| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Klag house of Khaless" |
| Date: |
20 Dec 2005 11:26:26 AM |
| Object: |
Judge Rules Against Pa. Biology Curriculum |
------=_Part_1883_20929144.1135099586254
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
Now If they can alget rid of religious holidays from school. We maybe able
to produce students taht can compete with foreigners and win a darn america=
n
spelling bee!
<http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051220/ap_on_re_us/evolution_debate_5;_ylt=
=3DAnt35Y1F8qPt.VbP9xMBkfx7OyAi;_ylu=3DX3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl>
*AP - 53 minutes ago*
HARRISBURG, Pa. - "Intelligent design" cannot be mentioned in biology
classes in a Pennsylvania public school district, a federal judge said
Tuesday, ruling in one of the biggest courtroom clashes on evolution since
the 1925 Scopes trial. The Dover Area School Board violated the Constitutio=
n
when it ordered that its biology curriculum must include "intelligent
design," the notion that life on Earth was produced by an unidentified
intelligent cause, U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III ruled Tuesday.
------=_Part_1883_20929144.1135099586254
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
<div>Now If they can alget rid of religious holidays from school. We maybe =
able to produce students taht can compete with foreigners and win a darn am=
erican spelling bee!</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href=3D"http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051220/ap_on_re_us/evolution_d=
ebate_5;_ylt=3DAnt35Y1F8qPt.VbP9xMBkfx7OyAi;_ylu=3DX3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMl=
JVRPUCUl"> </a></div><em>AP - <span class=3D"recenttimedate">53 minute=
s ago</span>
</em>=20
<p>HARRISBURG, Pa. - "Intelligent design" cannot be mentioned in =
biology classes in a Pennsylvania public school district, a federal judge s=
aid Tuesday, ruling in one of the biggest courtroom clashes on evolution si=
nce the 1925 Scopes trial.=20
The Dover Area School Board violated the Constitution when it ordered that =
its biology curriculum must include "intelligent design," the not=
ion that life on Earth was produced by an unidentified intelligent cause,=
=20
U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III ruled Tuesday. </p>
------=_Part_1883_20929144.1135099586254--
.
|
|
| User: "Les Hemmings" |
|
| Title: Re: Judge Rules Against Pa. Biology Curriculum |
20 Dec 2005 11:47:29 AM |
|
|
"Klag house of Khaless" <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message
news:c7075e420512200926j778248bej55da312d214f41@mail.gmail.com...
Now If they can alget rid of religious holidays from school. We maybe able
to produce students taht can compete with foreigners and win a darn american
spelling bee!
I heard that 77% of you guys (our colonial friends, the americans..)
believe in angels! Sheesh! How'd you cope? It must be like banging your head
against a brick wall every day. From over here in the UK your church and
state seperation argument seems pretty stupid. "In god we trust.." all your
politicians having to be christians before they can even think about being
elected, shrub saying god told him to invade.. the list goes on and on!
Reminds me more and more of "If This Goes On-" by Robert A. Heinlein....
"American society, ruled by the latest in a series of "Prophets." The First
Prophet was Nehemiah Scudder, a backwoods preacher turned President (elected
in 2012), then dictator...."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%22If_This_Goes_On%E2%80%94%22
Les
--
Remove Frontal Lobes to reply.
http://armsofmorpheus.blogspot.com/
"...The people can always be brought to the bidding of the
leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being
attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and
exposing the country to greater danger "
-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin, 1759
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gary Bohn" |
|
| Title: Re: Judge Rules Against Pa. Biology Curriculum |
20 Dec 2005 03:25:20 PM |
|
|
"Les Hemmings" <les.frontalclaire@lobesvirgin.net> wrote in
news:40qudbF1an01pU1@individual.net:
"Klag house of Khaless" <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in
message
news:c7075e420512200926j778248bej55da312d214f41@mail.gmail.com... Now
If they can alget rid of religious holidays from school. We maybe able
to produce students taht can compete with foreigners and win a darn
american spelling bee!
I heard that 77% of you guys (our colonial friends, the
americans..)
believe in angels! Sheesh! How'd you cope? It must be like banging
your head against a brick wall every day. From over here in the UK
your church and state seperation argument seems pretty stupid. "In god
we trust.." all your politicians having to be christians before they
can even think about being elected, shrub saying god told him to
invade.. the list goes on and on!
Reminds me more and more of "If This Goes On-" by Robert A.
Heinlein....
"American society, ruled by the latest in a series of "Prophets." The
First Prophet was Nehemiah Scudder, a backwoods preacher turned
President (elected in 2012), then dictator...."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%22If_This_Goes_On%E2%80%94%22
Les
You laugh at the situation, you have the 'big pond' between you and the
land of religious fruitcakes. In Canada we're right next to them.
I've been trying to get the government to set up an armed blockade at
all the border crossings to try to keep the religious nuts out but so
far to no avail. The government claims there is no way of telling the
difference between atheists (who are quite welcome here) and theists.
They feel the theists would just lie their way into our country, making
the whole program a waste of money.
I've arranged for a group of atheists who specialize in recognizing
theists from a distance to patrol the border. I'm not sure whether they
should be armed with holy water or long pointy sticks.
--
Gary Bohn
Science rationally modifies a theory to fit evidence, creationism
emotionally modifies evidence to fit a specific interpretation of the
bible.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Opie" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Judge Rules Against Pa. Biology Curriculum |
20 Dec 2005 04:12:27 PM |
|
|
On 20 Dec 2005 21:25:20 GMT, Gary Bohn
<garybohn@REMOVETHISaccesscomm.ca> wrote:
"Les Hemmings" <les.frontalclaire@lobesvirgin.net>
wrote in
news:40qudbF1an01pU1@individual.net:
"Klag house of Khaless"
<Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in
message
news:c7075e420512200926j778248bej55da312d214f41@mail.gmail.com...
Now
If they can alget rid of religious holidays from
school. We maybe able
to produce students taht can compete with
foreigners and win a darn
american spelling bee!
I heard that 77% of you guys (our colonial
friends, the
americans..)
believe in angels! Sheesh! How'd you cope? It
must be like banging
your head against a brick wall every day. From
over here in the UK
your church and state seperation argument seems
pretty stupid. "In god
we trust.." all your politicians having to be
christians before they
can even think about being elected, shrub saying
god told him to
invade.. the list goes on and on!
Reminds me more and more of "If This Goes
On-" by Robert A.
Heinlein....
"American society, ruled by the latest in a
series of "Prophets." The
First Prophet was Nehemiah Scudder, a backwoods
preacher turned
President (elected in 2012), then dictator...."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%22If_This_Goes_On%E2%80%94%22
Les
You laugh at the situation, you have the 'big
pond' between you and the
land of religious fruitcakes. In Canada we're
right next to them.
I've been trying to get the government to set up
an armed blockade at
all the border crossings to try to keep the
religious nuts out but so
far to no avail. The government claims there is no
way of telling the
difference between atheists (who are quite welcome
here) and theists.
