How the Democratic Party opposes Christian Principles

[Ringo84]

christalee4 quote

That this thread is still open is amazing.

Based on an earlier post, Clirus, if at least half of Americans suddenly became Biblically pure, how would you go about (presuming you were the President of this country) of eliminating those who did not agree with Biblical Law?

Biblical Law is harsh, and requires execution and punishment of those who not only disobey, but who also disagree with the religion in charge.

How would you execute up to at least 100 million people for disobeying Biblical Law?

Response

I believe the Bible teaches all things should be dealt with by the following three levels of action;
1) If it is good - accept it and nourish it.
2) If it is evil - reject it but tolerate it.
3) If it threatens your existence - destroy it before it destroys you. This is self defense, which both the individual and society have a right and responsibility to do.

The first two are from the New Testament of the Bible and represent the Law of Love. The third is from the Old Testament of the Bible and represents the Law of Purity/Self Defense. The New Testament deals more with personal responsibility and the Old Testament deals more with the preservation of society. The Old Testament and the New Testament together present God's Law, a means of survival for a person, a nation and a world.

The process used in America to insure that the correct people are executed (the decision to go from tolerance to destruction) is the jury process and the authorization of war by congress. No process is ever perfect, but the choice is society/civilization or an imperfect jury/congressional process.

Christians should warn people (be salt and light), Civil Law should control, restrict, destroy, force, etc. people. Christians should advocate that which is good and healthy for society as described in the Bible. Civil Law should control, restrict, destroy, force, etc. that which is harmful (disease, death and destruction) to society. Congress (as the representatives of the people) defines Civil Law. If the laws that Congress defines are consistent with the Christian Lifestyle (God's Law), the people who practice evil will suffer. If the laws that Congress defines are consistent with the Atheistic Lifestyle, everyone will suffer. Civil Law consistent with the Atheistic Lifestyle cause suffering for everyone because the Christens suffer under the law, and the Atheists suffer because of the sin they practice. Romans 6:23 states, "For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."


Separation of Church and State means the Church should not execute, control, restrict, destroy, force, etc. and the State should not legalize sin by legalizing those things that the Bible clearly calls evil. The State should not participate in social programs that facilitate sin or reward sinful behavior.

Even though evil can be tolerated, advocating evil should be rejected. Advocating evil can be anything from portraying an evil activity as fun with no consequences to the attitude that "I would not do it, but I would not be bothered if others did it". Pornography should be rejected because it advocates evil.

America was founded on these concepts where Civil Law was equivalent to the Law of Purity. A major problem in America is that Civil Law has now been so perverted that sin is now legalized and civil rights are more important than civil responsibility. Civil Law is no longer protecting/preserving society thus it is useless unless it is returned to its original intent. .

If all would live in accordance with the Law of love, there would never be a need to invoke the Law of Purity, but many do not live in accordance with any law. America is best served when religion prevents evil by defining evil and showing the disease, death and destruction of evil, and when Civil Law executes those who will not follow any law.

I believe that about 50% of the things of the world are good and about 49.9% of the things are evil and about 0.1% represent things that represent a threat. Some may think the evil should be eradicated, but I think evil eradicates itself because evil has disease, death and destruction associated with it. Evil requires outside assistance to survive. Good is self sufficient.

Anything should be considered evil if both the Bible says it is evil and physical reality shows that it leads to disease, death and destruction. Homosexuality is an example. The Bible says homosexuality is evil, and the AIDS is the physical reality of disease, death and destruction.

The government/state should discourage evil (non religious) by pointing out the disease, death and destruction of evil, and the church should encourage good.

Separation of Church and State means the Church should not execute, control, restrict, destroy, force, etc. and the State should not legalize sin by legalizing those things that the Bible clearly calls evil. The State should not participate in social programs that facilitate sin or reward sinful behavior.

Even though evil can be tolerated, advocating evil should be rejected. Advocating evil can be anything from portraying an evil activity as fun with no consequences to the attitude that "I would not do it, but I would not be bothered if others did it". Pornography should be rejected because it advocates evil.

You've said that before, and it's as wrong now as it was the first time.

