

Demanding prayer in school is simply another shirking of parental responsibilities, in my opinion.

Where does the story say that prayer is demanded of the students?

[Steve-o]

Originally posted by aloyouis on 10-18-2006 at 08:43 PM
Demanding prayer in school is simply another shirking of parental responsibilities, in my opinion.

Where does the story say that prayer is demanded of the students?

I don't mean demanded of the students. I mean demanding that we have it. Demanding that we have school-led prayer functions, and blaming the decay of America on the absence of prayer in the schools, yadda, yadda, yadda. It's a cop out.

Believe me, living in the Bible belt, you hear those words a lot.

[Alcoholic9*]

Originally posted by aloyouis on 10-18-2006 at 08:39 PM
A9....I guess if you make me I can do the research to defend what I am about to say but that statement up above is completely ridiculous.

Oh wait......you mean to include thousands of years ago? Not relevant. With the exception of Radical Muslims, what religion causes so much suffering today? Indeed it is the radical leftists of the world that have done by far the MOST damage,carnage and murder........




Mao Ze-Dong (China, 1958-61 and 1966-69) 49,000,000 ("great leap forward" and "cultural revolution")
Jozef Stalin (USSR, 1934-39) 13,000,000 (the purges)
Adolf Hitler (Germany, 1939-1945) 12,000,000 (concentration camps and civilians WWII)
Hideki Tojo (Japan, 1941-44) 5,000,000 (civilians WWII)
Pol Pot (Cambodia, 1975-79) 1,700,000
Kim Il Sung (North Korea, 1948-94) 1.6 million (purges and concentration camps)
Menghistu (Ethiopia, 1975-78) 1,500,000
Ismail Enver (Turkey, 1915) 1,200,000 Armenians
Yakubu Gowon (Biafra, 1967-1970) 1,000,000
Leonid Brezhnev (Afghanistan, 1979-1982) 900,000
Jean Kambanda (Rwanda, 1994) 800,000
Suharto (East Timor, 1976-98) 600,000
Saddam Hussein (Iran 1980-1990 and Kurdistan 1987-88) 600,000
Yahya Khan (Pakistan, 1971) vs Bangladesh 500,000
Fumimaro Konoe (Japan, 1937-39) 500,000? (Chinese civilians)
Savimbi (Angola, 1975-2002) 400,000
Mullah Omar - Taliban (Afghanistan, 1986-2001) 400,000
Idi Amin (Uganda, 1969-1979) 300,000
Benito Mussolini (Ethiopia, 1936; Yugoslavia, WWII) 300,000
Mobutu Sese Seko (Zaire, 1965-97) ?
Charles Taylor (Liberia, 1989-1996) 220,000
Foday Sankoh (Sierra Leone, 1991-2000) 200,000
Slobodan Milosevic (Yugoslavia, 1992-96) 180,000
Michel Micombero (Burundi, 1972) 150,000
Hassan Turabi (Sudan, 1989-1999) 100,000
Jean-Bedel Bokassa (Centrafrica, 1966-79) ?
Richard Nixon (Vietnam, 1969-1974) 70,000 (vietnamese civilians)
Efrain Rios Montt (Guatemala, 1982-83) 70,000
Papa Doc Duvalier (Haiti, 1957-71) 60,000
Hissene Habre (Chad, 1982-1990) 40,000
Chiang Kai-shek (Taiwan, 1947) 30,000 (popular uprising)
Vladimir Ilich Lenin (USSR, 1917-20) 30,000 (dissidents executed)
Francisco Franco (Spain) 30,000 (dissidents executed after the civil war)





Thats over 92 million people!!!! And that's just the last 100 years or so......


Indeed, it is religion that that sponsers much of the good that is done in the world today.

Of course, the ACLU is doing it's socialist best to wipe out religion in our country. A country founded on religion by men of religion.

Why doesn't thousands of years ago apply?

Anyway how does Hitler not count? Watch some history channel and you will see he pretty much wanted to create a new religion with him as the Messiah. I believe he even refered to some of his closest people as apostles from time to time. This is whithout even bringing up his extermination campaign against the Jews. Stalin was also not a big fan of the Jews.

Regardless, the Crusades, Catholic/Protestant fighting, etc. was not thousands of years ago. Should we throw out everything except the last hundred years or so?

Go check out a lot of the African fighting/genocides that have occured lately. Much of it is religious.

Bosnia ring a bell?

I won't even bring up 9/11, Afghanistan, Iraq.

I stand by my statement. Without religion a lot more people would be alive/had lived than the rest of our petty conflicts as humans have ever caused.

Who knows how far the Muslim extremist thing will go, it could potentially wipe out life on earth.

Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.

[Umfold]

Originally posted by aloyouis on 10-18-2006 at 08:39 PM
A country founded on religion by men of religion. That's totally wrong. What are you even talking about?

Founded on religion? Nonsense.

Though some puritans did leave England because of the church, well, you'll notice that there were already people here.

(Also, though they were really after gold, many of the Europeans who came to America when it was first being explored only got funding if they agreed to 'force' the native people to accept Jesus as their god. No one knows how many native Americans died, but it is most likely 10s of millions)

But as far as the founding of America, it had nothing to do with religion.

[Umfold]

Oh yeah, and Hitler was a Christian, by the way. And yeah, he used the whole 'Jews killed god' thing to help his cause.

[Alcoholic9*]

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/SzHlMs2rSIM"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/SzHlMs2rSIM" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

[SteelerFan87]

Can someone tell me 1 religion that promotes killing people? I don't mean people who claimed to be part of the religion, I mean find me examples from religious texts that say "go out and kill people". Most, if not all "holy wars" or whatever you want to call them are just examples of someone with power using and twisting and perverting religion to try to back up his desire to commit genocide. Religion is just usefull for those purposes because it's something people feel strongly about. If religion didn't exist, there would be just as much killing, if not more, because the dictators and power hungry bastards of the world would just find some other cause/belief/ideology to use to trick people into carrying out their plans.

[Alcoholic9*]

Originally posted by SteelerFan87 on 10-18-2006 at 11:13 PM
Can someone tell me 1 religion that promotes killing people? I don't mean people who claimed to be part of the religion, I mean find me examples from religious texts that say "go out and kill people". Most, if not all "holy wars" or whatever you want to call them are just examples of someone with power using and twisting and perverting religion to try to back up his desire to commit genocide. Religion is just usefull for those purposes because it's something people feel strongly about. If religion didn't exist, there would be just as much killing, if not more, because the dictators and power hungry bastards of the world would just find some other cause/belief/ideology to use to trick people into carrying out their plans.

It'd be much harder to convince someone to say "blow themselves up" if there wasn't a promise of say 72 virgins (which is wrong btw it's actually more ridiculous than that) waiting on the other side.

Ever seen Dogma? Silly movie but it did have a point. You can change an idea, a belief is something you're willing to die for.

Many people choose to blindly believe 2000 year old (or whatever) books (which according to someone should be thrown out because they're thousands of years old) full of stuff that just doesn't make any sense at all.

Sure, Noah got what? millions of animals on his ark? Tell me that's not a pathetic fairy tale. I imagine the Koran has similar stupid stories in it.

[SteelerFan87]

Originally posted by Alcoholic9 on 10-18-2006 at 11:42 PM
It'd be much harder to convince someone to say "blow themselves up" if there wasn't a promise of say 72 virgins (which is wrong btw it's actually more ridiculous than that) waiting on the other side.

Ever seen Dogma? Silly movie but it did have a point. You can change an idea, a belief is something you're willing to die for.

Many people choose to blindly believe 2000 year old (or whatever) books (which according to someone should be thrown out because they're thousands of years old) full of stuff that just doesn't make any sense at all.

Sure, Noah got what? millions of animals on his ark? Tell me that's not a pathetic fairy tale. I imagine the Koran has similar stupid stories in it.

Ok, so you don't like religion and think it doesn't make sense. But that doesn't refute my point. Ask any muslim, and I bet they'll tell you that 72 virgins thing is bullshit that was made up by people who wanted to use people's faith for their own purposes. Like I said, religion doesn't corrupt people, people corrupt religion.

[aloyouis]

Originally posted by Alcoholic9 on 10-18-2006 at 04:13 PM
You have to admit christianity is THE government sponsored religion though, which totally goes against the constitution. However, as long as there are millions of christians in this country, who will toss their vote to whatever politician mentions Jesus in his speeches, there's not much that can be done about it.

No we don't have to admit that Christianity is THE government-sponsored religion. Why? Nevermind.... you will talk of dollar bills and the pledge.

Question: Why is it wrong that millions of Christians will vote? Why should there "be something done about it"? Done about what? People casting their votes? What would YOU do about it? Deny Christians the right to vote? Why is a Christian voting only "tossing" their vote when everyone gets to "cast" their vote?

Even the words you choose to use (on this topic) show your discrimination towards Christians.

[patfanallan]

If one is to study religion they would find that much was written about Jesus Christ 90 years after he was crucified. The Bible is not the word of God but rather of men who believed in God. There is much that can be found if one is to read how the Bible was put together. Those who wrote the Bible did not have the knowledge of people today such as the vastness of the universe, how it is expanding every day and there are more suns than grains of sand at the beach. Much of religion is based on the writings of people 2,000 years ago who had no concept of the real world.

[aloyouis]

"To those who say that there is no Constitutional separation of Church and State (our lawyer friends can correct me if I'm wrong) the Courts are charged by the Constitution with interpreting the law, and the Courts, through precident have said there is. "


NO! The courts are charged with interpreting what the law is as described by the Constitution.

Unfortunately, they don't stick to interpreting the Constitution. They have been allowed to legislate from the bench (create law), which is expressly a Legislative branch function.

But the liberals in our society like this so they can have laws created that would NEVER be approved of by the American public. In fact it is the only way they can do it.

[Steve-o]

This is where the brilliance of our founding fathers comes into play. We do not live in a true democracy, and for that, I am thankful. In a true democracy, would white men have ever voted to allow women to vote? Blacks?

Our country was designed to always protect the rights of the minority. If enough Christians take over Congress and vote to make the Christianity the official religion of the U.S., we have the supreme court to determine that move is UnConstitutional. If enough anti-religious people took over and outlawed Christianity, we have the supreme court to determine that UnConstitutional.

If one man among us is not free, none of us are free.

This was the brilliance of our founding fathers. Our founding fathers who were Deists and Atheists.

I recommend reading Thomas Paine's Common Sense for a good insight on the popular religious beliefs of the men who founded this country. While he believed in God, he believed it had no place in government, or even in church, for that matter. He believed man was his own temple, and that religion should stay there.

[Alcoholic9*]

Originally posted by aloyouis on 10-19-2006 at 01:04 AM
No we don't have to admit that Christianity is THE government-sponsored religion. Why? Nevermind.... you will talk of dollar bills and the pledge.

Question: Why is it wrong that millions of Christians will vote? Why should there "be something done about it"? Done about what? People casting their votes? What would YOU do about it? Deny Christians the right to vote? Why is a Christian voting only "tossing" their vote when everyone gets to "cast" their vote?

Even the words you choose to use (on this topic) show your discrimination towards Christians.

Go back and read what I said and stop putting words in my mouth. I have nothing against Christianity. You however appear to have a problem with me not praising it's so called values and contributions.

Vote, don't vote, do what you want. But don't tell me to blindly pretend that Republicans and Democrats alike don't kiss the asses of Christianity to get votes. If everyone were all Muslims the politicians would praise Allah in their speeches and all the lemmings would vote for them.

Here's something you really won't like....

Christianity has more blood on it's hands than like 50 Hitlers, and it start's with the death of Jesus. Oh wait, it goes back further....

How many people did God himself kill in the Old testament?

But hey, for 24 bucks a month I can sponsor a child in South America. :rolleyes:

[aloyouis]

Originally posted by patfanallan on 10-18-2006 at 06:38 PM
Would there be a war in Iraq? How many terrorists would blow themselves up if they didn't believe in an afterlife?

Religion is a form of brainwashing. Your religion depends on who is doing the brainwashing. Some people have figured this out.

NOT! How can you try to talk about such an important issue whilst painting with a stupefying broad brush?


Lets see: Radical Muslims are religious and brainwashed so they kill each other (and everybody else) therefore all religious people are brainwashed?

Try this: You are a male and Hitler was a male therefore all males (including me) are murderous tyrants?

Please go back and read your post.... think for a moment...and repost.

[aloyouis]

Originally posted by dchester on 10-18-2006 at 08:09 PM
While I can't speak for anyone else, I'd have no problem with it. FWIW, I pay some significant money each year to send my son to a Catholic school instead of the public schools, and trust me, I'm not Catholic, (and since I'm not trying to get into a pissing contest with anyone who might be Catholic, I won't list the problems I have with the Catholic religion).

From my point of view, the people whining about the possibilty of themselves (or their kids) exposed to some religious speech, are the intolerant ones. That being said, I'd have no problem with Congress actually getting a set, and dealing with this whole issue and pass a law stating if we have "Separation of Church and State", and of course define what that actually means. Of course, as long as they ignore the whole issue, the court can make up whatever they want, and get away with it.

I agree.

[aloyouis]

Originally posted by SteelerFan87 on 10-18-2006 at 07:48 PM
Is there a law that says you have to be a Christian? Is there a church anywhere that calls itself the "official church of the US"? If you aren't a Christian, do you automatically get put in jail/executed/persecuted? No? Then I guess there's no government sponsored religion. There may be a religion that the majority of our government officials believe in, but in no way is anyone forced to believe in a certain faith. The people who wrote the Constitution believed in God. They may not have all been Christians, but they all believed in God. To say that they opposed religion is about as wrong as you can get. They opposed official government religions, and laws that limited religious freedom, but they did not oppose religion.

And yes, there are millions of Christians who's faith influences how they vote, but isn't that the point of democracy? In a democracy you don't impose the views of a minority on the majority that thinks differently. People will vote according to what they think is right, and that's how democracy works. If the people support Christianity, you can't just say "nope, I don't care what you all think, I'm going to say you can't have what you want, and we're going to do things my way."

As for this particular story, I think the school should do something for the kids who don't go to this bible study thing, but I don't think there's a problem with offering it. And I also have to wonder, did the kid really have a problem with the bible study, or did his mom just insist that he not go, and she's the one that's offended? :jclap:

[SteelerFan87]

Originally posted by Alcoholic9 on 10-19-2006 at 01:17 AM
Christianity has more blood on it's hands than like 50 Hitlers, and it start's with the death of Jesus. Oh wait, it goes back further....

How many people did God himself kill in the Old testament?


And how many did He create?


And Steve-o, yes, the minorities are protected, but they don't have the right to impose their will on the majority.

[Umfold]

Aloyouis, you keep saying 'the liberals'

Do you believe in Christ? How do you think JC would vote? Do you think he'd favor cutting programs that help the poor and needy in order to give tax breaks for the rich?
Do you think he'd support the NRA?
Wasn't Jesus, in fact, a lot closer to a socialist than a capitalist?

Christianity in America is the clearest case of people being used by religion for political ends.

[Steve-o]

Originally posted by dchester on 10-18-2006 at 08:09 PM
While I can't speak for anyone else, I'd have no problem with it. FWIW, I pay some significant money each year to send my son to a Catholic school instead of the public schools, and trust me, I'm not Catholic, (and since I'm not trying to get into a pissing contest with anyone who might be Catholic, I won't list the problems I have with the Catholic religion).

From my point of view, the people whining about the possibilty of themselves (or their kids) exposed to some religious speech, are the intolerant ones. That being said, I'd have no problem with Congress actually getting a set, and dealing with this whole issue and pass a law stating if we have "Separation of Church and State", and of course define what that actually means. Of course, as long as they ignore the whole issue, the court can make up whatever they want, and get away with it.

I don't trust anyone to give my son a religious speech, except for me and his mother. It's nobody's business but his, to figure out on his own.

He came to me when he was about 8 or 9, and he asked me if I believed in God. I told him "no." "I don't believe in God, either" he said. "Hang on, there" I said. "You have a right to believe whatever you want to believe. I don't want you thinking the way I do, just because. I want you to explain it to me. Why don't you believe in God?" He looked at me and said "the thing that doesn't make sense to me is... who made God?"

Sorry, but I'll never agree that any teacher or adult has the right to have that conversation at such a young age, instead of me and/or his mother.

[SteelerFan87]

Originally posted by Umfold on 10-19-2006 at 01:29 AM
Aloyouis, you keep saying 'the liberals'

Do you believe in Christ? How do you think JC would vote? Do you think he'd favor cutting programs that help the poor and needy in order to give tax breaks for the rich?
Do you think he'd support the NRA?
Wasn't Jesus, in fact, a lot closer to a socialist than a capitalist?

Christianity in America is the clearest case of people being used by religion for political ends.

So, what, you're trying to say Jesus was a good, moral person? Wow, how stupid we are for following a guy like that, eh?

And I think what you mean is "Christianity in America is the clearest case of religion being used for political ends". Not by religion, but by politicians who are looking for votes.

[Steve-o]

Originally posted by SteelerFan87 on 10-19-2006 at 01:28 AM
And how many did He create?


And Steve-o, yes, the minorities are protected, but they don't have the right to impose their will on the majority.

And the majority doesn't have its right to impose its will on the minority. We could go around and around on this. :D

[aloyouis]

Originally posted by Alcoholic9 on 10-18-2006 at 08:58 PM
Why doesn't thousands of years ago apply?

Anyway how does Hitler not count? Watch some history channel and you will see he pretty much wanted to create a new religion with him as the Messiah. I believe he even refered to some of his closest people as apostles from time to time. This is whithout even bringing up his extermination campaign against the Jews. Stalin was also not a big fan of the Jews.

Regardless, the Crusades, Catholic/Protestant fighting, etc. was not thousands of years ago. Should we throw out everything except the last hundred years or so?

Go check out a lot of the African fighting/genocides that have occured lately. Much of it is religious.

Bosnia ring a bell?

I won't even bring up 9/11, Afghanistan, Iraq.

I stand by my statement. Without religion a lot more people would be alive/had lived than the rest of our petty conflicts as humans have ever caused.

Who knows how far the Muslim extremist thing will go, it could potentially wipe out life on earth.

Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.


How does Hitler not count? I don't get my history from the television. I received my history form Lowell Public Schools and Framingham State. Guess what? They don't speak of Hitler as a religion. You can rely on the history channel and PBS.

