It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

UK bans teaching of creationism in any school that receives public funding

page: 7
42
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 02:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: ISawItFirst
Must have next to zero faith in that scientific backing if you need to legislate away competing theories.


It's NOT a competing theory though. It's BARELY a hypothesis. And it isn't being legislated away. Schools just aren't being allowed to teach it in science class (since it isn't science).
edit on 25-6-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 02:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: ISawItFirst
Must have next to zero faith in that scientific backing if you need to legislate away competing theories.


It's NOT a competing theory though. It's BARELY a hypothesis. And it isn't being legislated away. Schools just aren't being allowed to teach it in science class (since it isn't science).


Too proud to apologize. Well that comes before the fall. The article said nothing about science class. It said "no school shall teach.."

Black holes were barely a hypothetis, then they were stone cold fact now they are being questioned yet again.
edit on 25-6-2015 by ISawItFirst because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 02:42 PM
link   
a reply to: ISawItFirst

Dude I just read it and agree with Krazy you are in the wrong here.
Krazy has no need to say sorry to you at all so stop it please.



posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 02:45 PM
link   
a reply to: boymonkey74

He doesn't owe me an apology for being wrong, neither do you. Everyone is wrong at one time or another. There is a right way to be wrong though.

And if you cannot see that it is clear confirmation bias.

Maryland constitution requires a belief in God, any God, to be a witness or a juror. It is plain english, you are both being willfully ignorant.

Perhaps where you came from they legislated away the meaning of subject, predicate and prepositional phrases. If you can't read simple English I cannot help you.

You would have a much better time saying it is old and outdated and written in a different time, and as such is not really applicable nor has it ever been challenged with case law, to my knowledge anyhow.
edit on 25-6-2015 by ISawItFirst because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 02:48 PM
link   
a reply to: ISawItFirst

To be honest I don't care what ever your back water state thinks or wants from it's people.
This thread is about the UK and the fact that we don't have creation myths in our science classes which is a good thing.
Maryland? lol.

Also you did say you needed to believe in god to be an American (which is poppycock) so.....
edit on 25-6-2015 by boymonkey74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 02:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: ISawItFirst
a reply to: Krazysh0t

You are being willfully ignorant,you know how to read and what thay sentence says. There is no if.

Will not be deemed incompetent for religiousbeliefs provided he believes in God.

You sir have no honor without an apology and I will make sure everyone knows it.


Oh NO! Some guy on the internet with a reading comprehension problem and clear cognitive dissonance thinks I have no honor! Time to go commit Seppuku then!
edit on 25-6-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 02:54 PM
link   
a reply to: ISawItFirst


“explicitly require that pupils are taught about the theory of evolution, and prevent academy trusts from teaching ‘creationism’ as scientific fact.”


Looks clear as day to me. You can't teach Creationism as science. I mean you are on a ROLL with the reading comprehension fails. Did you pass all your English classes in high school?
edit on 25-6-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 02:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Wow, I had a lot of respect for you, and I'm sure I will still read your posts on other topics with great interest.

The sentence is entirely unambiguous. I'm sorry it challenges your worldview. It is fact however. I didn't write it, I don't necessarily agree with it, but there it is in black and white. You derided my "theory" and chastised me when you believed no state constitution could say such a thing, and when presented with clear evidence to the contrary you cover your ears and start shouting.

Wow, I thought I had a skeptic on here that could teach me something, but you are more blind than the most evangelical door knocker. I am really, really dissapointed.

I enjoyed your logic, now it is all suspect as you can't even read a sentence properly.



posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 03:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: ISawItFirst

originally posted by: Blazemore2000
a reply to: Prezbo369

I wish the U.S. would follow suit. Unfortunately, there are too many religious fanatics in politics for it to have much of a chance.


Such a law would be unconstitutional in many states.


The very concept of American freedom requires belief in a God. It doesn't matter what you call it, or what you think it looks like, but if you don't have a god, flying spaghetti monster, whatever, you are not a true American. Sorry for your luck.

The new America will be a very very sad place.