The government has no freedom of religion. Period. That means that government does not have the authority to decide what is and is not sin.

Separation of church and state is the church not interfering with the state and the state not interfering with the church. Perhaps you should study the issue before you continue cutting-and-pasting the same incorrect passages over and over.
Ringo

 

[KomissarSteve]

Send them to Christification camps.

Es arbeite fur deutschland, recht? Ich bedeutet, sie waren die guten jahre! Zwischen 1939 und 1945.

"Hetero Macht Frei!"

 

[Sphere]

unterschiedlich macht frei, und gemeinsam glauben sind schlecht.

 

[clirus]

christalee4 quote

So Clirus, what would you do with the hundreds of thousands, PLUS people who need to be destroyed. Presumably. Would you give them a break first to repent, and if they did not , how you would your society deal with them?

Response

That may be your interpretation of what I said, but that is not what I said.

Why do you think there are hundreds of thousands, PLUS people who need to be destroyed?

Flynmonkie quote

Mind you, I see you are still under the misconception that we will be able to "rid" the world, of ALL "sin"...

As I said, if you keep this thought, you will be chasing your tail for a very long time. It simply is not logical.

Response

Toleration is what I stated, not "rid".

Sin cannot be eliminated, but sin contains itself by the disease, death and destruction associated with sin, except when you create health care programs and welfare programs to delay the disease, death and destruction.

Health care programs and welfare program advocated by the democratic party do little more than facilitate sin.

 

[tulc]

Health care programs and welfare program advocated by the democratic party do little more than facilitate sin

So those programs that try and feed poor kids, those are wrong because they should have chosen better parents?
tulc(where's that questionare Jesus had everyone fill out when He fed the 5000 so no sinners got food?)

 

[clirus]

Ringo84 quote

Separation of church and state is the church not interfering with the state and the state not interfering with the church. Perhaps you should study the issue before you continue cutting-and-pasting the same incorrect passages over and over.
Ringo

Response

The State violated your definition of separation of church and state when the courts legalized pornography, abortion and homosexuality.

The State violates your definition of separation of church and state when the public schools teach evolution. Evolution is an attack on the Christian Religion.

The State violates your definition of separation of church and state when it produces health care and welfare programs that basically facilitate sin.

I personally would like to see the government get out its present support of Atheism. If the government is going to support Atheism by teaching evolution, health care programs and welfare programs, then the government should also support Christianity by the "Ever seen anything dumber program" that would warn people of the dangers of evil activities.

I would prefer the government get out of social programs and allow Christians to establish a Christian Relief Organization and the Atheists establish a Atheistic Relief Organization. If a person had a need they could go to either of the organizations for help. That way the government can get out of the support for all religions.

 

[clirus]

The Christian Democrat Concept

I see people that call themselves Atheists that say they support the democratic party, and I can understand that support.

However, I also see people that call themselves Christians that say they support the democratic party, and I do not understand that support.

As a Christian how do you resolve Christian Principles and the democratic support for extreme environmentalism, socialism, feminism, pornography, abortion and homosexuality?

 

[KomissarSteve]

The Christian Democrat Concept

I see people that call themselves Atheists that say they support the democratic party, and I can understand that support.

However, I also see people that call themselves Christians that say they support the democratic party, and I do not understand that support.

As a Christian how do you resolve Christian Principles and the democratic support for extreme environmentalism, socialism, feminism, pornography, abortion and homosexuality?

Because the Democratic Party does not support extreme environmentalism (ie: ecoterrorism; the type of environmentalism they support is by no means extreme), pornography, socialism, abortion, or homosexuality, and feminism is by no means contrary to Christian values.

The Democratic Party recognizes that the damage to society by outlawing pornography or abortion would be greater than if they were to keep them legal. No one can "support" homosexuality; it's a fact of life, nothing more, nothing less. There is no evidence that feminism has had any net negative impact upon society. As for socialism, that's a very broad term; one could argue that having government-constructed roads and a tax-funded military employs socialist principles, at least in comparison with strict anarcho-libertarianism. The Democratic Party, however, is less-socialist than the Democratic-Socialist parties of Europe; therefore, it's highly inaccurate to portray the Democratic Party as socialist. It holds certain socialist values, but then again, so did Jesus.