With regard to the rest of the above post, I said 92 MILLION! You said religion was responsible. I showed you 92 million over the last 100 years. DO you really think going back 500 or 1000 years is going to make your statement less wrong?

92 MILLION in the last 100 years. Period.


Oh and by the way, most of the leaders responsible for the 92 million murders would (I’m guessing) agree with your political viewpoints.... Stalin anyone?

Please...please DON'T IGNORE HISTORY!

[aloyouis]

Originally posted by Umfold on 10-18-2006 at 09:27 PM
That's totally wrong. What are you even talking about?

Founded on religion? Nonsense.

Though some puritans did leave England because of the church, well, you'll notice that there were already people here.

(Also, though they were really after gold, many of the Europeans who came to America when it was first being explored only got funding if they agreed to 'force' the native people to accept Jesus as their god. No one knows how many native Americans died, but it is most likely 10s of millions)

But as far as the founding of America, it had nothing to do with religion.

Have you ever opened a history book?

[Umfold]

Originally posted by SteelerFan87 on 10-19-2006 at 01:32 AM
So, what, you're trying to say Jesus was a good, moral person? Wow, how stupid we are for following a guy like that, eh?Questioning why people who claim to follow him vote contrary to everything he stood for.

Duh.

[aloyouis]

Originally posted by Alcoholic9 on 10-18-2006 at 11:42 PM
It'd be much harder to convince someone to say "blow themselves up" if there wasn't a promise of say 72 virgins (which is wrong btw it's actually more ridiculous than that) waiting on the other side.

Ever seen Dogma? Silly movie but it did have a point. You can change an idea, a belief is something you're willing to die for.

Many people choose to blindly believe 2000 year old (or whatever) books (which according to someone should be thrown out because they're thousands of years old) full of stuff that just doesn't make any sense at all.

Sure, Noah got what? millions of animals on his ark? Tell me that's not a pathetic fairy tale. I imagine the Koran has similar stupid stories in it.


You ask us to watch comedians and admittedly dumb movies...do you think this HELPS you make a point?

[Umfold]

Originally posted by aloyouis on 10-19-2006 at 01:36 AM
Have you ever opened a history book? Wow, you got class. Instead of refuting what I said you try to insult me.

How Fox News of you.


I'm pretty sure the American revolution wasn't about religion. If it was, please enlighten me.

Oh wait! Now I remember. The Boston Tea Party was really about bibles. That's right. Gosh.

[SteelerFan87]

Originally posted by Steve-o on 10-19-2006 at 01:33 AM
And the majority doesn't have its right to impose its will on the minority. We could go around and around on this. :D

Well, the whole concept of democracy is that you vote, and whoever gets the most votes wins. So, yes, the majority basically gets to decide how things are done. Now, the interests of minorities are protected, so that they won't be oppressed, but they have less of a right to tell the majority what to do than the majority has to decide what to do.

[Alcoholic9*]

Originally posted by SteelerFan87 on 10-19-2006 at 01:28 AM
And how many did He create?



Two, supposedly.

Silly argument, I can knock my girl up and we have a baby in 9 months, do I have the right to kill it?

[aloyouis]

Originally posted by Alcoholic9 on 10-19-2006 at 01:17 AM
Go back and read what I said and stop putting words in my mouth. I have nothing against Christianity. You however appear to have a problem with me not praising it's so called values and contributions.

Vote, don't vote, do what you want. But don't tell me to blindly pretend that Republicans and Democrats alike don't kiss the asses of Christianity to get votes. If everyone were all Muslims the politicians would praise Allah in their speeches and all the lemmings would vote for them.

Here's something you really won't like....

Christianity has more blood on it's hands than like 50 Hitlers, and it start's with the death of Jesus. Oh wait, it goes back further....

How many people did God himself kill in the Old testament?

But hey, for 24 bucks a month I can sponsor a child in South America. :rolleyes:


Sigh........ok....here we go.



I didn't put words in your mouth.

I don't have a problem with you not praising anything. I have a problem with your ignorant (on this topic) rants against religion. Any religion.


Nobody told you to blindly do anything.


The rest of your post makes even less sense.............

[Steve-o]

Originally posted by SteelerFan87 on 10-19-2006 at 01:44 AM
Well, the whole concept of democracy is that you vote, and whoever gets the most votes wins. So, yes, the majority basically gets to decide how things are done. Now, the interests of minorities are protected, so that they won't be oppressed, but they have less of a right to tell the majority what to do than the majority has to decide what to do.

But we're not a democracy. We're a Republic.

[Alcoholic9*]

Originally posted by aloyouis on 10-19-2006 at 01:34 AM
How does Hitler not count? I don't get my history from the television. I received my history form Lowell Public Schools and Framingham State. Guess what? They don't speak of Hitler as a religion. You can rely on the history channel and PBS.

With regard to the rest of the above post, I said 92 MILLION! You said religion was responsible. I showed you 92 million over the last 100 years. DO you really think going back 500 or 1000 years is going to make your statement less wrong?

92 MILLION in the last 100 years. Period.


Oh and by the way, most of the leaders responsible for the 92 million murders would (I’m guessing) agree with your political viewpoints.... Stalin anyone?

Please...please DON'T IGNORE HISTORY!

You're a zealot now. Lowell and Framingham > History Channel ( who have 100's of PHD History scholar's and stuf behind them? )

credibility = gone

Most people on your list pprobably were in one way or another motivated by Religion. I rambled off three just glancing through your list who were.

You wan't to throw out history (aside from the last 100 years that you see entirely different from the facts) but stand behind a 2000 year old book.

:LOL: ROFL :LOL:

[aloyouis]

Originally posted by Umfold on 10-19-2006 at 01:29 AM
Aloyouis, you keep saying 'the liberals'

Do you believe in Christ? How do you think JC would vote? Do you think he'd favor cutting programs that help the poor and needy in order to give tax breaks for the rich?
Do you think he'd support the NRA?
Wasn't Jesus, in fact, a lot closer to a socialist than a capitalist?

Christianity in America is the clearest case of people being used by religion for political ends.





Do you believe in Christ?

What do you think?

Do you think he'd favor cutting programs that help the poor and needy in order to give tax breaks for the rich?

Don't know. Totally different context than this but a common tactic. Old stuff.


Do you think he'd support the NRA?

What does this have to do with anything we are discussing?


And your final statement is just plain ignorant but it would be polittically incorrect for me to point out the reasons why.

[aloyouis]

Originally posted by Umfold on 10-19-2006 at 01:40 AM
Wow, you got class. Instead of refuting what I said you try to insult me.

How Fox News of you.


I'm pretty sure the American revolution wasn't about religion. If it was, please enlighten me.

Oh wait! Now I remember. The Boston Tea Party was really about bibles. That's right. Gosh.


You made an ignorant statement. You insulted yourself.

[aloyouis]

Originally posted by Alcoholic9 on 10-19-2006 at 01:51 AM
You're a zealot now. Lowell and Framingham > History Channel ( who have 100's of PHD History scholar's and stuf behind them? )

credibility = gone

Most people on your list pprobably were in one way or another motivated by Religion. I rambled off three just glancing through your list who were.

You wan't to throw out history (aside from the last 100 years that you see entirely different from the facts) but stand behind a 2000 year old book.

:LOL: ROFL :LOL:


Reduced to name calling are you?


And yes. Learning in the classroom is better than watching TV. I am sorry you feel otherwise but...it is enlightening as to your position.

[aloyouis]

I am going to stop here because work is going to come fast (5 hours). I appreciate the conversation.

[Alcoholic9*]

Originally posted by aloyouis on 10-19-2006 at 01:58 AM
I am going to stop here because work is going to come fast (5 hours). I appreciate the conversation.

The zealot thing was probably out of line, I apologize.

I learned in the classroom too but I doubt either of us took four years of Hitler or Christianity or whatever. Actually I stand by History Channel as a great learning resource, better than most college courses for whatever the show is focusing on.

As the original poster said, let's see if we can have a civil debate about this ( or whatever it's become now.) :thumb:

[Umfold]

Originally posted by aloyouis on 10-19-2006 at 01:51 AM
What does this have to do with anything we are discussing?It was a direct response to something you said. I even addressed you to avoid confusion.

Duh.


Still trying to pretend that America was founded on religion, huh?

That's pretty ignorant of you, if I must say.

And I must. I must.

[Umfold]

Originally posted by aloyouis on 10-19-2006 at 01:51 AM
Don't know.

Don't know? Don't know?

Didn't your mommy ever tell you that lies make the baby Jesus cry?

[Alcoholic9*]

Originally posted by aloyouis on 10-19-2006 at 01:39 AM
You ask us to watch comedians and admittedly dumb movies...do you think this HELPS you make a point?

ROFL

Wanna hear something really funny?

God created Adam and Eve right?

Their decendants lead to your 92 million deaths that you don't blame on religion. :D

OWNED

[SteelerFan87]

Originally posted by Steve-o on 10-19-2006 at 01:48 AM
But we're not a democracy. We're a Republic.

And a republic works basically the same way as a democracy, only there's an added step. The people vote for representatives (majority rules there), and then those representatives vote on laws (majority rules again). Minorities are protected from oppression, but that doesn't mean they have superior, or even equal power to the majority.

[Alcoholic9*]

Not to pull this totally off topic but I'd like to hear from some bible thumpers about this. I won't hold my breath....

http://www.religioustolerance.org/sla_bibl.htm

Quotations by learned men from the 19th century:
"[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts." Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America. 1,2
"There is not one verse in the Bible inhibiting slavery, but many regulating it. It is not then, we conclude, immoral." Rev. Alexander Campbell
"The right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example." Rev. R. Furman, D.D., Baptist, of South Carolina
"The hope of civilization itself hangs on the defeat of Negro suffrage." A statement by a prominent 19th-century southern Presbyterian pastor, cited by Rev. Jack Rogers, moderator of the Presbyterian Church (USA).
"The doom of Ham has been branded on the form and features of his African descendants. The hand of fate has united his color and destiny. Man cannot separate what God hath joined." United States Senator James Henry Hammond. 3

Quotation from the 21st century:
"If we apply sola scriptura to slavery, I'm afraid the abolitionists are on relatively weak ground. Nowhere is slavery in the Bible lambasted as an oppressive and evil institution: Vaughn Roste, United Church of Canada staff.



Overview:
The quotation by Jefferson Davis, listed above, reflected the beliefs of many Americans in the 19th century. Slavery was seen as having been "sanctioned in the Bible." They argued that:

Biblical passages recognized, controlled, and regulated the practice.
The Bible permitted owners to beat their slaves severely, even to the point of killing them. However, as long as the slave lingered longer than 24 hours before dying of the abuse, the owner was not regarded as having committed a crime, because -- after all -- the slave was his property. 4
Paul had every opportunity to write in one of his Epistles that human slavery -- the owning of one person as a piece of property by another -- is profoundly evil. His letter to Philemon would have been an ideal opportunity to vilify slavery. But he wrote not one word of criticism.
Jesus could have condemned the practice. He might have done so. But there is no record of him having said anything negative about the institution.

Eventually, the abolitionists gained sufficient power to eradicate slavery in most areas of the world by the end of the 19th century. Slavery was eventually recognized as an extreme evil. But this paradigm shift in understanding came at a cost. Christians wondered why the Bible was so supportive of such an immoral practice. They questioned whether the Bible was entirely reliable. Perhaps there were other practices that it accepted as normal which were profoundly evil -- like genocide, torturing prisoners, raping female prisoners of war, executing religious minorities, burning some hookers alive, etc. The innocent faith that Christians had in "the Good Book" was lost -- never to be fully regained.

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.' If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever. (Exodus 21:2-6 NLT)

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

ROFL

[cka203]

Wow - I'm not sure which direction this thread is heading now.

I'm starting to think we might not be able to keep it civil.

In an effort to keep it so, I will say that I personally tend to agree with steelerfan's comments. I will also say that some other posters, whose position differs from mine, have some valid points (i.e., would I be upset if my kid's school wanted to teach them the Koran, etc.).

HOWEVER, that is also the crux of my position. I feel that we, as a nation, are letting the minority rule the majority. Like it or not, the majority of this country at least claims to be religious. But, the minority uses the ACLU and lawyers to ram their non-belief down the throats of the majority.

Hence, we cannot have prayer, Christmas songs, ten commandments, etc., but we CAN teach our kids Darwinism, evolution, etc.

IMO, that's not right. In a perfect world, they should teach both and allow people to choose for themselves which they believe.

As it is now, they teach kids that evolution and Darwin is the absolute truth, and are not allowed to even introduce the possiblility of creationism.

I tell my kids that when they're in school, taking tests, etc., they have to answer according to what the textbook says, so they won't fail. But... I also tell them that it's incorrect, and that they know the truth, and they should not forget it, regardless of what some textbook says.

JMO

[RavenZ]

Originally posted by cka203 on 10-19-2006 at 07:35 AM
Wow - I'm not sure which direction this thread is heading now.

I'm starting to think we might not be able to keep it civil.

In an effort to keep it so, I will say that I personally tend to agree with steelerfan's comments. I will also say that some other posters, whose position differs from mine, have some valid points (i.e., would I be upset if my kid's school wanted to teach them the Koran, etc.).

JMO

Well, this was my earlier point. You can't say "it's nondenominational" when it's the BIBLE. As you stated, you wouldn't want it done if it was the Koran, or Buddhism, or whatever, but it's the Bible, so it's OK. That implys that the school is sponsoring/approving a particular religion, which should NOT be done in a public school. Why not, as I stated before, a class where different religions are explained and discussed, so the students can talk about what they learn with their parents, rather than what appears in this case to be only one being shown as the "right" one? As stated before, there are private schools for that.
I don't think is makes the protesting mother intolerant - her kid is given ONE choice about a religion, not being discussed even, but "memorize Bible quotes", OR sit around and do nothing for an hour? I would be upset also. It seems the only people who think this is OK in a public school are those who study the bible themselves, yet you admit if it was ANYTHING ELSE YOU WOULDN'T LIKE IT. Does this make you intolerant?

I only cut your quote short to save space, the whole Darwinism vs creationism is a whole other debate.

[cka203]

Originally posted by RavenB on 10-19-2006 at 07:51 AM
Well, this was my earlier point. You can't say "it's nondenominational" when it's the BIBLE. As you stated, you wouldn't want it done if it was the Koran, or Buddhism, or whatever, but it's the Bible, so it's OK. That implys that the school is sponsoring/approving a particular religion, which should NOT be done in a public school. Why not, as I stated before, a class where different religions are explained and discussed, so the students can talk about what they learn with their parents, rather than what appears in this case to be only one being shown as the "right" one? As stated before, there are private schools for that.
I don't think is makes the protesting mother intolerant - her kid is given ONE choice about a religion, not being discussed even, but "memorize Bible quotes", OR sit around and do nothing for an hour? I would be upset also. It seems the only people who think this is OK in a public school are those who study the bible themselves, yet you admit if it was ANYTHING ELSE YOU WOULDN'T LIKE IT. Does this make you intolerant?

I only cut your quote short to save space, the whole Darwinism vs creationism is a whole other debate.


I understand what you're saying, and even agree, to a point.

My point is, if they're gonna teach evolution, why not creation?

Do we really want our kids taught that we evolved from apes or something, without acknowledging that there's also another theory, in that we were created by a higher being?

Why not both, and let each decide for themselves?

That's really all I'm getting at.

[RavenZ]

Originally posted by cka203 on 10-19-2006 at 08:04 AM
I understand what you're saying, and even agree, to a point.

My point is, if they're gonna teach evolution, why not creation?

Do we really want our kids taught that we evolved from apes or something, without acknowledging that there's also another theory, in that we were created by a higher being?

Why not both, and let each decide for themselves?

That's really all I'm getting at.

Well that comes down to science vs faith.
I don't know the specifics but I think there are people trying to scientifically prove creationism, who don't accept Darwinism as science.
Personally I don't believe faith (i.e,, creationsim) should be taught in public school, because there are so many ideas of faith, and as I stated, it doesn't appear it can be done without condoning one or the other.

[dropKickMurphy]

Originally posted by Steve-o on 10-19-2006 at 01:32 AM
[BHe came to me when he was about 8 or 9, and he asked me if I believed in God. I told him "no." "I don't believe in God, either" he said. "Hang on, there" I said. "You have a right to believe whatever you want to believe. I don't want you thinking the way I do, just because. I want you to explain it to me. Why don't you believe in God?" He looked at me and said "the thing that doesn't make sense to me is... who made God?" [/B]

Kids do say the damndest things...

When you think about it, the same question could be asked about the scientific version of the creation of the universe:
"Who lit the fuse on the 'Big Bang?'"

When my son was about that age, he and I were on a backpacking trip. He was kind of stressing out because he was starting to have serious doubts about the whole God thing. He asked me what I believed in.

I basically told him that, while I don't believe that any person or religion has the inside track on the truth, I was keeping myself open to the possibility that there is something greater than us who may have a purpose for us.

He asked me how any intelligent person could believe in something without some kind of proof.

I then came up with DKM's parable of the salmon. It went something like this:

If you look at every society, every nation, every tribe of humans that ever existed, you'll find one thing in common. They all found it important to gather together, and to create rituals, to pay homage to a higher being or beings. In virtually all societies, the worship of "god" has been the central focus of their culture.

Now, the study of evolution teaches us that organisms that waste energy on useless functions will have less energy for the "usefull" functions such as finding food and creating offspring. Therefore, useless functions will be weeded out by natural selection.

So, my only conclusion is that "religion" has been somehow important in the overall long term survival of our species.

But how?

Perhaps the answer is beyond our ability to understand.

By chance, we happened to be hanging out by a stream when the conversation took place. I said that maybe we're like the salmon in that stream. For as long as there have been salmon, the adults migrate up the stream, spawn, and die. The salmon that hatch from those eggs make their way to the ocean until they're ready to do the same thing their parents did.

Now, say you had a particularly "intelligent" salmon swimming in the ocean with his buddies. He questions the whole purpose of swimming up that stream. He can't see the logic of it, so he decides to stay right where he is.

As his friends swim up that stream, never to return, the fish that stayed behind congratulates himself for the fact that he's so much smarter than all the other salmon. Of course, those smart genes will never get a chance to make it into the next generation of salmon. Which is fortunate, since the species would die out if all the salmon got to be that smart.

