| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
07 Oct 2005 06:39:57 AM |
| Object: |
Separation of church and state, enough said |
http://www.star.niu.edu/articles/?id=11806
Separation of church and state, enough said
Letters to the editor for Wednesday, October 5, 2005.
Intelligent Design states life was fashioned by some creator. By all means,
discuss creationism in private schools or religious classes but not in our
nation’s public schools. Before I proceed, I will call Intelligent Design
creationism because that’s really what it is. "Intelligent Design" is just
a phrase invented to make creationism less "religious" and sound more
"scientific."
Public schools are government institutions, and the U.S. Constitution
declares there will be separation of church and state. It is important we
follow what is written in the Constitution. We are bound to follow the
bylaws written by our founding fathers and ratified by the people of this
nation. In addition to separation of church and state, we also are allowed
freedom of religion, in appropriate venues of course. Public schools are
for formal federal education, and churches are for religious expression.
Evolution, a science, has every right to be taught in science classes, just
as creationism has every right to be taught in church.
Evolution is based on natural selection, not chance. If you have variation,
differential reproduction and heredity, you will have evolution by natural
selection as an outcome, according to
http://evolution.berkeley.edu.
The theory of evolution is much more than just a theory. Theory in normal
usage means a guess or a hunch. But in science, a theory is a principle
that has been verified by experimentation and/or observation, according to
www.religioustolerance.org/ev_stat.htm.
Stating evolution is not science because it is a theory is incorrect and
goes against the definition of the word ‘theory’ when used in science.
Creationism will never be a science because you simply cannot conduct
experiments within an ideology that states, "God did it."
If you are someone who wants to have your children exposed to creationism,
enroll them in private schools or religious classes. The public education
system is not the place to implant agendas where cultural and religious
differences are numerous.
An ideal venue to learn about creationism would be a private school, local
church or a college religious studies course. You know what you are getting
into before you take the class. Parents also are a large part of a child’s
education; this seems to often be forgotten. If your child is learning
about evolution in school and you want him or her to learn about
creationism as well, take him or her to church. That is how I learned both
topics. This should not be a big deal; our founding fathers already cleared
this discussion up more than 200 years ago.
John Boyadjian
Senior, industrial engineering technology major
**************************************************************
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: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Separation of church and state, enough said |
09 Oct 2005 08:06:14 AM |
|
|
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
:|buckeye_ELO@nospam.net wrote:
:|> http://www.star.niu.edu/articles/?id=11806
:|>
:|> Separation of church and state, enough said
:|>
:|> Letters to the editor for Wednesday, October 5, 2005.
:|>
:|> Intelligent Design states life was fashioned by some creator. By all means,
:|> discuss creationism in private schools or religious classes but not in our
:|> nation's public schools. Before I proceed, I will call Intelligent Design
:|> creationism because that's really what it is. "Intelligent Design" is just
:|> a phrase invented to make creationism less "religious" and sound more
:|> "scientific."
:|>
:|> Public schools are government institutions, and the U.S. Constitution
:|> declares there will be separation of church and state.
:|
:|Given the Constitution "declares" there will be separation of church
:|and state, please site the exact clause that declares this and the
:|amendment that these word appear in. And don't give me the crapola
:|about the Supreme Court's lying interpretation of the establishment
:|clause in the Everson opinion. The Everson interpretation of the
:|establishment clause is a prime example of legislating from the bench.
Here troll all you didn't want to know
Study Guide: Separation of Church and State - Indepth
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/studygd0.htm
The Establishment Clause
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/estclause.htm
FURTHER INFORMATION
* Excerpts from James Madison's Autobiography
http://candst.tripod.com/madauto.html
****************************************************
In Virginia, on the other hand where the Anglican establishment
bad been less generous to dissenters than the Congregationalists of New
England, it was rather the radical separationist view which triumphed under
the leadership of Madison and Jefferson. And this Virginia struggle was
the immediate background of the drafting of the First Amendment.
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: John Witherspoon on Church and State, by James
Hastings Nichols. JOURNAL OF PRESBYTERIAN HISTORY, 42, (1964)
pp 171-73)
******************************************************
Joseph Story v. James Madison from the grave
It can be said that the majority court in Marsh as well as the modern ultra
conservatives, some moderate conservatives, religious right,
accommodationmists and non-preferentialist speak the Joseph Story position
while the dissenting opinions in Marsh as well as some moderates and
moderate conservatives, liberals and strict separationists of all walks
speak the Madison position.
