"US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists"

[MacCoyle]

You know why he's against "separation of church and state"?
Because it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
I will provide a link to the appropriate thread discussing this topic.

The Supreme [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth]ing Court disagrees

No, it is not:

Establishment clause, Treaty of Tripoli. Nuff said.

 

[Logic_Fault]

It must be understood that the United States was being DIPLOMATIC towards a Moslem nation.

It's an official government document, approved by both the current president of the time, John Adams, and the Secretary of State. It was then, furthermore, unanimously ratified by the U.S. Senate. Since it's never been retracted I think it's safe to presume that it's a default position of the U.S. government that the country isn't, despite claims to the contrary, 'founded on Christian principles'.

What was not said is that our people and governmental officials are not on the whole christian in character.

So?

You also seem to forget the part where Congress shall make no law that prohibits the free excercise of religion. The major part of the free excercise of religion is proselyizing through education.

I'm not familiar with any Christian doctrine or tenet that directs or commands followers to proselytize through the educational system.

 

[LittleNipper]

It's an official government document, approved by both the current president of the time, John Adams, and the Secretary of State. It was then, furthermore, unanimously ratified by the U.S. Senate. Since it's never been retracted I think it's safe to presume that it's a default position of the U.S. government that the country isn't, despite claims to the contrary, 'founded on Christian principles'.


So?


I'm not familiar with any Christian doctrine or tenet that directs or commands followers to proselytize through the educational system.

Okay---- "Today childen being a Christian and your teacher, how about if we read 2 verses of the book of Proverbs everyday to open our literature class. Then you may discuss your thoughts...."

 

[PsychMJC]

Okay---- "Today childen being a Christian and your teacher, bow about if we read 2 verses of the book of Proverbs everyday to open our literature class. Then you may discuss your thoughts...."

Insert any other faith and tell me, would you be all for your children being force-fed their religious beliefs? Or are the only teachers to be Christians now?

 

[LittleNipper]

The Supreme [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth]ing Court disagrees

No, it is not:

Establishment clause, Treaty of Tripoli. Nuff said.

So, even a particualr Supreme Court ruling can be in error. They are only mortals. As a citizen of the United States, are you going to let them get away with it and act the servant, or are you going to try to persuade them of their mistaken understanding, as an American?

 

[Dannager]

Okay---- "Today childen being a Christian and your teacher, bow about if we read 2 verses of the book of Proverbs everyday to open our literature class. Then you may discuss your thoughts...."

And if you had a Muslim teacher? An atheist teacher? A Wiccan teacher? Would you be okay with them discussing passages from their various texts in the classroom?

 

[LittleNipper]

Insert any other faith and tell me, would you be all for your children being force-fed their religious beliefs? Or are the only teachers to be Christians now?

I'd rather my child be exposed to a belief in some supreme being, than to be encouraged to ignore the same as not worthy of any investigation. And if you notice I asked the class to provide their thoughts....

 

[Dannager]

I'd rather my child be exposed to a belief in some supreme being, than to be encouraged to ignore the same as not worthy of any investigation.

So you'd be okay with your child receiving instruction from the Qu'ran?

 

[Naraoia]

How is Dawkins not a peaceful atheist?

I get the impression he's of the more militant type... If nothing else, the fact that he wrote something titled "The God Delusion" contributes hugely to that impression. And I wouldn't call someone who talks about religion in this manner peaceful:

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=+1]It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, "mad cow" disease, and many others, but I think a case can be made that faith is one of the world's great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate.
[SIZE=-1]-- Richard Dawkins, The Humanist, Vol. 57, No. 1[/SIZE][/SIZE][/FONT]

(quoted HERE, the original Humanist article HERE)

 

[LittleNipper]

So you'd be okay with your child receiving instruction from the Qu'ran?

As long as the students could openly discuss what was read and compare it to other writings, I see only good things happening. Obviously, what we presently have in place doesn't amount to thinking on the part of students. It amounts to censorship of religion. And I thought that the governent could not do that acording to the Consitution?

 

[PsychMJC]

I'd rather my child be exposed to a belief in some supreme being, than to be encouraged to ignore the same as not worthy of any investigation. And if you notice I asked the class to provide their thoughts....

Well, I imagine YOUR children will be exposed to your beliefs outside of school.. so I fail to see your point. It seems to me, what you would rather have, is all children exposed to YOUR belief and YOUR deity. And so what if you asked the class to provide thoughts? How would this imaginary teacher handle negative criticism of the bible? How would you prevent students from targeting eachother over their beliefs? Or lack of?

 

[Nathan Poe]

So, even a particualr Supreme Court ruling can be in error.

So, in matters of interpreting the Constitution, who does one turn to when you think the Supreme Court is in error?