They feel the theists would just lie their way
into our country, making
the whole program a waste of money.
I've arranged for a group of atheists who
specialize in recognizing
theists from a distance to patrol the border. I'm
not sure whether they
should be armed with holy water or long pointy
sticks.
(: I think you have a good chance of success. The
Canadian government will finance just about
anything these days. Just make the point that
Canada's identity is being challenged by the
wicked southerners. (:
BTW: Are you a terrorist? (:
People who want to share their religious
views with you almost never want you to
share your views with them.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Judge Rules Against Pa. Biology Curriculum |
20 Dec 2005 11:55:49 AM |
|
|
"Les Hemmings" <les.frontalclaire@lobesvirgin.net> wrote in message
news:40qudbF1an01pU1@individual.net...
"Klag house of Khaless" <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in
message news:c7075e420512200926j778248bej55da312d214f41@mail.gmail.com...
Now If they can alget rid of religious holidays from school. We maybe able
to produce students taht can compete with foreigners and win a darn
american
spelling bee!
I heard that 77% of you guys (our colonial friends, the americans..)
believe in angels! Sheesh! How'd you cope? It must be like banging your
head against a brick wall every day.
No, I believe it is the other 23% of us who are banging our heads against
the wall.
In America, ignorance is bliss and blessed.
From over here in the UK your church and
state seperation argument seems pretty stupid. "In god we trust.." all
your politicians having to be christians before they can even think about
being elected, shrub saying god told him to invade.. the list goes on and
on!
Yes, this is embarrassing, indeed.
JR
Reminds me more and more of "If This Goes On-" by Robert A. Heinlein....
"American society, ruled by the latest in a series of "Prophets." The
First Prophet was Nehemiah Scudder, a backwoods preacher turned President
(elected in 2012), then dictator...."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%22If_This_Goes_On%E2%80%94%22
Les
--
Remove Frontal Lobes to reply.
http://armsofmorpheus.blogspot.com/
"...The people can always be brought to the bidding of the
leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being
attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and
exposing the country to greater danger "
-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin, 1759
.
|
|
|
| User: "Les Hemmings" |
|
| Title: Re: Judge Rules Against Pa. Biology Curriculum |
20 Dec 2005 12:06:51 PM |
|
|
<jrsp8s@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:FAXpf.31695$BZ5.1438@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
I heard that 77% of you guys (our colonial friends, the americans..)
believe in angels! Sheesh! How'd you cope? It must be like banging your
head against a brick wall every day.
No, I believe it is the other 23% of us who are banging our heads against
the wall.
My fault, didn't make myself clear... I meant "you" as in the atheists
amongst a sea of incredibly annoying theists... I think I would get myself
into a whole lot of trouble if I ever got to visit the US..
Les
.
|
|
|
| User: "DaveJr" |
|
| Title: Re: Judge Rules Against Pa. Biology Curriculum |
20 Dec 2005 12:41:17 PM |
|
|
"Les Hemmings" <les.frontalclaire@lobesvirgin.net> wrote in message
news:40qvhkF1c67bqU1@individual.net...
<jrsp8s@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:FAXpf.31695$BZ5.1438@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
I heard that 77% of you guys (our colonial friends, the americans..)
believe in angels! Sheesh! How'd you cope? It must be like banging your
head against a brick wall every day.
No, I believe it is the other 23% of us who are banging our heads
against
the wall.
My fault, didn't make myself clear... I meant "you" as in the
atheists
amongst a sea of incredibly annoying theists... I think I would get
myself
into a whole lot of trouble if I ever got to visit the US..
Les
Quite right Les, it sucks here now. However the 23% of us who are 'sane'
are the exception,
not the minority. Proper perspective. In time things will change as they
always have and that dreadful statistic will be the other way around. I
mean how many people still debate the validity of zeus or osiris these days?
This is a 'cyclic' society and the pendulum will swing back. And givin
enouph time, it will be as obvious as the world not being flat. Their days
are numbered.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Les Hemmings" |
|
| Title: Re: Judge Rules Against Pa. Biology Curriculum |
20 Dec 2005 12:48:16 PM |
|
|
"DaveJr" <davesbrain@qwest.net> wrote in message
news:YiYpf.33$rp2.536@news.uswest.net...
Quite right Les, it sucks here now. However the 23% of us who are 'sane'
are the exception,
not the minority. Proper perspective. In time things will change as
they
always have and that dreadful statistic will be the other way around. I
mean how many people still debate the validity of zeus or osiris these
days?
This is a 'cyclic' society and the pendulum will swing back. And givin
enouph time, it will be as obvious as the world not being flat. Their
days
are numbered.
The pendulum swing between zeus and god is like the swing from
manslaughter to murder, pointless with the same end result...
Les
--
Remove Frontal Lobes to reply.
http://armsofmorpheus.blogspot.com/
"...The people can always be brought to the bidding of the
leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being
attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and
exposing the country to greater danger "
-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin, 1759
.
|
|
|
| User: "DaveJr" |
|
| Title: Re: Judge Rules Against Pa. Biology Curriculum |
20 Dec 2005 01:45:22 PM |
|
|
"Les Hemmings" <les.frontalclaire@lobesvirgin.net> wrote in message
news:40r1vaF1bsgmoU1@individual.net...
"DaveJr" <davesbrain@qwest.net> wrote in message
news:YiYpf.33$rp2.536@news.uswest.net...
Quite right Les, it sucks here now. However the 23% of us who are
'sane'
are the exception,
not the minority. Proper perspective. In time things will change as
they
always have and that dreadful statistic will be the other way around.
I
mean how many people still debate the validity of zeus or osiris these
days?
This is a 'cyclic' society and the pendulum will swing back. And givin
enouph time, it will be as obvious as the world not being flat. Their
days
are numbered.
The pendulum swing between zeus and god is like the swing from
manslaughter to murder, pointless with the same end result...
Les
Ah....I see the misunderstanding. I was trying to illustrate how things
change over long periods
of time and within much shorter time periods. Societies also evolve. I'm
extremely happy with the ruling in Pa. The 'cyclic' pendulum I was
refering to was more in reference to how things have changed within this
country just during the past century.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Les Hemmings" |
|
| Title: Re: Judge Rules Against Pa. Biology Curriculum |
20 Dec 2005 01:57:49 PM |
|
|
"DaveJr" <davesbrain@qwest.net> wrote in message
news:MeZpf.26$Xh6.5867@news.uswest.net...
Ah....I see the misunderstanding. I was trying to illustrate how things
change over long periods
of time and within much shorter time periods. Societies also evolve.
I'm
extremely happy with the ruling in Pa. The 'cyclic' pendulum I was
refering to was more in reference to how things have changed within this
country just during the past century.