 

[Ringo84]

Ringo84 quote

Separation of church and state is the church not interfering with the state and the state not interfering with the church. Perhaps you should study the issue before you continue cutting-and-pasting the same incorrect passages over and over.
Ringo

Response

The State violated your definition of separation of church and state when the courts legalized pornography, abortion and homosexuality.

The State violates your definition of separation of church and state when the public schools teach evolution. Evolution is an attack on the Christian Religion.

The State violates your definition of separation of church and state when it produces health care and welfare programs that basically facilitate sin.

I personally would like to see the government get out its present support of Atheism. If the government is going to support Atheism by teaching evolution, health care programs and welfare programs, then the government should also support Christianity by the "Ever seen anything dumber program" that would warn people of the dangers of evil activities.

I would prefer the government get out of social programs and allow Christians to establish a Christian Relief Organization and the Atheists establish a Atheistic Relief Organization. If a person had a need they could go to either of the organizations for help. That way the government can get out of the support for all religions.

The State violated your definition of separation of church and state when the courts legalized pornography, abortion and homosexuality.

No, because none of those things constitute religion.

The State violates your definition of separation of church and state when the public schools teach evolution. Evolution is an attack on the Christian Religion.

No, because evolution is a scientific theory. It is not a religion. The violation would occur if Creationism was taught as a valid scientific theory to explain the origins of the universe.

The State violates your definition of separation of church and state when it produces health care and welfare programs that basically facilitate sin.

As I said: neither the state nor the government has the freedom of religion to define sin. That's left to the individual conscience.

I personally would like to see the government get out its present support of Atheism.

The government does not support any religion because it hasn't the right to support any religion.

If the government is going to support Atheism by teaching evolution

Scientific integrity is supported by teaching valid scientific theories. Not atheism.

However, I also see people that call themselves Christians that say they support the democratic party, and I do not understand that support.

I am a Christian, and I am a Democrat. I have supported the party financially and have also voted Democrats into office. I sleep well at night because I'm voting for the party that represents my values the best. And I do not need to explain my choice to anyone else.

As a Christian how do you resolve Christian Principles and the democratic support for extreme environmentalism, socialism, feminism, pornography, abortion and homosexuality?

You have not proven that the Democratic party supports any of those concepts. It still sounds more like a propagandic cut-and-paste job than true reality.
Ringo

 

[Sphere]

The State violated your definition of separation of church and state when the courts legalized pornography, abortion and homosexuality.

You don't have to watch pornography.

You don't have to have an abortion.

You don't have to be homosexual(you think it's a choice anyway)

The State violates your definition of separation of church and state when the public schools teach evolution. Evolution is an attack on the Christian Religion.

Get this through your head. The public schools teach science.

And the theory of evolution is a function of biology, like how the germ theory of disease is a function of microbiology, and the atomic theory is a function of physics, and the theory of plate tectonics is a function of geology.

I can pretty much guarantee that your comprehension and understanding biology(or science in general) would be abysmal at best.

The State violates your definition of separation of church and state when it produces health care and welfare programs that basically facilitate sin.

Health care and welfare programs facilitate sin? I will be praying for you.

I personally would like to see the government get out its present support of Atheism. If the government is going to support Atheism by teaching evolution, health care programs and welfare programs, then the government should also support Christianity by the "Ever seen anything dumber program" that would warn people of the dangers of evil activities.

I would prefer the government get out of social programs and allow Christians to establish a Christian Relief Organization and the Atheists establish a Atheistic Relief Organization. If a person had a need they could go to either of the organizations for help. That way the government can get out of the support for all religions.

You want a fascist totalitarian state in which your fanatical religious beliefs, and perverted perception of morality becomes Law. To have your God® stuffed down the throats of everyone. Jews, Muslims, Atheists, Agnostics alike. They are all the Enemy in your eyes. As is the constitution, which limits the governments power. You hate the constitution, and you hate America.

