| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
27 Sep 2005 07:50:02 AM |
| Object: |
Religion in disguise |
http://thepost.baker.ohiou.edu/E.php?article=E1&date=092605
Religion in disguise
Revisiting an intellectual battle that has raged intermittently for the
last 80 years, a Pennsylvania trial begins this week to decide the
constitutionality of teaching intelligent design in public schools.
Although the issue seems rather simple from an objective standpoint, it has
been complicated by church officials and religious-minded politicians bent
on blurring the line separating church and state. The concept of
intelligent design - ultimately religion under the guise of science - still
has no place within the halls of public schools.
Judicial precedent stands opposed to the teaching of creationism - the less
politically correct term - in public schools, with the Supreme Court
banning it in a 1987 ruling. Some have responded by engineering a
pseudo-scientific theory that never explicitly mentions God. Nonetheless,
intelligent design is no more than a tailored version of creationism - the
purely religious belief that a creator built the world - intended to
circumvent the ruling of the high court. The Supreme Court banned
creationism because it directly violates the important democratic principle
of the separation of church and state. Special interests who cannot cast
aside their personal bias toward the matter have chosen to violate that
principle in a less direct manner through their promotion of that blatantly
unscientific "theory."
Intelligent design, which holds that nature is so complex it must have been
the work of a "God-like" creator, is supposed to be an alternative to
Charles Darwin's theory of evolution. Darwin's theory is founded in
empirical observation and is fully accepted by the scientific mainstream.
In contrast, intelligent design is a vague and mystical abstraction that
should be recognized as a feeble attempt to inject religion into science
and, consequently, school curriculums. Some, including President Bush, have
advocated teaching both, but that is akin to teaching speculation alongside
scientific reality.
Attacking intelligent design as the farce that it is often raises the ire
of devoutly religious individuals. What the faithful must realize, however,
is that the argument is not about the existence or lack thereof of God.
Teaching creationism, intelligent design or any other pseudo-science in a
public school science class ignores science. God can remain the topic in
churches, homes, private schools, philosophy classes and elsewhere. In the
biology classes of publicly funded school systems, however, only science
should be discussed.
***************************************************************
Posting and reading from alt.politics.usa.constitution OR alt.education
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the U.S. and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
| User: "fred" |
|
| Title: Re: Religion in disguise |
27 Sep 2005 11:02:28 AM |
|
|
wrote:
http://thepost.baker.ohiou.edu/E.php?article=3DE1&date=3D092605
Religion in disguise
Revisiting an intellectual battle that has raged intermittently for the
last 80 years, a Pennsylvania trial begins this week to decide the
constitutionality of teaching intelligent design in public schools.
Although the issue seems rather simple from an objective standpoint, it h=
as
been complicated by church officials and religious-minded politicians bent
on blurring the line separating church and state. The concept of
You are ignoring that people are simply not buying the double talk
being put out by organizations like talk.origins with respect to
refuting Michael Behe's examples of irreducible complexity.
You also continue to ignore that nothing in section 1 of the 14th
Amendment prevents the states from using their power to address
religion, power delegated to them automatically by the 10th Amendment,
to address scientifically based concerns related to irreducible
complexity.
Just wait until people find out that the Supreme Court has been lying
to them about the establishment clause.
intelligent design - ultimately religion under the guise of science - sti=
ll
has no place within the halls of public schools.
Judicial precedent stands opposed to the teaching of creationism - the le=
ss
politically correct term - in public schools, with the Supreme Court
banning it in a 1987 ruling. Some have responded by engineering a
pseudo-scientific theory that never explicitly mentions God. Nonetheless,
intelligent design is no more than a tailored version of creationism - the
purely religious belief that a creator built the world - intended to
circumvent the ruling of the high court. The Supreme Court banned
creationism because it directly violates the important democratic princip=
le
of the separation of church and state. Special interests who cannot cast
aside their personal bias toward the matter have chosen to violate that
principle in a less direct manner through their promotion of that blatant=
ly
unscientific "theory."
Intelligent design, which holds that nature is so complex it must have be=
en
the work of a "God-like" creator, is supposed to be an alternative to
Charles Darwin's theory of evolution. Darwin's theory is founded in
empirical observation and is fully accepted by the scientific mainstream.
In contrast, intelligent design is a vague and mystical abstraction that
should be recognized as a feeble attempt to inject religion into science
and, consequently, school curriculums. Some, including President Bush, ha=
ve
advocated teaching both, but that is akin to teaching speculation alongsi=
de
scientific reality.