I've just seen a report on the Dover (US Dover, not the Dover 10 miles
from me here in the UK) decision on Channel 4 news here in the UK. A little
beacon in the night. The judge called the theists liars and threw their
intelligent design theory out as theist nonsense. My estimation of the
colonies just went up a notch. Well done Dover, USA!
Lets hope that pendulum you postulated keeps swinging. We can't afford
another US unilateral religion based crusade.
Les
.
|
|
|
| User: "DaveJr" |
|
| Title: Re: Judge Rules Against Pa. Biology Curriculum |
20 Dec 2005 02:30:52 PM |
|
|
I've just seen a report on the Dover (US Dover, not the Dover 10 miles
from me here in the UK) decision on Channel 4 news here in the UK. A
little
beacon in the night. The judge called the theists liars and threw their
intelligent design theory out as theist nonsense. My estimation of the
colonies just went up a notch. Well done Dover, USA!
Yes indeed! Love it. Made my day, my week!
Lets hope that pendulum you postulated keeps swinging. We can't afford
another US unilateral religion based crusade.
Religion based crusades is pretty much what it boils down to in 'the big
picture' per-say.
Anglo-Saxons with a sword in one hand and a bible in the other. And we
can't afford
much more of it either. Religion is absolutely the worst thing to have
ever reared its ugly head within the human race. Education is the
antibiotic for the 'virus'. It's of vital importance that it is protected
from the theistic bs. The judgement in Pa. was like the '*****' of the
syringe before the anti-virus starts flowing.
Chalk one up for a logical and sane decision.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Les Hemmings" |
|
| Title: Re: Judge Rules Against Pa. Biology Curriculum |
20 Dec 2005 02:42:48 PM |
|
|
"DaveJr" <davesbrain@qwest.net> wrote in message
news:sVZpf.28$Xh6.7261@news.uswest.net...
Education is the
antibiotic for the 'virus'. It's of vital importance that it is
protected
from the theistic bs. The judgement in Pa. was like the '*****' of the
syringe before the anti-virus starts flowing.
Yep.. read last post in my blog.. same point!
--
Remove Frontal Lobes to reply.
http://armsofmorpheus.blogspot.com/
"...The people can always be brought to the bidding of the
leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being
attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and
exposing the country to greater danger "
-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin, 1759
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Opie" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Judge Rules Against Pa. Biology Curriculum |
20 Dec 2005 04:08:00 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 19:57:49 -0000, "Les Hemmings"
<les.frontalclaire@lobesvirgin.net> wrote:
"DaveJr" <davesbrain@qwest.net> wrote in message
news:MeZpf.26$Xh6.5867@news.uswest.net...
Ah....I see the misunderstanding. I was trying
to illustrate how things
change over long periods
of time and within much shorter time periods.
Societies also evolve.
I'm
extremely happy with the ruling in Pa. The
'cyclic' pendulum I was
refering to was more in reference to how things
have changed within this
country just during the past century.
I've just seen a report on the Dover (US Dover,
not the Dover 10 miles
from me here in the UK) decision on Channel 4 news
here in the UK. A little
beacon in the night. The judge called the theists
liars and threw their
intelligent design theory out as theist nonsense.
My estimation of the
colonies just went up a notch. Well done Dover,
USA!
Lets hope that pendulum you postulated keeps
swinging. We can't afford
another US unilateral religion based crusade.
Les
All I would ask is that you do not judge most
Americans by the silliness of a few. Those few
have succeeded in hijacking much of the media and
have already convinced the uneducated that there
is a conspiracy against god in the works. They
don't seem to be able to realize that they
themselves have been the victims of a vast
conspiracy designed to steal the very freedom they
take advantage of when they leave their brains at
home and speak idiocy under the full protection of
law.
I can already hear the outpouring of sentiment --
judicial activism does it again. That from people
who don't even know that case law exists and is
the predominant way US laws are formulated.
This is a truly hallmark decision and actually
reflects the majority of opinion over here. Hell,
the local citizenry even spoke loudly and
un-elected the IDiots who were responsible for
trivializing them and their town in the first
place.
People who want to share their religious
views with you almost never want you to
share your views with them.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Judge Rules Against Pa. Biology Curriculum |
21 Dec 2005 01:15:27 AM |
|
|
Says who?
Americans favor creationism in schools
BY LAURIE GOODSTEIN
New York Times
In a finding that is likely to intensify the debate over what to teach
students about the origins of life, a poll released yesterday found
that nearly two-thirds of Americans say that creationism should be
taught alongside evolution in public schools.
The poll found that 42 percent of respondents held strict creationist
views, agreeing that "living things have existed in their present form
since the beginning of time."
In contrast, 48 percent said they believed that humans had evolved over
time. But of those, 18 percent said that evolution was "guided by a
supreme being," and 26 percent said that evolution occurred through
natural selection. In all, 64 percent said they were open to the idea
of teaching creationism in addition to evolution, while 38 percent
favored replacing evolution with creationism.
The poll was conducted July 7-17 by the Pew Forum on Religion and
Public Life and the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press.
The questions about evolution were asked of 2,000 people. The margin of
error was 2.5 percentage points.
John C. Green, a senior fellow at the Pew Forum, said he was surprised
to see that teaching both evolution and creationism was favored not
only by conservative Christians, but also by majorities of secular
respondents, liberal Democrats and those who accept the theory of
natural selection. Mr. Green called it a reflection of "American
pragmatism."
"It's like they're saying, 'Some people see it this way, some see it
that way, so just teach it all and let the kids figure it out.' It
seems like a nice compromise, but it infuriates both the creationists
and the scientists," said Mr. Green, who is also a professor at the
University of Akron in Ohio
Eugenie C. Scott, the director of the National Center for Science
Education and a prominent defender of evolution, said the findings were
not surprising because "Americans react very positively to the fairness
or equal time kind of argument."
"In fact, it's the strongest thing that creationists have got going for
them because their science is dismal," Ms. Scott said. "But they do
have American culture on their side."
This year, the National Center for Science Education has tracked 70 new
controversies over evolution in 26 states, some in school districts,
others in the state legislatures.
President Bush joined the debate on Aug. 2, telling reporters that both
evolution and the theory of intelligent design should be taught in
schools "so people can understand what the debate is about."
Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee the Republican leader, took the same
position a few weeks later.
Intelligent design, a descendant of creationism, is the belief that
life is so intricate that only a supreme being could have designed it.
The poll showed 41 percent of respondents wanted parents to have the
primary say over how evolution is taught, compared with 28 percent who
said teachers and scientists should decide and 21 percent who said
school boards should. Asked whether they believed creationism should be
taught instead of evolution, 38 percent were in favor, and 49 percent
were opposed.
More of those who believe in creationism said they were "very certain"
of their views (63 percent), compared with those who believe in
evolution (32 percent).
The poll also asked about religion and politics, government financing
of religious charities, and gay men and lesbians in the military. Most
of these questions were asked of a smaller pool of 1,000 respondents,
and the margin of error was 2.5 percentage points, Pew researchers
said.