 

[LilGeorgiaPeach81]

Because the Democratic Party does not support extreme environmentalism (ie: ecoterrorism; the type of environmentalism they support is by no means extreme), pornography, socialism, abortion, or homosexuality, and feminism is by no means contrary to Christian values.

The Democratic Party recognizes that the damage to society by outlawing pornography or abortion would be greater than if they were to keep them legal. No one can "support" homosexuality; it's a fact of life, nothing more, nothing less. There is no evidence that feminism has had any net negative impact upon society. As for socialism, that's a very broad term; one could argue that having government-constructed roads and a tax-funded military employs socialist principles, at least in comparison with strict anarcho-libertarianism. The Democratic Party, however, is less-socialist than the Democratic-Socialist parties of Europe; therefore, it's highly inaccurate to portray the Democratic Party as socialist. It holds certain socialist values, but then again, so did Jesus.

Jesus held Christian values. It is socialist to have the government take whatever people earn through their work and give it to those who are too lazy to work. Did Jesus say to give to the government? He said render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, meaning obey the law you're under. This was even when the Roman Empire was taxing people for no purpose but to maintain it's fattened emperors. But He sure didn't say pay high taxes so a wasteful elected government can fatten beaurocrats!

 

[KomissarSteve]

Jesus held Christian values.

Some of which could be characterized as socialist.

It is socialist to have the government take whatever people earn through their work and give it to those who are too lazy to work.

This is a complete mischaracterization of socialism. What you are describing would be an unimaginably extreme application of socialist values; socialism is a wide gamut of beliefs, and doesn't necessarily mean that one doesn't believe in personal property.

Did Jesus say to give to the government? He said render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, meaning obey the law you're under. This was even when the Roman Empire was taxing people for no purpose but to maintain it's fattened emperors. But He sure didn't say pay high taxes so a wasteful elected government can fatten beaurocrats!

If you hold these principles, you have no one to blame more than the incumbent President.

 

[clirus]

Ringo84 quote

No, because evolution is a scientific theory. It is not a religion. The violation would occur if Creationism was taught as a valid scientific theory to explain the origins of the universe.

Response

Evolution

The word "Theory" is basically a faith based concept. In the Theory of Evolution, the theory cannot be proven, but those who use Evolution to attack Christianity, have faith that Evolution is true.

Why should the faith based concept of Evolution be given more credibility in the public school system than the faith based concept of Creationism. Creationism of the Bible cannot be proven, but Evolution cannot be proven either.

To be anything more than a faith based theory, the people that support Evolution need to answer the following questions.

1) Has there ever been any proof that any non living matter has ever become living?

2) Has there ever been any proof that any living species has evolved to another species?

3) How long should we wait for the faith based theory of evolution to be proven?

4) Isn't it true that the only thing Darwin proved was that things adapt to different situations and that the whole subject of evolution was an incorrect extrapolation of adaptation?

5) Couldn't biology and adaptation be taught in schools without ever discussing evolution?

6) Isn't the theory of evolution being forced on the children of America to discredit the Bible and religion?

7) Isn't the theory of evolution a religious construct of the Atheistic Religion and that presenting it to children in a public school science class thus violates the establishment clause of the first Amendment to the U. S. Constitution.

Either both Creationism and Evolution should be taught in public schools or neither should be taught.

 

[clirus]

MassResistance

The following Email describes a situation in Massachusetts that should bring Christians to their knees, and scare every American. Massachusetts is being used to develop a homosexual legalization program that will be used to force homosexuality on all of America through the public school system.

The Bible clearly call homosexuality evil and AIDS confirms that homosexuality leads to disease, death and destruction.

If Christians allow the homosexuals in Massachusetts to win the Cultural War, I believe America will be judged by God.