No dude you said American freedom requires a belief in God....Maryland is not just the only American place.
Reading this again...it may be one of the dumbest posts ever on ATS...well done.



posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 03:02 PM
link   
a reply to: ISawItFirst

How about this one:

Art. 37. That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God; nor shall the Legislature prescribe any other oath of office than the oath prescribed by this Constitution.

So you can't work for the state either. Still think you are American?


Show me the If in this one. You are dead wrong. Swallow your pride and apologize.



posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 03:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: ISawItFirst
a reply to: Krazysh0t

You are being willfully ignorant,you know how to read and what thay sentence says. There is no if.

Will not be deemed incompetent for religiousbeliefs provided he believes in God.

You sir have no honor without an apology and I will make sure everyone knows it.


Oh NO! Some guy on the internet with a reading comprehension problem and clear cognitive dissonance thinks I have no honor! Time to go commit Seppuku then!
You can borrow my Tachi.

Though I can't promise I'll stand beside you to behead you if you flinch.



posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 03:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: ISawItFirst
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Wow, I had a lot of respect for you, and I'm sure I will still read your posts on other topics with great interest.


Awesome. Always great to have a fan.


The sentence is entirely unambiguous. I'm sorry it challenges your worldview. It is fact however. I didn't write it, I don't necessarily agree with it, but there it is in black and white. You derided my "theory" and chastised me when you believed no state constitution could say such a thing, and when presented with clear evidence to the contrary you cover your ears and start shouting.


But you haven't proved anything and since you posted that excerpt from the Maryland Constitution, two other posters have agreed with me. I even outlined EXACTLY what each of the parts of that article meant as written. Then even IF you were correct, a state Constitution CANNOT override the country's Constitution, which, according to the 1st Amendment, says that my religious beliefs are 100% protected. So in other words, if the state Constitution said what you think it says, it would be unconstitutional in the eyes of the country's Constitution. So I'd STILL be right, if only technically right.


Wow, I thought I had a skeptic on here that could teach me something, but you are more blind than the most evangelical door knocker. I am really, really dissapointed.


I can't teach you anything if you refuse to listen to opposing view points and admit when you are wrong (as pointed out by not only me, but two other posters).


I enjoyed your logic, now it is all suspect as you can't even read a sentence properly.


Oh well. I've made plenty of enemies here at ATS. I'm not too concerned with one more. When your reading comprehension improves, maybe we can see eye to eye again.
edit on 25-6-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 03:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: boymonkey74

originally posted by: ISawItFirst

originally posted by: Blazemore2000
a reply to: Prezbo369

I wish the U.S. would follow suit. Unfortunately, there are too many religious fanatics in politics for it to have much of a chance.


Such a law would be unconstitutional in many states.


The very concept of American freedom requires belief in a God. It doesn't matter what you call it, or what you think it looks like, but if you don't have a god, flying spaghetti monster, whatever, you are not a true American. Sorry for your luck.

The new America will be a very very sad place.



No dude you said American freedom requires a belief in God....Maryland is not just the only American place.
Reading this again...it may be one of the dumbest posts ever on ATS...well done.


Maryland is not just the only American place. I don't know what that means. That might be the ignorant thing ever typed. No, it is Maryland. That is a state. America is made of member states, or didn't you know that. DC is an American place, so is Puerto rico, but they are not states and their people do not get the same benefits as citizens now called residents, of the several states.



posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 03:10 PM
link   
a reply to: ISawItFirst

Can you attempt to stay on topic please?.
Make your own thread about it I'm sure it will be very popular.
(I mean it make a thread saying you have to believe in God to be American I dare you).



posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 03:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: ISawItFirst
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Wow, I had a lot of respect for you, and I'm sure I will still read your posts on other topics with great interest.


Awesome. Always great to have a fan.


The sentence is entirely unambiguous. I'm sorry it challenges your worldview. It is fact however. I didn't write it, I don't necessarily agree with it, but there it is in black and white. You derided my "theory" and chastised me when you believed no state constitution could say such a thing, and when presented with clear evidence to the contrary you cover your ears and start shouting.


