Why Do Christians Want Creationism Taught In Public Schools?

[Shane Roach]

Which is what quantum physics is for.
and also why the big bang doesn't deal with first cause.
It's pretty simple.



And what does this mean?
I keep trying to get you to expand on this beyond, "consciousness or free will" "consciousness or free will" "consciousness or free will"
But it doesn't seem you will.

How does adding consciousness or free will change science?
How is science not dealing with them?
Can science deal with them or is it a last tuesdayism?

Expand.
Until you expand on it, it's a meaningless argument.




What issue?
So far you haven't provided any reason why intelligent design is science. No explanation of where the big bang or evolution can not be tested.
No explanation of how science can go beyond naturalism and still stay useful.
Etc.
It looks like there is no issue to address.

Informative is the section of my post that you chose not to deal with at all concerning the limits of all knowledge.

 

[Arikay]

And if you go back and read what I said, you will see that at the time the constitution didn't encompass states, now it does thus the argument that it is a states opinion is wrong.

Of course, by claiming that the first ammendment doesn't apply to states, it opens up a can of worms, as that means freedom of speech doesn't apply to states either, and none of the other ammendments as well.

Since then, the establisment clause has been refined to mean the support of one religion over another. This is only government support, and it is perfectly fine for people to practice their religion privately, even in public.


A point was brought up earlier that was ignored, why is it so important that prayer be a government thing? Such as praying at a football game, does God only hear prayer over the intercom? Is it impossible for each person to pray by themselves to God?

As far as school prayer, it appears the issue boils down to whether or not someone saying a prayer over an intercom represents a violation of the establishment clause, which the fact that states had established state religions at the time of the Constitution's ratification elimnates as a possibility, or whether it ought to be protected as a case of free exercise, which it clearly is.

Facts have never been a big deal for the left to ignore, and I will admit freely that there are religious elements in the far left.

 

[Shane Roach]

And if you go back and read what I said, you will see that at the time the constitution didn't encompass states, now it does thus the argument that it is a states opinion is wrong.

Of course, by claiming that the first ammendment doesn't apply to states, it opens up a can of worms, as that means freedom of speech doesn't apply to states either, and none of the other ammendments as well.

Since then, the establisment clause has been refined to mean the support of one religion over another. This is only government support, and it is perfectly fine for people to practice their religion privately, even in public.


A point was brought up earlier that was ignored, why is it so important that prayer be a government thing? Such as praying at a football game, does God only hear prayer over the intercom? Is it impossible for each person to pray by themselves to God?

The implication of forbidding such prayer is that religion is inherently insulting.

 

[Shane Roach]

Incidentally, the establishment clause has not been refined in any way. It remains in the first ammendment and has not been alterred by any ammendment except that it has been extended to also limit all levels of government in the same manner.

Be honest about how policy was changed.

 

[Phred]

The implication of forbidding such prayer is that religion is inherently insulting.

Since religion is inherently a personal interpretation your desire to force your religion upon others is insulting. You're saying you have a better idea about divinity than others do. What arrogance.

When are you going to realize I don't want to prohibit your religion? I just don't want to subsidize it.

.
​

 

[Thirst_For_Knowledge]

The implication of forbidding such prayer is that religion is inherently insulting.

For some, it is. A Jew finds prayer to Christ to be quite insulting to God, as they see Christ as a flase prophet that the bible warned about. So yes, religion can be quite insulting.

As for my strawman... No, there was no strawman. I was showing you why prayer is not allowed in places sponsored by the government. You may choose to believe me or not, it doesn't matter. The issue is over, it has already been deemed wrong.

 

[Shane Roach]

There's two admitting the real motivation is that they or someone they know are insulted by religion or by specific religions, and therefore religion must be limited.

The problem of course is that violates the first ammendment. That's why it was called a "Bill of Rights".

Pity you don't extend this same ferver to limiting porn.

 

[Arikay]

Informative is the section of my post that you chose not to deal with at all concerning the limits of all knowledge.

Expand on this.
Do you mean that we might not be able to know everything? Why does that matter?
Am I to assume that you have dropped the points that I keep asking about?

The implication of forbidding such prayer is that religion is inherently insulting.

So, the Mormon and Catholic that brought that case to the courts believe that religion is inherently insulting?
Sorry, not buying it.

The implication should be that there are many people, atheist, christian, pagan, etc. That don't believe it is the governments business setting a religion that is more acceptable than any other, it is not that they believe religion is insulting but that it is a Personal and Private matter.

Incidentally, the establishment clause has not been refined in any way. It remains in the first ammendment and has not been alterred by any ammendment except that it has been extended to also limit all levels of government in the same manner.

Yes it has been refined. The supreme court treats the constitution as a frame work that is to be expanded and adapted as time changes, thus it can out last the centuries.

"[The supreme court]functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution"
"As Chief Justice Marshall noted in McCulloch v. Maryland, a constitution that attempted to detail every aspect of its own application “would partake of the prolixity of a legal code, and could scarcely be embraced
by the human mind. . . . Its nature, therefore, requires that only its great outlines should be marked, its important objects designated, and the minor ingredients which compose those objects be deduced from the nature of the objects themselves.” " "Chief Justice Marshall expressed the challenge which the Supreme Court faces in maintaining free government by noting: “We must never forget that it is a constitution we are expounding . . . intended to endure for ages to come, and consequently, to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs.” "
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/constitutional.pdf

Yes, the establisment clause has been refined,
A few examples of court rulings that have refined it,

•The lemon test. Lemon V. Kurtzman,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_test

•Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Fe_Independent_School_Dist._v._Doe

•Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School v. Grumet
http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/court/boar_v_grum.html

 

[Shane Roach]

For some, it is. A Jew finds prayer to Christ to be quite insulting to God, as they see Christ as a flase prophet that the bible warned about. So yes, religion can be quite insulting.

