Judge orders further distribution of Expelled stopped

[Markus6]

No, I raised the possibility that the evo godless dominated schools in some countries today, might be worse than those in pre WW2 Germany. I also said that I tend to lump evolutionists (in the loose, popular use of the term) together as atheists. Sort of like a big area filled with, say, 50,000 people, all evos, having a convention. In there, also are, say, 1000 nominal bible believers, who also are evos. To me, they are all opposing what I believe God wants kids to learn.

Who are you calling 'nominal'?

 

[Washington]

Care to explain then how at the public schools where my little one goes, they have prayer,and bible study ?

If it's entirely student organized and student led during non-class time I believe it's permitted.

 

[dad]

Who are you calling 'nominal'?

Those that have a bible belief, that seems to exist in name only. Like those that deny the flood, and Eden, and that sort of thing.

 

[dad]

They had prayers at the public schools my kids went to also and my daughter's biology teacher was an avowed YEC. She just found it amusing.

"Out of this conflict arose Engel v. Vitale, a 1962 case in which the Supreme Court ruled against officially sponsored and organized school prayer. "We think," wrote Justice Hugo L. Black for the court, "that by using its public school system to encourage recitation of the Regents' prayer [a nondenominational prayer created by the government], the State of New York has adopted a practice wholly inconsistent with the Establishment Clause." The following year, in School District of Abington Township v. Schempp, the Court held that Bible readings in public schools also violate the First Amendment." http://www.logtv.com/films/schoolprayer/educate.htm "WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday ruled that public schools cannot allow student-led prayer before high school football games," http://archives.cnn.com/2000/LAW/06/19/scotus.schoolprayer/index.html "Bow your head, break the law! A federal appeals court ruled a New Jersey high school football coach who bowed his head while students on his team led prayer broke the law. ..." http://www.google.ca/search?num=30&hl=en&as_qdr=all&q=prayer+in+school+against+law&start=30&sa=N " The ACLU wants officials at a New Orleans school district to be fined or jailed for not stopping prayer at a recent high school baseball game." http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43716 "'ACLU Wants Teachers Jailed For Classroom Prayer', Shepard Smith described a battle over the separation of church and state over prayers in a Louisiana classroom. He stated that the ACLU wanted to send to jail, teachers and school administrators who lead students in prayer." http://www.newshounds.us/2005/06/09/aclu_wants_teachers_jailed_for_classroom_prayers.php . . ... .. Now, while there could be some exceptions, I think it is clear that God, and the bible got the boot, in many countries. And, they will, of course, as all history screams out, get the boot back, with some pepper in it. I can't wait! I will rejoice when their proverbial teeth are broken.

 

[sbvera13]

Yknow, without the establishment clause (the same thing that keeps your religion out of public schools) your religion would prbably have never existed? America would have been dominantly protestant, and Wesleyan and evangelical demoninations would have been persecuted (or litigated) into extinction before they gained the mainstream acceptance they have today. You should be thanking the separation of church and state instead of moaning about it.

I'd love to see the fundies get the establishment clause revoked, only to have Roman Catholicism* instituted as the national religion. I would laugh at them a long time then.


*-or some other non-evangelical denomination.

 

[dad]

Yknow, without the establishment clause (the same thing that keeps your religion out of public schools) your religion would prbably have never existed? America would have been dominantly protestant, and Wesleyan and evangelical demoninations would have been persecuted (or litigated) into extinction before they gained the mainstream acceptance they have today. You should be thanking the separation of church and state instead of moaning about it.

You can relax, my religion is not dependent on the government, the government is dependent on it. It is not just the US, by the way that has godless education. Funny, in the many years that prayer was a norm in public schools, I don't remember the blood in the streets scenarios you dream about, and forecast?? But one thing is certain, for nations that had God, and left Him, and that is blood on the streets.

I'd love to see the fundies get the establishment clause revoked, only to have Roman Catholicism* instituted as the national religion. I would laugh at them a long time then.


*-or some other non-evangelical denomination.

Too late for all that sort of thing now, there only awaits judgment, it seems to me.

 

[Bombila]

Interesting, I think, that my school in Canada was prayer free and likely contained not one Bible as early as 1956, that the two schools I attended in Florida in 1957 and 1958 were also lacking in Bibles or school prayers, and none of the other schools I've attended in Canada since did either. When, exactly, did American schools start dragging the churches into the classrooms (pre the present attempt to wrench them out)?

