Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
One cannot separate people (who are members of the "state") from their beliefs (for the sake of the "state"). People of conscience make superior citizens, and not the opposite is true. The Supreme Court of 1963 should have thought that out further. Obviously, the Supreme Court of 1789 had another way of thinking than their future affiliates did.Paul is also a Creationist, unfortunatly. And apparently against seperation of church and state. What a shame.
But do you love GOD more than your family?Although I can't speak for anyone else, I know that I, as an evolutionist, love my family far more than natural science.
And I'm pretty sure the same goes for the majority of people in C&E.
So basically you have to reject objective reality to become a "mature Christian"? I will refer you to the bottom quote in my sig.What Christ is saying, is that a christian's love of GOD should surpass that of any other individual to the point of making that love one shares with them seem as hate. I do not see this with regard to evolutionists---they seem to love "natural" science far too much. I may be wrong. Perhaps the "christian" evolutionist is still an infant in CHRIST. But the reality is that in many cases, I see such christians never maturing in their faith.
That's not what Separation of Church and State is about. It is about not using government funds/resources to promote one religion over another. Lawmakers and other government officials are allowed to believe whatever they wantto* but they cannot not use their position to favor one religion over another.One cannot separate people (who are members of the "state") from their beliefs (for the sake of the "state"). People of conscience make superior citizens, and not the opposite is true.
Opening the day of class with a moment of silence or a reading of a few verses of scripture, or have the local minister of one of the area churches say a prayer at commencement, cost very little if anything at all. Disallowing such has been far more expensive.So basically you have to reject objective reality to become a "mature Christian"? I will refer you to the bottom quote in my sig.
That's not what Separation of Church and State is about. It is about not using government funds/resources to promote one religion over another. Lawmakers and other government officials are allowed to believe whatever they wantto* but they cannot not use their position to favor one religion over another.
*- unless they are an atheist in certain states
What about those of us who just aren't convinced that any god(s) exist?
Science is not scriptural. It is man trying to reveal for himself, disregarding divine revelation. I totally disagree with you.
Wow, you'd actually vote for a crappy candidate and see the country cumble just to spite Dawkins. Wow. Thats like an anti-wasted vote or something.
But that is the government promoting one religion over another. Unless you would like to allow the reading of the Koran, the Vedas, Tao te Ching, Principia Discordia, the Book of Mormons, Dianetics, the Egyptians Book of the Dead or any other of the thousands of religious texts in the world this would be a clear cut case of the US government showing favoritism to one specific religion. I really can't understand how you don't see this.Opening the day of class with a moment of silence or a reading of a few verses of scripture, or have the local minister of one of the area churches say a prayer at commencement, cost very little if anything at all. Disallowing such has been far more costly.
A logo!? That's the best you've got? Companies have logos. Does that mean all companies are religious too?If I recall correctly, I've made a more general claim than this: specifically that many atheists employ a religious treatment of the natural sciences (including evolution). As evidence I have cited the American Atheists Logo, which, as the group specifically states, has a clear basis in science. Here we see that an atheist group gives special reverence to science, which in some sense resembles religiosity.
How is this, pray tell? Unfounded assertions will get you nowhere. In what way is this like a religion? In what way do such atheists "worship science"?I'm not sure I've adequately conveyed my point. As you know, atheists fall into at least two categories: those who are atheists out of apathy, and those who actively oppose theism. The latter tend to give their atheism the role that is normally filled by religion. And as I've already suggested, this form of atheism portrays itself as founded in science. For this reason, I say that atheists effectively worship science.
I'm glad you've said "at least". I know at least one person who is neitherI'm not sure I've adequately conveyed my point. As you know, atheists fall into at least two categories: those who are atheists out of apathy, and those who actively oppose theism.
Heh? How does the fact that there are atheists who make science-based atheism their religion-of-sorts (I doubt they are the majority, BTW, although you certainly hear more of Dawkins than you hear of your average peaceful atheist) lead to the conclusion that "atheists effectively worship science"? It's like saying "Muslims are effectively brainwashed terrorists" based on the fact that there are some Muslims who gladly blow themselves up on a crowded bus. I think this is hasty generalisation.The latter tend to give their atheism the role that is normally filled by religion. And as I've already suggested, this form of atheism portrays itself as founded in science. For this reason, I say that atheists effectively worship science.
First of all, just cause the article presented Gilbert Omenn as a "professor" does not mean what he says is valid. Scientists are in no authoritative position to say what will be the effects of having a Creationist president on an entire nation."A day after ordained Baptist minister Mike Huckabee finished first in the opening round to choose a Republican candidate for the White House, scientists warned Americans against electing a leader who doubts evolution."The logic that convinces us that evolution is a fact is the same logic we use to say smoking is hazardous to your health or we have serious energy policy issues because of global warming," University of Michigan professor Gilbert Omenn told reporters at the launch of a book on evolution by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS)."I would worry that a president who didn't believe in the evolution arguments wouldn't believe in those other arguments either. This is a way of leading our country to ruin," added Omenn, who was part of a panel of experts at the launch of "Science, Evolution and Creationism."Former Arkansas governor Huckabee said in a debate in May that he did not believe in evolution."
No, that is the consensus of the township/community. Not all communities need to start their school day accordingly. It should be the MAJORITY choice of each given town as to how they run THEIR community school. It should not be the regulation of the government. That is education without representation.But that is the government promoting one religion over another. Unless you would like to allow the reading of the Koran, the Vedas, Tao te Ching, Principia Discordia, the Book of Mormons, Dianetics, the Egyptians Book of the Dead or any other of the thousands of religious texts in the world this would be a clear cut case of the US government showing favoritism to one specific religion. I really can't understand how you don't see this.
It must be understood that the United States was being DIPLOMATIC towards a Moslem nation. What was not said is that our people and governmental officials are not on the whole christian in character."As the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion"
-- Treaty of Tripoli, 1797. Presented to Congress and signed by everyone in attendance.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibit the free exercise thereof"
-- First Amendment of the Constitution
It must be understood that the United States was being DIPLOMATIC towards a Moslem nation. What was not said is that our people and governmental officials are not on the whole christian in character.
Paul is also a Creationist, unfortunatly. And apparently against seperation of church and state. What a shame.
Character is based on one's ideals. If one's ideals are "christian" they will affect one's perceptions of one's duty. Always remember that well before the red crescent there existed the red cross. Franklin attended CHRIST's CHURCH in PHILADELPHIA. That does not make him a christian, but it did affect his ideals. Jefferson wrote his own version of the Bible. That doesn't make him correct, but it does indicate what he considered important enough to spend his time on.Being Christian has nothing to do with character.
It is Muslim.
Jefferson and Franklin were not really Christian. Many others weren't too.
The major part of the free excercise of religion is proselyizing through education.
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?