So maybe it's possible that this instinct to gather together, create rituals, and pray to a higher being is as important to our survival as a species as the salmon's instinct to return to their stream to spawn? And maybe we don't have any better chance than the salmon of understanding why.

Maybe it's a sign that my offsprings' brain is as twisted as my own, but he actually thought I had a good point. Which kinda surprised the hell out of me, because I wasn't quite sure there was any point....

[Benign Despot]

I can only speak for myself here, I believe that there are zealots who would disagree with me, but I have no objection to Creationism being taught in public schools, but NOT as science.

Scientific Method requires you to make observations and fit a hypothesis to the observed phenomenon. Then others look at your conclusion and either agree or disagree based on the evidence. EVERYTHING is a theory.

Gravity is a theory, but it seems to fit the observation. Quantum physics is a theory but we can build nuclear power plants (and bombs) by applying the theory.

In the end the theory of evolution fits the observed phenomenon of nature, It may be right, wrong or partially right but it fits what we observe.

Creation Science asks me to disavow fossil evidence of extinct species and various dating methods that all agree that life on earth is millions of years old as a trick of the devil (or a test of the lord). This is the realm of faith. You can believe it if you choose in spite of the observed phenomenon, and you may be right, but you can't call it science.

[dchester]

Originally posted by Steve-o on 10-19-2006 at 01:16 AM
This is where the brilliance of our founding fathers comes into play. We do not live in a true democracy, and for that, I am thankful. In a true democracy, would white men have ever voted to allow women to vote? Blacks?

Our country was designed to always protect the rights of the minority. If enough Christians take over Congress and vote to make the Christianity the official religion of the U.S., we have the supreme court to determine that move is UnConstitutional. If enough anti-religious people took over and outlawed Christianity, we have the supreme court to determine that UnConstitutional.

If one man among us is not free, none of us are free.

This was the brilliance of our founding fathers. Our founding fathers who were Deists and Atheists.
WTF?

The founding fathers had nothing, zilch, nada to do with Black people or women voting. The Amendments to the Constitution after the Civil War, are what gave Black people the right to vote, and it took another Amendment, years later, for Women.

The founding fathers did a lot, but rights for Minorities and Women isn't among them.
________
Toyota TF106 (http://www.toyota-wiki.com/wiki/Toyota_TF106)

[Patriots44]

One quick note on Darwin (and yes, I heard this on the History Channel ;)

Darwin never said that evolution explains how life started, just how it has changed (evolved). People, usually those who believe in creationism, jump on Darwin as if he's saying there's no god.
Now, I don't know what Darwin did or didn't believe, but the idea that species have evolved seems pretty hard to dispute. How we "started" is. While I don't personally believe in "Adam and Eve", I respect the opinion of those who do.

As to why creationism isn't taught in public schools... my feeling is that teaching something from one particular religion would be in appropriate because in any given classroom you could have Christians, muslims, budhists, atheists, etc. If we truly live in a "Free country", we can't use public schools to teach what one particular religion believes. Now, I honestly don't know what other religions have as the equivalent to "Adam and Eve", but assuming there's something like "Muhammad and Islama in the oasis of eden". Would we teach that version of creationism in public schools? Probably not.

[Benign Despot]

Actually Islam is an Abrahamic religion and believes in Adam and Eve. I think there are some minor differences in the details but I could be wrong.

[Patriots44]

I like that "salmon" story, honestly, it makes a fair point. However, Salmon probably can't spawn in salt water, or some other issue, thus any "smart" salmon that stayed in the ocean couldn't pass on their smart genes (as you correctly stated).

Hey... maybe there are salmon that say "Screw this" and don't swim upstream every year. :D

[Patriots44]

Originally posted by Benign Despot on 10-19-2006 at 09:36 AM
Actually Islam is an Abrahamic religion and believes in Adam and Eve. I think there are some minor differences in the details but I could be wrong.

That's a good point. I'd be curious to hear from some of the more religious posters on how they would feel if a version of creationism was taught that wasn't strictly from their religion's "text". If it still stated that God created the first 2 people, is that ok, or does it have to be read write out of their favored scripture?

[cka203]

Originally posted by Patriots44 on 10-19-2006 at 10:19 AM
That's a good point. I'd be curious to hear from some of the more religious posters on how they would feel if a version of creationism was taught that wasn't strictly from their religion's "text". If it still stated that God created the first 2 people, is that ok, or does it have to be read write out of their favored scripture?

Saying that God created the first 2 people is scripture ;)

(but it would be more accurate to say God created everything .

[Patriots44]

Originally posted by cka203 on 10-19-2006 at 10:22 AM
Saying that God created the first 2 people is scripture ;)

(but it would be more accurate to say God created everything .

but "who's" scripture? Christian, Muslim, Judism, Old testament, new testament, whatever other religions consider sacred text? Many of these may have similar "accounts", but there are also variations to the story depending on what you are reading.

good point on the "created everything", forgot about that whole universe thing! :p

[grog]

Originally posted by Patriots44 on 10-19-2006 at 09:30 AM
One quick note on Darwin (and yes, I heard this on the History Channel ;)

Darwin never said that evolution explains how life started, just how it has changed (evolved). People, usually those who believe in creationism, jump on Darwin as if he's saying there's no god.
Now, I don't know what Darwin did or didn't believe, but the idea that species have evolved seems pretty hard to dispute. How we "started" is. While I don't personally believe in "Adam and Eve", I respect the opinion of those who do.



Maybe this is slightly off topic and a dumb question, but I have to ask. If we evolved from some sort of monkey species, why haven't all species of monkeys evolved? Why just homo-sapiens? Just wondering why evolution isn't universal among all primates? If you can explain why evolution did happen for one group, can you explain why it didn't happen for another.

[Benign Despot]

All species ARE evolving, just in different directions. Today's Chimpanzee is different that his proto-chimp ancestor.

The latest theory is that walking upright was the big change that lead to the development of intelligent human primates. There was a really good article on it in National Geographic a month or 2 ago.

The "goal" of natural selection is not higher intelligence, it's survival of the species. If your genetic variation gives you a better chance of surviving AND reproducing (thanks DKM) the trait will be passed on and become more and more prevelent.

For our ancenstors intelligence gave them an advantage, for the chimp or the Apw it may have been better smell, hearing, speed or strength.

[dropKickMurphy]

Originally posted by Patriots44 on 10-19-2006 at 10:16 AM
I like that "salmon" story, honestly, it makes a fair point. However, Salmon probably can't spawn in salt water, or some other issue, thus any "smart" salmon that stayed in the ocean couldn't pass on their smart genes (as you correctly stated)....

That is true. Baby salmon would not survive in salt water.

However, I doubt that even that smart salmon is capable of understanding the mechanics of osmoregulation. They have no idea why they head to the streams to spawn...it's simply behavior that has been programmed into them by natural selection.

Personally, I tend to believe that religion has been programmed into human behavior by this same process of natural selection. And that my inability to understand its exact importance may just be due to the limitations of the human brain.

Pretty much every culture on earth practices a form of religion. As different as these religions are, they do seem to have much in common:
- belief in a soul
- belief in a higher being (or beiings) who was reponsible for our creation
- rituals that include costumes, designated holy men, and sacred places

To me, the question of how and why these religions even exist is just as intriguing as the question of wheter God exists.

It just seems that if we had been wasting all this energy on something that doesn't contribute to our survival, humans would dropped this religion stuff around the time we lost our tails.

In any event, the original point of my rambling was a response to Steve-O's point. He knows his kid better than anyone else, and was able to discuss his beliefs in a way that made sense to his kid.

Likewise, I was able to put things in a way that made some sense to my own kid.

The point being that kids are far better off getting this stuff from their parents than from the public schools.

Can I get an amen on that?

[RavenZ]

Originally posted by dropKickMurphy on 10-19-2006 at 12:03 PM
The point being that kids are far better off getting this stuff from their parents than from the public schools.

Can I get an amen on that?

AMEN.

though I still think a general study on all religions and philosophies, without prejudice to one or the other, would be a good idea.

[cka203]

Originally posted by RavenB on 10-19-2006 at 12:21 PM
AMEN.

though I still think a general study on all religions and philosophies, without prejudice to one or the other, would be a good idea.

AMEN! :D

[Patriots44]

Originally posted by grogsox on 10-19-2006 at 11:51 AM
Maybe this is slightly off topic and a dumb question, but I have to ask. If we evolved from some sort of monkey species, why haven't all species of monkeys evolved? Why just homo-sapiens? Just wondering why evolution isn't universal among all primates? If you can explain why evolution did happen for one group, can you explain why it didn't happen for another.

That's a very good question... and would require someone who can explain better then I the theory of evolution.

I'll regurgitate an example I remember from a life science class:
I believe it starts with a genetic mutation in one "animal" that proves beneficial to survival and breeding. I'm not refering to "people evolved from chimps" but a more simple example of maybe why Giraffe's have long necks (having a long neck made it easier to reach a food source others couldn't reach, thus no competition for food). This doesn't mean every leaf-eating animal had to evolve to have a long neck, just that, in this case, it worked for giraffes.
As Giraffes evolved long necks, offspring that genetically had not-so-long necks would face more competition for food, have a harder time surviving, and be less likely to pass their "shorter-neck-genes" on to offspring. (plus the girl giraffes probably like 'em "long" :D )
The longer the... eh, ?neck?, the more likely to breed, pass on this genetic trait, and have all long necked giraffes.

Now... how did any of these animals, regardless of how they started out and how they have evolved get here.... ???

[Patriots44]

And a big AHMEN to DKM.

Also, I didn't see the much better explanation of evolution before I posted mine. Great explanation by BD on that.

[thomas144]

Originally posted by dropKickMurphy on 10-19-2006 at 12:03 PM

Pretty much every culture on earth practices a form of religion. As different as these religions are, they do seem to have much in common:
- belief in a soul
- belief in a higher being (or beiings) who was reponsible for our creation
- rituals that include costumes, designated holy men, and sacred places


I don't know that Buddhism has a belief in a soul, although I really don't know, and I don't know what you mean by "soul" actually. Also don't know if Buddhism has a belief in higher beings. Rituals, I guess they have. Don't really know much about it.

I'm not familiar with the concept of "soul" but I suspect that most religions don't have this, whatever is meant by that.

[Alcoholic9*]

Originally posted by thomas144 on 10-19-2006 at 12:32 PM
I don't know that Buddhism has a belief in a soul, although I really don't know, and I don't know what you mean by "soul" actually. Also don't know if Buddhism has a belief in higher beings. Rituals, I guess they have. Don't really know much about it.

I'm not familiar with the concept of "soul" but I suspect that most religions don't have this, whatever is meant by that.

Buddhism believes in reincarnation. I guess there'd have to be a soul to go from one body to the next. AFAIK they don't believe in a God like being.

[thomas144]

Originally posted by grogsox on 10-19-2006 at 11:51 AM
Maybe this is slightly off topic and a dumb question, but I have to ask. If we evolved from some sort of monkey species, why haven't all species of monkeys evolved? Why just homo-sapiens? Just wondering why evolution isn't universal among all primates? If you can explain why evolution did happen for one group, can you explain why it didn't happen for another.

funny question, I think your confusion is rooted in the idea that things "evolve" into "higher forms", or something.

sure, humans, might be smarter than, for example, jelly fish in some ways, but not if we destroy ourselves, and the planet. that would be pretty dumb.

a million years from now, visitors from outer space might come here and find only cockroaches, and wonder why all lifeforms didn't evolve into a successful species like cockroaches.

[thomas144]

Originally posted by Alcoholic9 on 10-19-2006 at 12:34 PM
Buddhism believes in reincarnation. I guess there'd have to be a soul to go from one body to the next. AFAIK they don't believe in a God like being.

There's a good wikipedia article on "soul" - I think it's interesting the word "soul" as we use it was unknown to Jesus, and does not exist in Hebrew.

Honestly, this isn't a topic I find particularly interesting, however. :-)

[SteelerFan87]

Originally posted by Patriots44 on 10-19-2006 at 09:30 AM
One quick note on Darwin (and yes, I heard this on the History Channel ;)

Darwin never said that evolution explains how life started, just how it has changed (evolved). People, usually those who believe in creationism, jump on Darwin as if he's saying there's no god.
Now, I don't know what Darwin did or didn't believe, but the idea that species have evolved seems pretty hard to dispute. How we "started" is.


That's pretty much how I view the theory of evolution. In no way does it say that God doesn't exist, or that God didn't start the process or perhaps control it. And Creation doesn't really describe how God created life in much detail, so it is entirely possible that Creation describes who created life, and Evolution describes how He did it.

[BizarroAnnihilus]

Originally posted by Alcoholic9 on 10-19-2006 at 11:34 AM
Buddhism believes in reincarnation. I guess there'd have to be a soul to go from one body to the next. AFAIK they don't believe in a God like being.

Correct....the goal in Buddhism is nirvana (basically 'nothingness'). A person is re-incarnated either into a higher state or a lower state depending upon how ones life has been lived. If a rich person lived his life as an evil a-hole, the idea is that when he dies, he is reincarnated as a lesser person. He then has his next life to live and can possibly redeem himself by living a full life and is kind.

If a person continues to be spiritual/good in each life, he can attain nirvana, at which point he is no longer re-incarnated. If a person continues to live a life of evil/etc., then he will put himself in a downward spiral and eventually be re-incarnated as a dog or some lower life form....at which point it is impossible for him to move up.

Also....Buddha was just a man....not a god.

[#1Patsfan_chica]

I think it's good to learn at a young age of all the different religions. I wished I would have learned. I didn't have a religion class until I went to college.

[cka203]

Follow-up in today's paper on the original article stated that out of 23 students in this kid's class, 21 signed up for the religion class. Which proves my point about the "minority ruling the majority". So this kid's mom is upset that her kid's not going to this class (her choice), so she's gonna make it a rule that NO ONE can go?! Ridiculous!

[RavenZ]

Originally posted by cka203 on 10-19-2006 at 01:08 PM
Follow-up in today's paper on the original article stated that out of 23 students in this kid's class, 21 signed up for the religion class. Which proves my point about the "minority ruling the majority". So this kid's mom is upset that her kid's not going to this class (her choice), so she's gonna make it a rule that NO ONE can go?! Ridiculous!

No, it's not ridiculous. Public schools should not endorse religion on public school time. By having the kids memorize quotes from the bible, not in fact studying, they are defacto approving only this one religious study.
It should NOT be done in a public school. Public school is no place for bible study.
Again, if it was anything but the bible, which is obviously OK in that neck of the woods, there would be a bigger outcry.
I don't think the dissenting mother should be demonized.

[Wandering Athol]

Originally posted by dropKickMurphy on 10-19-2006 at 12:03 PM
To me, the question of how and why these religions even exist is just as intriguing as the question of wheter God exists.

It just seems that if we had been wasting all this energy on something that doesn't contribute to our survival, humans would dropped this religion stuff around the time we lost our tails.

It seems intuitive to me that religion was man's response to dealing with "Tragedy of the Commons" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons)-type situations, wherein individual self-interest had to be suppressed for the greater good of the tribe. I think the most intelligent person in the village, most likely possessing superior empathy, would understand that no amount of logic could make man change his selfish, destructive, instinctive-for-survival behavior....however, perhaps a threat of supernatural consequence could get the needed response. :spock:

Just my two cents. Makes the most sense to me: religion enforces a civil code.

[BizarroAnnihilus]

Originally posted by Wandering Athol on 10-19-2006 at 12:20 PM
It seems intuitive to me that religion was man's response to dealing with "Tragedy of the Commons" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons)-type situations, wherein individual self-interest had to be suppressed for the greater good of the tribe. I think the most intelligent person in the village, most likely possessing superior empathy, would understand that no amount of logic could make man change his selfish, destructive, instinctive-for-survival behavior....however, perhaps a threat of supernatural consequence could get the needed response. :spock:

Just my two cents. Makes the most sense to me: religion enforces a civil code.

That's pretty much what it boils down to: crowd control.

[Alcoholic9*]

Originally posted by Wandering Athol on 10-19-2006 at 01:20 PM
It seems intuitive to me that religion was man's response to dealing with "Tragedy of the Commons" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons)-type situations, wherein individual self-interest had to be suppressed for the greater good of the tribe. I think the most intelligent person in the village, most likely possessing superior empathy, would understand that no amount of logic could make man change his selfish, destructive, instinctive-for-survival behavior....however, perhaps a threat of supernatural consequence could get the needed response. :spock:

Just my two cents. Makes the most sense to me: religion enforces a civil code.

That's pretty much how I feel about the Religions. A better title for "The Bible" and "The Koran" would probably be "Guidebook on How to Create a Civilized Society."

Whoever originally came up with the idea was definetly a smart mofo. How do you stop all the stealing, raping, killing that the "strong" are commiting against the "weak?" Let's tell them all that they'll go to Hell after they die. Heaven works the other way. How do you keep the poor and sick and suffering or whatever from just giving up and killing themselves? Tell them all that Paradise awaits them after they die (but if they kill themselves they'll go to Hell with all the bad people.) ;)

[thomas144]

I don't really equate religion with ethics but I find it (sort of) interesting that other people do.

I think religions exist mostly because humans have awareness of their own mortality, as well as conciousness of their existence, and because they develop belief in what we call superstition or "karma".

[Benign Despot]

Originally posted by cka203 on 10-19-2006 at 01:08 PM
Follow-up in today's paper on the original article stated that out of 23 students in this kid's class, 21 signed up for the religion class. Which proves my point about the "minority ruling the majority". So this kid's mom is upset that her kid's not going to this class (her choice), so she's gonna make it a rule that NO ONE can go?! Ridiculous!

Everybody wants "majority rule" until they find themselves in the minority.

Let me ask the same question I asked before in a different way.

Let's say due to a job transfer you moved to Salt Lake City and this exact program was in place with the exception that The Book of Mormon is substituted for The Bible. You child finds himself or herself in the position of being one of the 2 non-participants.

Would you feel your child was singled out and had a right to feel uncomfortable? Would you feel it was fair to drop an hour of classroom instruction per week for this program? Would you feel this was a good use of YOUR tax dollars?

[mgoblue101415]

"The Christian resolution to find the world ugly and bad, has made the world ugly and bad."


Or another of my personal faves...

"Civilization will not attain to its perfection until the last stone from the last church falls on the last priest."

Read Les Trois Villes sometime... There's a nice little series on the Catholic Church.



Yes, I'm Catholic so how the hell can I agree with the above quotes?

Because they're true.