Please note the term "Supreme" Court.

They are only mortals.

As are you, mortal.

As a citizen of the United States, are you going to let them get away with it and act the servant, or are you going to try to persuade them of their mistaken understanding, as an American?

How is the Supreme Court mistaken? In matters of Church/State Separation, I happen to agree with them.

You're the dissenting opinion -- what are you going to do about it, cry?

 

[Nathan Poe]

I'd rather my child be exposed to a belief in some supreme being, than to be encouraged to ignore the same as not worthy of any investigation.

Ok Class, all hail the Flying Spaghetti Monster!

And if you notice I asked the class to provide their thoughts....

Even money you wouldn't do so in a real situation.

 

[Nathan Poe]

As long as the students could openly discuss what was read and compare it to other writings, I see only good things happening. Obviously, what we presently have in place doesn't amount to thinking on the part of students. It amounts to censorship of religion. And I thought that the governent could not do that acording to the Consitution?

Please don't pretend that you're in favor of critically discussing Christianity -- it's insulting to us all.

 

[LittleNipper]

Well, I imagine YOUR children will be exposed to your beliefs outside of school.. so I fail to see your point. It seems to me, what you would rather have, is all children exposed to YOUR belief and YOUR deity. And so what if you asked the class to provide thoughts? How would this imaginary teacher handle negative criticism of the bible? How would you prevent students from targeting eachother over their beliefs? Or lack of?

It seems to me that your are afraid that your children will make discisions contrary to your own beliefs. This is the only reason some (and in 1963 there were few people who felt threatened by open Bible readings in public schools) went to the courts In fact prior to the censorchip of such activities, it was usually the peragative of the teacher if and when such activities occured. It usually, happen only if time allowed. So some days and even weeks on end there might not even be a Bible reading. But how many are willing to tell you that....?

 

[Dannager]

As long as the students could openly discuss what was read and compare it to other writings, I see only good things happening. Obviously, what we presently have in place doesn't amount to thinking on the part of students. It amounts to censorship of religion. And I thought that the governent could not do that acording to the Consitution?

LittleNipper, this already happens. I discussed the Bible in class when I was in public high school. There's no prohibition against discussing the Bible. There's a prohibition against promoting the Bible over other holy books, or promoting Christianity over other religions.

 

[Skaloop]

Well, I imagine YOUR children will be exposed to your beliefs outside of school.. so I fail to see your point. It seems to me, what you would rather have, is all children exposed to YOUR belief and YOUR deity. And so what if you asked the class to provide thoughts? How would this imaginary teacher handle negative criticism of the bible? How would you prevent students from targeting eachother over their beliefs? Or lack of?

Say you got your wish, and the Bible and Christianity was open to discussion as part of the kids' education. Now, imagine I was the kids' teacher. Do you really want an atheist critiquing the Bible and telling kids why it is wrong, with the backing of authority inherent in the position of "teacher"? Perhaps even worse, do you want an atheist who has never studied the Bible teaching its meaning? Formal religious education should be left up to religious professionals. That is what church is for.

 

[PsychMJC]

Do you ever honestly address any questions asked of you? I'll answer yours tho... I could care less what the norm for education was 40 years ago. If *I* want my child to be exposed to religion or my child has questions regarding religion, *I* will be the one address the situation. I will happily send them off with one of my many family members who regularly attend church, both Christian and Catholic. I will discuss it with them, as it is noboby elses business what faith my child is.. Period. Neither is it a math teachers responsibility to teach religion..

 

[PsychMJC]

Say you got your wish, and the Bible and Christianity was open to discussion as part of the kids' education. Now, imagine I was the kids' teacher. Do you really want an atheist critiquing the Bible and telling kids why it is wrong, with the backing of authority inherent in the position of "teacher"? Perhaps even worse, do you want an atheist who has never studied the Bible teaching its meaning? Formal religious education should be left up to religious professionals. That is what church is for.

That must not have been meant to be directed to me... I never advocated anything of the sort.. as a matter of fact I would think its quite clear we are in agreement...

 

[Skaloop]

You know why he's against "separation of church and state"?
Because it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
I would be glad to discuss this with anyone who is interested.

I'm interested. I'm Canadian, and we don't study the US Constitution much at all, so what I know is generally what I hear from Americans, and from a little research I've done myself. As for the church and state separation issue, the one reason I've heard for it being unconstitutional is that it restricts freedom of speech in that, say, a teacher cannot speak a prayer in class. The response is generally that the teacher is free to speak a prayer on her own time, so her ability to pray is not infringed upon. Another response is that there are already several limitations on free speech (slander/libel, uttering threats, hate speech, the classic "FIRE!!" in a crowded theatre).

If your reasons for the unconstitionality of SoC&S are different, I'd like to hear them.