****************************************
While all of the opinions in Marsh are deficient to some degree as
a matter of historical analysis, it is clear in a policy sense that the
differences between the majority and the dissenters is but a revival of
the old debate between the Storyites and the Madisonians. As has been
shown, the framers did not resolve this dispute; politics and perhaps even
prudence dictated that they leave its resolution to posterity. These views
form the limits within which legitimate decision making may occur.
SOURCE: Public Prayer and the Constitution: A Case Study in Constitutional
Interpretation, Rodeny K. Smith, Scholarly Resources, Inc. (1987) pp.
257-259
***********************************************************
EVERSON v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF EWING TP., 330 U.S. 1 (1947)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=330&invol=1
Madison's vetoes: Some of The First Official Meanings Assigned to The
Establishment Clause
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/madvetos.htm
and this:
James Madison on Separation of Church and State
Direct references to separation to be found in the writings of James
Madison
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/qmadison.htm
===============================================
[EMPHASIS ADDED]
The still more important fact is that the type of article used in the
establishment clause makes no difference. The First Amendment does not say
that Congress shall not establish a religion or create an establishment of
religion. It says Congress shall make no law RESPECTING an establishment of
religion. Whether "respecting" connotes honoring or concerning, the clause
means that Congress shall make no law on that subject THE BAN IS NOT JUST
ON ESTABLISHMENTS OF RELIGION BUT ON LAWS RESPECTING
THEM, A FACT THAT ALLOWS A LAW TO FALL SHORT OF CREATING AN ESTABLISHMENT
YET STILL BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
(SOURCE: The Establishment Clause, Religion and the First Amendment,
Leonard W. Levy, Second Edition, Revised, The University of North Carolina
Press, (1994) p. 118
-----------------------------------------------
THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE AS DEFINED IN 1947:
-----------------------------------------------
The Establishment Clause as defined by the USSC in Everson v. Bd of Ed,
1947
The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at
least this:
(1) neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church.
(2) Neither can pass laws which aid one religion,
(2a) aid all religions,
(2b) or prefer one religion over another.
(3) Neither can force
(3a) nor influence a person to go to
(3b) or to remain away from church against his will
(3c) or force him to profess a belief
(3d) or disbelief in any religion.
(4) No person can be punished for entertaining [p*16]
(4a) or professing religious beliefs
(4b) or disbeliefs,
(4c) for church attendance
(4d) or non-attendance.
(5) No tax in any amount,
(5a) large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities
(5b) or institutions, whatever they may be called,
(5c) or whatever form they may adopt to teach
(5d) or practice religion.
(6) Neither a state
(6a) nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the
(6b) affairs of any religious organizations
(6c) or groups,
(6d) and vice versa.
************************************
U.S.N.Y. 1973. A law may be one "respecting the establishment of religion'
even though its consequence is not to promote a state religion, and even
though it does not aid one religion more than another but merely benefits
all religions alike. U.S.C.A.Const. Amend. 1.-Committee For Public Ed. and
Rel'g'ous Liberty v, Nyquist, 93 S.Ct. 2955, 413 U.S. 756, 37 L.Ed.2d 948,
concurring opinion Committee for Public Ed. & Religous Lib. v. Nyquist, 93
S,Ct. 2988, 413 U.S. 756, 37 L.Ed.2d 948, dissenting opinion 93 S.Ct, 2993,
413 U.S. 756, 37 L.Ed.2d 948.
Careful examination is required of any law challenged on establishment
grounds, with a view to ascertaining whether it furthers any of evils
against which the establishment clause protects. U.S.C.A.Const. Amend.
I.-Id.
In order to pass muster under establishment clause, law in question must
reflect a clearly secular legislative purpose, have primary effect which
neither advances nor inhibits religion and avoid excessive governmental
entanglement with religion. U.S.C.A.Const. Amend. I.-Id.
Propriety of a legislature's purpose may not immunize from scrutiny a law
which either has primary effect that advances religion or which fosters
excessive entanglements between church and state. U.S.C.A.Const. Amend.
I.-Id.
Absence of any element of coercion is irrelevant to questions arising under
establishment clause, as opposed to free exercise clause, of the First
Amendment. U.S.C.A.Const. Amend. I.-Id.