The public's impression of the Democratic Party has changed in the last
year, the survey found. Only 29 percent of respondents said they viewed
Democrats as being "friendly toward religion," down from 40 percent in
August of 2004. Meanwhile, 55 percent said the Republican Party was
friendly toward religion.
Luis E. Lugo, the director of the Pew Forum on Religion and Public
Life, said: "I think this is a continuation of the Republican Party's
very successful use of the values issue in the 2004 election, and the
Democrats not being able up until now to answer that successfully. Some
of the more visible leaders, such as Howard Dean and others, have
reinforced that image of a secular party. Of course, if you look at the
Democratic Party, there's a large religious constituency there."
Survey respondents agreed in nearly equal numbers that nonreligious
liberals had "too much control" over the Democratic Party (44 percent),
and that religious conservatives had too much control over the
Republican Party (45 percent).
On religion-based charities, two-thirds of respondents favored allowing
churches and houses of worship to apply for government financing to
provide social services. But support for such financing declined from
75 percent in early 2001, when Mr. Bush rolled out his religion-based
initiative. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/31/national/31religion.html
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: Judge Rules Against Pa. Biology Curriculum |
21 Dec 2005 09:07:08 AM |
|
|
Les Hemmings wrote in alt.atheism
I think I would get myself into a whole lot of trouble if I ever got to visit the US..
Such as?
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Phyllis" |
|
| Title: Re: Judge Rules Against Pa. Biology Curriculum |
20 Dec 2005 12:20:26 PM |
|
|
wrote:
"Les Hemmings" <les.frontalclaire@lobesvirgin.net> wrote in message
news:40qudbF1an01pU1@individual.net...
From over here in the UK your church and
state seperation argument seems pretty stupid. "In god we trust.." all
your politicians having to be christians before they can even think about
being elected, shrub saying god told him to invade.. the list goes on and
on!
Separation of Church and state was devised as an alternative to the
British system of having an official religion. If not for the
separation concept in the Constitution, we'd all be forced to practice
Christianity since it would have been enacted into law.
It's not truly a separation of Church and state, but a prohibition
against the government establishing any religion as official, and it's
also a prohibition against the government prohibiting people from
practicing their religion as they see fit if they see fit. But even
that's not absolute. If a "religious" practice involved any criminal
activities, it would not be allowed anyway.
As for "In God We Trust," that's more political than religious. It got
added to our paper money during the Eisenhower administration back in
the 1950s as a way of standing up to those "Godless communists." But
it's arguably not promoting a specific religion, and unless there's a
religion with tenets that require its followers to denounce trusting
God, then it's unclear if the courts will care. The argument that
atheists make against it is pretty senseless too. If you believe there
is no God, then the statement is telling you to trust something that
does not exist, or in other words, to trust nothing. It's not making
you engage in any practices that are contrary to your religion. If
anything, it would make more sense to argue that the statement is an
affront to religions that believe that the name of God should be
treated with respect, and by printing it on money, which is not handled
with reverence, and then is ultimately shredded, goes directly against
the Bible.
Ironically, Christianity is based on faith in God, not trust in God as
with some other religions. If one were to make a case that it's
establishment of a specific religion, it would not be Christianity.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Les Hemmings" |
|
| Title: Re: Judge Rules Against Pa. Biology Curriculum |
20 Dec 2005 12:44:08 PM |
|
|
"Phyllis" <steinsphil@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1135102826.318327.91790@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
jrsp8s@sbcglobal.net wrote:
"Les Hemmings" <les.frontalclaire@lobesvirgin.net> wrote in message
news:40qudbF1an01pU1@individual.net...
From over here in the UK your church and
state seperation argument seems pretty stupid. "In god we trust.." all
your politicians having to be christians before they can even think
about
being elected, shrub saying god told him to invade.. the list goes on
and
on!
Separation of Church and state was devised as an alternative to the
British system of having an official religion. If not for the
separation concept in the Constitution, we'd all be forced to practice
Christianity since it would have been enacted into law.
Are you trying to tell me that there isn't huge peer, govermental and
famillial preasure to practice christainity in the US? Pro life,
intelligent design, the evangelical right wing, the church at the centre of
the "small town" american idyll... I'm afraid i don't believe you when you
say there isn't a w.a.s.p. (that accronym sums it up!) national religion.
Were not the indiginous peoples of your country labelled "ungodly"?
It's not truly a separation of Church and state, but a prohibition
against the government establishing any religion as official, and it's
also a prohibition against the government prohibiting people from
practicing their religion as they see fit if they see fit. But even
that's not absolute. If a "religious" practice involved any criminal
activities, it would not be allowed anyway.
And who decides "illegal"? Isn't it a collection of fat, middle aged
w.a.s.p. career politicians?
As for "In God We Trust," that's more political than religious.
If what you say is true it would not have mentioned god, it would have said
"In democracy we trust." or some such..
It got
added to our paper money during the Eisenhower administration back in
the 1950s as a way of standing up to those "Godless communists." But
it's arguably not promoting a specific religion, and unless there's a
religion with tenets that require its followers to denounce trusting
God, then it's unclear if the courts will care.
Religions include worshiping a single god, many gods, nature itself, animals
and even cargo aircraft. These are not mentioned, only your countries
national christian deity.
The argument that
atheists make against it is pretty senseless too. If you believe there
is no God, then the statement is telling you to trust something that
does not exist, or in other words, to trust nothing. It's not making
you engage in any practices that are contrary to your religion. If
anything, it would make more sense to argue that the statement is an
affront to religions that believe that the name of God should be
treated with respect, and by printing it on money, which is not handled
with reverence, and then is ultimately shredded, goes directly against
the Bible.
When a government is solmenly telling me to trust in a fiction, and use the
neme of "money" to disseminate the idea, it makes me think that at the very
root of all that makes your country what it is, is a world view built around
that fiction. I'd find that very disturbing.
Ironically, Christianity is based on faith in God, not trust in God as
with some other religions. If one were to make a case that it's
establishment of a specific religion, it would not be Christianity.
Irony is something you really don't understand obviously... So your
saying you've never heard "Trust in god" said by Christians ad nausem? I
can't believe that either.
Your arguments are infantile. You are obviously a god soaked theist and on
that basis alone I discount anything you say as tainted with the effects of
your late bronze age belief system. You, your thoughts and your world view
have no place then and now and only do harm. It embarrasses me to think I am
of the same species as someone who can seriously hold the views that you do.
Les
--
Remove Frontal Lobes to reply.
http://armsofmorpheus.blogspot.com/
"...The people can always be brought to the bidding of the
leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being
attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and
exposing the country to greater danger "
-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin, 1759
.
|
|
|
| User: "The other Donald" |
|
| Title: Re: Judge Rules Against Pa. Biology Curriculum |
20 Dec 2005 12:53:48 PM |
|
|
"Les Hemmings" <les.frontalclaire@lobesvirgin.net> wrote in message
news:40r1niF1bkv6gU1@individual.net...