As for my strawman... No, there was no strawman. I was showing you why prayer is not allowed in places sponsored by the government. You may choose to believe me or not, it doesn't matter. The issue is over, it has already been deemed wrong.

Incidentally, you speaking for Jews is sort of silly.

 

[Shane Roach]

Expand on this.
Do you mean that we might not be able to know everything? Why does that matter?
Am I to assume that you have dropped the points that I keep asking about?




So, the Mormon and Catholic that brought that case to the courts believe that religion is inherently insulting?
Sorry, not buying it.

The implication should be that there are many people, atheist, christian, pagan, etc. That don't believe it is the governments business setting a religion that is more acceptable than any other, it is not that they believe religion is insulting but that it is a Personal and Private matter.




Yes it has been refined. The supreme court treats the constitution as a frame work that is to be expanded and adapted as time changes, thus it can out last the centuries.

"[The supreme court]functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution"
"As Chief Justice Marshall noted in McCulloch v. Maryland, a constitution that attempted to detail every aspect of its own application “would partake of the prolixity of a legal code, and could scarcely be embraced
by the human mind. . . . Its nature, therefore, requires that only its great outlines should be marked, its important objects designated, and the minor ingredients which compose those objects be deduced from the nature of the objects themselves.” " "Chief Justice Marshall expressed the challenge which the Supreme Court faces in maintaining free government by noting: “We must never forget that it is a constitution we are expounding . . . intended to endure for ages to come, and consequently, to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs.” "
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/constitutional.pdf

Yes, the establisment clause has been refined,
A few examples of court rulings that have refined it,

•The lemon test. Lemon V. Kurtzman,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_test

•Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Fe_Independent_School_Dist._v._Doe

•Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School v. Grumet
http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/court/boar_v_grum.html

That process is known as interpretation, not refinement.

 

[Thirst_For_Knowledge]

Incidentally, you speaking for Jews is sort of silly.

I've studdied Jewish tradition quite extensively, thank you.

 

[Shane Roach]

I've studdied Jewish tradition quite extensively, thank you.

And that qualifies you to speak in their stead? Yes, I see.

 

[Thirst_For_Knowledge]

And that qualifies you to speak in their stead? Yes, I see.

Of course it does, duh.

 

[Thirst_For_Knowledge]

And that qualifies you to speak in their stead? Yes, I see.

Of course it does, duh.

 

[Arikay]

Whatever you want to call it is fine.
The facts are,
•The constitution is a frame work, ment to be expanded when needed through the courts, especially the supreme court.
•The constitution was expanded to effect states as well, mainly so anti slavery laws could be enforced.
•The establishment clause has also been expanded by the cases that I listed (and others) to mean no support of one religion over another. This is supported by Christians, Pagans and Atheists (among others).
•This does not prevent the private peaceful practise of religion, even in public areas, as long as it remains privately endorsed and is not endorsed by the government or a group run by the government.

To add some comments about the intercom case. It was brought to court by a Mormon and a Catholic. It was ruled that the school was endorsing one religion over another because they endorsed the school bodies choice of a prayer speaker.
This does not rule out non school endorsed prayer at football games, nor kids at school forming unsanctioned prayer groups (I believe there are rulings supporting both but I don't have the case names on hand).

That process is known as interpretation, not refinement.

 

[Blue Girl]

Hi there!

In America, Christianity has become "oppressed" by every other religion, denomination, and civil organization that could possibly muster enough news coverage to create a big squeak. Everyone gets rights now EXCEPT the Christian...


~serapha~

Christian's have the right to worship in their churches, and teach anything they want to their children. They have complete access to their children, they have private schools by the dozens to teach all sorts of biblical ideas. Why do they want to force their religious ideas into the public relm, and teach their religion to others that may not think the same way?
You get Christmas off without having to arrange time off with your office, like every other religious holiday for every other religion.
You have the freedom to tell your kids all about abstinance. But everybody should have access to condoms to lower the risk of pregnancy or disease.
Christmas gets much more time and recognition than any other religious event. Just because a few folks have balked at letting their tax money support your religious symbols, and want their kids to have a science class instead of a Book of Genesis class, you're saying that's oppression?

 

[Shane Roach]

Of course it does, duh.

As I said, you're plainly very silly.

 

[Shane Roach]

Christian's have the right to worship in their churches, and teach anything they want to their children. They have complete access to their children, they have private schools by the dozens to teach all sorts of biblical ideas. Why do they want to force their religious ideas into the public relm, and teach their religion to others that may not think the same way?
You get Christmas off without having to arrange time off with your office, like every other religious holiday for every other religion.
You have the freedom to tell your kids all about abstinance. But everybody should have access to condoms to lower the risk of pregnancy or disease.
Christmas gets much more time and recognition than any other religious event. Just because a few folks have balked at letting their tax money support your religious symbols, and want their kids to have a science class instead of a Book of Genesis class, you're saying that's oppression?

No.

Perhaps you would care to go back and look at what has been said.

 

[Blue Girl]

No.

Perhaps you would care to go back and look at what has been said.

I did. It all keeps going around in circles... for 30+ screens.

 

[Arikay]

LoL, welcome to CF.

I did. It all keeps going around in circles... for 30+ screens.