A proper respect for both the free exercise and the establishment clauses
compels the state to pursue a course of neutrality toward religion.
U.S.C.A.Const. Amend. I.-Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
**************************************************************
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: "fred" |
|
| Title: Re: Separation of church and state, enough said |
07 Oct 2005 03:43:55 PM |
|
|
wrote:
http://www.star.niu.edu/articles/?id=3D11806
Separation of church and state, enough said
Letters to the editor for Wednesday, October 5, 2005.
Intelligent Design states life was fashioned by some creator. By all mean=
s,
discuss creationism in private schools or religious classes but not in our
nation's public schools. Before I proceed, I will call Intelligent Design
creationism because that's really what it is. "Intelligent Design" is just
a phrase invented to make creationism less "religious" and sound more
"scientific."
Public schools are government institutions, and the U.S. Constitution
declares there will be separation of church and state.
Given the Constitution "declares" there will be separation of church
and state, please site the exact clause that declares this and the
amendment that these word appear in. And don't give me the crapola
about the Supreme Court's lying interpretation of the establishment
clause in the Everson opinion. The Everson interpretation of the
establishment clause is a prime example of legislating from the bench.
It is important we
follow what is written in the Constitution.
What hypocrisy! The lying interpretation of the establishment in the
Everson opinion is not the common sense interpretation of the
establishment clause in the 1st Amendment.
We are bound to follow the
bylaws written by our founding fathers and ratified by the people of this
nation.
What do you mean bylaws? You've swept the Bill of Rights under the
carpet already!
In addition to separation of church and state, we also are allowed
freedom of religion, in appropriate venues of course. Public schools are
for formal federal education, and churches are for religious expression.
So much for what the Founding Fathers had in mind:
Thus we have teachers of languages, teachers of mathematics, of natural
philosophy, of chemistry, of medicine, of law, of history, of
government, etc. Religion, too, is a separate department, and happens
to be the only one deemed requisite for all men, however high or low.
-- --Thomas Jefferson to P. H. Wendover, 1815.
Evolution, a science, has every right to be taught in science classes, ju=
st
as creationism has every right to be taught in church.
Evolution is guesswork. How can scientists irrefutably prove that
evolution processes took millions of years to complete when the
repeatable, scientific method experiments necessary for such proof
would likewise have to last millions of years also?
Evolution is based on natural selection, not chance. If you have variatio=
n,
differential reproduction and heredity, you will have evolution by natural
selection as an outcome, according to
http://evolution.berkeley.edu.
SHOW ME the repeatable experiments based on the scientific method which
irrefutably prove that evolution is based on natural selection, not
chance.
The theory of evolution is much more than just a theory. Theory in normal
usage means a guess or a hunch. But in science, a theory is a principle
that has been verified by experimentation and/or observation, according to
www.religioustolerance.org/ev_stat.htm.
Stating evolution is not science because it is a theory is incorrect and
goes against the definition of the word 'theory' when used in science.
Atheists have pirated the informal evolution idea that life originated
as a chance happening to mudsling Christians.
Creationism will never be a science because you simply cannot conduct
experiments within an ideology that states, "God did it."
I agree that creationism is not a science. But I will again note that
neither is evolution a science. Evolution is not a science because
evolution "scientists" cannot irrefutably verify their assertions about
evolution processes with repeatable experiments based on the scientific
method. Again, this is because such experiments would necessarily take
millions of years to perform.
If you are someone who wants to have your children exposed to creationism,
enroll them in private schools or religious classes. The public education
system is not the place to implant agendas where cultural and religious
differences are numerous.
You are wrong about the public education system. Again, the Founding
Fathers did not intend for religion to be ostracized from the public
schools:
Thus we have teachers of languages, teachers of mathematics, of natural
philosophy, of chemistry, of medicine, of law, of history, of
government, etc. Religion, too, is a separate department, and happens
to be the only one deemed requisite for all men, however high or low.
-- --Thomas Jefferson to P. H. Wendover, 1815.
An ideal venue to learn about creationism would be a private school, local
church or a college religious studies course. You know what you are getti=
ng
into before you take the class. Parents also are a large part of a child's
education; this seems to often be forgotten. If your child is learning
about evolution in school and you want him or her to learn about
creationism as well, take him or her to church. That is how I learned both
topics. This should not be a big deal; our founding fathers already clear=
ed
this discussion up more than 200 years ago.