"Phyllis" <steinsphil@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1135102826.318327.91790@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
jrsp8s@sbcglobal.net wrote:
"Les Hemmings" <les.frontalclaire@lobesvirgin.net> wrote in message
news:40qudbF1an01pU1@individual.net...
From over here in the UK your church and
state seperation argument seems pretty stupid. "In god we trust.."
all
your politicians having to be christians before they can even think
about
being elected, shrub saying god told him to invade.. the list goes
on
and
on!
Separation of Church and state was devised as an alternative to the
British system of having an official religion. If not for the
separation concept in the Constitution, we'd all be forced to practice
Christianity since it would have been enacted into law.
Are you trying to tell me that there isn't huge peer, govermental and
famillial preasure to practice christainity in the US? Pro life,
intelligent design, the evangelical right wing, the church at the centre
of
the "small town" american idyll...
Hey! Cut us a little slack. We're only 230 years old....we're like 'kids' in
the overall history of first-world nations. ("I'm from Europe...you know,
where all the history comes from." -Eddie Izzard)
Slowly but surely we're advancing into the modern era where superstition is
studied as curiosities of the primative human mind and churches are
converted to museums full of relics of a bygone era.
I'm afraid i don't believe you when you
say there isn't a w.a.s.p. (that accronym sums it up!) national religion.
Close, but not quite. The tide has been turning, though our current
president and his fan club have certainly set things back a few years.
Were not the indiginous peoples of your country labelled "ungodly"?
Yup. And for all our "ungodliness," they slaughtered us but named their
towns and football teams after us.
Go figure.
--
-Donald in Austin
AA #2104
Apatriot #22
Atheist FF/EMT
.....and ordained minister
Stork pin recipient: May 1, 2003 -Madelyn
-Mr. Worf, set phasers on "***** You" and fire at will. -Doc Smartass
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gary Bohn" |
|
| Title: Re: Judge Rules Against Pa. Biology Curriculum |
20 Dec 2005 03:32:51 PM |
|
|
"The other Donald" <the_donald_13@yahooooY.com> wrote in
news:0rYpf.2993$9e.233@tornado.texas.rr.com:
"Les Hemmings" <les.frontalclaire@lobesvirgin.net> wrote in message
news:40r1niF1bkv6gU1@individual.net...
"Phyllis" <steinsphil@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1135102826.318327.91790@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
jrsp8s@sbcglobal.net wrote:
"Les Hemmings" <les.frontalclaire@lobesvirgin.net> wrote in
message news:40qudbF1an01pU1@individual.net...
From over here in the UK your church and
state seperation argument seems pretty stupid. "In god we
trust.."
all
your politicians having to be christians before they can even
think about
being elected, shrub saying god told him to invade.. the list
goes
on
and
on!
Separation of Church and state was devised as an alternative to the
British system of having an official religion. If not for the
separation concept in the Constitution, we'd all be forced to
practice Christianity since it would have been enacted into law.
Are you trying to tell me that there isn't huge peer, govermental
and
famillial preasure to practice christainity in the US? Pro life,
intelligent design, the evangelical right wing, the church at the
centre
of
the "small town" american idyll...
Hey! Cut us a little slack. We're only 230 years old....we're like
'kids' in the overall history of first-world nations. ("I'm from
Europe...you know, where all the history comes from." -Eddie Izzard)
Slowly but surely we're advancing into the modern era where
superstition is studied as curiosities of the primative human mind and
churches are converted to museums full of relics of a bygone era.
I'm afraid i don't believe you when you
say there isn't a w.a.s.p. (that accronym sums it up!) national
religion.
Close, but not quite. The tide has been turning, though our current
president and his fan club have certainly set things back a few years.
They put you guys into debt big time, monetarily and in world opinion.
Were not the indiginous peoples of your country labelled "ungodly"?
Yup. And for all our "ungodliness," they slaughtered us but named
their towns and football teams after us.
Go figure.
And trying to figure out ways of circumventing any treaties signed.
--
Gary Bohn
Science rationally modifies a theory to fit evidence, creationism
emotionally modifies evidence to fit a specific interpretation of the
bible.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Les Hemmings" |
|
| Title: Re: Judge Rules Against Pa. Biology Curriculum |
20 Dec 2005 01:04:38 PM |
|
|
"The other Donald" <the_donald_13@yahooooY.com> wrote in message
news:0rYpf.2993$9e.233@tornado.texas.rr.com...
Were not the indiginous peoples of your country labelled "ungodly"?
Yup. And for all our "ungodliness," they slaughtered us but named their
towns and football teams after us.
Yep.. People thought I was odd when I was always on the Sioux side
with cowboy films. Little Big Man was a revelation! Great sweaty pink
unshaven christain murderous bastards! Made me sorry to be Caucasian!And to
think the first invaders got rescued just before they starved...
(thanksgiving.... should have been directed to the natives, not the
christain god..)
Sheesh!
Les
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: Judge Rules Against Pa. Biology Curriculum |
21 Dec 2005 09:36:42 AM |
|
|
Les Hemmings <les.frontalclaire@lobesvirgin.net> wrote in alt.atheism
The other Donald <the_donald_13@yahooooY.com> wrote in message
Were not the indiginous peoples of your country labelled "ungodly"?
Yup. And for all our "ungodliness," they slaughtered us but named their
towns and football teams after us.
Yep.. People thought I was odd when I was always on the Sioux side
with cowboy films. Little Big Man was a revelation!
Have you seen Dances With Wolves?
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "The other Donald" |
|
| Title: Re: Judge Rules Against Pa. Biology Curriculum |
21 Dec 2005 10:35:22 AM |
|
|
"Elroy Willis" <elroywillis@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:thtiq1h2bhbqkek3dd127krfu0acu0gvg1@4ax.com...
Les Hemmings <les.frontalclaire@lobesvirgin.net> wrote in alt.atheism
The other Donald <the_donald_13@yahooooY.com> wrote in message
Were not the indiginous peoples of your country labelled "ungodly"?
Yup. And for all our "ungodliness," they slaughtered us but named their
towns and football teams after us.
Yep.. People thought I was odd when I was always on the Sioux side
with cowboy films. Little Big Man was a revelation!
Have you seen Dances With Wolves?
That beastiality thing.....er, wait a minute. I'm thinking of "Dirty Dances
with Wolves." My bad.
-DMc
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Les Hemmings" |
|
| Title: Re: Judge Rules Against Pa. Biology Curriculum |
21 Dec 2005 01:57:44 PM |
|
|
"Elroy Willis" <elroywillis@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:thtiq1h2bhbqkek3dd127krfu0acu0gvg1@4ax.com...
Les Hemmings <les.frontalclaire@lobesvirgin.net> wrote in alt.atheism
The other Donald <the_donald_13@yahooooY.com> wrote in message
Were not the indiginous peoples of your country labelled "ungodly"?
