That roo looks like he's got his paw on his beer gut(?)I know you want to turn the US into the religious republic of Baptististan but here in Australia is a copy of our constitution.
This reflects on our courts as well (in Victoria don't know about the other states and territories), one has the option of swearing on the Bible, Koran or other religious texts.
In the case of atheists they don't have to swear on any religious text hence having a display of the ten commandments on a courthouse lawn seems inappropriate.
As someone educated in both pure and applied maths I'm rather conflicted on this.I think it's a bit of both - we invented maths to represent the relationships we discovered in the world. Without the regularities, patterns, and symmetries we observe, the structured world we are part of wouldn't exist.
I'd point them to the Constitution of Australia, specifically Chapter 5, section 116: "The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth."
With Christ our head and cornerstone, we'll build our nation's might;
Whose way and truth and light alone, can guide our path aright;
Our lives a sacrifice of love, reflect our master's care;
With faces turned to heav'n above, Advance Australia Fair;
In joyful strains then let us sing, Advance Australia Fair.
Ah the wonders of the internet where one can google and find anything as "supporting" evidence.With Christ our head and cornerstone, we'll build our nation's might;
Whose way and truth and light alone, can guide our path aright;
Our lives a sacrifice of love, reflect our master's care;
With faces turned to heav'n above, Advance Australia Fair;
In joyful strains then let us sing, Advance Australia Fair.
No different, huh?It's no different if I changed the lyrics to your national anthem to promote science and critical thinking against religion.
No different, huh?
To change ours, you would have to take God out.
To change yours, you would have to put God in.
Actually, your national anthem doesn't mention God, it mentions that "In God we trust" is the national motto. Something being mentioned in a motto does not require that the thing mentioned exists. And even then, it's in the fourth verse, and I doubt many Americans know those lyrics!
You're on the wrong side of the pond, and born well-after the party started.Nobody with respect for the constitution, rule of law, or simple fairness would advocate for govt money spent on selected religion(s).
You're on the wrong side of the pond, and born well-after the party started.
Our government used to see it fit to post the Ten Commandments on their courthouse lawns.
Until about the mid-sixties, when colleges and universities started spawning "anti-establishment" mindsets.
TUNE IN, TURN ON, AND DROP OUT became their mantra; and anarchy was their goal.
When the tares grew sufficiently numerous, academia was able to sway the public into an outcry against Christianity being displayed in public places, and the Icons of Christianity were replaced by the Icons of Evolution.
Merry Christmas!Now, can we get back on topic, which was how to prove God exists scientifically?
Just cause-and-effect evidence -- that's all.I guess that means you have nothing of any value to add then.
That is using taxpayer supported land for religious purposes and implies support for that religion. So, no. If it were allowed all other religious beliefs would have the same right. This would no doubt include beliefs that you disagree with and might find blasphemous.LOL ... How about I go buy one with my own money and put it up on the courthouse lawn then?
(With approval, of course.)
Would that be okay with you?
And since the taxpayers already funded it back in the 1960's, why remove it today?
It's like buying a candy bar, bringing it home, and throwing it away.
That is using taxpayer supported land for religious purposes and implies support for that religion. So, no. If it were allowed all other religious beliefs would have the same right. This would no doubt include beliefs that you disagree with and might find blasphemous.
I have a feeling you would too.This would no doubt include beliefs that you disagree with and might find blasphemous.
Says who?And to be equitable, ALL religions would have to be given their share calculated by their percent of the total.
Academic.Estrid said:Insane.
What I find to be blasphemy is immaterial. I don’t want the implication of government support of any religion, not even mine.I have a feeling you would too.
Were Jeroboam's golden calfs equal to Ed?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?