-----------------------

MassResistance ** Aug. 21 Email Update **

www.MassResistance.org
MassResistance Blog MassResistance Radio Shows
In this email update:
1. National homosexual groups file in US First Circuit Court to stop appeal in David Parker lawsuit. GLSEN and PFLAG, as well as GLAD all file appearance in case. Reveals nationwide importance of Parker's court action.
2. Parker case already affecting Mass. legal system!
3. MassResistance radio to be back on air Sept. 1
4. Commentary: Don Feder reveals twisted arguments used by GLSEN, PFLAG, and others to push homosexual programs in schools.
5. Fundraising drive at $27,365. Please help us reach our $100,000 goal!
In a time of universal deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
- George Orwell

=== 1. National homosexual groups targeting children file in US First Circuit Court to stop appeal in David Parker lawsuit. GLSEN and PFLAG, as well as GLAD all file appearance in case. Reveals nationwide importance of Parker's court action. ===
As David Parker's lawyers prepare to appeal the ruling against his federal civil rights lawsuit against the Lexington School system, three major homosexual activist groups have officially filed their appearance in the case, and will be submitting amicus briefs as part of their effort to stop his appeal.
Read the official appearance document here
http://www.massresistance.org/docs/parker_lawsuit/GLSEN_appearance_doc.pdf
David Parker, his wife, and another couple, the Wirthlins, are suing the Lexington, MA school system over the teaching and normalization of homosexual behavior in the elementary schools, purposefully without parents' knowledge or consent, or ability to opt out.

Earlier this year, Federal District Court Judge Mark Wolf issued an unbelievable ruling against the Parkers which, among other things, gives schools in Massachusetts the right to teach homosexuality at will, without parents' input, consent, or even knowledge. The Parkers are appealing.

Read the ruling here.
http://www.massresistance.org/docs/parker_lawsuit/hearing_020707/hearing_dismissed.html
More on the Parkers' case and events leading up to it.
http://www.massresistance.org/docs/parker/index.html

The three homosexual groups which have filed to take part in the defense of the school system are:
· GLSEN - Gay Lesbian Straight Education Network
Very powerful national homosexual group targeting children in schools. This is the group that organizes the horrific "Gay-straight alliance" clubs, homosexual school assemblies, the "Day of Silence", in schools around the country, and annual GLSEN conferences pushing the most extreme homosexual topics and issues on vulnerable kids.
· PFLAG - Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays
Also in public schools around the country, and in many ways even more destructive than GLSEN. Very heavy into transgenderism and related behaviors. Recent PFLAG conference also teamed up with the "New England Leather Alliance" which promotes bondage and sado-machosism.
· GLAD - Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders
Well-funded and influential Massachusetts homosexual legal group (partially funded from public money) which specializes in suing government agencies and businesses to force them to accept homosexuality, transgenderism, public sex, and related behaviors. This was the group behind the Goodridge decision on same-sex "marriage" and pushing the new "transgender rights and hate crimes" bill.
(NOTE: We will be presenting more on the history and activities of these groups over the next few months.)

Piling on

These are just the latest pro-homosexual groups to be involved in the fight against David Parker (and all parents).

Pro-homosexual groups already involved in this case and continuing to fight against the Parkers include:
* American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)
* Human Rights Campaign (national homosexual organization, which gets funding from major US corporations)
* Massachusetts Teachers Association
* Respecting Differences (Lexington activist group)
There is no question that the national homosexual movement considers this a major threat to their ability to go into the public schools and proselytize children without the parents having any power to stop them. This case has already received considerable national media attention that will undoubtedly continue. The Parkers' lawyers have indicated that they are prepared to fight this as far up the judicial ladder as is necessary to win.

What's next?

This week the Parkers are to submit their brief to the First Circuit Court of Appeals.
Then, within approximately 40 days, the opposition will respond with their own brief. There will be a plaintiff's response, and the judge will then decide whether to grant the appeal.

We will keep you informed on each development.

=== 2. Parker case already affecting Mass. legal system! ===
Yes, it's already affecting the legal system. . .
We recently met with a mother who was preparing to take her local school system to court over a particular homosexual-related activity that she felt was going to affect her child in a destructive way. But when she discussed it with her lawyer (who specializes in dealing with public schools) the lawyer told her that the recent ruling by Federal Judge Mark Wolf in the David Parker case would make it difficult for her to win!

As you can imagine, the mother was shocked and very upset. But this is how important the David Parker lawsuit has become, not only here but around the country. And the national homosexual movement knows that - and is prepared to pull out all the stops to make sure that this lawsuit does not get to an appeal.