John Boyadjian
Senior, industrial engineering technology major
**************************************************************
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 =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: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Separation of church and state, enough said |
07 Oct 2005 10:48:24 PM |
|
|
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
Evolution, a science, has every right to be taught in science classes, just
as creationism has every right to be taught in church.
Evolution is guesswork.
Not at all. It is science.
How can scientists irrefutably prove
Science never "irrefutably prove" anything. You don't know what
science is.
that
evolution processes took millions of years to complete when the
repeatable, scientific method experiments necessary for such proof
would likewise have to last millions of years also?
Wrong. You don't know how the scientific method works, either.
Evolution is based on natural selection, not chance. If you have variation,
differential reproduction and heredity, you will have evolution by natural
selection as an outcome, according to
http://evolution.berkeley.edu.
SHOW ME the repeatable experiments based on the scientific method
Read any biology journal.
which irrefutably prove
Science isn't about "irrefutable proof". Only religion claims that
its truths are irrefutable.
that evolution is based on natural selection, not chance.
Evolution is based on BOTH natural selection and chance. You don't
seem to know the theory of evolution, either.
The theory of evolution is much more than just a theory. Theory in normal
usage means a guess or a hunch. But in science, a theory is a principle
that has been verified by experimentation and/or observation, according to
www.religioustolerance.org/ev_stat.htm.
Stating evolution is not science because it is a theory is incorrect and
goes against the definition of the word 'theory' when used in science.
Atheists have pirated the informal evolution idea that life originated
as a chance happening to mudsling Christians.
The idea of abiogenesis is not an "evolution idea".
Creationism will never be a science because you simply cannot conduct
experiments within an ideology that states, "God did it."
I agree that creationism is not a science. But I will again note that
neither is evolution a science.
Evolution is part of science. But you don't know what science is, so
you are incompetent to judge.
Evolution is not a science because
evolution "scientists" cannot irrefutably verify their assertions
Science does not require assertion be "irrefutably verify their
assertions". Science requires that assertions be "repeatably
verified". Sufficient repetitions reduce the doubt that any
alternative applies, but science does not expect nor try for
"irrefutability".
about
evolution processes with repeatable experiments based on the scientific
method. Again, this is because such experiments would necessarily take
millions of years to perform.
Experiments in evolutionary science take no longer than in most other
sciences. An "experiment", remember, consists of making a prediction
based on the assumption that the hypothesis is true, and then seeing
if that prediction actually occurs. There are innumerable experiments
that can be performed based on predictions based on evolutionary
theory.
By your standards, the only way intelligent design could be
"scientific" would be for us to create a new species from scratch
which had more intelligence than you have.
Then again, maybe that wouldn't be so hard.
lojbab
--
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill" |
|
| Title: Re: Separation of church and state, enough said |
07 Oct 2005 07:57:49 PM |
|
|
I can't think of anything more destructive of Americas form of government
than to declare any religion the religion of this country.
This is a country populated by people of hundreds of different religious
beliefs, including non at all. Converting this nation
into a religious nation would destroy it.
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1128717835.653274.113390@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
buckeye_ELO@nospam.net wrote:
http://www.star.niu.edu/articles/?id=11806
Separation of church and state, enough said
Letters to the editor for Wednesday, October 5, 2005.
Intelligent Design states life was fashioned by some creator. By all
means,
discuss creationism in private schools or religious classes but not in our
nation's public schools. Before I proceed, I will call Intelligent Design
creationism because that's really what it is. "Intelligent Design" is just
a phrase invented to make creationism less "religious" and sound more
"scientific."
Public schools are government institutions, and the U.S. Constitution
declares there will be separation of church and state.
Given the Constitution "declares" there will be separation of church
and state, please site the exact clause that declares this and the
amendment that these word appear in. And don't give me the crapola
about the Supreme Court's lying interpretation of the establishment
clause in the Everson opinion. The Everson interpretation of the
establishment clause is a prime example of legislating from the bench.
It is important we
follow what is written in the Constitution.
What hypocrisy! The lying interpretation of the establishment in the
Everson opinion is not the common sense interpretation of the
establishment clause in the 1st Amendment.
We are bound to follow the
bylaws written by our founding fathers and ratified by the people of this
nation.
What do you mean bylaws? You've swept the Bill of Rights under the
carpet already!
In addition to separation of church and state, we also are allowed
freedom of religion, in appropriate venues of course. Public schools are
for formal federal education, and churches are for religious expression.
