Student Was So Offended by How Her School Pushed ‘Christian Beliefs’ That She’s Suing Them

Status
Not open for further replies.

muichimotsu

I Spit On Perfection
May 16, 2006
6,529
1,648
36
✟106,458.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
Is something you don't personally believe automatically a lie?
When it's unjustified and unsubstantiated, it would be untrue. A lie is an intentional form of speech that goes agaisnt truth rather than happening to disagree with it incidentally.
 
Upvote 0

muichimotsu

I Spit On Perfection
May 16, 2006
6,529
1,648
36
✟106,458.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
Move to another state or change the laws by changing the politicians. That was why the states were to have the power, not the feds. So you would have real choices in how the states were run. Under the Constitution, California can be Communist if they want, as long as they pay for it themselves. Every state should be sovereign in its own territory.
No power should be absolute on state or federal level: to say the state is free to teach religion ignores that keeping the civil authorities out of religious indoctrination protects the rights of free exercise for all citizens. Not to mention a facile attempt to ignore jurisprudence and judicial precedent established in the last 100 years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hank77
Upvote 0

GoldenBoy89

We're Still Here
Sep 25, 2012
23,802
25,692
LA
✟551,673.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
If teachers are in school telling children that evolution is a fact, then they are essentially also telling them that God did not create the world as is taught in the bible, and saying that it is false, as both cannot be facts. Do you really think it's the place of school teachers to be telling them that the child's religious beliefs are false?
Well if they are infact, contradictory to what science has established, then yes. And we're talking about a science class as that's the only class you'd be learning about evolution in. They should be told the truth regardless of what religions have to say. Your position also excludes the millions of Christians and members of other religions who have no problem reconciling the well established scientific fact of evolution with their faithful belief in their God and scriptures.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ana the Ist
Upvote 0

muichimotsu

I Spit On Perfection
May 16, 2006
6,529
1,648
36
✟106,458.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
Right. You need genius judges to "interpret" it to get your pet causes pushed down the people's throat, undemocratically, hence the "bastardization".

http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/6/essays/135/religious-test
You used the term genius: I never said they were infallible.

Pet cause? I'm not gay and I don't see how gay people getting married is going to affect my marriage. And let's not even try to pretend I agree with all Supreme Court decisions: Citizens United come to mind? I didn't agree with that.
 
Upvote 0

muichimotsu

I Spit On Perfection
May 16, 2006
6,529
1,648
36
✟106,458.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
You error as badly as Brewmama in the opposite direction. That explicitly applied only to Federal offices until after the 14th amendment.
Didn't mean there wasn't an implicit note that the constitution's principles were supreme in regards to the law: no religious test clause implies that in regards to any civil office.
 
Upvote 0

muichimotsu

I Spit On Perfection
May 16, 2006
6,529
1,648
36
✟106,458.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
Does that apply to teaching that homosexuality is wrong as well?



Good thing you aren't the ultimate decider of what's right and wrong.

Morality is an elective at best in school, but the school has no basis to make claims about morality even in regard to the truth or untruth of religion anyway, so talking about homosexuality would be extracurricular anyway.

Good thing you aren't either.
 
Upvote 0

Hank77

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jun 26, 2015
26,368
15,457
✟1,099,038.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/medicine_01

"Medical science is continually making rapid advances: new medications and treatments are developed and introduced at a rapid pace, but we can better take advantage of these advances by taking evolution into account.

Like all biological systems, both disease-causing organisms and their victims evolve. Understanding evolution can make a big difference in how we treat disease. The evolution of disease-causing organisms may outpace our ability to invent new treatments, but studying the evolution of drug resistance can help us slow it. Learning about the evolutionary origins of diseases may provide clues about how to treat them. And considering the basic processes of evolution can help us understand the roots of genetic diseases.