This also demonstrates that the current Parental Notification Law (Ch. 71, Sec. 32A) is now effectively useless, and a STRONG replacement is desperately needed! (Call your state reps & senators to let them know how important their support for the NEW Parents' rights bill S321 is!)

=== 3. MassResistance radio to be back on air Sept. 1, on new station. ===
We're coming back on the airwaves (and of course, also on the net)! Starting Saturday, Sept. 1, the weekly MassResistance Radio Show will resume broadcasting, with the same hard-hitting news, interviews, features, and commentary as before, which doesn't get reported in the mainstream media.
We will be moving to WRCA 1330 AM in Cambridge, from 11 am to noon every Saturday.

That's right, we'll be broadcasting from studios in Cambridge, MA, the heart of left-wing militant insanity. TUNE IN - or hear the show anytime on the MassResistance website.
MassResistance Radio is back, starting Sept. 1
Saturday mornings 11 am to Noon
WRCA Radio 1330 AM
(and posted on the MassResistance website Sat. evenings)

=== 4. Commentary: Don Feder reveals twisted arguments used by GLSEN, PFLAG, and others to push homosexual programs in schools. ===
As we first reported back in 1995, after years of trying different ways to get government to let them into the public schools, GLSEN discovered that by claiming that they were actually "making schools safe" by promoting homosexuality, that was the key. In a landmark speech that year called "Winning the Culture War" the president of GLSEN bragged that he tricked the entire Massachusetts Legislature into letting gay student clubs into the schools using that approach.
Read: GLSEN's "Winning the Culture War"
http://www.massresistance.org/docs/issues/gay_strategies/framing_the_issue.html
Now - a dozen years later - the homosexual movement has honed that twisted, phony argument into an even more powerful force to push themselves into schools across America. They've ratcheted it up to "safety from being killed" and school authorities are unfortunately falling for it.

Columnist Don Feder (formerly of the Boston Herald) describes this in his excellent article:
Gay activists come up with killer argument
by Don Feder
"Homosexual activists have come up with a killer argument -- without Gay Straight Alliances in the schools, "gay students" will be forced to whack their classmates. . ."
http://www.grasstopsusa.com/df080707.html
And it looks like Don's been reading the MassResistance Blog!
=== 5. Fundraising drive at $27,365. Help us reach our $100,000 goal! ===
It's been almost a month since our last email (we're now back on our regular schedule) and our summer fundraising drive has unfortunately also been lagging. Our goal is still to reach $100,000 by the end of the summer, which is technically September 21. Can we do it? We need to!

This fall and beyond we are going to be fighting the battles of our lives in the State House. The homosexual lobby is flexing its muscles, and you are the target. Starting with their hideous "transgender rights bill" along with the new Planned Parenthood bill (which would mandate homosexual abortion brainwashing in the schools) and more, along with the new Parents' Rights Bill, it's like nothing we've ever seen.
We're willing to do this fight, but it's going to take money. We must hire more staff. WE NEED EVERYONE'S HELP. We've GOT to make this goal!
Donate to MassResistance by credit card
Donations can also be mailed to: MassResistance, PO Box 1612, Waltham, MA 02454
ALL donations are confidential. MassResistance does not sell or lend any of its lists.
(Even better - Become a monthly donor - email us to get started!)
And we almost forgot to mention: You can now donate securities (and it can be tax-deductible)! Call us for more details
Contact us if you want to get involved.
Also, check out the MassResistance Blog (for even more in-depth coverage)!

 

[Allahuakbar]

Jesus held Christian values. It is socialist to have the government take whatever people earn through their work and give it to those who are too lazy to work. Did Jesus say to give to the government? He said render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, meaning obey the law you're under. This was even when the Roman Empire was taxing people for no purpose but to maintain it's fattened emperors. But He sure didn't say pay high taxes so a wasteful elected government can fatten beaurocrats!

Just as a quick FYI, Jesus would not have lived concurrently with any official Emperors, fattened or otherwise. Also comparing the government of Rome to modern government is a non sequitur, so your analogy is not really that good.