So much for what the Founding Fathers had in mind:
Thus we have teachers of languages, teachers of mathematics, of natural
philosophy, of chemistry, of medicine, of law, of history, of
government, etc. Religion, too, is a separate department, and happens
to be the only one deemed requisite for all men, however high or low.
-- --Thomas Jefferson to P. H. Wendover, 1815.
Evolution, a science, has every right to be taught in science classes,
just
as creationism has every right to be taught in church.
Evolution is guesswork. How can scientists irrefutably prove that
evolution processes took millions of years to complete when the
repeatable, scientific method experiments necessary for such proof
would likewise have to last millions of years also?
Evolution is based on natural selection, not chance. If you have
variation,
differential reproduction and heredity, you will have evolution by natural
selection as an outcome, according to
http://evolution.berkeley.edu.
SHOW ME the repeatable experiments based on the scientific method which
irrefutably prove that evolution is based on natural selection, not
chance.
The theory of evolution is much more than just a theory. Theory in normal
usage means a guess or a hunch. But in science, a theory is a principle
that has been verified by experimentation and/or observation, according to
www.religioustolerance.org/ev_stat.htm.
Stating evolution is not science because it is a theory is incorrect and
goes against the definition of the word 'theory' when used in science.
Atheists have pirated the informal evolution idea that life originated
as a chance happening to mudsling Christians.
Creationism will never be a science because you simply cannot conduct
experiments within an ideology that states, "God did it."
I agree that creationism is not a science. But I will again note that
neither is evolution a science. Evolution is not a science because
evolution "scientists" cannot irrefutably verify their assertions about
evolution processes with repeatable experiments based on the scientific
method. Again, this is because such experiments would necessarily take
millions of years to perform.
If you are someone who wants to have your children exposed to creationism,
enroll them in private schools or religious classes. The public education
system is not the place to implant agendas where cultural and religious
differences are numerous.
You are wrong about the public education system. Again, the Founding
Fathers did not intend for religion to be ostracized from the public
schools:
Thus we have teachers of languages, teachers of mathematics, of natural
philosophy, of chemistry, of medicine, of law, of history, of
government, etc. Religion, too, is a separate department, and happens
to be the only one deemed requisite for all men, however high or low.
-- --Thomas Jefferson to P. H. Wendover, 1815.
An ideal venue to learn about creationism would be a private school, local
church or a college religious studies course. You know what you are
getting
into before you take the class. Parents also are a large part of a child's
education; this seems to often be forgotten. If your child is learning
about evolution in school and you want him or her to learn about
creationism as well, take him or her to church. That is how I learned both
topics. This should not be a big deal; our founding fathers already
cleared
this discussion up more than 200 years ago.
John Boyadjian
Senior, industrial engineering technology major
**************************************************************
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: "Dana" |
|
| Title: Re: Separation of church and state, enough said |
07 Oct 2005 08:13:35 PM |
|
|
"Bill" <wmech@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:uOE1f.200$Yl.90@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
I can't think of anything more destructive of Americas form of government
than to declare any religion the religion of this country.
And the feds have not done so.
This is a country populated by people of hundreds of different religious
beliefs, including non at all. Converting this nation
into a religious nation would destroy it.
We are a religious nation as you just admitted above by stating that we are
populated with people of different religious beliefs.
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1128717835.653274.113390@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
buckeye_ELO@nospam.net wrote:
http://www.star.niu.edu/articles/?id=11806
Separation of church and state, enough said
Letters to the editor for Wednesday, October 5, 2005.
Intelligent Design states life was fashioned by some creator. By all
means,
discuss creationism in private schools or religious classes but not in
our
nation's public schools. Before I proceed, I will call Intelligent
Design
creationism because that's really what it is. "Intelligent Design" is
just
a phrase invented to make creationism less "religious" and sound more
"scientific."
Public schools are government institutions, and the U.S. Constitution
declares there will be separation of church and state.
Given the Constitution "declares" there will be separation of church
and state, please site the exact clause that declares this and the
amendment that these word appear in. And don't give me the crapola
about the Supreme Court's lying interpretation of the establishment
clause in the Everson opinion. The Everson interpretation of the
establishment clause is a prime example of legislating from the bench.
It is important we
follow what is written in the Constitution.
What hypocrisy! The lying interpretation of the establishment in the
Everson opinion is not the common sense interpretation of the
establishment clause in the 1st Amendment.