Religion, any religion, is not bad. Belief is not bad. Where religion gets ugly is when you get the priests, and the pope, and the rabbis, and the imam's and all the other middle men involved.

I mean, to see that religion is nothing but trying to force people to believe a certain thing, just look at christianity. How many different sects are there within christianity? People who all believe in Christ. People who, for the most part, read the New Testament, along with the Old Testament. So if all these people agree that the bible is the word of God and Christ was the savior, how can they possibly have such completely different ideas when it comes to religion? Because every religion within christianity picks and choses which parts of the bible to take as gospel, then interprets it their own way.

"Jesus was alright but his disciples were thick and ordinary. It's them twisting it that ruins it for me."

I have a relationship with God and Christ, and I don't need a priest to pass my message along. And somehow I doubt that a million dollars to The Church and a half-hearted feeling of guilt would get me into heaven if I had killed a person or two. Yet according to The Church... See... It's always the middle man that screws you over.

You can be the most religious person in the world and not step a foot inside a church, or synagogue, or temple... Does anyone really think that God is going to see a person as less devout because they pray in his house everyday, instead of a church?

And I have a problem with some of the right-wing conservatives out there using the bible to defend their causes. While they're out there right now, telling people to go out and vote against gay marriage, because it is an attack at their religious freedom... I know I've said this before but... These conservatives say that The Bible says marriage should be between a man and a woman. Course, it also says that only a married man and woman should have sex but somehow, to them, that isn't quite as bad. Last time I checked, God didn't say one sin was worse than another.... People did that.

The right-wing conservatives will throw the phrase "The Bible says..." a lot. Course, like I mentioned earlier, people simply pick and choose which parts of The Bible they choose to believe, or at least live by.

"These people are evil because they______"
"These people must be stopped because they______"


Guess a lot of the right-wing concervatives missed the parts of The Bible that said things like...

Do not judge, or you too will be judged.

It is not our job as humans to judge, yet to listen to some people you'd think they were the damn voice of God.

The problem with, at least christianity, is people are too busy pointing out what everyone else is doing wrong. A man wants to marry another man... A woman choses to abort a pregnancy... And the majority of the conservative right are out there to stop it. Well, perhaps if they were as good of christians as they claim to be, they'd be saying a prayer for these "lost souls" instead of playing God and damning them to hell, and maybe focusing on the problems in their own lives instead of someone else's.


"Is man merely a mistake of God's? Or is God merely a mistake of man's?"

[aloyouis]

Originally posted by Alcoholic9 on 10-19-2006 at 02:06 AM
The zealot thing was probably out of line, I apologize.

I learned in the classroom too but I doubt either of us took four years of Hitler or Christianity or whatever. Actually I stand by History Channel as a great learning resource, better than most college courses for whatever the show is focusing on.

As the original poster said, let's see if we can have a civil debate about this ( or whatever it's become now.) :thumb:

Classy post. Accepted.

These kinds of discussions are absolutely neccessary because without them we all become slaves to the easy ways of thinking.

Healthy debate is ALWAYS good.

[RoadGrader]

Originally posted by aloyouis on 10-19-2006 at 02:15 PM


Healthy debate is ALWAYS good. speaking of healthy debate, why don't someone PM Uncle Vic to join the thread?

[Steve-o]

Originally posted by dchester on 10-19-2006 at 09:29 AM
WTF?

The founding fathers had nothing, zilch, nada to do with Black people or women voting. The Amendments to the Constitution after the Civil War, are what gave Black people the right to vote, and it took another Amendment, years later, for Women.

The founding fathers did a lot, but rights for Minorities and Women isn't among them.

And the system they set up allowed later generations to find that Black people and women were people, too, and the Constitution applies to them, as well.

I'm not sure a straight democratic vote of white male slaveowners would have ever allowed for correction of that mistake.

[aloyouis]

Originally posted by cka203 on 10-19-2006 at 01:08 PM
Follow-up in today's paper on the original article stated that out of 23 students in this kid's class, 21 signed up for the religion class. Which proves my point about the "minority ruling the majority". So this kid's mom is upset that her kid's not going to this class (her choice), so she's gonna make it a rule that NO ONE can go?! Ridiculous!


Yes...it is ridiculous.

[RavenZ]

Originally posted by Benign Despot on 10-19-2006 at 02:11 PM
Everybody wants "majority rule" until they find themselves in the minority.

Let me ask the same question I asked before in a different way.

Let's say due to a job transfer you moved to Salt Lake City and this exact program was in place with the exception that The Book of Mormon is substituted for The Bible. You child finds himself or herself in the position of being one of the 2 non-participants.

Would you feel your child was singled out and had a right to feel uncomfortable? Would you feel it was fair to drop an hour of classroom instruction per week for this program? Would you feel this was a good use of YOUR tax dollars?

Exactly. The school, as a public insititution, is implicitly approving only one religion.
You can't have a state or country wide sponsored religion and claim to be a country of religious freedom.

[mgoblue101415]

Originally posted by aloyouis on 10-19-2006 at 01:30 PM
Yes...it is ridiculous.

Not in a PUBLIC school it's not.

If the majority of the parents feel they want their kids to go to Bible study, send them to church.

A question for those of you around here who went to parochial schools... Do they teach evolution?

[bideau]

Originally posted by mgoblue101415 on 10-19-2006 at 02:34 PM
Not in a PUBLIC school it's not.

If the majority of the parents feel they want their kids to go to Bible study, send them to church.

A question for those of you around here who went to parochial schools... Do they teach evolution?

In my Catholic high school they did. We also had a class on religions of the world and, as I recall, it was taught in a very fair manner.

But that was back in the 70's, before our current Age of Enlightenment.

My guess is that the religious parents support this because they have better things to do on their own time than send their kids to bible study. Gotta get back home after service before the games start.

[blantyr]

I see human emotions such as aggression, territoriality, dominance, mercy, family bonding and group bonding as evolved to improve the chance of an individual or group to pass on its genes. As man evolved reason and language, some of this genetic morality became cultural. Not all social behavior was genetic anymore, some of it had to be taught. Most cultures developed a dual authority, with a chief leading in practical matters while a shaman explained the unexplainable and maintained rules and morality. This in time developed into state and church.

In Western Civilization, the Reformation, Scientific Revolution and Enlightenment challenged to role of the church. Scientists began taking over the role of explaining the unexplainable. Blatantly immoral policies by the medieval Church resulted in multiple alternate systems of understanding God and behaving morally. Religious wars to determine by force of arms which religious system would triumph became unendurable, resulting in the concept of Freedom of Religion. It became accepted that each individual had the right to determine and follow their own preferred system of morality. The Enlightenment produced an alternate system of morality, based in part on Reason, in part on Rights allegedly granted by God.

Me, I'm a devout agnostic. The moral system taught in one's youth is apt to stick. I am able to respect most religious systems. They contain much wisdom of the ages. Many of them (all of them?) are not perfect. They were created in a time of muscle powered weapons, when war was cost effective. They were used and are still used to justify cultural aggression. I still believe in Freedom of Religion, that force or coercion should not be used to expand the scope and territory of an individual's moral system.

But then, the Enlightenment values have been used to justify cultural aggression as well. Many value systems are absolute. They present themselves as superior to all other value systems. Too many value systems tempt followers to use coercion or force to perpetuate themselves. In this case, we have a religious faction attempting to perpetuate religious values, while the ACLU is attempting to perpetuate extensions of Enlightenment values.

Me, I'd as soon see attempts to perpetuate religious values kept out of public schools and government institutions. I wouldn't get hyper about it. If Christians don't mind other religions putting up, say, Samhain decorations on Halloween, or Passover decorations on public property, sure, put up religious Christmas icons as well. As long as it is vaguely mutual.

I see science, reason and government slowly taking over roles once monopolized by religion. Many individuals, however, still hold to religious values as primary and absolute. They will understandably resist the notion that various value systems must be put on an equal footing. I don't anticipate easy answers.

[Steve-o]

Originally posted by cka203 on 10-19-2006 at 01:08 PM
Follow-up in today's paper on the original article stated that out of 23 students in this kid's class, 21 signed up for the religion class. Which proves my point about the "minority ruling the majority". So this kid's mom is upset that her kid's not going to this class (her choice), so she's gonna make it a rule that NO ONE can go?! Ridiculous!

Yes, the situation is ridiculously simple. Public school time is not Bible time. Home time is Bible time. Church time is Bible time. After school, teachers off the clock, I'm a-ok with that being voluntary Bible time, if parents would rather someone else give that to their kids, instead of them. Why they would want someone else handling such a personal issue is beyond me, though.

School time is school time.

[Steve-o]

Originally posted by Alcoholic9 on 10-19-2006 at 01:34 PM
That's pretty much how I feel about the Religions. A better title for "The Bible" and "The Koran" would probably be "Guidebook on How to Create a Civilized Society."

Whoever originally came up with the idea was definetly a smart mofo. How do you stop all the stealing, raping, killing that the "strong" are commiting against the "weak?" Let's tell them all that they'll go to Hell after they die. Heaven works the other way. How do you keep the poor and sick and suffering or whatever from just giving up and killing themselves? Tell them all that Paradise awaits them after they die (but if they kill themselves they'll go to Hell with all the bad people.) ;)

When you really get to the heart of it, every religion is based on the same exact idea. Take away all the prophets, the stories of good and evil, reincarnation, gods and devils, and all the other filler, and you're left with one basic idea. BE GOOD TO PEOPLE. It's the Golden Rule for every religion. I think if we all made being good to people our religion, we'd eliminate war, hunger, poverty, and the need for this debate.

[cka203]

Originally posted by Steve-o on 10-19-2006 at 03:05 PM
Yes, the situation is ridiculously simple. Public school time is not Bible time. Home time is Bible time. Church time is Bible time. After school, teachers off the clock, I'm a-ok with that being voluntary Bible time, if parents would rather someone else give that to their kids, instead of them. Why they would want someone else handling such a personal issue is beyond me, though.

School time is school time.

I seem to be having a hard time making myself understood today.

Let me try again.

I agree something like this should be handled at home. I agree it's a personal decision.

What I have a problem with is, the school teaching my kids that evolution and Darwinism is an absolute fact, without presenting the other side or possibility.

I just think that, to be fair, if they're gonna teach one side, they should be allowed to at least offer the other side. Which we used to be able to do, until the ACLU and their types decided it was their right to take away my rights and beliefs.

Sorry... guess I'm just in a crappy mood today.

[grog]

I like the "we were dropped off on this planet by alien beings" theory a lot too. Be sure to get that one in.

[Steve-o]

Originally posted by dropKickMurphy on 10-19-2006 at 08:43 AM
Kids do say the damndest things...

When you think about it, the same question could be asked about the scientific version of the creation of the universe:
"Who lit the fuse on the 'Big Bang?'"

Yeah, it can be used to question any theory. The way I see it, it's just as likely or unlikely that we rose from the sea, grew limbs, and began walking upright without anything provoking it as it is that an almighty being with the power to create everything in the universe came into being without anything provoking it. Which can raise so many other potential ideologies. What if God was the product of evolution and we're all his/her creation? etc. etc.


Maybe it's a sign that my offsprings' brain is as twisted as my own, but he actually thought I had a good point. Which kinda surprised the hell out of me, because I wasn't quite sure there was any point....

Thanks for the story. Good read. The kids are much smarter than all of this stuff than we ever give 'em credit for. Maybe even smarter than us.

[RavenZ]

Originally posted by cka203 on 10-19-2006 at 03:14 PM
I seem to be having a hard time making myself understood today.

Let me try again.

I agree something like this should be handled at home. I agree it's a personal decision.

What I have a problem with is, the school teaching my kids that evolution and Darwinism is an absolute fact, without presenting the other side or possibility.

I just think that, to be fair, if they're gonna teach one side, they should be allowed to at least offer the other side. Which we used to be able to do, until the ACLU and their types decided it was their right to take away my rights and beliefs.

Sorry... guess I'm just in a crappy mood today.

Maybe I'm the only one, but I understood you just fine. :)

Which side do you want presented? Catholicisim, Christianity, Buddhism, Judaism? Where is the scientific fact for any of these?

This is my understanding of the problem. I would have no problem with a class on RELIGION with no emphasis, positive or otherwise, on any particular one.

This IMO is the crux of the particular problem in this case. A PUBLIC school teaching one religion only, covering their asses by saying "it's voluntary!". Exclusion is still exclusion on PUBLIC school time.
No one is taking away your rights and beliefs. You just don't have the option to impose them on others in a government sponsored forum, using taxpayer dollars. In your home, church or private school, sure.
I need a chocolate chip cookie.

[patfanallan]

Originally posted by aloyouis on 10-19-2006 at 01:21 AM
NOT! How can you try to talk about such an important issue whilst painting with a stupefying broad brush?


Lets see: Radical Muslims are religious and brainwashed so they kill each other (and everybody else) therefore all religious people are brainwashed?

Try this: You are a male and Hitler was a male therefore all males (including me) are murderous tyrants?

Please go back and read your post.... think for a moment...and repost.

Just because all religions are used to brainwash or control their subjects doesn't make them murderers. Read what the Bishop John Shelby Spong writes "The words of the Apostles Creed, and its later expansion known as the Nicene Creed, were fashioned inside a worldview that no longer exists. Indeed, it is quite alien to the world in which I live. The way reality was peceived when the Christian creeds were formulated has been obliterated by the expansion of knowledge." He goes on to say, "Instutional Christianity seems fearful of inquiry, fearful of freedom, fearful of knowledge--indeed, fearful of anything except its own repetitious propaganda, which has its origins in a world that none of us any longer inhabits."

[RavenZ]

Originally posted by Steve-o on 10-19-2006 at 03:21 PM
Thanks for the story. Good read. The kids are much smarter than all of this stuff than we ever give 'em credit for. Maybe even smarter than us.

No kidding.

Someday it will be scientifcally proven that the innocence of children is pure genious, corrupted by adults into stupidity.

Sigh.

[Steve-o]

Originally posted by cka203 on 10-19-2006 at 03:14 PM
I seem to be having a hard time making myself understood today.

Let me try again.

I agree something like this should be handled at home. I agree it's a personal decision.

What I have a problem with is, the school teaching my kids that evolution and Darwinism is an absolute fact, without presenting the other side or possibility.

I just think that, to be fair, if they're gonna teach one side, they should be allowed to at least offer the other side. Which we used to be able to do, until the ACLU and their types decided it was their right to take away my rights and beliefs.

Sorry... guess I'm just in a crappy mood today.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not opposed to a religious studies course in schools. But it has to be objective. It has to present all of the viewpoints with the same credibility. I took a religious studies course my first semester in college, and it was one of the best classes I took. It was taught by a Christian minister (what denomination, i have no idea), and he discussed Buddhism, Hinduism, Jainism, even Zoroastrianism with the same devotion as Christianity. That class was a model for the way that class should be taught. Unfortunately, I don't think many people are capable of pulling it off that way, and it definitely wasn't pulled off that way in this case in Indiana.

[mgoblue101415]

Originally posted by cka203 on 10-19-2006 at 02:14 PM
I seem to be having a hard time making myself understood today.

Let me try again.

I agree something like this should be handled at home. I agree it's a personal decision.

What I have a problem with is, the school teaching my kids that evolution and Darwinism is an absolute fact, without presenting the other side or possibility.

I just think that, to be fair, if they're gonna teach one side, they should be allowed to at least offer the other side. Which we used to be able to do, until the ACLU and their types decided it was their right to take away my rights and beliefs.



Public schools teach evolution, the church and family prensent the other side...

There you have it... Both sides presented.


And Steve-o... I think you've said it best so far. It's all about being a good person. Read the teachings of Buddha and they pretty much read like the Ten Commandments.

Like I said... Get rid of the middle men, and get to the heart of it. Be a good person. Be compassionate. Be giving. Don't tell others how to live their lives if you don't want them telling you how to live yours.

[RavenZ]

Originally posted by Steve-o on 10-19-2006 at 03:28 PM
Don't get me wrong, I'm not opposed to a religious studies course in schools. But it has to be objective. It has to present all of the viewpoints with the same credibility. I took a religious studies course my first semester in college, and it was one of the best classes I took. It was taught by a Christian minister (what denomination, i have no idea), and he discussed Buddhism, Hinduism, Jainism, even Zoroastrianism with the same devotion as Christianity. That class was a model for the way that class should be taught. Unfortunately, I don't think many people are capable of pulling it off that way, and it definitely wasn't pulled off that way in this case in Indiana.

Absolutely. I bet it was fascinating.

[mgoblue101415]

Originally posted by RavenB on 10-19-2006 at 02:27 PM
No kidding.

Someday it will be scientifcally proven that the innocence of children is pure genious, corrupted by adults into stupidity.

Sigh.

Actually, one of my favorite quotes ( I guess I'm in a quoting mood today :shrug: ) is kind of along those lines.

The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently.


Children are brainwashed and corrupted, by their parents, by church, by school. They are shoved full of other peoples' thoughts and beliefs.

It's amazing that any child could come through all that, and actually still develop their own ideas, but most do.

There's a miracle for you. ;)

[mikiemo83]

when I heard a teach say " dear God help me throuh this day" I laughed, He/She should not use that saying correct? or "Lord Help Me" when a Kid says something stupid - again not the correct response but both make a point.

I have a faith, I know it, I enjoy it the way I want to and could care less about what others believe nor should I care.

Let them teach something at school that in a generic way stating many people around the word believe in a higher being while another fraction believe in evolution explaining both without showing a preference to either belief. until that day neither should be preached.

I also fail to see the problem with exposing children to different religions, my kids have been to Church in at least 4 different types of faiths and I explain the best I can to a 3 and 5 year old that each is a little different but we all believe in God (or a higher being if you will) and that everyone read a book and understood it a little differently.

As they get older I am debating if I want to expose them to only one religion and become active members of the catholic church or not. My 5 y.o. Daughter seems to want to go to church so I need to decide shortly but many of you know my feelings towards some of their rules on membership

[Steve-o]

Originally posted by mgoblue101415 on 10-19-2006 at 03:31 PM
And Steve-o... I think you've said it best so far. It's all about being a good person. Read the teachings of Buddha and they pretty much read like the Ten Commandments.


Yeah, I think it's the best philosophy. And I do think that if you follow it, die, and meet a God face to face, no matter what face he's wearing... I can't believe God would be vain enough to say "I made you, you were a good person, but you didn't believe, so..."