 

[The Bellman]

Evolution

The word "Theory" is basically a faith based concept. In the Theory of Evolution, the theory cannot be proven, but those who use Evolution to attack Christianity, have faith that Evolution is true.

Why should the faith based concept of Evolution be given more credibility in the public school system than the faith based concept of Creationism. Creationism of the Bible cannot be proven, but Evolution cannot be proven either.

To be anything more than a faith based theory, the people that support Evolution need to answer the following questions.

1) Has there ever been any proof that any non living matter has ever become living?

2) Has there ever been any proof that any living species has evolved to another species?

3) How long should we wait for the faith based theory of evolution to be proven?

4) Isn't it true that the only thing Darwin proved was that things adapt to different situations and that the whole subject of evolution was an incorrect extrapolation of adaptation?

5) Couldn't biology and adaptation be taught in schools without ever discussing evolution?

6) Isn't the theory of evolution being forced on the children of America to discredit the Bible and religion?

7) Isn't the theory of evolution a religious construct of the Atheistic Religion and that presenting it to children in a public school science class thus violates the establishment clause of the first Amendment to the U. S. Constitution.

Either both Creationism and Evolution should be taught in public schools or neither should be taught.

Why does it always come down to this: opponents of evolutionary theory always display a pitiful lack of knowledge about (a) science in general and (b) evolutionary theory in particular?

From the post above, it's clear that clirus is in no way even remotely qualified to have any sort of opinion on the issue.

 

[Sphere]

The word "Theory" is basically a faith based concept.

The word theory in science, does not mean a guess, uncertainty, or faith based concept.

A scientific theory is a a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena.

In the Theory of Evolution, the theory cannot be proven

Nothing in science can be proven.

The theory of evolution cannot be proven.
The germ theory of disease cannot be proven.
The theory of plate tectonics cannot be proven.
The atomic theory cannot be proven.
The theory of gravity cannot be proven.
The theory of limits cannot be proven.

To be anything more than a faith based theory, the people that support Evolution need to answer the following questions.

1) Has there ever been any proof that any non living matter has ever become living?

What you describe has nothing to do with evolution.

2) Has there ever been any proof that any living species has evolved to another species?

That isn't how evolution works.

3) How long should we wait for the faith based theory of evolution to be proven?

This is addressed above. I don't see you complaining about gravity, the germ theory of disease or other valid scientific theories.

4) Isn't it true that the only thing Darwin proved was that things adapt to different situations and that the whole subject of evolution was an incorrect extrapolation of adaptation?

No.

5) Couldn't biology and adaptation be taught in schools without ever discussing evolution?

No. Biology and Evolution are synonymous.

6) Isn't the theory of evolution being forced on the children of America to discredit the Bible and religion?

No. The theory of evolution--like other valid scientific theories--is completely neutral on religion. There are plenty of christians who accept evolution, and it doesn't contradict their faith.

7) Isn't the theory of evolution a religious construct of the Atheistic Religion and that presenting it to children in a public school science class thus violates the establishment clause of the first Amendment to the U. S. Constitution.

Evolution is a scientific theory, not a religion. Science is taught in the classroom setting.

Either both Creationism and Evolution should be taught in public schools or neither should be taught.

Creationism isn't science. It could possibly be taught in a philosophy class. But not a biology classroom.

 

[IzzyPop]

The Bible clearly call homosexuality evil and AIDS confirms that homosexuality leads to disease, death and destruction.

Every time you mention this little lie, I am going to ask you this question. Because lesbians have the lowest transmission rates of HIV, does this mean that God approves of lesbianism? I have asked you this question on several occasions, but you refuse to answer.

 

[tulc]

Ahhh the old "AIDS is Gods judgement on being gay!" slogan! Of course if that's true then it's also Gods judgement on being poor in Africa and Asia.
tulc(wonders if "never letting facts get n the way of your point" is a disease?)

 

[Nathan Poe]

President Bush has always maintained an abstinence policy relative to AIDS funding.

And every study commissioned has shown his policy to be a failure.

btw clirus, I'm still here -- still practicing and advocating the Atheist Lifestyle! What's the government going to do about it?