We are bound to follow the
bylaws written by our founding fathers and ratified by the people of
this
nation.
What do you mean bylaws? You've swept the Bill of Rights under the
carpet already!
In addition to separation of church and state, we also are allowed
freedom of religion, in appropriate venues of course. Public schools are
for formal federal education, and churches are for religious expression.
So much for what the Founding Fathers had in mind:
Thus we have teachers of languages, teachers of mathematics, of natural
philosophy, of chemistry, of medicine, of law, of history, of
government, etc. Religion, too, is a separate department, and happens
to be the only one deemed requisite for all men, however high or low.
-- --Thomas Jefferson to P. H. Wendover, 1815.
Evolution, a science, has every right to be taught in science classes,
just
as creationism has every right to be taught in church.
Evolution is guesswork. How can scientists irrefutably prove that
evolution processes took millions of years to complete when the
repeatable, scientific method experiments necessary for such proof
would likewise have to last millions of years also?
Evolution is based on natural selection, not chance. If you have
variation,
differential reproduction and heredity, you will have evolution by
natural
selection as an outcome, according to
http://evolution.berkeley.edu.
SHOW ME the repeatable experiments based on the scientific method which
irrefutably prove that evolution is based on natural selection, not
chance.
The theory of evolution is much more than just a theory. Theory in
normal
usage means a guess or a hunch. But in science, a theory is a principle
that has been verified by experimentation and/or observation, according
to
www.religioustolerance.org/ev_stat.htm.
Stating evolution is not science because it is a theory is incorrect and
goes against the definition of the word 'theory' when used in science.
Atheists have pirated the informal evolution idea that life originated
as a chance happening to mudsling Christians.
Creationism will never be a science because you simply cannot conduct
experiments within an ideology that states, "God did it."
I agree that creationism is not a science. But I will again note that
neither is evolution a science. Evolution is not a science because
evolution "scientists" cannot irrefutably verify their assertions about
evolution processes with repeatable experiments based on the scientific
method. Again, this is because such experiments would necessarily take
millions of years to perform.
If you are someone who wants to have your children exposed to
creationism,
enroll them in private schools or religious classes. The public
education
system is not the place to implant agendas where cultural and religious
differences are numerous.
You are wrong about the public education system. Again, the Founding
Fathers did not intend for religion to be ostracized from the public
schools:
Thus we have teachers of languages, teachers of mathematics, of natural
philosophy, of chemistry, of medicine, of law, of history, of
government, etc. Religion, too, is a separate department, and happens
to be the only one deemed requisite for all men, however high or low.
-- --Thomas Jefferson to P. H. Wendover, 1815.
An ideal venue to learn about creationism would be a private school,
local
church or a college religious studies course. You know what you are
getting
into before you take the class. Parents also are a large part of a
child's
education; this seems to often be forgotten. If your child is learning
about evolution in school and you want him or her to learn about
creationism as well, take him or her to church. That is how I learned
both
topics. This should not be a big deal; our founding fathers already
cleared
this discussion up more than 200 years ago.
John Boyadjian
Senior, industrial engineering technology major
**************************************************************
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: "James" |
|
| Title: Re: Separation of church and state, enough said |
07 Oct 2005 08:56:13 PM |
|
|
Dana wrote:
"Bill" <wmech@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:uOE1f.200$Yl.90@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
I can't think of anything more destructive of Americas form of government
than to declare any religion the religion of this country.
And the feds have not done so.
This is a country populated by people of hundreds of different religious
beliefs, including non at all. Converting this nation
into a religious nation would destroy it.
We are a religious nation as you just admitted above by stating that we are
populated with people of different religious beliefs.
A nation "with religious peoples" is different than a nation "of
religion." The former would be every country in the world, the latter
would be a theocracy. Without a formal separation of church and state,
the theocracy is a real possibility. And what guarantee do you have
that it'll be a theocracy based out of your particular religious sect?
For instance, look at the Vatican and their position of denying the
Eucharist to politicians that fail to fight against abortion laws. What
would a rational religious person choose, service to their country or
service to their god?
This is why religious politicians should be at best mistrusted, at worst
forbidden, and unconditionally watched closely.
--
James B
aa #944
"A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence."