Attacking intelligent design as the farce that it is often raises the ire
of devoutly religious individuals. What the faithful must realize, howeve=
r,
is that the argument is not about the existence or lack thereof of God.
Teaching creationism, intelligent design or any other pseudo-science in a
public school science class ignores science. God can remain the topic in
churches, homes, private schools, philosophy classes and elsewhere. In the
biology classes of publicly funded school systems, however, only science
should be discussed.
***************************************************************
Posting and reading from alt.politics.usa.constitution OR alt.education
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS =B7 Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the U.S. and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why =
"a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisne=
r,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Religion in disguise |
28 Sep 2005 07:42:07 AM |
|
|
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
:|
:|buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote:
:|> http://thepost.baker.ohiou.edu/E.php?article=E1&date=092605
:|>
:|>
:|> Religion in disguise
:|>
:|>
:|>
:|> Revisiting an intellectual battle that has raged intermittently for the
:|> last 80 years, a Pennsylvania trial begins this week to decide the
:|> constitutionality of teaching intelligent design in public schools.
:|> Although the issue seems rather simple from an objective standpoint, it has
:|> been complicated by church officials and religious-minded politicians bent
:|> on blurring the line separating church and state. The concept of
:|
:|You are ignoring that people are simply not buying the double talk
:|being put out by organizations like talk.origins with respect to
:|refuting Michael Behe's examples of irreducible complexity.
:|
:|You also continue to ignore that nothing in section 1 of the 14th
:|Amendment prevents the states from using their power to address
:|religion, power delegated to them automatically by the 10th Amendment,
:|to address scientifically based concerns related to irreducible
:|complexity.
:|
:|Just wait until people find out that the Supreme Court has been lying
:|to them about the establishment clause.
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
:|> > First of all, Newdow and the confused Courts are wrong that the States
:|> > don't have the power to lead students in reciting the "religious"
:|> > Pledge because the 10th Amendment gives the States the power to address
:|> > religious issues. See the following essay [ by the Radical Religious Right
:|> >Theocratic propagandistic Alan Keyes ] concerning the
:|> > constitutional delegation of religous powers
:|> >
:|> > http://www.renewamerica.us/readings/keyes_essay.htm
:|
:|You completely ignored the 10th Amendment:
:|
:|"Article 10: The powers not delegated to the United States by the
:|Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the
:|States respectively, or to the people."
:|
Aug 22, 5:56 am show options
Newsgroups: alt.politics.democrats.d, alt.politics.usa.constitution,
alt.politics.liberalism, alt.society.liberalism, alt.education,
alt.atheism, alt.religion.christianity, misc.education
From:
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 05:56:56 -0400
Local: Mon, Aug 22 2005 5:56 am
Subject: Re: FREEDOM OF RELIGION
"fred" <clar...@gmail.com> wrote:
:| The essay referenced below shows the
:|relationship between the 1st and 10th Amendments and religion:
:|
:|http://www.renewamerica.us/readings/keyes_essay.htm
:|
I wonder if fred has noticed that I made his plugging for Keyes more honest
and accurate for the past week or more each time I found his plugging
mantra?
"fred" <clar...@gmail.com> wrote:
:|Separationists and tyrant judges don't want people to know that the
:|10th Amendment actually reserved the power to address religion for the
:|states since the 1st Amendment explicitly prohibited this power to the
:|federal government.
:| The [ Radical Religious Right Theocratic propagandistic ]
:|essay referenced by the link below explains
:|the 1st and 10th Amendments with respect to religion:
:|http://www.renewamerica.us/readings/keyes_essay.htm
**********************************************************************
Meet another theocrat
Meet Alan L. Keyes
Home site
http://www.renewamerica.us/archives/index.htm
Religious Liberty as defined by him
http://www.renewamerica.us/archives/religious_liberty.htm
Alan Keyes / Alan Dershowitz
Does Organized Religion Hold Answers to the Problems of the 21st Century?