Yup. And for all our "ungodliness," they slaughtered us but named their
towns and football teams after us.
Yep.. People thought I was odd when I was always on the Sioux side
with cowboy films. Little Big Man was a revelation!
Have you seen Dances With Wolves?
No.. but my kids watched it a thousand times when they were little. I
dubbed it "Lurches with Donkeys".... you know what kids get like over a
certain video sometimes. "The Little Mermaid" still brings me out in a
rash.. :o)
Les
--
Remove Frontal Lobes to reply.
http://armsofmorpheus.blogspot.com/
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin, 1759
Les Hemmings aa #2251 SA
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bobby D. Bryant" |
|
| Title: Re: Judge Rules Against Pa. Biology Curriculum |
20 Dec 2005 02:33:12 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 20 Dec 2005, "The other Donald" <the_donald_13@yahooooY.com> wrote:
"Les Hemmings" <les.frontalclaire@lobesvirgin.net> wrote in message
news:40r1niF1bkv6gU1@individual.net...
I'm afraid i don't believe you when you say there isn't a
w.a.s.p. (that accronym sums it up!) national religion.
Close, but not quite. The tide has been turning, though our current
president and his fan club have certainly set things back a few
years.
They've made a lot of noise, but it's not obvious that they've made
any difference.
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
.
|
|
|
| User: "The other Donald" |
|
| Title: Re: Judge Rules Against Pa. Biology Curriculum |
20 Dec 2005 05:22:02 PM |
|
|
"Bobby D. Bryant" <bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
news:do9pq7$ocv$1@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu...
On Tue, 20 Dec 2005, "The other Donald" <the_donald_13@yahooooY.com>
wrote:
"Les Hemmings" <les.frontalclaire@lobesvirgin.net> wrote in message
news:40r1niF1bkv6gU1@individual.net...
I'm afraid i don't believe you when you say there isn't a
w.a.s.p. (that accronym sums it up!) national religion.
Close, but not quite. The tide has been turning, though our current
president and his fan club have certainly set things back a few
years.
They've made a lot of noise, but it's not obvious that they've made
any difference.
As examples, I would posit the following:
1.) Two (possibly) Supreme Court justices, though I'll admit that we don't
have any concrete rulings to draw conclusions from. One can only conclude,
thus far, that religion will be a major player in decisions due to the fact
that they were nominated by Bush. I can only hope that Roberts and Alito are
intelligent enough to leave their personal biases at the door and rule on
the side of personal privacy and personal decision making.
I believe Alito will, I've not read much on Roberts.
2.) Stem Cell Research -Bush's stance against it, and, therefore, ban on
funding has stalled it. The greatest medical advancements are made when
powerful financial backing is behind it, especially from the public sector
(i.e. taxes): cancer, polio, HIV/AIDS, MS, etc. These advances benefit
countless people, and if the financial power of the American government was
behind SSR, especially Embryonic Stem Cells, imagine how far we'd already be
after the past six years since funding was cut off, but overseas discoveries
were made.
3.) Preferential public treatment of people within religious circles, but
the stripping of rights of people of other religions -One of the TV
Evangelists has called for the assassination of the President of Venezuela,
and another (or possibly the same one) stated that someone should nuke the
Justice Department. yet Jose Padilla and Yasir Hamdi, both American
citizens, rot in military brigs without access to lawyers nor to face
charges against them*. The difference: Christian inner circle vs 'those
terrorist muslims.'
This doesn't even address the recent revelation of spying on American
citizens. I'm not certain of the cultural norm in Great Britain (where Les
appears to reside) but I take my privacy very seriously, as do most
Americans.
*Of note: after three years, Padilla looks like he may finally get a day in
court. It's easy to say "well it's not *me*," but I wouldn't want to be
locked away from my family for years, nor do I wish it on someone else. And,
no, I'm not implying that you condone that behavior.
4.) Continued open hostilities toward gays and lesbians -Recently, a ban on
same-sex marriage passed here in Texas, as you know. It is based on nothing
but ignorance, but the continued division, perpetuated by politicians under
the guise of Christianity, put it first on the ballot, then voted into the
Texas Constitution. I have yet to hear a single argument supporting
Proposition 2 that wasn't tainted with overt religiosity.
These are just the first few that come to mind, and each will have long
lasting impact on this country (forgive me if I'm stating the obvious): 1)
Supreme Court Justices are appointed for life; 2) SSR will get a foothold,
but only after Bush & Co are gone; 3) Let you or me get on a TV station and
call for a nuke strike on a government building and see where we end up; 4)
Proposition 2 will take a hell of a lot of work to undo.
--
-Donald in Austin
AA #2104
Apatriot #22
Atheist FF/EMT
.....and ordained minister
Stork pin recipient: May 1, 2003 -Madelyn
-Mr. Worf, set phasers on "***** You" and fire at will. -Doc Smartass
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Judge Rules Against Pa. Biology Curriculum |
20 Dec 2005 06:55:29 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 23:22:02 GMT, in alt.atheism , "The other Donald"
<the_donald_13@yahooooY.com> in
<um0qf.3013$9e.386@tornado.texas.rr.com> wrote:
[snip]
1.) Two (possibly) Supreme Court justices, though I'll admit that we don't
have any concrete rulings to draw conclusions from. One can only conclude,
thus far, that religion will be a major player in decisions due to the fact
that they were nominated by Bush. I can only hope that Roberts and Alito are
intelligent enough to leave their personal biases at the door and rule on
the side of personal privacy and personal decision making.
I believe Alito will, I've not read much on Roberts.
Alito, that's the guy who admits that he lies about things in order to
get a job, right? Why would you think he would leave his biases
behind?
[snip]
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Judge Rules Against Pa. Biology Curriculum |
22 Dec 2005 02:05:31 PM |
|
|
In talk.atheism Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 23:22:02 GMT, in alt.atheism , "The other Donald"
<the_donald_13@yahooooY.com> in
<um0qf.3013$9e.386@tornado.texas.rr.com> wrote:
[snip]
1.) Two (possibly) Supreme Court justices, though I'll admit that we don't
have any concrete rulings to draw conclusions from. One can only conclude,
thus far, that religion will be a major player in decisions due to the fact
that they were nominated by Bush. I can only hope that Roberts and Alito are
intelligent enough to leave their personal biases at the door and rule on
the side of personal privacy and personal decision making.
I believe Alito will, I've not read much on Roberts.
Alito, that's the guy who admits that he lies about things in order to
get a job, right? Why would you think he would leave his biases
behind?
Hadn't heard of that one yet. Got any cites/references on this? Not saying
you're wrong (or right) but just wanted to check it out in more detail
myself.