[cka203]

Let them teach something at school that in a generic way stating many people around the word believe in a higher being while another fraction believe in evolution explaining both without showing a preference to either belief. until that day neither should be preached.

wuv

Exactly!

Why can't we all be more like Mikie?

[patfanallan]

Originally posted by grogsox on 10-19-2006 at 03:17 PM
I like the "we were dropped off on this planet by alien beings" theory a lot too. Be sure to get that one in.

That is not a far fetched theory. Some day this planet will end and people will be looking for another place to live. It may take 4 billion years but it will happen.

[SteelerFan87]

Just a few comments on some things people have said:

1. Why shouldn't the PUBLIC get to decide what is taught in a PUBLIC school? If the people want to have a Bible class, but 1 person doesn't, why should that 1 person get to tell everyone else what to do? If you don't want your kid to go to that class, they don't have to. If you don't want them to spend an hour without any instruction (uh, study hall?), then put them in a different school.

2. If I was in an islamic country, and there was a class for studying the koran, and I had the choice to either be in that class, or have what is pretty much a study hall, I'd either take the study hall, or I'd find a school that better suited my needs. After all, I'm in an islamic country, and that's what they all believe, and that's what they all want, so who am I to tell them they can't do it? Hell, I might even go to the class, as long as it doesn't force me to believe in Islam or worship Allah. It could be an interesting educational experience, if you just view it as an opportunity to learn about another religion rather than an attempt to convert you.

3. Perhaps the best way to settle the whole creation vs evolution debate would be to, when you get to the point where you're going to teach the kids about how we came to exist, you can spend a week or 2 giving them an overview of all the different theories. Say, "Most people believe in either Evolution or Creation", and then teach them what both of those are, and then say "here are some other ideas people have about this subject", and then you can teach them about the "we were dropped off on this planet by aliens" theory, or whatever.

[RoadGrader]

Originally posted by cka203 on 10-19-2006 at 04:07 PM
wuv

Exactly!

Why can't we all be more like Mikie? all I can say to that is:

Dear God (if there is one), Helps Us All!

[RavenZ]

To respond to SteelerFan:

1. Because in a country that is supposed to advocate religious freedom, and not promote one religion over another, having students memorize quotes from the bible, NOT learning about catholicism/chrisitianity or whatever, seems to be the government/school saying "this is the only religion to study". Public school is supposed to be accessible to ALL taxpayers. The U.S. government is not supposed to sponsor one religious belief over any other. It's not the same as, say, english class.
By offering the bible class ONLY, with the ONLY other option being the student sitting for an hour, you are excluding others. You are in essence saying it is more important to study this particular religion.
Public education in this country is not supposed to condone any one religious belief over another, even if the majority in a particular county or whatever wants it that way.
This is what private schools are for.

2. If you were in an Islamic country, it would be very silly of you NOT to expect a class on the Koran. Those countries education polices are very different. You most likely would not get the opportunity to refuse the class either. THEY HAVE OFFICIAL RELIGIONS FOR THEIR COUNTRIES.

3. This is pretty much what I was saying before. Why not a general class on differing religions and beliefs? This type of education can only be helpful, whether or not you believe in evolution.

Unfortunately, it does indeed seem that "the bible class is OK, because I believe in the bible". Substitute something else and you have a problem.

[Steve-o]

Originally posted by SteelerFan87 on 10-19-2006 at 05:36 PM
Just a few comments on some things people have said:

1. Why shouldn't the PUBLIC get to decide what is taught in a PUBLIC school? If the people want to have a Bible class, but 1 person doesn't, why should that 1 person get to tell everyone else what to do? If you don't want your kid to go to that class, they don't have to. If you don't want them to spend an hour without any instruction (uh, study hall?), then put them in a different school.

Why didn't Reginald Denny want to be beaten up? The majority on the scene wanted him to be, so what right did he to have telling them what to do? :D

The majority is not always right, the majority is not always just. Checks and balances fix that.

[SteelerFan87]

Originally posted by RavenB on 10-19-2006 at 05:53 PM
To respond to SteelerFan:

1. Because in a country that is supposed to advocate religious freedom, and not promote one religion over another, having students memorize quotes from the bible, NOT learning about catholicism/chrisitianity or whatever, seems to be the government/school saying "this is the only religion to study". Public school is supposed to be accessible to ALL taxpayers. The U.S. government is not supposed to sponsor one religious belief over any other. It's not the same as, say, english class.
By offering the bible class ONLY, with the ONLY other option being the student sitting for an hour, you are excluding others. You are in essence saying it is more important to study this particular religion.
Public education in this country is not supposed to condone any one religious belief over another, even if the majority in a particular county or whatever wants it that way.
This is what private schools are for.

2. If you were in an Islamic country, it would be very silly of you NOT to expect a class on the Koran. Those countries education polices are very different. You most likely would not get the opportunity to refuse the class either. THEY HAVE OFFICIAL RELIGIONS FOR THEIR COUNTRIES.

3. This is pretty much what I was saying before. Why not a general class on differing religions and beliefs? This type of education can only be helpful, whether or not you believe in evolution.

Unfortunately, it does indeed seem that "the bible class is OK, because I believe in the bible". Substitute something else and you have a problem.

1. Yeah, but isn't our government of the people, by the people, and for the people? If the people want an optional bible class, they should be allowed to have an optional bible class. This is different than if the government were to impose Christianity on all the people of that community without letting them decide for themselves what they want.

2. Ok, maybe that wasn't the best example. Perhaps I should change it to, "If the US was mostly islamic, and they had an optional koran study class at my school, this is what I'd do..."
Although you bring up a good point. "You most likely would not get the opportunity to refuse the class either. THEY HAVE OFFICIAL RELIGIONS FOR THEIR COUNTRIES." Yes, they have official religions, which means you don't have a choice. However, here in the US, you DO have a choice, and there aren't official religions. Thus, the Constitution is not being violated.

3. I'm glad you agree with me on number 3. :)

[RavenZ]

Originally posted by SteelerFan87 on 10-19-2006 at 06:37 PM
1. Yeah, but isn't our government of the people, by the people, and for the people? If the people want an optional bible class, they should be allowed to have an optional bible class. This is different than if the government were to impose Christianity on all the people of that community without letting them decide for themselves what they want.

2. Ok, maybe that wasn't the best example. Perhaps I should change it to, "If the US was mostly islamic, and they had an optional koran study class at my school, this is what I'd do..."
Although you bring up a good point. "You most likely would not get the opportunity to refuse the class either. THEY HAVE OFFICIAL RELIGIONS FOR THEIR COUNTRIES." Yes, they have official religions, which means you don't have a choice. However, here in the US, you DO have a choice, and there aren't official religions. Thus, the Constitution is not being violated.

3. I'm glad you agree with me on number 3. :)

The separation of church and state is being violated when a public school endorses any religion. One public school endorsing one religion could be the beginning of a county/state sanctioned religion. It's not correct in this country to say, "well, you have a choice, you can move". Government, as represented in this case by a public school, is not supposed to endorse ANY religion. THIS IS WHAT PRIVATE SCHOOLS ARE FOR. If you want religious study/worshipping in school, send your kid to a private school.
So Arkansas is Catholic, Nebraska is Islamic or whatever? No, that is NOT the same as religious freedom.
If the people want an optional bible class, they can do it after school, on private property. THAT is religious freedom.

[freak]

Originally posted by Peytonsux on 10-18-2006 at 03:21 PM
First came promoting the idea that the Constitution spells out a specific seperation of Church and State (you guys all seem pretty bright, so I'm assuming that you know that it doesn't- rather states that the government shall not establish or promote any religion).

Actually, it says goverment shall not prohibit the free exercise, or establish religion.

It says nothing about "promotion."

The debate focuses over what constitutes "establishment."

The ACLU types argue that the mere mention of religion constitutes Establishment.

Others argue that "establishment" referred specifically to the designation of a "national religion"......not unlike the Anglican Church in England at that time.

Which is it?

Well, if one reads the Congressional debates over the wording of the 1st Amendment, it's pretty clear that the the latter argument more accurately mirrors the intent of the amendment.

[freak]

Originally posted by Alcoholic9 on 10-18-2006 at 04:13 PM
You have to admit christianity is THE government sponsored religion though, which totally goes against the constitution.

I disagree. See above for explanation.

[freak]

Originally posted by Steve-o on 10-18-2006 at 04:24 PM
Well, hey, the farther along time goes, the farther away from the ideas of the real Patriots in this country.

You know, the guys in the funny hats who had a tea party and fought the British. They were pretty smart guys, and they didn't have a lot of schools, but they wouldn't want religion in them, if they did.

Questioning how they founded this country is unAmerican!

:Pat: :D

Actually, those "guys in the funny hats who had a tea party and fought the British" preferred that such matters be handled by the individual States.

The 1st Amendment merely restricted the Federal Govt.

If the States wanted to name a "state religion," or require prayer in schools, then so be it.

That is, if you want to be accurate about it.

[dchester]

Originally posted by freak on 10-19-2006 at 08:06 PM
Actually, those "guys in the funny hats who had a tea party and fought the British" preferred that such matters be handled by the individual States.

The 1st Amendment merely restricted the Federal Govt.

If the States wanted to name a "state religion," or require prayer in schools, then so be it.

That is, if you want to be accurate about it. You are correct, of course. One thing that I wish they'd have all students do, is once a year, have them actually read the Constitution, so people would know what was really in it.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

http://www.constitutioncenter.org/explore/TheU.S.Constitution/index.shtml
________
Yamaha XV535 history (http://www.yamaha-tech.com/wiki/Yamaha_XV535)

[freak]

Originally posted by Benign Despot on 10-18-2006 at 04:55 PM
Whenever I read a story like this I want to ask the "religious" folks the following question.

"If you were a Christian, living in say Iran, and the Mullah said that the Koran would be taught in public school regardless of how you felt about it would you think that was fair or not?"

Ah, but that argument is flawed from the start.

1. The US is not a theocratic or dictatorial govt.

2. The Constitution gives no such power TO the Federal govt.

People forget that the Constitution was a GRANT of powers, not an exception to power.

To those who say that there is no Constitutional separation of Church and State (our lawyer friends can correct me if I'm wrong) the Courts are charged by the Constitution with interpreting the law, and the Courts, through precident have said there is.

In that case, show me that portion of the Constitution which charges the Courts with that duty.

As I pointed out above, the concept of judicial review was established in Marbury v Madison (1804).

In it, SCOTUS decided for itself that it had that power.

[Steve-o]

Originally posted by freak on 10-19-2006 at 08:06 PM
Actually, those "guys in the funny hats who had a tea party and fought the British" preferred that such matters be handled by the individual States.

OK, you mean like the way Jefferson proposed this for the Virginia constitution?

"All persons shall have full and free liberty of religious opinion; nor shall any be compelled to frequent or maintain any religious institution": freedom for religion, but also freedom from religion."

But, what'd the father of the Constitution think?

Hey, James Madison, what about the states?

MR. MADISON: Conceived this to be the most valuable amendment on the whole list; if there was any reason to restrain the government of the United States from infringing upon these essential rights, it was equally necessary that they should be secured against the state governments; he thought that if they provided against the one, it was an necessary to provide against the other, and was satisfied that it would be equally grateful to the people (from Alley, James Madison on Religious Liberty, pp. 75-76).

http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/qmadison.htm

[player]

Originally posted by aloyouis on 10-19-2006 at 01:21 AM
NOT! How can you try to talk about such an important issue whilst painting with a stupefying broad brush?


Lets see: Radical Muslims are religious and brainwashed so they kill each other (and everybody else) therefore all religious people are brainwashed?

Try this: You are a male and Hitler was a male therefore all males (including me) are murderous tyrants?

Please go back and read your post.... think for a moment...and repost.


He's actualy not that off...Not many people switch from the religion they were raised ...If your parents were Catholic, good chance you are Catholic..some would call that brainwashing. Most of the religious people I know, blindly follow their religion because it's what their parents did..and their parents before them, ect.

[freak]

Originally posted by Steve-o on 10-19-2006 at 01:33 AM
And the majority doesn't have its right to impose its will on the minority. We could go around and around on this. :D

"The problem to be solved, is not what form of Government is perfect, but which of the forms is least imperfect: and here the general question must be between a republican government, in which the majority rule the minority, and a government in which a lesser number or the least number rule the majority."

--James Madison

Do not mistake the Founders goal of protecting the minority, for a prohibition against majority rule.

[PatsDVD]

Originally posted by dchester on 10-19-2006 at 08:25 PM
[B]One thing that I wish they'd have all students do, is once a year, have them actually read the Constitution, so people would know what was really in it.

Or at least the posters in this thread.

In 2006, anyone advocating for teaching anything about religion in the public schools (even politically correct "let's all respect everyone's religion") is ignoring the constitution and 200+ years of judicial decisions.

[Steve-o]

Originally posted by freak on 10-19-2006 at 09:06 PM
"The problem to be solved, is not what form of Government is perfect, but which of the forms is least imperfect: and here the general question must be between a republican government, in which the majority rule the minority, and a government in which a lesser number or the least number rule the majority."

--James Madison

Do not mistake the Founders goal of protecting the minority, for a prohibition against majority rule.

more James Madison:

"It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure."

[dchester]

Originally posted by PatsDVD on 10-19-2006 at 09:36 PM
Or at least the posters in this thread.

In 2006, anyone advocating for teaching anything about religion in the public schools (even politically correct "let's all respect everyone's religion") is ignoring the constitution and 200+ years of judicial decisions. While I might agree they'd be ignoring the last 50 or 60 years of Judicial decisions, I'd be curious what passage(s) in the Constitution you think they'd be ignoring.
________
volcano digital vaporizer (http://vaporizer.org/reviews/volcano)

[SteelerFan87]

Originally posted by PatsDVD on 10-19-2006 at 09:36 PM
Or at least the posters in this thread.

In 2006, anyone advocating for teaching anything about religion in the public schools (even politically correct "let's all respect everyone's religion") is ignoring the constitution and 200+ years of judicial decisions.

No, because if that was the case it would be a prohibition of all religions, and that is totally unconstitutional. There is nothing wrong with teaching students about all the major religions equally. And it's certainly not 200 years of judicial decisions, because the whole "thou shall not speak of God in school" thing is a fairly recent thing. For most of this country's educational history, religion was required to be taught in schools. Most of the oldest and most prestigious colleges in the US started off as theology schools.

[Umfold]

Originally posted by SteelerFan87 on 10-19-2006 at 05:36 PM
3. Perhaps the best way to settle the whole creation vs evolution debate would be to, when you get to the point where you're going to teach the kids about how we came to exist, you can spend a week or 2 giving them an overview of all the different theories. Say, "Most people believe in either Evolution or Creation", and then teach them what both of those are, and then say "here are some other ideas people have about this subject", and then you can teach them about the "we were dropped off on this planet by aliens" theory, or whatever. Oh good lord. You don't believe in evolution?

You ever have a cold? You know why we can't get rid of the cold? Evolution.
A germ enters you body. The next time you get that germ, it's basically a different germ due to evolution, and your body has to come up with a new defense.

That's a horrible suggestion. Should we do that with every proven scientific fact? I don't think the kids would learn very much.

[SteelerFan87]

What? Where did I say I don't believe evolution? I do believe it makes sense, and unlike some people I don't think it necessarily contradicts creation. Like I said in an earlier post, it is entirely possible that creation describes who created life, and evolution describes how He did it.

And "proven scientific fact"? How has evolution been proven? The thing about it is it CAN'T be proven. It doesn't even follow the scientific method, because it is impossible to conduct an experiment to either prove or disprove it. Unless, of course, you've got a few million years to spend conducting an experiment.

[Umfold]

Originally posted by SteelerFan87 on 10-20-2006 at 02:24 AM
What? Where did I say I don't believe evolution? I do believe it makes sense, and unlike some people I don't think it necessarily contradicts creation. Like I said in an earlier post, it is entirely possible that creation describes who created life, and evolution describes how He did it.

And "proven scientific fact"? How has evolution been proven? The thing about it is it CAN'T be proven. It doesn't even follow the scientific method, because it is impossible to conduct an experiment to either prove or disprove it. Unless, of course, you've got a few million years to spend conducting an experiment. Actually, I agree with you there. It doesn't have to contradict evolution.
But I just feel until god comes and tells us this or that, then anything being taught about god in school is wrong.

But as far as it being proven, it is a proven fact. That's why I gave the example of a cold germ.
There are shots and such that will kill, or help your body learn how to kill certain viruses. But they don't always kill them all. Some of the germs are mutations, and aren't the same as the original strain. Those mutations live on, because the antibodies aren't designed to kill them.
So, sometimes there are enough of the mutated germs left to start over as a whole new virus. That is observable evolution.

And on a larger scale, there are these certain birds that live on the Galapogos. When it rains a lot, the seeds they eat grew much larger. And some of the birds can't eat such big seeds with their small beaks, and they starve and die.
So if one year there is a lot of rain, the next year most of the birds will have large beaks. As only the large beaked young were able to survive.
Likewise, if there isn't a lot of rain, the smaller beaked birds have the advantage, and you'll see more of them the next year.

If it were to rain a lot for say, twenty years, then there would only be large beaked birds left. Or, if there was twenty years of little rain, you'd only see birds with small beaks.

Evolution is an observable scientific fact. And it is proven.

[freak]

Originally posted by dchester on 10-19-2006 at 09:29 AM

The founding fathers did a lot, but rights for Minorities and Women isn't among them.

To be fair, many in the Constitutional Convention wanted the abolishment of slavery to be included in the new government.

Certain states, however, would never have approved that and the Constitution would have been DOA. South Carolina was a major dissenter to the abolishment of slavery, but perhaps more important was Virginia.

Although the Constitution only needed 9 states to ratify it to become the law of the land, the belief was that the new govt had no chance of surviving without NY and VA onboard.

They DID however put 2 measures in the Constitution to limit slavery.

These are the so-called "3/5 clause," and a tax on each new slave brought to the US.

Those who prefer to portray the Founders as racist, bigots, often point to the "3/5 clause." But the point was not that slaves were considered 3/5 of a person. The actual wording is:

Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

The "3/5 clause" was solely an accounting device.....for determining how many representatives each state got, and how much taxes each state had to pay.

The southern states wanted it both ways; they considered slaves property, but also wanted them counted as persons, as this would boost their population. This, in turn, would increase the number of representatives in Congress from southern states.