-David Hume
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Separation of church and state, enough said |
07 Oct 2005 03:58:23 PM |
|
|
In article <1128717835.653274.113390@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> "fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> writes:
buckeye_ELO@nospam.net wrote:
http://www.star.niu.edu/articles/?id=3D11806
Separation of church and state, enough said
Letters to the editor for Wednesday, October 5, 2005.
Intelligent Design states life was fashioned by some creator. By all mean=
s,
discuss creationism in private schools or religious classes but not in our
nation's public schools. Before I proceed, I will call Intelligent Design
creationism because that's really what it is. "Intelligent Design" is just
a phrase invented to make creationism less "religious" and sound more
"scientific."
Public schools are government institutions, and the U.S. Constitution
declares there will be separation of church and state.
Given the Constitution "declares" there will be separation of church
and state, please site the exact clause that declares this and the
amendment that these word appear in.
It's in the section immediately following the paragraph which contains the
phrase "checks and balances".
-- cary
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "The_Sage" |
|
| Title: Re: Separation of church and state, enough said |
07 Oct 2005 08:28:34 PM |
|
|
Reply to article by:
Date written: Fri, 07 Oct 2005 07:39:57 -0400
MsgID:<1knck1hanr8vnc3ij6nqdhbiqnfog9867p@4ax.com>
Separation of church and state, enough said
Letters to the editor for Wednesday, October 5, 2005.
Intelligent Design states life was fashioned by some creator. By all means,
discuss creationism in private schools or religious classes but not in our
nation’s public schools. Before I proceed, I will call Intelligent Design
creationism because that’s really what it is. "Intelligent Design" is just
a phrase invented to make creationism less "religious" and sound more
"scientific."
In other words, it is a lie. Isn't it funny how Christians are so high and
mighty about being moral, including not lying, yet all they ever do is lie?
Public schools are government institutions, and the U.S. Constitution
declares there will be separation of church and state. It is important we
follow what is written in the Constitution. We are bound to follow the
bylaws written by our founding fathers and ratified by the people of this
nation. In addition to separation of church and state, we also are allowed
freedom of religion, in appropriate venues of course. Public schools are
for formal federal education, and churches are for religious expression.
Evolution, a science, has every right to be taught in science classes, just
as creationism has every right to be taught in church.
But if they really would like to have Church and State joined at the hip, then
let them pay taxes like any State sponsored organization would have to and give
*ALL* other religions (ie -- Satanism, JW, Moonies, etc) equal time in the
classroom. I bet they would change their tune real quick like then.
Evolution is based on natural selection, not chance. If you have variation,
differential reproduction and heredity, you will have evolution by natural
selection as an outcome, according to
http://evolution.berkeley.edu.
Evolution is based on the rock solid evidence of fossils, not the vagueness of a
blind faith belief like all religions are.
The theory of evolution is much more than just a theory. Theory in normal
usage means a guess or a hunch. But in science, a theory is a principle
that has been verified by experimentation and/or observation, according to
www.religioustolerance.org/ev_stat.htm.
Stating evolution is not science because it is a theory is incorrect and
goes against the definition of the word ‘theory’ when used in science.
Gravity is "only" a theory too. I guess according to all Creationists, gravity
doesn't exist now too.
Creationism will never be a science because you simply cannot conduct
experiments within an ideology that states, "God did it."
Creationsim will never be a science because it requires belief and science
requires doubt. Whereas science asks questions that cannot be answered, religion
gives answers that cannot be questioned.
If you are someone who wants to have your children exposed to creationism,
enroll them in private schools or religious classes. The public education
system is not the place to implant agendas where cultural and religious
differences are numerous.
If God has something to say to me, then let Him tell me Himself in person.
An ideal venue to learn about creationism would be a private school, local
church or a college religious studies course. You know what you are getting
into before you take the class. Parents also are a large part of a child’s
education; this seems to often be forgotten. If your child is learning
about evolution in school and you want him or her to learn about
creationism as well, take him or her to church. That is how I learned both
topics. This should not be a big deal; our founding fathers already cleared
this discussion up more than 200 years ago.
There once was a time when everyone believed in God and the Church ruled supreme
-- and they called it "The Dark Ages". Let's not repeat history.
The Sage
=============================================================
My Home Page : http://members.cox.net/the.sage
"All those painted screens erected by man to shut out reality
-- history, religion, duty, social position --
all were illusions, mere opium fantasies"
John Fowles, The French Lieutenant's Woman
=============================================================
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