The case studies in this section illuminate how evolutionary approaches can make a difference in the world of medicine."
Yeah, well that is very outdated compared to DNA. Why not just study the DNA of the virus that causes the disease. That seems to be the most efficient and direct method.
As far as drug resistance of a virus goes, that takes a live virus. I think you are stretching it a bit here, don't you. Do we need to know how or where that virus originally came from in order to see how it mutates in order to save itself. Really? I think we are talking about two different things being taught here, don't you?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

loveofourlord

Newbie
Feb 15, 2014
8,118
4,528
✟269,140.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Well, that's what I get for not being as versed in evolutionary theory as I probably should be. I blame public schools. :sorry:

well it's one of those things still being argued :> Seems to be resistance to acknowledging that humans evolved from monkey's, yes we FIRST evolved from apes, but we evolved from old world monkey's after they split from new world monkey's, so in order for new world monkey's to be considered monkey's our LCA would have to be monkey also.

it's one of those catchy responses that sounds right, but I havn't heard a good argument for why our ancestor wouldn't have been a monkey, obviously no modern ones, but still a monkey.
 
Upvote 0

Cearbhall

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2013
15,118
5,741
United States
✟122,284.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Single
So, they violate the establishment clause, get a court to beat them down on it, and then violate it again.
I predict they would tell you that God's law is higher than the law of man. But only when it's a law that they want to break. :rolleyes:
 
Upvote 0

Larniavc

Leading a blameless life
Jul 14, 2015
12,272
7,627
51
✟312,549.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
Actually by definition we evolved from monkey's this is a stupid argument, because the animal at the split between human and monkey lineages would be by definition a monkey since old world and new world monkey's split off before we did.

Not so, both humans and monkeys descended from catarrhines and the division occurred about 25 Mya. So humans and monkeys descended from catarrhines, rather than catarhines>monkeys>humans.
 
  • Like
Reactions: muichimotsu
Upvote 0

Larniavc

Leading a blameless life
Jul 14, 2015
12,272
7,627
51
✟312,549.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
Oh well, I guess that's what we get for handing our kids over to the government to be educated....

The get the same education they would get in any other Western democracy: one where science rather than religion is taught in a science class.
 
Upvote 0

TLK Valentine

I've already read the books you want burned.
Apr 15, 2012
64,493
30,319
Behind the 8-ball, but ahead of the curve.
✟541,512.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

USincognito

a post by Alan Smithee
Supporter
Dec 25, 2003
42,058
16,810
Dallas
✟870,741.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Easy. The states most definitely had established churches, as it was Congress that was forbidden to do it.

Equal protection clause. And every colony turned state was done with state churches by 1833, well before the ratification of the 14th Amendment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: muichimotsu
Upvote 0

Hank77

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jun 26, 2015
26,368
15,457
✟1,099,038.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Who said I was referring to anything specific? Any truth that requires lies to defend it is not worth defending.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/any

—used to indicate a person or thing that is not particular or specific
Actually the worth of the truth is not determined by the lies that are told to defend it. It may however determine the integrity of the person telling the lies.
There have been people who have lied and constructed major hoaxes in order to defend evolution. It would be morally and intellectually wrong for me to judge whether evolution has any truth to it or not because dishonest people lied to defend it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ana the Ist
Upvote 0

Armoured

So is America great again yet?
Supporter
Aug 31, 2013
34,358
14,061
✟234,967.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
I imagine they are teaching evolution (theory) in that school. And I imagine one cannot opt out. I think that might be called discrimination in this context..
Sure one can opt out. Don't take biology.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

USincognito

a post by Alan Smithee
Supporter
Dec 25, 2003
42,058
16,810
Dallas
✟870,741.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Actually by definition we evolved from monkey's this is a stupid argument, because the animal at the split between human and monkey lineages would be by definition a monkey since old world and new world monkey's split off before we did.

The Catarrhini/Platarrhini common ancestor would very much have resembled modern monkeys. Of course now we get into the problem of common parlance and taxonomy/cladistics. Humans are members of family Hominidae meaning we are apes. But apes is a common term, not a scientific one so "We are apes" or "We aren't apes" are way to vague to be considered a scientifically valid pronouncement. Humans (and our fellow apes) also are members of parvorder Catarrhini and thus are monkeys, but only in the same way that we're fish because we are members of the clade Sarcopterygii.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.