The "3/5" clause was a way of artificially limiting the clout of the southern states.

The other limit comes from Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution:

The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.

This allows Congress to, starting in 1808, to abolish slavery. It also allows a tax of up to $10 per new slave brought to the US.

This, of course, places a bigger financial burden upon slave owning states. It also provided a 20 yr period for slavery to continue, during which it was hoped that the south would find a way to eliminate their dependence on slavery.

That it did not happen is another issue entirely.

[RavenZ]

Originally posted by freak on 10-19-2006 at 08:06 PM
Actually, those "guys in the funny hats who had a tea party and fought the British" preferred that such matters be handled by the individual States.

The 1st Amendment merely restricted the Federal Govt.

If the States wanted to name a "state religion," or require prayer in schools, then so be it.

That is, if you want to be accurate about it.

Article VI:

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

[freak]

Originally posted by Steve-o on 10-19-2006 at 08:37 PM
OK, you mean like the way Jefferson proposed this for the Virginia constitution?

"All persons shall have full and free liberty of religious opinion; nor shall any be compelled to frequent or maintain any religious institution": freedom for religion, but also freedom from religion."

In other words........

1. Everybody has the right to their opinions on religion.

2. Nobody can be forced to go to church

The mistake you're making, is that you're confusing the Federal govt for the states.

The fact that Jefferson ALSO wanted religious freedom, and no established Church in VA, is IRRELEVANT to the point.

In fact, your quote simply proves my point.

The 1st Amendment of the US Constitution prohibits the CONGRESS.

The 10th Amendment reserves all powers not granted to the Federal govt to the States, so long as the Constitution does not prohibit it to the States. And religion falls into that category.

Now, proposing the STATE constitution, Jefferson also prefers a similar prohibition upon the VA govt.

The premise holds.....this was a matter for each STATE to decide in the minds of the Founders.

MR. MADISON: Conceived this to be the most valuable amendment on the whole list; if there was any reason to restrain the government of the United States from infringing upon these essential rights, it was equally necessary that they should be secured against the state governments; he thought that if they provided against the one, it was an necessary to provide against the other, and was satisfied that it would be equally grateful to the people (from Alley, James Madison on Religious Liberty, pp. 75-76).

I would first suggest that you not rely on a separationist website to prove your point.

Secondly, and related to the above, I would suggest that you read the ACTUAL document from which that was taken before putting it forth in your argument.

Now, on to that excerpt......

Madison was NOT talking about the 1st Amendment, or ANYTHING relating to the so-called "separation of church/state."

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.db&recNum=393

The excerpt you posted was about a debate over a proposed amendment, which stated:

Article 1, section 10, between the first and second paragraph, insert "no State shall infringe the equal rights of conscience, nor the freedom of speech or of the press, nor of the right of trial by jury in criminal cases.

But, what'd the father of the Constitution think?

Yes, what did Mr. Madison think?

Just 2 days before the debate that your excerpt came from, the committee DID debate the proposed amendment that ultimately became the 1st Amendment. And they DID discuss the religious aspect.

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.db&recNum=380

Before we begin, here was the original proposed amendment:

Article I. Section 9. Between paragraphs two and three insert "no religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed."

Now, the highlights........

Mr. Sylvester had some doubts of the propriety of the mode of expression used in this paragraph. He apprehended that it was liable to a construction different from what had been made by the committee. He feared it might be thought to have a tendency to abolish religion altogether.

Mr. Gerry said it would read better if it was, that no religious doctrine shall be established by law.

Mr. Sherman thought the amendment altogether unnecessary, inasmuch as Congress had no authority whatever delegated to them by the constitution to make religious establishments; he would, therefore, move to have it struck out.

Sometimes the Founders WERE a tad naive. Madison himself was guilty of this in his defense of the "general welfare" clause in the Federalist Papers.

Anyhoo, Madison now makes his opinion known:

Mr. Madison said, he apprehended the meaning of the words to be, that Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience. Whether the words are necessary or not, he did not mean to say, but they had been required by some of the State Conventions, who seemed to entertain an opinion that under the clause of the constitution, which gave power to Congress to make all laws necessary and proper to carry into execution the constitution, and the laws made under it, enabled them to make laws of such a nature as might infringe the rights of conscience, and might establish a national religion; to prevent these effects he presumed the amendment was intended, and he thought it as well expressed as the nature of the language would admit.

Mr. Madison quite clearly believes the purpose of the amendment was to prevent the establishment of a national religion.

The amendment was proposed because many felt that the "necessary and proper" clause could allow Congress to make such a law. The amendment was intended to prevent that.

Mr. Huntington said that he feared, with the gentleman first up on this subject, that the words might be taken in such latitude as to be extremely harmful to the cause of religion. He understood the amendment to mean what had been expressed by the gentleman from Virginia; but others might find it convenient to put another construction upon it. The ministers of their congregations to the Eastward were maintained by the contributions of those who belonged to their society; the expense of building meeting- houses was contributed in the same manner. These things were regulated by by-laws. If an action was brought before a Federal Court on any of these cases, the person who had neglected to perform his engagements could not be compelled to do it; for a support of ministers, or building places of worship might be construed into a religious establishment.

He agrees with the "gentleman from Virginia"......ie Madison.

He goes on to state that the proposed wording might be misinterpreted, so much so that even supporting ministers or helping to build meeting houses could be determined to be an establishment of religion.

Sounds kinda familiar, doesn't it?

Mr. Huntington's thoughts go on:

By the charter of Rhode Island, no religion could be established by law; he could give a history of the effects of such a regulation; indeed the people were now enjoying the blessed fruits of it. He hoped, therefore, the amendment would be made in such a way as to secure the rights of conscience, and a free exercise of the rights of religion, but not to patronize those who professed no religion at all.

And the Father speaks again:

Mr. Madison thought, if the word national was inserted before religion, it would satisfy the minds of honorable gentlemen. He believed that the people feared one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combine together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform. He thought if the word national was introduced, it would point the amendment directly to the object it was intended to prevent.

So why wasn't "national religion" used?

Mr. Gerry did not like the term national, proposed by the gentleman from Virginia, and hoped it would not be adopted by the House. It brought to his mind some observations that had taken place in the convention at the time they were considering the present convention. It had been insisted upon by those who were called antifederalists, that this form of Government consolidated the Union; the honorable gentleman's motion shows that he considered it in the same light. Those who were called antifederalists at that time complained that they had injustice dome them by title, because they were in favor of a Federal Government, and the others were in favor of the national one; the federalists were for ratifying the constitution as it stood, and the others not until amendments were made. Their names then ought not to have been distinguished by federalists and antifederalists, but rats and antirats.

The problem was that one might construe "national religion" to mean that the govt was also "national." The whole point was that it was supposed to be a "Federal" govt, with the States retaining a good amount of powers.

Mr. Madison withdrew his motion, but observed that the words "no national religion shall be established by law," did not imply that the Government was a national one; the question was then taken on Mr. Livermore's motion, and passed in the affirmative, thirty-one for, and twenty against it.

So what DID Madison think?

[Undertaker #59]

Originally posted by SteelerFan87 on 10-20-2006 at 02:24 AM
And "proven scientific fact"? How has evolution been proven? The thing about it is it CAN'T be proven. It doesn't even follow the scientific method, because it is impossible to conduct an experiment to either prove or disprove it. Unless, of course, you've got a few million years to spend conducting an experiment.

Evolution is as proven as Gravity.

[freak]

Originally posted by PatsDVD on 10-19-2006 at 09:36 PM
Or at least the posters in this thread.

In 2006, anyone advocating for teaching anything about religion in the public schools (even politically correct "let's all respect everyone's religion") is ignoring the constitution and 200+ years of judicial decisions.

Oh, the irony. Perhaps you should read the Constitution again.

And FYI, the current interpretation of the 1st Amendment is not 200+ years of established precedent........it dates to the early 1900s.

[dchester]

Originally posted by Undertaker #59 on 10-20-2006 at 08:42 AM
Evolution is as proven as Gravity. Newton's theory, or Einstein's theory?
________
Mercedes-Benz Type 300 history (http://www.mercedes-wiki.com/wiki/Mercedes-Benz_Type_300)

[freak]

Originally posted by Steve-o on 10-19-2006 at 10:46 PM
more James Madison:

"It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure."

Hey, thanks for agreeing with me.

Madison advocates protecting the rights of the minority.

That does not deny the majority the right to rule.

It's a basic premise of our form of govt that the majority's will prevails, so long as it does not violate the minority's rights.

[freak]

Originally posted by RavenB on 10-20-2006 at 07:47 AM

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.


Okay, so how does that contradict my post?

I'll answer for you......it doesn't.

What does that section say?

It says:

1. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

2. JUDGES in every state shall be bound by it.

3. Anything in the Constitutions or laws of the states that are contrary to the constitution are false.

BUT.........

You must remember that the Constitution is a GRANT OF POWERS.

So, the only way in which a State is limited by the Constitution, is if the Federal govt is granted particular powers, or if the Constitution prohibits something to the states.

10th Amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

IE, there is no power granted to the Federal govt over religion.

The Constitution does not prohibit such power to the States.

Thus, it falls to the States.

There is no contradiction here.

[Undertaker #59]

Originally posted by dchester on 10-20-2006 at 08:54 AM
Newton's theory, or Einstein's theory?

Both. Einstein's theory of General Relativity is not incompatible with Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation.

[freak]

Let me make something clear......

I'm not advocating that religion be taught in schools.

The simple fact, though is that the 1st Amendment has been abused, and people just don't know what it actually says.

I'm simply pointing out the background of the Amendment, since so many are mislead by thrown around phrases, quotes, etc taken out of context.

Religion was simply one of many things that was properly within the purview of the states.

It should be noted that most, if not all, state constitutions DO have similar prohibitions to the 1st Amendment (which was for the Federal Congress only).

The argument might be made that public schools receive Federal funds, and so religion shouldn't be involved.

Good point.

But should the Federal govt be funding public schools? It's certainly not one of the powers granted to it under the Constitution.

But that's another debate for another time.......

[RavenZ]

Originally posted by freak on 10-20-2006 at 08:53 AM
Oh, the irony. Perhaps you should read the Constitution again.

And FYI, the current interpretation of the 1st Amendment is not 200+ years of established precedent........it dates to the early 1900s.

Though SCOTUS decided that the 14th amendment makes the Establishment Clause binding on state & local governments, it has been argued that the restriction already existed in the Constitution, as noted above in Article VI.

"This Constitution, (edit) shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

I'm just saying it is certainly possible states are bound by the Establishment Clause, per the original Constitution.

[freak]

Originally posted by RavenB on 10-20-2006 at 09:19 AM
Though SCOTUS decided that the 14th amendment makes the Establishment Clause binding on state & local governments, it has been argued that the restriction already existed in the Constitution, as noted above in Article VI.

"This Constitution, (edit) shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

1. SCOTUS relatively recent (early 1900s) use of the "14th in support of the 1st" is an entirely different argument.

What is true today, has no bearing on the original intent of the Amendment, which is what I've been showing.

Not to mention, the "14th in support of the 1st" is hardly a well reasoned argument.

2. I already commented on Article 6. It does NOT say that the states are subject to the federal govt in all cases.

It says merely that the Constitution is the law of the land, any laws to the contrary in the states nonwithstanding.

Thus, you have to look at what the powers granted under the Constitution, to know what the "law of the land" is.

And the "law of the land" grants no power over religion to the federal govt.

Further, the "law of the land" reserves to the states all powers not granted by the Constitution to the Feds, nor prohibited to the states.

[RavenZ]

Originally posted by freak on 10-20-2006 at 09:29 AM
1. SCOTUS relatively recent (early 1900s) use of the "14th in support of the 1st" is an entirely different argument.

What is true today, has no bearing on the original intent of the Amendment, which is what I've been showing.

Not to mention, the "14th in support of the 1st" is hardly a well reasoned argument.

2. I already commented on Article 6. It does NOT say that the states are subject to the federal govt in all cases.

It says merely that the Constitution is the law of the land, any laws to the contrary in the states nonwithstanding.

Thus, you have to look at what the powers granted under the Constitution, to know what the "law of the land" is.

And the "law of the land" grants no power over religion to the federal govt.

Further, the "law of the land" reserves to the states all powers not granted by the Constitution to the Feds, nor prohibited to the states.


If Congress "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" per the EC, and the Constitution is the law of the land "judges in every state bound by" then it would stand to reason that the states "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". I am aware there is debate over this, since the founding fathers are not here to explain their actions.

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, 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."
Jefferson, letter to the Danbury Baptists, 1802.

It is certainly possible the founding fathers did not want the states either to establish their own religions.

[freak]

Originally posted by RavenB on 10-20-2006 at 09:19 AM
[B]Though SCOTUS decided that the 14th amendment makes the Establishment Clause binding on state & local governments, it has been argued that the restriction already existed in the Constitution, as noted above in Article VI.

"This Constitution, (edit) shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

Let me explain in another way.....

What is the structure of the Constitution?

Article 1 - The Legislature
Article 2 - The Executive
Article 3 - The Judicial

Article 4 - Equal protection, admission of states

Article 5 - Amendments

Article 6 - Debts of the confederation, "law of the land," reps and judges swear oath to uphold the Constitution

Article 7 - Ratification, notes, signatures

In other words, the section you cite designates the Constitution as the law of the land.

What is the "law of the land"?

Everything that came before Article 6; ie the enumeration of powers, processes (elections, etc), and amendments.

The section you cite basically says "Everything you just read is what counts, regardless of what state constitutions may say."

And what was just read?

An enumeration of powers, processes and amendments.

The 14th Amendment doesn't even come into play, because it wasn't a part of the Constitution at the time it was written, signed, ratified, and initially amended.

And under the Constituation as written, signed, ratified, and initially amended, only the Federal govt was prohibited from making laws establishing religion.

[freak]

Originally posted by RavenB on 10-20-2006 at 09:49 AM
If Congress "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" per the EC, and the Constitution is the law of the land "judges in every state bound by" then it would stand to reason that the states "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion".

It does not stand to reason, because the "judges in every state" are bound to uphold the Constitution.

And what the Constitution said, was that CONGRESS was prohibited.

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, 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."
Jefferson, letter to the Danbury Baptists, 1802.

I'm surprised that this is the first time this was mentioned.

First of all, that letter was written in response to a letter that the DBA wrote to Jefferson. Most people have never read that letter. Here's the relevant part:

But Sir our constitution of government is not specific. Our ancient charter together with the Laws made coincident therewith, were adopted on the Basis of our government, at the time of our revolution; and such had been our Laws & usages, and such still are; that Religion is considered as the first object of Legislation; and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the State) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights: and these favors we receive at the expense of such degrading acknowledgements, as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen. It is not to be wondered at therefore; if those, who seek after power & gain under the pretense of government & Religion should reproach their fellow men — should reproach their chief Magistrate, as an enemy of religion Law & good order because he will not, dare not assume the prerogatives of Jehovah and make Laws to govern the Kingdom of Christ.

The DBA letter brings up two important points.

1. In Connecticut, there WAS an established state church. It resulted in what the Founders were trying to avoid at the Federal level....discrimination of the non established denominations.

2. To make laws to govern the Kingdom of Christ.

The DBA was commenting that those who wish to govern, should never assume to make laws governing religion.

That's the key.....protecting religion from govt interference.

Now....the Jefferson letter.

Most people don't know that Jefferson's letter was originally much longer, but he was convinced by his Attorney General, Levi Lincoln, to edit it down. Here's the original text of the portion you cite (courtesy of an FBI lab):

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only and not opinions, 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 eternal separation between Church & State. Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from prescribing even those occasional performances of devotion, practiced indeed by the Executive of another nation as the legal head of its church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect,

Jefferson was using this opportunity to make a PERSONAL statement, answering critics about why he refused to proclaim days of fasting/ thanksgiving, as King George did in England.

Further, the whole "wall of separation" was a reference to Roger Williams, a famous Baptist minister. Williams had wrote of a "wall of separation" protecting the "garden of the church" from the "wilderness of the world."

It was understood as a one-way "wall" to protect religion from govt interference.

It is certainly possible the founding fathers did not want the states either to establish their own religions.

See my response to the Danbury letter.

[freak]

I think it's telling that "separationists".....ie those who prefer the current interpretation.....never quote the Founders in context when making their case. Many also rely on "separationist" websites, which are obviously biased from the start. They even use "quotes" that have nothing to do with the 1st Amendment (see my response to Steve-O above).

[Benign Despot]

freak, recall Roger Williams' story.

The Massachusetts Bay Colony was, at the time, an unabashed theocracy. In order to vote you needed to be

1. Male,
2. A Property Owner, and
3. A member in good standing of a Covenented Church - that is a Puritan.

Williams was excommunicated and banishied from Mass Bay and went south to found Rhode Island.

He was in effect the Father of the Separation of Church and State.

[PatsDVD]

Originally posted by SteelerFan87 on 10-19-2006 at 10:54 PM
There is nothing wrong with teaching students about all the major religions equally.

There's something very wrong with it.

In practice, some government agency would have to decide which religions are "major religions".

That government decision would exclude all other religious beliefs are not considered by the government to be "major religions."

Then the government would develop a curriculum and decide what should be taught about each of these "major religions" so that each is taught equally.

Then the public schools would teach that curriculum.

How could anyone think that this is constitutional?

[mikiemo83]

Originally posted by PatsDVD on 10-20-2006 at 11:49 AM
There's something very wrong with it.

In practice, some government agency would have to decide which religions are "major religions".

That government decision would exclude all other religious beliefs are not considered by the government to be "major religions."

Then the government would develop a curriculum and decide what should be taught about each of these "major religions" so that each is taught equally.

Then the public schools would teach that curriculum.

How could anyone think that this is constitutional? how about each child, or their parent, is given a period of time to express his religious beliefs - say 1 day followed by 2 days of open discussion where questions are asked and each student is allowed to question for themselves what is different from their religion.

this allows for a representation of each pupil with equal time, yes you could have several of one religion but and that get extra time but you generally will have this in life anyway

[Alcoholic9*]

Originally posted by PatsDVD on 10-20-2006 at 11:49 AM
There's something very wrong with it.

In practice, some government agency would have to decide which religions are "major religions".

That government decision would exclude all other religious beliefs are not considered by the government to be "major religions."

Then the government would develop a curriculum and decide what should be taught about each of these "major religions" so that each is taught equally.