Debate, September 27, 2000
http://www.renewamerica.us/archives/speeches/00_09_27debate.htm
Alan Keyes
On the establishment of religion: What the Constitution really says
August 26, 2003
http://www.renewamerica.us/archives/columns/03_08_26wnd.htm
Positions on Particular Issues
http://www.ourfounder.com/haque/keyes.htm
* Abortion & Euthanasia
* Affirmative Action
* Homosexual Rights
* Religion / School Prayer
* School Choice
* Second Amendment Rights
* Sex Education
* Taxes & Government Spending
* United Nations
* Welfare / Family Disintegration
*******************************************************************
wrote in message
The Tenth Amendment was altered so that it really isn't as clear as many
people seem to think
(1) THE TENTH AMENDMENT
(2) THE BILL OF RIGHTS & THE TENTH AMENDMENT,
(3) THERE HAVE BEEN ATTEMPTS TO UNDERMINE WHAT THE FOUNDERS PASSED BY
ADDING THE WORD EXPRESSLY TO THE TENTH AMENDMENT: THE BATTLE OVER THE TENTH
AMENDMENT: OPENING A SECOND FRONT
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.christianity/msg/45713c229fe82b90?hl=en&
Your shorter link is: http://makeashorterlink.com/?U11651FDB
************************************************************
PART V
ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE:, EVERSON & FOOTNOTES TO EVERSON
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.education/msg/a554494414aff8a5?hl=en&lr=
Your shorter link is: http://makeashorterlink.com/?W13632FDB
*************************************************************
I said it was modified, not revoked. The 1st reads, "Congress shall
make no law ...". The 14th reads "No State shall make ... any law ..."
The 14th modifies the 1st to effectively read, "Congress and the
States shall make no law ..."
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 16:55:12 -0500
From: Josh Rosenbluth to fred
*****************************************************
Fourteenth Amendment, Selective Incorporation
http://candst.tripod.com/14thamend.htm
***************************************************************
[ Snipped the rest your or usual radical religious right theocratic
propaganda ]
***************************************************************
Posting and reading from alt.politics.usa.constitution OR alt.education
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the U.S. and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Religion in disguise |
27 Sep 2005 02:13:27 PM |
|
|
On 27 Sep 2005 09:02:28 -0700, in alt.atheism , "fred"
<clarma1@gmail.com> in
<1127835288.501080.52740@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> wrote:
buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote:
http://thepost.baker.ohiou.edu/E.php?article=E1&date=092605
Religion in disguise
Revisiting an intellectual battle that has raged intermittently for the
last 80 years, a Pennsylvania trial begins this week to decide the
constitutionality of teaching intelligent design in public schools.
Although the issue seems rather simple from an objective standpoint, it has
been complicated by church officials and religious-minded politicians bent
on blurring the line separating church and state. The concept of
You are ignoring that people are simply not buying the double talk
being put out by organizations like talk.origins
talk.origins is a Usenet newsgroup, not an organization.
with respect to
refuting Michael Behe's examples of irreducible complexity.
What examples are they? Mousetraps are not living organisms.
You also continue to ignore that nothing in section 1 of the 14th
Amendment prevents the states from using their power to address
religion, power delegated to them automatically by the 10th Amendment,
to address scientifically based concerns related to irreducible
complexity.
What scientific based concerns?
Just wait until people find out that the Supreme Court has been lying
to them about the establishment clause.
What lies?
[snip]
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
Genocide is news | Be A Witness
http://www.beawitness.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
www.darfurgenocide.org
Save Darfur.org :: Violence and Suffering in Sudan's Darfur Region
http://www.savedarfur.org/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Religion in disguise |
27 Sep 2005 02:19:48 PM |
|
|
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com>:
On 27 Sep 2005 09:02:28 -0700, in alt.atheism , "fred"
<clarma1@gmail.com> in
<1127835288.501080.52740@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> wrote:
buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote:
http://thepost.baker.ohiou.edu/E.php?article=E1&date=092605
Religion in disguise
Revisiting an intellectual battle that has raged intermittently for the
last 80 years, a Pennsylvania trial begins this week to decide the
constitutionality of teaching intelligent design in public schools.
Although the issue seems rather simple from an objective standpoint, it has
been complicated by church officials and religious-minded politicians bent
on blurring the line separating church and state. The concept of
You are ignoring that people are simply not buying the double talk
being put out by organizations like talk.origins
talk.origins is a Usenet newsgroup, not an organization.
Oh, hey, I've previously brought up, for Fred's benefit, objections
to Behe based not on `talk.origins', but on various books which
deal specifically with exactly this. Typically he then argues
pretty much about everything but the thrust of what I brought
up, then goes silent for a period of time ... and then begins
all over again again with "scientists won't deal with Behe's objections..."
You're wasting your time here.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Religion in disguise |
27 Sep 2005 03:56:19 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 19:19:48 +0000 (UTC), in alt.atheism ,
cary@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) in
<dhc60k$c9i$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu> wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com>:
On 27 Sep 2005 09:02:28 -0700, in alt.atheism , "fred"
<clarma1@gmail.com> in
<1127835288.501080.52740@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> wrote:
buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote:
http://thepost.baker.ohiou.edu/E.php?article=E1&date=092605
Religion in disguise
Revisiting an intellectual battle that has raged intermittently for the
last 80 years, a Pennsylvania trial begins this week to decide the
constitutionality of teaching intelligent design in public schools.