 

[DeathMagus]

Interesting, I think, that my school in Canada was prayer free and likely contained not one Bible as early as 1956, that the two schools I attended in Florida in 1957 and 1958 were also lacking in Bibles or school prayers, and none of the other schools I've attended in Canada since did either. When, exactly, did American schools start dragging the churches into the classrooms (pre the present attempt to wrench them out)?

Cold war, I believe. We had to be different than those godless Commies!

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Those that have a bible belief, that seems to exist in name only. Like those that deny the flood, and Eden, and that sort of thing.

Ah, the No True Scotsman Fallacy rears its ugly head again. IMO Young Earth Creationism is so dependant on logical fallacies it would completely collapse without them.

 

[dad]

Ah, the No True Scotsman Fallacy rears its ugly head again. IMO Young Earth Creationism is so dependant on logical fallacies it would completely collapse without them.

The guy that first tried to fly that concept was Antony Flew. "Flew earned his fame by arguing that one should presuppose atheism until evidence of a God surfaces."... "He rejects the ideas of an afterlife, of God as the source of good (he explicitly states that God has created "a lot of" evil), and of the resurrection of Jesus..."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_Flew "Flew's original example may be softened into the following [1]: Argument: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge." Reply: "But my uncle Angus, who is a Scotsman, likes sugar with his porridge." Rebuttal: "Aye, but no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge." (your link) In this case, the true Scotsman seems to be less than literal, but more of something thought of as the ideal, or true Scotsman. So, it reads to me, not that anyone that doesn't like certain food is actually not from Scotland, but that they are, in the opinion of the clannish one speaking, possibly less than what he considers a good Scot. Therefore, no one needs rebut anything there, just buy him another shot, and put on the jukebox, before he gets the bagpipes out. That really is no parable of what belief in the bible is. It has nothing to do with personal taste, but what, for example Jesus said. On most major issues, one needs to believe it or not. One need not be a bible believer, to any great true Scotsman extent, that I am aware of, to be saved. Therefore, the vague, and almost tongue in cheek, wink and a nod phrase 'true scotsman' doesn't apply to belief in the bible.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

That wooshing sound was the point of my post going right over dad's head.

 

[dad]

That wooshing sound was the point of my post going right over dad's head.

Nice try, but the odor that came with it tells a different story.

 

[ReverendDG]

Nice try, but the odor that came with it tells a different story.

yes the story is, you believe you can't be a christian unless you are a YEC and all that entails
which is a lie

 

[dad]

yes the story is, you believe you can't be a christian unless you are a YEC and all that entails
which is a lie

I do? News to me. I thought being a Christian had to do with believing in Jesus. I do realize that being a bible believer is something else. Seems to me, that many Christians do not really believe the bible to any great extent. I think that, if I were not a YEC, I would be one of those that leaned toward trying to put the creation long before the six days. But, of course I would still have the flood, and some things to explain in a present physics way. The other option there, is to wave it away, and just not believe God really meant what He said, and it is all a pack of fairy tales and poetry. I consider that boring, and limp.

 

[MoonLancer]

I thought being a Christian had to do with believing in Jesus.

full stop. Now how does modern science or evolution invalidate this?

seems to me you lack faith and are using creationism as a crutch to avoid real life issues and questions that this modern age presents us.

Wouldn't you agree that having faith in the face of overwhelming oods is stronger then lying to yourself about the way the world really works? Wouldn't those that have faith Jesus and God exist even if while parts of the bible are wrong or even immoral be the ones with a stronger faith?

 

[dad]

full stop. Now how does modern science or evolution invalidate this?

Modern science invalidates nothing about the bible. It sure can't touch people being saved.

seems to me you lack faith and are using creationism as a crutch to avoid real life issues and questions that this modern age presents us.

So, let me get this straight. Actually believing the bible, makes us lack faith? How does that work??

Wouldn't you agree that having faith in the face of overwhelming oods is stronger then lying to yourself about the way the world really works?

I would agree that lying about how the unknown past world, and universe worked, has nothing whatsoever to do with faith! Or God. Or the bible. What's left??

Wouldn't those that have faith Jesus and God exist even if while parts of the bible are wrong or even immoral be the ones with a stronger faith?

Wouldn't they have a better chance of existing if there really was a God behind the bible, looking out for them?

 

[MoonLancer]

Modern science invalidates nothing about the bible.

So acknowledging evolution as the best explication for the diversity of life shouldn't be a problem, should it?

It sure can't touch people being saved.

well its not a religion or cult, if thats what you mean.