Then the public schools would teach that curriculum.

How could anyone think that this is constitutional?

You're right, imagine a course that taught Satanism as a part of the cirriculum. If you think this caused an outcry, imagine that. :D

[dchester]

Originally posted by Undertaker #59 on 10-20-2006 at 09:05 AM
Both. Einstein's theory of General Relativity is not incompatible with Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation. Well, My understanding is that Newton said that Gravity was an attraction that all matter had on each other, whereas Einstein say that Gravity actually curves the "lines of space" so that a body in motion believes it is going in a straight line, but in actuality it is not. I'll agree that while going at relatively slow speeds, their perspective equations give (more or less) the same result, but at higher speeds (like for satelites in orbit), Einstein's equations gives a more accurate result.
________
Honda Passport specifications (http://www.honda-wiki.org/wiki/Honda_Passport)

[PatsDVD]

Originally posted by freak on 10-20-2006 at 08:53 AM
Oh, the irony. Perhaps you should read the Constitution again.

And FYI, the current interpretation of the 1st Amendment is not 200+ years of established precedent........it dates to the early 1900s.

The history lesson is interesting, but how the constitution was applied 200 years ago is irrelevant.

Maybe I should have said that people should not only read the Constitution, but actually understand what it means. Today, not 200 years ago.

And it means that you can't teach religion in the public schools.

[PatsDVD]

Originally posted by mikiemo83 on 10-20-2006 at 11:56 AM
how about each child, or their parent, is given a period of time to express his religious beliefs - say 1 day followed by 2 days of open discussion where questions are asked and each student is allowed to question for themselves what is different from their religion.

this allows for a representation of each pupil with equal time, yes you could have several of one religion but and that get extra time but you generally will have this in life anyway

I'm guess I'm just satisfied that our constitution guarantees that all children and parents can express their religious beliefs every second of the day that they are not in school. I don't see the need to expand it to schooltime.

[Undertaker #59]

Originally posted by dchester on 10-20-2006 at 12:14 PM
Well, My understanding is that Newton said that Gravity was an attraction that all matter had on each other, whereas Einstein say that Gravity actually curves the "lines of space" so that a body in motion believes it is going in a straight line, but in actuality it is not. I'll agree that while going at relatively slow speeds, their perspective equations give (more or less) the same result, but at higher speeds (like for satelites in orbit), Einstein's equations gives a more accurate result.

I think Einstein's theory is more of an expansion of Newton's original law. General relativity unifies special relativity and Newton's law of universal gravitation with the insight that gravitation is not due to a force but rather is a manifestation of curved space and time, this curvature being produced by the mass-energy and momentum content of the spacetime. So yes, from my understanding, Newton's equations do not work as well on as grand a scale.

Anyway, my point kind of was most people don't really understand what a scientific theory is. In common usage, people often use the word theory to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts, in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality.

In science, a theory is a proposed description, explanation, or model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theory which explains why the apple behaves so is the current theory of gravitation.

It is from this understanding that I made my statement about evolution being as proven as gravity.

[PatsDVD]

Do either of you know how "String Theory" fits in?

I've watched "The Elegant Universe" on PBS a couple of times, and I still don't get it.

[Undertaker #59]

I believe that there are elements of quantum mechanics that are incompatible with Einstein's theories. I think that string theory tries to bind them all together with a "Theory of Everything." I did find this note though:

String theory remains to be verified. No version of string theory has yet made an experimentally verifiable prediction that differs from those made by other theories. In this sense, string theory is still in a "larval stage": it is not a proper physical theory. It possesses many features of mathematical interest and may yet become important in our understanding of the universe, but it requires further developments before it is accepted or discarded. Since string theory may not be tested in the foreseeable future, some scientists have asked if it even deserves to be called a scientific theory.

[Benign Despot]

I watched "The Elegant Universe"

I usually "get" the shows on Physics but that one made my head hurt. The best explaination I can come up with is String Theory is a mathematical phenomenon which is apparently very difficult to explain in non-mathematical terms.

[PatsDVD]

Originally posted by Benign Despot on 10-20-2006 at 01:00 PM
I watched "The Elegant Universe"

I usually "get" the shows on Physics but that one made my head hurt. The best explaination I can come up with is String Theory is a mathematical phenomenon which is apparently very difficult to explain in non-mathematical terms.

That's what it looked like to me. They made the math work, but they can't do any experiments to prove it.

[dchester]

Originally posted by Undertaker #59 on 10-20-2006 at 12:51 PM
I believe that there are elements of quantum mechanics that are incompatible with Einstein's theories. I think that string theory tries to bind them all together with a "Theory of Everything." This whole subject is fascinating. It's kind of ironic how Einstein never really bought into Quantum mechanics, evene though it [i]evolved[i] from (I believe) his Special Theory of Relativity. When asked about Quantum Mechanics, Einstein dismissed it, with his well known quote, "God doesn't play dice with the universe". He spent most of his older years working on his "Theory of Everything", would he felt would disprove Quantum mechanics.

While he was alive, a lot of people felt Einstein was over the hill, wasting his time with this foolish theory, but now people are realizing that his idea of a "Theory of Everything", is actually needed to resolve some of the things that seem intuitively flawed with our current understanding.

String theory is one of the attempts to comes up with a "Theory of everything". I think it involves looking at the world in somewhere from 9 to 11 dimensions (I've forgotten the precise number, and am too lazy to look it up), as opposed to the simple 4 dimensions as Einstein explaned it. Unlike Relativty, it's rather complicated stuff. The documentarys on PBS just don't do it justice.
________
Toyota L engine history (http://www.toyota-wiki.com/wiki/Toyota_L_engine)

[Benign Despot]

Usually with this type of Psysics someone develops a theory using mathematics and is then able to make a predicition about some observable phenomenon which "prooves" the theory.

To date string theory doesn't create any predictable observations.

[RavenZ]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by freak on 10-20-2006 at 10:24 AM
It does not stand to reason, because the "judges in every state" are bound to uphold [b]the Constitution.

And what the Constitution said, was that CONGRESS was prohibited.

It does stand to reason. I don't agree with you there, which is probably the crux of the constitutional debate.


2.
Most people don't know that Jefferson's letter was originally much longer, but he was convinced by his Attorney General, Levi Lincoln, to edit it down. Here's the original text of the portion you cite (courtesy of an FBI lab):

The part you cite in bold was deleted by Jefferson (noted in the margin of his letter) to avoid offending his own party members. The complete text of the letter as sent can be seen at www.loc.gov.

Jefferson was using this opportunity to make a PERSONAL statement, answering critics about why he refused to proclaim days of fasting/ thanksgiving, as King George did in England.


It was understood as a one-way "wall" to protect religion from govt interference.[QUOTE][


So if this was Jefferson's own personal statement, who can say that's not what was meant in the Constitution?

Also, when I cited SCOTUS earlier, I wasn't referencing the ORIGINAL constitution but as how matters stand today, which seems relevant for the story that started this thread.

I didn't see your original response to my 1st quote of Article VI, which is why I essentially repeated myself (oops).

All my information was taken from the Library of Congress website, www.loc.gov, or www.archives.gov.

Sorry I may have edited a point from your reply to save space.

Did the founding fathers want each individual state to establish it's own religion? My interpetation is no, which is the point of the debate across the nation.

[Steve-o]

Originally posted by freak on 10-20-2006 at 08:56 AM
Hey, thanks for agreeing with me.

Madison advocates protecting the rights of the minority.

That does not deny the majority the right to rule.

It's a basic premise of our form of govt that the majority's will prevails, so long as it does not violate the minority's rights.

The majority can rule, so long as it does not infringe upon the rights of the minority which. having. prayer. in. a. public. school. does.

Can someone please tell me this? Where, in the Bill of Rights, is the confusing language? Where is this not 100% clear on the separation of church and state? Where is the disconnect? It's not confusing to me. It's perfectly clear. It's only ever considered unclear to people with the agenda to get prayer in public schools. Read it again, and tell me where the confusion is.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

[dchester]

Originally posted by Steve-o on 10-20-2006 at 01:55 PM
Can someone please tell me this? Where, in the Bill of Rights, is the confusing language? Where is this not 100% clear on the separation of church and state? Where is the disconnect? It's not confusing to me. It's perfectly clear. It's only ever considered unclear to people with the agenda to get prayer in public schools. Read it again, and tell me where the confusion is.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. I don't know if I can directly answer your question, as I don't find it the least bit confusing. It's pretty clear that the phrase "separation of church and state is not in the Constitution". The first Amendment puts limits on what the Congress is allowed to do, in that the Congress can not establish a religion.

Some other things the first amendment also says is that the Congress is not supposed to prohibit free speech, or the right of the people to peaceably assemble. So if some people wanted to assemble and exercise their right to free speech (to discuss religion, for example), one could make an argument that the Congress could not prohibit this (possibly not even if it were on school grounds).
________
Sixth-generation Ford Taurus picture (http://www.ford-wiki.com/wiki/Sixth-generation_Ford_Taurus)

[Umfold]

String theory is now considered a dead end. And they are now looking for new, non-silly ways to find a unified field theory.

[Steve-o]

Originally posted by dchester on 10-20-2006 at 02:53 PM
I don't know if I can directly answer your question, as I don't find it the least bit confusing. It's pretty clear that the phrase "separation of church and state is not in the Constitution". The first Amendment puts limits on what the Congress is allowed to do, in that the Congress can not establish a religion.

Some other things the first amendment also says is that the Congress is not supposed to prohibit free speech, or the right of the people to peaceably assemble. So if some people wanted to assemble and exercise their right to free speech (to discuss religion, for example), one could make an argument that the Congress could not prohibit this (possibly not even if it were on school grounds).

And a teacher is an agent of the state, therefore disallowing them to organize religious assemblies in the name of the state.

[BostonTim]

Originally posted by JD10367 on 10-18-2006 at 02:43 PM
The key here is that it's on school time. It's apparently an hour in the middle of the school day. No matter how you slice it, they're gonna come up on the wrong side of that one. If you want to do it before or after school that's one thing, but when the government demands your child's presence in school and then some of that time is allotted to a specific religion, that ain't gonna fly.

Now, on the other hand, if they wanted to have a NON-DENOMINATIONAL religious "hour", that'd be different. One in which Christians can go to their Bible class, Muslims and Hindus can do what they want, little pagan children can read up on wicca, LOL... that I can see. Or have a religious class which covers all religions over the course of a semester--Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, all the "isms" they can find. Then you're actually teaching something--not just giving time for Christians to go do their thing while everyone else stands around like Charlie Brown without a date. :D I think this crosses the line and I don't know if they can repair it very easily. Religion being taught, during school hours on site, while nonparticipants are A shut down and B held hostage prolly can't fly any more than the dodo bird.

But what cracks me up is the phoney pity crap with the little poor alleged left out kid who supposedly is crying wawawa because he can't get any religion or MATH, :D


Cheers, BostonTim

[O_P_T]

Getting here late so I'll just provide a sort of stream of conciousness type response.

Originally posted by Undertaker #59 on 10-20-2006 at 12:38 PM
I think Einstein's theory is more of an expansion of Newton's original law. General relativity unifies special relativity and Newton's law of universal gravitation with the insight that gravitation is not due to a force but rather is a manifestation of curved space and time, this curvature being produced by the mass-energy and momentum content of the spacetime. So yes, from my understanding, Newton's equations do not work as well on as grand a scale.

Actually GR is related to SR in only an indirect way.

SR is limited to "inertial reference frames", that is it only applies to situations with constant velocity. It explicitly avoids cases where acceleration occurs.

GR addresses the situation when one has acceleration.

Einstein postulated that there was no difference between the mass used in Newton's laws of motion (inertial mass) and mass used in Newton's law of gravity.

Believe it or not, this assumption has profound implications.

Consider the following hypothetical.

Suppose you are in a room on earth and you have any possible set of experimental equipment to measure the weight of an object (gravitational mass).

Now suppose you are in a space ship far far away from any planet or sun (i.e. "weightless") and the ship is accelerating at a constant 1G. You have the same set of experimental equipment as the room on earth.

What will the two set of experiments measure?

The exact same thing, in fact it is not possible to tell the difference between the two setups by any experiment you could perform inside that room, you can only tell by looking out the window.

If you can so easily mimic gravity by the proper type of motion, maybe the idea of a "force of gravity" isn't true and is actually due to some other sort of motion.

This line of reasoning lead to the curved space-time model for gravity.

And to be clear, the breakdown of Newtonian gravity is not at large scales, but in strong gravitational fields, or highly curved space-time in the Einsteinian model.

The problem with GR at the quantum scale, is that curvature of space-time at that scale doesn't work well (mathematically).

To explain why two separate analogies are effective.

At a sufficiently small scale, space-time is thought to not be continuous. That is, instead of the solid rubber sheet that is seen to stretch in most of the GR examples, you have a "foam" that won't stretch smoothly.

The other one is that the amount of curvature increases as you get closer to the "surface" of the particle/object. At the micro scale, those distances get smaller and smaller and eventually become infinitely small, thus infinitely curved.

This is in fact one of the major advantages in the String theory and it's offshoots (M theory, D-branes, etc.) is that it avoids this particular source of infinities in calculations.

In "standard" quantum mechanics, each of the fundamental particles are point objects. By definition, a point has no physical extent in any direction. Therefore it is possible for these particles to interact at virtually zero distance. All of the equations that describe these interactions involved something similar to the 1/r^2 relationship in Newtonian gravity.

Thus you end up dividing by zero and get an infinite result.

The string theory postulates that the fundamental particles are one dimensional strings. They are so short that they appear like a point, but the fact that they have a very very small, but finite, size means they can't be at zero distance, thus the infinities go away.

As far as being able to conduct experiments to prove or disprove the theory, that is primarily a limit of energy.

It requires an amount of energy far beyond any particle accelerator to directly test the present theories, however, quantum mechanics faced the same problem in its early years, so there is reason to think that someone will figure out a way to do a low energy test some day.

Oh, and who ever mentioned the Giraffe, repeated a common misconception on why it has a long neck.

The neck is long not to allow it to get more food, but to allow it to drink.

The Giraffe is one of a few animals that has longer front legs than back legs. That configuration allows the animal to run faster using less energy. However, it does pose a problem on how to get a drink.

If the neck stays the same length, you would have to kneel or lie down to get your head to the water. Clearly not a great idea with lions or other predators hanging around the water hole. Thus the long neck.

With regards to the question on religion and violence.

I don't think religion is any different than any other "-ism" out there in terms of being responsible for war, death and destruction.

Nationalism, Communism, Nazism, racism, etc. all share the same common element with the worst examples of any religious based -ism.

They all form a way of some leader to combine a group of people together, to separate "them" from "us". The fact that these leaders often use violence against the "them" says more about the nature of man, and those individual leaders, than it does about any particular "-ism".

I don't agree that if one eliminated any individual "-ism" from the list you would have altered human history significantly, because there is always another "-ism" to substitute and achieve the same tragedies.

As far as belief in a religion, humans use a whole host of methods to help them deal with the unknowns and tragedies in life. Some use religion, some use psychotherapy, some use sports. There are hundreds of different methods used by people for this.

If that particular trick works for you, who am I to say you cannot use it. This of course assumes that your method does not clearly impact the rights of others. For example if your trick is to torture other people to death, that isn't something that would be allowed.

I do not think you have the right to make me use your method, but by the same token I do not have the right to prevent you from using yours.

[TrueBeliever]

"We're not attacking religious education release programs," Suess said. "They can be constitutional if they're done correctly."

You know, it wouldn't surprise me one bit if the people that organized this class did it knowing that some parents would object, and then they could immediately go to the media and cry "They're trying to kick God out of our schools!"

It's all in the spin.

[dchester]

Originally posted by O_P_T on 10-21-2006 at 04:15 PM
I do not think you have the right to make me use your method, but by the same token I do not have the right to prevent you from using yours. That sums up how I feel.
________
drug test kit (http://drugtestingkit.org)

[aloyouis]

Originally posted by TrueBeliever on 10-21-2006 at 04:54 PM
You know, it wouldn't surprise me one bit if the people that organized this class did it knowing that some parents would object, and then they could immediately go to the media and cry "They're trying to kick God out of our schools!"

It's all in the spin.

Sorry guy...That would be the ACLU that does that.

It is unfortunate that this is happening at all. But we the majority have allowed the few to make laws via the bench over the majority. We have allowed the Constitution to be raped and pillared one line at a time until the document is so poorly interpreted that we now have this situation at hand. The fact that one person is able to stop the majority based on a false interpretation of the Constitution is very sad.

Please keep in mind all…. The ACLU is not an organization that is set on defending the Constitution. It is set on CHANGING it to fit their leftist agenda/manifesto. I we the majority are to blame for letting them do it. It has to stop before we morph into socialist society were the very things that have made this country great are wiped out of it.

If nothing else this story, indeed this thread, outlines why it is so vitally important that we put strict constructionist jurists back on the high court. Judges that will not try to change the Constitution to fit their political ideology but will instead decide only if a law is Constitutional.


Judges do not make law the legislative branch does.

[dchester]

Originally posted by aloyouis on 10-21-2006 at 05:10 PM
Judges do not make law the legislative branch does. I would say that they are not supposed to, but sometimes they do it anyways.
________
XJR-14 (http://www.ford-wiki.com/wiki/Jaguar_XJR-14)

[Steve-o]

Originally posted by aloyouis on 10-21-2006 at 05:10 PM

Please keep in mind all…. The ACLU is not an organization that is set on defending the Constitution. It is set on CHANGING it to fit their leftist agenda/manifesto. I we the majority are to blame for letting them do it. It has to stop before we morph into socialist society were the very things that have made this country great are wiped out of it.


The only Constitutional Amendment I've heard proposed lately was one that would ban gay marriage. Was that the ACLU's doing?

[Flagg the Wanderer]

I have no idea who is advising the school board, but he/she should be sued for malpractice.

That said, I violently disagree with the current state of Church/State law as laid down by the Supremes. But that's not really relevant here as non-attendees are losing class time.

That's a quick take with about 2 minutes reading and 30 seconds thought.

[aloyouis]

Originally posted by Steve-o on 10-21-2006 at 05:18 PM
The only Constitutional Amendment I've heard proposed lately was one that would ban gay marriage. Was that the ACLU's doing?