--
Mike
-------------------------------
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop
thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do
we," George W. "Shrub" Bush Aug 5, 2004
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Phyllis" |
|
| Title: Re: Judge Rules Against Pa. Biology Curriculum |
04 Jan 2006 12:15:15 PM |
|
|
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 23:22:02 GMT, in alt.atheism , "The other Donald"
<the_donald_13@yahooooY.com> in
<um0qf.3013$9e.386@tornado.texas.rr.com> wrote:
[snip]
1.) Two (possibly) Supreme Court justices, though I'll admit that we don't
have any concrete rulings to draw conclusions from. One can only conclude,
thus far, that religion will be a major player in decisions due to the fact
that they were nominated by Bush. I can only hope that Roberts and Alito are
intelligent enough to leave their personal biases at the door and rule on
the side of personal privacy and personal decision making.
I believe Alito will, I've not read much on Roberts.
Alito, that's the guy who admits that he lies about things in order to
get a job, right? Why would you think he would leave his biases
behind?
[snip]
Much of what went on in the hearings was just senseless posturing and
hyperbole. I may not agree with Alito, but he's intelligent. I can't
say for certain that he won't let his religious views get in the way,
but I can't say that he's a liar either.
Lawyers get hired to advance the views of their clients. Much of what
happened in the Roberts (and Alito, with shades of difference) hearings
had to do with positions he advanced when it was his job to advance
those positions. The role of a judge is much different from the role
of a lawyer. A lawyer is supposed to represent clients and advance the
clients' positions, and it's highly unethical for a lawyer to advance
his own position above the wishes of his client. To say that views
advanced in this capacity are necessarily representative of personal
beliefs is something that politicians know is not the case. Many of
them are lawers themselves. A judge, on the other hand, is supposed to
set aside personal views and not advance the views of either side.
Instead, he is supposed to look at how to reconcile the situation with
the law. Even if a judge disagrees with the law, it's not his position
to usurp. A justice, on the other hand, does have the power to void
laws. But it's supposed to be based on interpreting the constitution,
not based on personal beliefs. Granted, there is a lot of opening for
personal beliefs to creep in. But I would not base that belief strictly
on statements that an attorney made on a job application when his job
would have called for advancing that position.
It should be Alito's role as a judge that troubles people if they are
philosophically opposed to him.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Phyllis" |
|
| Title: Re: Judge Rules Against Pa. Biology Curriculum |
04 Jan 2006 12:03:37 PM |
|
|
The other Donald wrote:
"Bobby D. Bryant" <bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
news:do9pq7$ocv$1@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu...
On Tue, 20 Dec 2005, "The other Donald" <the_donald_13@yahooooY.com>
wrote:
"Les Hemmings" <les.frontalclaire@lobesvirgin.net> wrote in message
news:40r1niF1bkv6gU1@individual.net...
I'm afraid i don't believe you when you say there isn't a
w.a.s.p. (that accronym sums it up!) national religion.
Close, but not quite. The tide has been turning, though our current
president and his fan club have certainly set things back a few
years.
They've made a lot of noise, but it's not obvious that they've made
any difference.
As examples, I would posit the following:
1.) Two (possibly) Supreme Court justices
[snip]
2.) Stem Cell Research -Bush's stance against it,
[snip]
3.) Preferential public treatment of people within religious circles,
[snip]
This doesn't even address the recent revelation of spying on American
citizens. I'm not certain of the cultural norm in Great Britain (where Les
appears to reside) but I take my privacy very seriously, as do most
Americans.
[snip]
These are just the first few that come to mind,
Those are all valid points, and all have potentially real consequences.
Fortunately, most people are against Bush, but unfortunately, not for
those reasons. But it still does not change that, for the most part,
our constitution is supposed to protect us from things like this.
These are not things that "our government" stands for, but things that
Bush stands for, and in time will change.
This thread was supposed to be about " Judge Rules Against Pa. Biology
Curriculum" and that showed a change already. A lot of what the
religious right does is so over the top that it goes nowhere. A lot of
laws don't get signed because of extreme clauses in them. It helps
both sides. Those who write the laws don't have to live with the
consequences if courts throw them out, and those on the other side have
something to mobilize against. It helps them the most if the courts
throw it out. Then, the voters can say how their politician is on
their side. If a politician ever won many of these fights, he'd have
no way of surviving the aftermath. He'd have nothing left to fight
for, and people would have to live with the consequences.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Phyllis" |
|
| Title: Re: Judge Rules Against Pa. Biology Curriculum |
04 Jan 2006 11:50:46 AM |
|
|
Les Hemmings wrote:
"Phyllis" <steinsphil@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1135102826.318327.91790@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
jrsp8s@sbcglobal.net wrote:
"Les Hemmings" <les.frontalclaire@lobesvirgin.net> wrote in message
news:40qudbF1an01pU1@individual.net...
From over here in the UK your church and
state seperation argument seems pretty stupid. "In god we trust.." all
your politicians having to be christians before they can even think
about
being elected, shrub saying god told him to invade.. the list goes on
and
on!
Separation of Church and state was devised as an alternative to the
British system of having an official religion. If not for the
separation concept in the Constitution, we'd all be forced to practice
Christianity since it would have been enacted into law.
Are you trying to tell me that there isn't huge peer, govermental and
famillial preasure to practice christainity in the US?
No, I'm not. I agree that there is a huge pressure in many or most
parts of the country. It's certainly not my peers or family who are
doing it, and I can't speak for anybody else's family, but I don't
doubt that many people in the US have family pressures of that nature.
I can't say that the government itself is pressuring me. I'm not being
punished for being a non-Christian. I'm not losing any benefits because
of it either. I've never had anybody in the government complain to me
about it. At least not directly. I will admit that the school system
is trying to thrust things upon my children that I see as blatantly
Christian but they consider secular and acceptable. However, I still
maintain that they are wrong and our constitution does not allow for
it. It's not the school board per se, or any elected representatives
that are the problem where I live, though. In other areas, local
government is the problem, but once it gets high enough in the courts,
the truly egregious actions, such as teaching creationism, etc., get
thrown out.
Pro life,
intelligent design, the evangelical right wing, the church at the centre of
the "small town" american idyll... I'm afraid i don't believe you when you
say there isn't a w.a.s.p. (that accronym sums it up!) national religion.
Then I suggest that you study the constitution. I don't see anybody
forcing people to practice Christianity or hauling them off to jail for
not doing so. People are free to disagree with you in a free society,
and there are many fundamentalist Christians in the US, but unlike you,
I'm not willing to give the country away to them. It's not their
country. It's a democracy with fundamental rights protected by the
constitution. There's an explicit prohibition against the government
establishing a religion. There is no national religion no matter what
you say, or what the fundamentalist Christians say. I'm sorry to see
you have so much in common with them.
Were not the indiginous peoples of your country labelled "ungodly"?
Yes they were. But we now recognize that they have as much right as
anybody else to practice their beliefs as anybody else. Since you seem
to need things spelled out for you, this is not a justification for any
wrongs done in the past, but a recognition that those things were
wrong.