Although the issue seems rather simple from an objective standpoint, it has
been complicated by church officials and religious-minded politicians bent
on blurring the line separating church and state. The concept of
You are ignoring that people are simply not buying the double talk
being put out by organizations like talk.origins
talk.origins is a Usenet newsgroup, not an organization.
Oh, hey, I've previously brought up, for Fred's benefit, objections
to Behe based not on `talk.origins', but on various books which
deal specifically with exactly this. Typically he then argues
pretty much about everything but the thrust of what I brought
up, then goes silent for a period of time ... and then begins
all over again again with "scientists won't deal with Behe's objections..."
You're wasting your time here.
I am not trying to change his mind. The best I can hope for is
correcting errors. If someone else changes their mind, all the better.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
Genocide is news | Be A Witness
http://www.beawitness.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
www.darfurgenocide.org
Save Darfur.org :: Violence and Suffering in Sudan's Darfur Region
http://www.savedarfur.org/
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Religion in disguise |
28 Sep 2005 07:28:09 AM |
|
|
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
:|I am not trying to change his mind. The best I can hope for is
:|correcting errors. If someone else changes their mind, all the better.
fred is just one more in a long line of bot like trolls that will keep on
as long as anyone will reply to him.
No one takes him seriously except brand newbies that don't know any better,
but even they quickly learn what he is about.
You almost never see anyone actually agreeing with him and even less anyone
actually agreeing with him and providing any valid data that supports him.
Anyone who thinks a idiot like Alan Keyes is the ultimate and final word on
anything is truly out to lunch.
***************************************************************
Posting and reading from alt.politics.usa.constitution OR alt.education
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the U.S. and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: Religion in disguise |
27 Sep 2005 10:45:48 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 14:13:27 -0500, Matt Silberstein wrote
(in article <jc6jj15g9nvoa2o71bnqjn4vcsvgm3af1c@4ax.com>):
On 27 Sep 2005 09:02:28 -0700, in alt.atheism , "fred"
<clarma1@gmail.com> in
<1127835288.501080.52740@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> wrote:
buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote:
http://thepost.baker.ohiou.edu/E.php?article=E1&date=092605
Religion in disguise
Revisiting an intellectual battle that has raged intermittently for the
last 80 years, a Pennsylvania trial begins this week to decide the
constitutionality of teaching intelligent design in public schools.
Although the issue seems rather simple from an objective standpoint, it has
been complicated by church officials and religious-minded politicians bent
on blurring the line separating church and state. The concept of
You are ignoring that people are simply not buying the double talk
being put out by organizations like talk.origins
talk.origins is a Usenet newsgroup, not an organization.
Yeah, right; that's what they /all/ say (and you know how "they" are).
with respect to
refuting Michael Behe's examples of irreducible complexity.
What examples are they? Mousetraps are not living organisms.
Well, sorta but not 'zactly. The last mousetrap I had weighed 11 pounds and
shopped at the Boutique for the Cunning Feline.
You also continue to ignore that nothing in section 1 of the 14th
Amendment prevents the states from using their power to address
religion, power delegated to them automatically by the 10th Amendment,
to address scientifically based concerns related to irreducible
complexity.
What scientific based concerns?
Heck, what "irreducible complexity"? If it's "irreducible", then it's
"simple". I'm beginning to see from where ("and when" - of course) the
nickname of "Brain-Dead Fred" was derived [and why].
Just wait until people find out that the Supreme Court has been lying
to them about the establishment clause.
What lies?
Methinks that Brain-Dead Fred has not reduced "Supreme" down to "irreducible
complexity". There are - as far as I know - but remember I'm from Mississippi
- only two ways for the Supreme Court to be "corrected".
1. to reverse itself
2. for the Constitution to be amended
Both have been done but neither because some anonymous poster on the great,
intellectual UseNet has - in her/his/its arrogance - unfounded arrogance, at
that - jumped up and down and held her/his/its breath and screamed that
s/he/it was going to hold her/his/its breath and you'll all be sorry when I
die.
Deadhead Fred apparently thinks quite a bit more of her/him/itself than
anyone else does. Or everyone else does, for that matter.
[snip]
"[snip]" intentionally left blank.
Gray Shockley
--------------------------
Yes; and that, too. Also.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|

|
Related Articles |
|
|