Trust me...the ACLU is not trying to change the Constitution in bigs chunks. They have been changing it for years in small doses so that we the Americans that are hurt by it and don't pay much attention to it won't notice.

[aloyouis]

Originally posted by Flagg Wanderer on 10-21-2006 at 05:26 PM
I have no idea who is advising the school board, but he/she should be sued for malpractice.

That said, I violently disagree with the current state of Church/State law as laid down by the Supremes. But that's not really relevant here as non-attendees are losing class time.

That's a quick take with about 2 minutes reading and 30 seconds thought.


And that point is about the only REAL argument. The 1-2 studenst that don't want to attend the class SHOULD be taught something else during that time period. To leave them sitting doing nothing was very, very dumb.

[aloyouis]

Originally posted by Steve-o on 10-21-2006 at 05:18 PM
The only Constitutional Amendment I've heard proposed lately was one that would ban gay marriage. Was that the ACLU's doing?

I remember reading the following story when I was kid in Lowell Public Schools...probably at the Daley Jr. High. I would be shocked if the ACLU/NEA would allow it to be read by students today. My wife is a middle school teacher and she had never even heard of the story and also doubts that it would be let in to todays ACLU/NEA controlled and patrolled public schools. It does mention GOD so it must be stricken. I apologize in advance for the lengthy post.


Harrison Bergeron


by Kurt Vonnegut (1961)



THE YEAR WAS 2081, and everybody was finally equal. They weren’t only equal before God and the law. They were equal every which way. Nobody was smarter than anybody else. Nobody was better looking than anybody else. Nobody was stronger or quicker than anybody else. All this equality was due to the 211th, 212th, and 213th Amendments to the Constitution, and to the unceasing vigilance of agents of the United States Handicapper General.

Some things about living still weren’t quite right, though. April, for instance, still drove people crazy by not being springtime. And it was in that clammy month that the H-G men took George and Hazel Bergeron’s fourteen-year-old son, Harrison, away.

It was tragic, all right, but George and Hazel couldn’t think about it very hard. Hazel had a perfectly average intelligence, which meant she couldn’t think about anything except in short bursts. And George, while his intelligence was way above normal, had a little mental handicap radio in his ear. He was required by law to wear it at all times. It was tuned to a government transmitter. Every twenty seconds or so, the transmitter would send out some sharp noise to keep people like George from taking unfair advantage of their brains.

George and Hazel were watching television. There were tears on Hazel’s cheeks, but she’d forgotten for the moment what they were about.

On the television screen were ballerinas.

A buzzer sounded in George’s head. His thoughts fled in panic, like bandits from a burglar alarm.

“That was a real pretty dance, that dance they just did,” said Hazel.

“Huh?” said George.

“That dance – it was nice,” said Hazel.

“Yup,” said George. He tried to think a little about the ballerinas. They weren’t really very good – no better than anybody else would have been, anyway. They were burdened with sashweights and bags of birdshot, and their faces were masked, so that no one, seeing a free and graceful gesture or a pretty face, would feel like something the cat drug in. George was toying with the vague notion that maybe dancers shouldn’t be handicapped. But he didn’t get very far with it before another noise in his ear radio scattered his thoughts.

George winced. So did two out of the eight ballerinas.

Hazel saw him wince. Having no mental handicap herself she had to ask George what the latest sound had been.

“Sounded like somebody hitting a milk bottle with a ball peen hammer,” said George.

“I’d think it would be real interesting, hearing all the different sounds,” said Hazel, a little envious. “All the things they think up.”

“Um,” said George.

“Only, if I was Handicapper General, you know what I would do?” said Hazel. Hazel, as a matter of fact, bore a strong resemblance to the Handicapper General, a woman named Diana Moon Glampers. “If I was Diana Moon Glampers,” said Hazel, “I’d have chimes on Sunday – just chimes. Kind of in honor of religion.”

“I could think, if it was just chimes,” said George.

“Well – maybe make ‘em real loud,” said Hazel. “I think I’d make a good Handicapper General.”

“Good as anybody else,” said George.

“Who knows better’n I do what normal is?” said Hazel.

“Right,” said George. He began to think glimmeringly about his abnormal son who was now in jail, about Harrison, but a twenty-one-gun salute in his head stopped that.

“Boy!” said Hazel, “that was a doozy, wasn’t it?”

It was such a doozy that George was white and trembling and tears stood on the rims of his red eyes. Two of the eight ballerinas had collapsed to the studio floor, were holding their temples.

“All of a sudden you look so tired,” said Hazel. “Why don’t you stretch out on the sofa, so’s you can rest your handicap bag on the pillows, honeybunch.” She was referring to the forty-seven pounds of birdshot in canvas bag, which was padlocked around George’s neck. “Go on and rest the bag for a little while,” she said. “I don’t care if you’re not equal to me for a while.”

George weighed the bag with his hands. “I don’t mind it,” he said. “I don’t notice it any more. It’s just a part of me.

“You been so tired lately – kind of wore out,” said Hazel. “If there was just some way we could make a little hole in the bottom of the bag, and just take out a few of them lead balls. Just a few.”

“Two years in prison and two thousand dollars fine for every ball I took out,” said George. “I don’t call that a bargain.”

“If you could just take a few out when you came home from work,” said Hazel. “I mean – you don’t compete with anybody around here. You just set around.”

“If I tried to get away with it,” said George, “then other people’d get away with it and pretty soon we’d be right back to the dark ages again, with everybody competing against everybody else. You wouldn’t like that, would you?”

“I’d hate it,” said Hazel.

“There you are,” said George. “The minute people start cheating on laws, what do you think happens to society?

If Hazel hadn’t been able to come up with an answer to this question, George couldn’t have supplied one. A siren was going off in his head.

“Reckon it’d fall all apart,” said Hazel.

“What would?” said George blankly.

“Society,” said Hazel uncertainly. “Wasn’t that what you just said?”

“Who knows?” said George.

The television program was suddenly interrupted for a news bulletin. It wasn’t clear at first as to what the bulletin was about, since the announcer, like all announcers, had a serious speech impediment. For about half a minute, and in a state of high excitement, the announcer tried to say, “Ladies and gentlemen – "

He finally gave up, handed the bulletin to a ballerina to read.

“That’s all right –” Hazel said of the announcer, “he tried. That’s the big thing. He tried to do the best he could with what God gave him. He should get a nice raise for trying so hard.”

“Ladies and gentlemen” said the ballerina, reading the bulletin. She must have been extraordinarily beautiful, because the mask she wore was hideous. And it was easy to see that she was the strongest and most graceful of all the dancers, for her handicap bags were as big as those worn by two-hundred-pound men.

And she had to apologize at once for her voice, which was a very unfair voice for a woman to use. Her voice was a warm, luminous, timeless melody. “Excuse me – ” she said, and she began again, making her voice absolutely uncompetitive.

“Harrison Bergeron, age fourteen,” she said in a grackle squawk, “has just escaped from jail, where he was held on suspicion of plotting to overthrow the government. He is a genius and an athlete, is under–handicapped, and should be regarded as extremely dangerous.”

A police photograph of Harrison Bergeron was flashed on the screen – upside down, then sideways, upside down again, then right side up. The picture showed the full length of Harrison against a background calibrated in feet and inches. He was exactly seven feet tall.

The rest of Harrison’s appearance was Halloween and hardware. Nobody had ever worn heavier handicaps. He had outgrown hindrances faster than the H–G men could think them up. Instead of a little ear radio for a mental handicap, he wore a tremendous pair of earphones, and spectacles with thick wavy lenses. The spectacles were intended to make him not only half blind, but to give him whanging headaches besides.

Scrap metal was hung all over him. Ordinarily, there was a certain symmetry, a military neatness to the handicaps issued to strong people, but Harrison looked like a walking junkyard. In the race of life, Harrison carried three hundred pounds.

And to offset his good looks, the H–G men required that he wear at all times a red rubber ball for a nose, keep his eyebrows shaved off, and cover his even white teeth with black caps at snaggle–tooth random.

“If you see this boy,” said the ballerina, “do not – I repeat, do not – try to reason with him.”

There was the shriek of a door being torn from its hinges.

Screams and barking cries of consternation came from the television set. The photograph of Harrison Bergeron on the screen jumped again and again, as though dancing to the tune of an earthquake.

George Bergeron correctly identified the earthquake, and well he might have – for many was the time his own home had danced to the same crashing tune. “My God –” said George, “that must be Harrison!”

The realization was blasted from his mind instantly by the sound of an automobile collision in his head.

When George could open his eyes again, the photograph of Harrison was gone. A living, breathing Harrison filled the screen.

Clanking, clownish, and huge, Harrison stood in the center of the studio. The knob of the uprooted studio door was still in his hand. Ballerinas, technicians, musicians, and announcers cowered on their knees before him, expecting to die.

“I am the Emperor!” cried Harrison. “Do you hear? I am the Emperor! Everybody must do what I say at once!” He stamped his foot and the studio shook.

“Even as I stand here –” he bellowed, “crippled, hobbled, sickened – I am a greater ruler than any man who ever lived! Now watch me become what I can become!”

Harrison tore the straps of his handicap harness like wet tissue paper, tore straps guaranteed to support five thousand pounds.

Harrison’s scrap–iron handicaps crashed to the floor.

Harrison thrust his thumbs under the bar of the padlock that secured his head harness. The bar snapped like celery. Harrison smashed his headphones and spectacles against the wall.

He flung away his rubber–ball nose, revealed a man that would have awed Thor, the god of thunder.

“I shall now select my Empress!” he said, looking down on the cowering people. “Let the first woman who dares rise to her feet claim her mate and her throne!”

A moment passed, and then a ballerina arose, swaying like a willow.

Harrison plucked the mental handicap from her ear, snapped off her physical handicaps with marvelous delicacy. Last of all, he removed her mask.

She was blindingly beautiful.

“Now” said Harrison, taking her hand, “shall we show the people the meaning of the word dance? Music!” he commanded.

The musicians scrambled back into their chairs, and Harrison stripped them of their handicaps, too. “Play your best,” he told them, “and I’ll make you barons and dukes and earls.”

The music began. It was normal at first – cheap, silly, false. But Harrison snatched two musicians from their chairs, waved them like batons as he sang the music as he wanted it played. He slammed them back into their chairs.

The music began again and was much improved.

Harrison and his Empress merely listened to the music for a while – listened gravely, as though synchronizing their heartbeats with it.

They shifted their weights to their toes.

Harrison placed his big hands on the girl’s tiny waist, letting her sense the weightlessness that would soon be hers.

And then, in an explosion of joy and grace, into the air they sprang!

Not only were the laws of the land abandoned, but the law of gravity and the laws of motion as well.

They reeled, whirled, swiveled, flounced, capered, gamboled, and spun.

They leaped like deer on the moon.

The studio ceiling was thirty feet high, but each leap brought the dancers nearer to it. It became their obvious intention to kiss the ceiling.

They kissed it.

And then, neutralizing gravity with love and pure will, they remained suspended in air inches below the ceiling, and they kissed each other for a long, long time.

It was then that Diana Moon Glampers, the Handicapper General, came into the studio with a double-barreled ten-gauge shotgun. She fired twice, and the Emperor and the Empress were dead before they hit the floor.

Diana Moon Glampers loaded the gun again. She aimed it at the musicians and told them they had ten seconds to get their handicaps back on.

It was then that the Bergerons’ television tube burned out.

Hazel turned to comment about the blackout to George.

But George had gone out into the kitchen for a can of beer.

George came back in with the beer, paused while a handicap signal shook him up. And then he sat down again. “You been crying?” he said to Hazel.

“Yup,” she said,

“What about?” he said.

“I forget,” she said. “Something real sad on television.”

“What was it?” he said.

“It’s all kind of mixed up in my mind,” said Hazel.

“Forget sad things,” said George.

“I always do,” said Hazel.

“That’s my girl,” said George. He winced. There was the sound of a riveting gun in his head.

“Gee – I could tell that one was a doozy,” said Hazel.

“You can say that again,” said George.

“Gee –” said Hazel, “I could tell that one was a doozy.”

[Steve-o]

Vonnegut. Excellent. Handicapper general.

So stop trying to handicap my kid with your prayer in our schools.

By the way, Vonnegut's enemies are pro-school prayer, not the ACLU.

FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION (US SUPREME COURT)
Island Trees Union Free School District v. Pico

After a "Book Review Committee" composed of parents and school staff proposed removing certain books from library shelves in the Island Trees Union Free School District , 17-year-old Steven Pico and four other students went to court charging that they were being denied their First Amendment rights. In 1982, the US Supreme Court ruled that because school libraries provide an "environment especially appropriate for the recognition of the First Amendment rights of students," officials could not "remove books from school library shelves simply because they dislike the ideas contained in those books." But authorities do have "significant discretion" to decide what goes in the libraries in the first place.

Among the books slated for removal were Bernard Malamud's The Fixer, Desmond Morris' The Naked Ape, and Pin Thomas' Down these Mean Streets. The Committee wanted some books – such as Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.'s Slaughterhouse Five and Richard Wright's Black Boy to be made available to student only if they had their parents' approval. Some members of the School Board who objected to these and other books called them "anti-American, anti-Christian, anti-Semitic and just plain filthy."

Listen to the oral argument: http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/1060/
Read the decision: http://www.faculty.piercelaw.edu/redfield/library/case-islandtrees.htm

[Umfold]

In the slavering search for subversive literature on the shelves of our public schools, which will never stop, the two most subversive tales of all remain untouched, wholly unsuspected. One is the story of Robin Hood.
And another, as disrespectful of established authority as the story of Robin Hood, which "Cinderella" and "The Ugly Duckling" are not, is the life of Jesus Christ as described in the New Testament.

-Kurt Vonnegut / Timequake



By the way, Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse 5 has been banned in the past. It's because the word 'mother****er' is used.



Also, Jesus was a liberal. Left, and Red, and of course, murdered because of it.

[aloyouis]

Also, Jesus was a liberal. Left, and Red, and of course, murdered because of it.

Think about what you just said. Why was Jesus crucified? Because of his political views?

You have to stop saying things just because you like the sound of it. Just because you say it doesn't change facts.

Very common for an oppressive viewpoint to be propagated by repeating it over and over.

[Umfold]

He was a liberal. He was not a war mongering neo-con. Sorry this reality makes your brain hurt. Try not to think about it, and just lie to yourself. I'm sure that's worked up till now. No need for you to change.

[dchester]

Originally posted by Umfold on 10-22-2006 at 10:59 AM
He was a liberal. He was not a war mongering neo-con. Sorry this reality makes your brain hurt. Try not to think about it, and just lie to yourself. I'm sure that's worked up till now. No need for you to change. Out of curiosity, have you ever considered a career as a diplomat?

:)
________
fake weed (http://syntheticweed.org)

[aloyouis]

What a great thread!

religion.....physics...

Although there is tremendous disagreement amongst us it is non the less a great thread as I have learned and been reminded of much that I had lost.

I have been inspired to go read things that I had lost interest in.

Thanks all!

[Benign Despot]

Check the Mormon thread in the Classics forum for another wide-ranging and civil discussion of religious differences (don't let the thread title or the first page or 2 throw you)

[Steve-o]

Originally posted by aloyouis on 10-23-2006 at 09:25 AM
What a great thread!

religion.....physics...

Although there is tremendous disagreement amongst us it is non the less a great thread as I have learned and been reminded of much that I had lost.

I have been inspired to go read things that I had lost interest in.

Thanks all!

Arguing is a great way to learn. I never learn anything when I'm sitting around agreeing with people all the time. :D

[Jaric]

Hmm kinda jumping in towards the back of the thread so forgive me if the topics have switched in recent posts.

The reason that these issues on the seperation of church and state exist because religeon when used improperly can cause terrible things.

The problem exists because a finite being (humans) are incable of interpreting the actions or intents of an infinite being (god, in whatever form you wish)

Like a previous poster very eloquently put, the middle man is what screws it up.

If you study differant religeons, they generally have the same messages. The main differances are little details. But the overall message is the same. That's what I believe always gets lost when religeon comes up. That the proverbial forest goes missing while we argue the size of the trees.

Mark Twain once wrote, "Religeon can be summed up in two words: Be good."

It's been my experiance, that the people who speak the loudest regarding religeon usually do so for their own ends. Which makes sense. If God is powerful enough to create life, what good I am going to do arguing on their behalf? The only thing I create every morning could hardly be considered "life."

So why does America have a genuine intrest in keeping religeon out of state sponsership? Because there is no way to involve religeon in state sponsered activites without excluding someone from it, which by precedent violates the constitution.

Many have tried to include certain religeons by trying a "seperate but equal" type environment. And based on how well that worked for racial segregation I think we should abandon that idea ASAP.

I suppose my question for those claiming there is inherit benifit (exluding constitutional arguements and focusing only on the civic benifit) for having these sorts of programs be part of a public school ciriculum is why does something that we have decided on numerous occasions is between man (the "royal man") and god need to invade a place that is designed to teach reading, writing, and arithimatic?

Regardless of what the constitution says, I believe that religeon has no place in a public school simply because it is not the appropriate avenue for that to be taught. Thats what your church is for.

So until Father Mckenzie (yeah for beatles referances!) starts teaching math on sunday, let religeon stay in the church.

[Steve-o]

I am proud of our Marines for getting it right.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/11/14/toy.jesus.ap/index.html

[Benign Despot]

On a personal level, I've never been a Christian, at least not in the way "Christians" mean it.

I celebrate Christmas, I recognize it is a "Christian" holiday albeit with pagan roots.

I would be highly offended if my child was given a Jesus Doll without any prior discussion with me. I am always pissed when my in-laws send my kids "Focus on the Family" propaganda and Junior Bibles in the guise of Christmas Presents (they are aware of my feelings on religion).

All that said, I'd be fine with Toys for Tots accepting this donation, as long as parents are asked if they were OK receiving this gift prior to recieving it. I suppose logistics might make that impossible but I'm not sure why.

[SamBam39]

I firmly believe that religion should remain a personal decision. And that all the proselytizing needs to stop! Believe what you wish and leave me alone! ;)

[Benign Despot]

Mr. President

To messers Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem & approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful & zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more & more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, 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. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from presenting even occasional performances of devotion presented indeed legally where an Executive is the legal head of a national church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

(signed) Thomas Jefferson
Jan.1.1802.


This is the text of a letter written by Thomas Jefferson in which the term "Separation of church and state" is first heard. I think it provides an interesting context for the discussion