It's not truly a separation of Church and state, but a prohibition
against the government establishing any religion as official, and it's
also a prohibition against the government prohibiting people from
practicing their religion as they see fit if they see fit. But even
that's not absolute. If a "religious" practice involved any criminal
activities, it would not be allowed anyway.
And who decides "illegal"? Isn't it a collection of fat, middle aged
w.a.s.p. career politicians?
You haven't heard about the Jewish conspiracy :-)
We are free to elect anybody we want, and while most are Christian,
that makes sense in a nation where most people are Christian. I don't
believe it's appropriate to discriminate against people based on their
weight, age, or religion. That's an unAmerican concept as far as I'm
concerned. If we didn't have a government made up mostly of Christians,
it would seem discriminatory. The Congress in the US may have mostly
Christians, but the majority of them are not thrusting their religious
views on others. If they were, the religious right would not be
fighting so hard to get them to do so.
As for "In God We Trust," that's more political than religious.
If what you say is true it would not have mentioned god, it would have said
"In democracy we trust." or some such..
Why? Throughout history, many things have been done "in the name of
God" that were really in the name of the state. Wars were fought,
nations were conquered, and the pretext that it was to save souls may
have been a thin justification, but we all know that there were
ulterior motives and that the conquering nations had much to gain from
their thievery.
It got
added to our paper money during the Eisenhower administration back in
the 1950s as a way of standing up to those "Godless communists." But
it's arguably not promoting a specific religion, and unless there's a
religion with tenets that require its followers to denounce trusting
God, then it's unclear if the courts will care.
Religions include worshiping a single god, many gods, nature itself, animals
and even cargo aircraft. These are not mentioned, only your countries
national christian deity.
I never heard of a religion that worships aircraft, but I'll take your
word for it. I'll agree that it's geared toward monotheism, but that's
still not a specific religion. Since Christianity is not the only
monotheistic religion, it's senseless to say "only Christianity."
The argument that
atheists make against it is pretty senseless too. If you believe there
is no God, then the statement is telling you to trust something that
does not exist, or in other words, to trust nothing. It's not making
you engage in any practices that are contrary to your religion. If
anything, it would make more sense to argue that the statement is an
affront to religions that believe that the name of God should be
treated with respect, and by printing it on money, which is not handled
with reverence, and then is ultimately shredded, goes directly against
the Bible.
When a government is solmenly telling me to trust in a fiction, and use the
neme of "money" to disseminate the idea, it makes me think that at the very
root of all that makes your country what it is, is a world view built around
that fiction. I'd find that very disturbing.
Well, you are in big trouble then, because you are part of that
fiction. Unless you are going to stop using money, you had better go
along with the fiction, because if everybody stopped, then the world
would fall apart. You see, all of money is a fiction, and we are being
told to trust in it. Whether it mentions God or not, we are being told
to trust in a fiction.
It used to be that people traded. It was up to them to decide what
things were worth. Eventually, standards developed, and agreements
existed about how much substances such as gold and silver were worth in
relative terms. They were money. Eventually, "paper money" was
produced by the US. But everybody knew that the paper was not money.
It merely represented money. You had the right to go to the Federal
Reserve Bank and turn in your paper for real money. "Paper money"
always said, "...and is redeemable in lawful money at the United States
Treasury or any Federal Reserve bank." Then in the early 1970s, the US
stopped linking the value of paper money to gold. We were told that
the paper is money, and everybody went along with it. The government
prints some words and pictures on a piece of paper, and you agree that
the stack of paper is somehow worth as much as a car or house? They can
make as much of it as they want. It's paper.
But things got worse than that. Many people don't even use the paper
anymore. They get paid with a check, which is simply ordinary paper
that companies can print themselves. But many people don't even get
that. They have "direct deposit." The "check" is nothing more than a
list of numbers that represent the idea of how much money the person
supposedly has. The person gets another piece of paper from the bank
with more numbers stating how much the person supposedly has. But we
all know that the banks don't have the money either. They are free to
lend it out, and have a fraction of the amount of paper that it would
take to represent all the deposited funds. I get a piece of paper from
my employer. The bank goes along with it. I buy something in a store
and pay by giving more numbers that are on a plastic card. Numbers move
around from paper to paper, and there's nothing behind it. Not only is
there nothing behind the paper money, there's also not much paper money
behind the numbers. It's all fiction backed up by this absurd belief
that the money somehow exists, even though any economist can tell you
that it's a shell game and the money is not there.
Having "in God we trust" seems to be the least of the problems when
accepting the fiction that we call money.
Ironically, Christianity is based on faith in God, not trust in God as
with some other religions. If one were to make a case that it's
establishment of a specific religion, it would not be Christianity.
Irony is something you really don't understand obviously... So your
saying you've never heard "Trust in god" said by Christians ad nausem? I
can't believe that either.
It's not the basis of Christianity, but a concept within the religion.
If you don't have faith in God, you are going to hell, according to
Christianity. The fundamental beliefs are that Jesus is the son of God,
you must have faith in Jesus, and that faith in Jesus alone can bring
salvation. It's not the only concept in Christianity, but trust in God
is no more the fundamental basis of the religion than saying "God bless
you" when you sneeze is. Just because something is common does not
make it the basis for something.
Your arguments are infantile.
You must have been arguing with very intelligent infants, then.
You are obviously a god soaked theist and on
that basis alone I discount anything you say as tainted with the effects of
your late bronze age belief system.
Obviously? I don't think you are a careful reader then. Where did I
even state whether I believe in God or not or what the idea of God even
means to me?
You, your thoughts and your world view
have no place then and now and only do harm. It embarrasses me to think I am
of the same species as someone who can seriously hold the views that you do.
Then you are very closed minded and ignorant. If you don't want to be
human, I suggest you see a good psychiatrist. If you have trouble
living in a world where anybody does not agree with you completely,
make sure that the therapist you find specializes in megalomania.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin, 1759
Aren't you embarrassed to live in the same world that Franklin did?
While there are some who debate whether his ideology was closer to
Deism or Christianity, there's no dispute that both are theistic.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Judge Rules Against Pa. Biology Curriculum |
05 Jan 2006 11:23:20 AM |
|
|
In talk.atheism Phyllis <steinsphil@hotmail.com> wrote:
Then I suggest that you study the constitution. I don't see anybody
forcing people to practice Christianity or hauling them off to jail for
not doing so. People are free to disagree with you in a free society,
and there are many fundamentalist Christians in the US, but unlike you,
I'm not willing to give the country away to them. It's not their
country. It's a democracy with fundamental rights protected by the
constitution. There's an explicit prohibition against the government
establishing a religion. There is no national religion no matter what
you say, or what the fundamentalist Christians say. I'm sorry to see
you have so much in common with them.
Four words: "In God we trust." ANY nation that has such as a national slogan
is showing itself, sadly enough, to be a religious (even if not xian)
country.
--
Mike
-------------------------------
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop
thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do
we," George W. "Shrub" Bush Aug 5, 2004
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
