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.Is something you don't personally believe automatically a lie?
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.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.
Of course not -- is it for you?
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.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?
You used the term genius: I never said they were infallible.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
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.You error as badly as Brewmama in the opposite direction. That explicitly applied only to Federal offices until after the 14th amendment.
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.
Yes. We're talking about public schools, right?Does that apply to teaching that homosexuality is wrong as well?
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.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."
Well, that's what I get for not being as versed in evolutionary theory as I probably should be. I blame public schools.
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.So, they violate the establishment clause, get a court to beat them down on it, and then violate it again.
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.
Oh well, I guess that's what we get for handing our kids over to the government to be educated....
Then what is it you were referring to when you said it?
Easy. The states most definitely had established churches, as it was Congress that was forbidden to do it.
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.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
Sure one can opt out. Don't take biology.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..
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.
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?