So, let me get this straight. Actually believing the bible, makes us lack faith? How does that work??

well seeing how believing the bible in all its claims is not a requirement for being a Christian, i don't see how this is relevant. But on topic, If you don't have evidence of a god, you must use faith, if you have evidence of a god, what you have is knowledge of a god, not faith. Its pretty simple. By creating a fantasy world described in the bible, a world not found around us in any shape or form, Your creating a world through delusion to cope with the fact you lack faith in god. Could you accept reality as it is, and still have enough faith to believe in god? i doubt you could, but i would love to be proved wrong

I would agree that lying about how the unknown past world, and universe worked, has nothing whatsoever to do with faith! Or God. Or the bible. What's left?? Wouldn't they have a better chance of existing if there really was a God behind the bible, looking out for them?

Do forensic teams use faith? they didn't witness the crime, but with scientific methodologies, they are able to discover the truth. If a man walks on a beach, but all you find is his foot prints, Is it really faith to assume that someone made those foot prints?

Perhaps you don't understand what the word faith means? the basic tenets of evolution require no faith to understand or accept.

 

[consol]

Just as a matter of interest dad, were you born an Atheists or a Christian?

 

[dad]

So acknowledging evolution as the best explication for the diversity of life shouldn't be a problem, should it?

Not as long as the diversity starts at the created kinds.

well seeing how believing the bible in all its claims is not a requirement for being a Christian, i don't see how this is relevant.

Obeying a stop light is not a requirement to being alive, but it helps.

But on topic, If you don't have evidence of a god, you must use faith, if you have evidence of a god, what you have is knowledge of a god, not faith. Its pretty simple. By creating a fantasy world described in the bible, a world not found around us in any shape or form, Your creating a world through delusion to cope with the fact you lack faith in god. Could you accept reality as it is, and still have enough faith to believe in god? i doubt you could, but i would love to be proved wrong

The bible deals in real kings, people, wars, history, nations, and etc, for the most part. The quintessential measure of reality. The bits where it talks of a far past, or future, are no more or less science than you talking of the pond, or the universe in a speck, or sneaky water coming up from below Mars, carving out channels, etc. It is not reality that either real science, or the bible has any problem with. It is the great unknown states of the future and past, where man either looks to God, or makes stuff up.

Do forensic teams use faith? they didn't witness the crime, but with scientific methodologies, they are able to discover the truth. If a man walks on a beach, but all you find is his foot prints, Is it really faith to assume that someone made those foot prints?

No, why? Do you think footprints prove something about the pond?

Perhaps you don't understand what the word faith means? the basic tenets of evolution require no faith to understand or accept.

And they cannot lead to the pond, either. That is where the faith lies. These days they like to separate the ideas, and call it abiogenesis. As far as simply realizing some evolving went on, that is all fine.

 

[MoonLancer]

Obeying a stop light is not a requirement to being alive, but it helps.

This if a flawed analogy. Are you saying god will randomly kill Christians if they are not creationists? I seem to remember creationists die too.

by implying the requirements in the bible are more then digital but instead analog, your also saying morality is flexible? I personally think it is. You don't strike me as someone who would agree with that though.

The bible deals in real kings, people, wars, history, nations, and etc, for the most part. The quintessential measure of reality.

I know fantasy books that take place in historical times and places. Does that make them true?

The bits where it talks of a far past, or future, are no more or less science than you talking of the pond, or the universe in a speck, or sneaky water coming up from below Mars, carving out channels, etc.

You can tell yourself that, but its not true. The extraordinary claims in the bible are not backed up by any other historical source then bible. Wasen't it conventant of the crusaders to burn any possible historical evidence?

It is not reality that either real science, or the bible has any problem with. It is the great unknown states of the future and past, where man either looks to God, or makes stuff up. No, why?

you forgot that some footprints have lasted since the dawn of time.

Do you think footprints prove something about the pond? And they cannot lead to the pond, either.

You must be clearer here. I don't understand what your saying.

That is where the faith lies. These days they like to separate the ideas, and call it abiogenesis.

Evolution was always evolution. It was never abiogenesis. You have been a victim of creationist hyperbole. Its easy to lump all the ideas that threaten your theology into one evil twisted mass, although most of us know better.

I bet its conferrable to lump all understandings of the natural world that threaten you into "faith". I find it interesting though that you convert facts into faith to handwave them away. What does that say about your theology?

The bible was written by men who claimed to be god/s or inspired by them. However we don't know, because their is no evidence, only the claim. You can put your faith in these people, that they where telling the truth. I however have a hard time seeing whats so different from these claims then any other religions claims. Tell me one thing that sets Christianity aside and that other religions have failed to produce?

Evidence or Science vs Faith or Christianity is a false Dichotomy.

If you answer any of my questions, answer my last one.

*edit*