But you haven't proved anything and since you posted that excerpt from the Maryland Constitution, two other posters have agreed with me. I even outlined EXACTLY what each of the parts of that article meant as written. Then even IF you were correct, a state Constitution CANNOT override the country's Constitution, which, according to the 1st Amendment, says that my religious beliefs are 100% protected. So in other words, if the state Constitution said what you think it says, it would be unconstitutional in the eyes of the country's Constitution. So I'd STILL be right, if only technically right.


Wow, I thought I had a skeptic on here that could teach me something, but you are more blind than the most evangelical door knocker. I am really, really dissapointed.


I can't teach you anything if you refuse to listen to opposing view points and admit when you are wrong (as pointed out by not only me, but two other posters).


I enjoyed your logic, now it is all suspect as you can't even read a sentence properly.


Oh well. I've made plenty of enemies here at ATS. I'm not too concerned with one more. When your reading comprehension improves, maybe we can see eye to eye again.


Wow you are wrong. Now it's your turn to cite. Where in the Constituion does it say ANYTHING about what a state can or can not put it it's constitution.

Just who do you think the 1st ammendment applies to? You are in desperate need of a US civics lesson.

We are not even remotely close to done with the MD Constituion. I Strongly suggest you read the entire thing, you will see it is throughout the document.

And as I said before, the language in the MD Constituion is weaker than many others.
edit on 25-6-2015 by ISawItFirst because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 03:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Prezbo369

You can not evolve unless created first, you can not create something and expect it to not evolve.



posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 03:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: ISawItFirst
Wow you are wrong. Now it's your turn to cite. Where in the Constituion does it say ANYTHING about what a state can or can not put it it's constitution.


Um... The Tenth Amendment...


Just who do you think the 1st ammendment applies to? You are in desperate need of a US civics lesson.


All Americans...


We are not even remotely close to done with the MD Constituion. I Strongly suggest you read the entire thing, you will see it is throughout the document.


*eyeroll* And I'm sure that it is just as NOT demanding that you worship god as the article that you quoted me.


And as I said before, the language in the MD Constituion is weaker than many others.


And as I said, it doesn't matter what any state Constitution says because they can't override the 1st Amendment.



posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 03:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: ISawItFirst

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: ISawItFirst
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Wow, I had a lot of respect for you, and I'm sure I will still read your posts on other topics with great interest.


Awesome. Always great to have a fan.


The sentence is entirely unambiguous. I'm sorry it challenges your worldview. It is fact however. I didn't write it, I don't necessarily agree with it, but there it is in black and white. You derided my "theory" and chastised me when you believed no state constitution could say such a thing, and when presented with clear evidence to the contrary you cover your ears and start shouting.


But you haven't proved anything and since you posted that excerpt from the Maryland Constitution, two other posters have agreed with me. I even outlined EXACTLY what each of the parts of that article meant as written. Then even IF you were correct, a state Constitution CANNOT override the country's Constitution, which, according to the 1st Amendment, says that my religious beliefs are 100% protected. So in other words, if the state Constitution said what you think it says, it would be unconstitutional in the eyes of the country's Constitution. So I'd STILL be right, if only technically right.


Wow, I thought I had a skeptic on here that could teach me something, but you are more blind than the most evangelical door knocker. I am really, really dissapointed.


I can't teach you anything if you refuse to listen to opposing view points and admit when you are wrong (as pointed out by not only me, but two other posters).


I enjoyed your logic, now it is all suspect as you can't even read a sentence properly.


Oh well. I've made plenty of enemies here at ATS. I'm not too concerned with one more. When your reading comprehension improves, maybe we can see eye to eye again.


Wow you are wrong. Now it's your turn to cite. Where in the Constituion does it say ANYTHING about what a state can or can not put it it's constitution.

Just who do you think the 1st ammendment applies to? You are in desperate need of a US civics lesson.

We are not even remotely close to done with the MD Constituion. I Strongly suggest you read the entire thing, you will see it is throughout the document.

And as I said before, the language in the MD Constituion is weaker than many others.
Thank God (See what I did there? Huehue) that I'm not a Maryland resident. I'm a New Mexico resident, technically. Non Technicially I'm a Tokyo resident. They don't require I believe in a God here either. God bless Japan! (I did it again! I'm on a roll!)



posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 03:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

You are in WAY over your heard if you think the 1st ammendment applies to any state or any individual.

Saw you skipped this one. Not enough prepositional phrases for you to obfuscate.

Here again

Art. 37. That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God; nor shall the Legislature prescribe any other oath of office than the oath prescribed by this Constitution.

Shall we go to the oath? It's been years since I read it, but that's better than never, and I'm going to bet it mentions a belief in God. Next your going to tell me the separation of church and state ammendment right? Yeah that will need a cite. It doesn't exist. I know where it did come from, I bet you don't without reaearch.


edit on 25-6-2015 by ISawItFirst because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-6-2015 by ISawItFirst because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 03:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: ISawItFirst
a reply to: Krazysh0t

You are in WAY over your heard if you think the 1st ammendment applies to any state or any individual.

Saw you skipped this one. Not enough prepositional phrases for you to obfuscate.

Here again

Art. 37. That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God; nor shall the Legislature prescribe any other oath of office than the oath prescribed by this Constitution.


This is getting silly... I'm really getting tired of correcting your terrible interpretations of American political documents in a thread about UK political decisions. Especially when you can't admit when you are wrong. So I think I'm done here. I'll let you have the last word. If you HONESTLY believe that a belief in god is required to be an American, then there is nothing more we have to say. You have clearly willingly deceived yourself on this point and nothing I am saying is going to change your mind, and we've carried this topic offtopic long enough. Go to any political forum and bring your point up and see what happens.

One last thing:
So help me God - United States


In the United States, the No Religious Test Clause requires that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." There are federal oaths which do include the phrase "So help me God," such as for justices and judges in 28 U.S.C. § 453.[5]

The phrase "So help me God" is prescribed in oaths as early as the Judiciary Act of 1789, for U.S. officers other than the President. The act makes the semantic distinction between an affirmation and an oath.[6] The oath, religious in essence, includes the phrase "so help me God" and "[I] swear". The affirmation uses "[I] affirm". Both serve the same purpose and are described as one (i.e. "[...] solemnly swear, or affirm, that [...]") [7]

Presidential oath[edit]
Main article: Oath of office of the President of the United States
There is no law that requires Presidents to use a Bible or to add the words "So help me God" at the end of the oath. Historian John R. Alden maintains that Washington himself added the phrase to the end after administration of his first oath.[8] However, all Presidents since Franklin D. Roosevelt have used this phrase, according to Marvin Pinkert, executive director of the National Archives Experience.[9]

Oath of citizenship[edit]
The United States Oath of Citizenship (officially referred to as the "Oath of Allegiance," 8 C.F.R. Part 337 (2008)), taken by all immigrants who wish to become United States citizens, includes the phrase "so help me God"; however 8 C.F.R. 337.1 provides that the phrase is optional.

Military[edit]
The Enlistment oath and officer's Oath of Office both contain this phrase. Normally, it is not required to be said if the speaker has a personal or moral objection, as is true of all oaths administered by the United States government.[citation needed] However, a change in October 2013 to Air Force Instruction 36-2606[10] made it mandatory to include the phrase during Air Force enlistments/reenlistments. This change has made the instruction "consistent with the language mandated in 10 USC 502".[11] The Air Force announced on September 17, 2014, that it revoked this previous policy change, allowing anyone to omit "so help me God" from the oath.[12]

State laws[edit]
Main article: No religious test clause § State law
Some of the states have specified that the words "so help me God" were used in oath of office, and also required of jurors, witnesses in court, notaries public, and state employees. Where this is still the case, there is the possibility of a court challenge over eligibility, as the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961), that such state-law requirements violate citizens' rights under the federal Constitution. Alabama, Connecticut, Delaware, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Mississippi, New Mexico, North Carolina, Texas, and Virginia still require "so help me God" as part of the oath to public office. Maryland and South Carolina did include it, but both have been successfully challenged in court. Other states, including New Hampshire, North Dakota, and Rhode Island, allow exceptions or optional phrases. In Wisconsin, the specific language of the oath has been repealed.


I see a reoccurring theme of the phrase "so help me God" as optional here. But hey according to you I have a reading comprehension problem.
edit on 25-6-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
42
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join