'Praise Darwin, Evolve Beyond Belief' billboards go up

I have already posted in this thread, and was pretty much ignored on all counts.

The arguments I presented are reasonable, yet went unaddressed by everyone here.

Still, never having been one to give up easily, I post here again making the argument that Creationists should be entitled to 'eqaul time' for the presentation of their particular views in the public educational setting.

After all, they are paying school taxes too ...

Carrying my prior arguments forward just a step further, I would like to assert that Science is merely the official state religion.

Faith in this official religion justifies all kinds of absurd and atrocious state policies, and the average citizen feels obligated to support said policies because, after all, they are based on a solid scientific foundation.

To this I say nonsense !

The scientific approach is just another faith-based approach to understanding our world and the universe at large. Anyone who takes the time to look into it will find that 'science' is based on a large number of unprovable assumptions which are in no way superior to or at all different from the so-called unprovable assumptions or articles of faith of any other religion.

Anyone who has not yet discovered this is little more than a pawn of the system who does themselves and everyone else a great disservice.

Human beings have the ability to think and to reason, to actually figure things out for ourselves, although we are all trained from a very early age to avoid doing so at all costs. We are capable of far more than just lining up behind some absurd set of 'scientific principles', all following along as if we were little more than chimpanzees with speech.

Think about it !

Originally posted by The All Seeing I
A man of science and reason who was character assassinated by the church, for seeking and telling the truth. Copernicus and Galileo had similar fates. Over and over again, and even to this very day we see religion derailing scientific inquiry.

Very true -I found these quotes, some are a bit extreme but they do touch on some quite perceptive points:

"When the great Darwin discovered the law of the origins of species, he was called an Atheist because he disproved the special creation of Man. When the Chemist went into his laboratory and discovered the indestructibility of matter, he was called an Atheist because he proved the impossibility of a Creator. When the Astronomer pointed his telescope toe sky and explored the regions of unlimited space, he was called an Atheist because he found no God within the confines of space, no heaven within the region of his explorations. When the Geologist determined the age of the earth through its rock and soil and formations, he was called an Atheist because he, too, destroyed a belief in the special six-day creation, and exposed the falsity of the biblical cosmogony. When the Historian went back to ancient and prehistoric times, and discovered civilizations of high ethical and moral culture, of intellectual achievements that are still an amazement to us, he was called an Atheist because he exposed the myth of Adam, uncovered the mistakes of Moses, and branded with the epithet of fraud the commands of Jehovah. When the Physician sought to alleviate the pain and suffering of Man, he was called an Atheist because he refused to accept disease as a special visitation of a vengeful God".
Joseph Lewis

"For ages, a deadly conflict has been waged between a few brave men and women of thought and genius upon the one side, and the great ignorant religious mass on the other. This is the war between Science and Faith. The few have appealed to reason, to honor, to law, to freedom, to the known, and to happiness here in this world. The many have appealed to prejudice, to fear, to miracle, to slavery, to the unknown, and to misery hereafter. The few have said "Think" The many have said "Believe!".
Robert Ingersoll


"You find as you look around the world that every single bit of progress in humane feeling, every improvement in the criminal law, every step toward the diminution of war, every step toward better treatment of the colored races, or every mitigation of slavery, every moral progress that there has been in the world, has been consistently opposed by the organized churches of the world. I say quite deliberately that the Christian religion, as organized in its churches, has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world".
Bertrand Russell


"The so-called Christian nations are the most enlightened and progressive...but in spite of their religion, not because of it. The Church has opposed every innovation and discovery from the day of Galileo down to our own time, when the use of anesthetic in childbirth was regarded as a sin because it avoided the biblical curse pronounced against Eve. And every step in astronomy and geology ever taken has been opposed by bigotry and superstition. The Greeks surpassed us in artistic culture and in architecture five hundred years before Christian religion was born."
Mark Twain


"When the churches literally ruled society, the human drama encompassed: (a) slavery; (b) the cruel subjection of women;(c)the most savage forms of legal punishment; (d) the absurd belief that kings ruled by divine right; (e) the daily imposition of physical abuse; (f) cold heartlessness for the sufferings of the poor; as well as (g) assorted pogroms ('ethnic cleansing' wars) between rival religions, capital punishment for literally hundreds of offenses, and countless other daily imposed moral outrages. . . . It was the free-thinking, challenging work by people of conscience, who almost invariably had to defy the religious and political status quo of their times, that brought us out of such darkness."
Steve Allen

"There is in every village a torch-the teacher:and an extinguisher-the clergyman"
Victor Hugo

Science is the great antidote to the poison of enthusiasm and superstition.
Adam Smith

"In the long run, nothing can withstand reason and experience, and the contradiction religion offers to both is palpable."
Sigmund Freud

"Religion is an attempt to explain a subject by men who do not understand it. The intent is not to tell the truth but to satisfy the questioner".
Elbert Hubbard

reply to post by karl 12

It was the free-thinking, challenging work by people of conscience, who almost invariably had to defy the religious and political status quo of their times, that brought us out of such darkness."
Steve Allen

This is beautiful !

Clearly Mr. Allen must be residing on some planet far removed from the one I live on called Earth. Because from where I'm standing things have never been darker, and it is the 'scientists' which have led us here.

Just like in that old fairy-tale, soon it will be time for us all to pay the piper !

Originally posted by visible_villain
Still, never having been one to give up easily, I post here again making the argument that Creationists should be entitled to 'eqaul time' for the presentation of their particular views in the public educational setting.

I'm not even argue about whether Creationists should be entitled equal time, but on whether their ideas should be presented in a public educational setting, well let's not forget that the United States is a secular nation, therefor preaching and spreading religious ideas in a public school is unconstitutional, plain and simple.

Creationism has no scientific basis, no evidence or data to support it's claim, nor does it make any predictions. Creationism is not a scientific theory, it's a religious belief. Since it is a religious belief it is unconstitutional to be taught in public schools.

If Creationism was framed in a scientific way, based on a scientific theory with observations and predictions, then it could be considered an alternative to the theory of Evolution and taught in science classes.

But the argument that Creationism should be taught long side Evolution in science classes is completely ludicrous. Creationism is not science, it doesn't belong in science classes, but that's what religious movements have been trying to do.

I would like to assert that Science is merely the official state religion. Faith in this official religion justifies all kinds of absurd and atrocious state policies, and the average citizen feels obligated to support said policies because, after all, they are based on a solid scientific foundation. To this I say nonsense !

Nonsense is your description of science.

Science is based on observation, gathering of data, experimentation and generating testable models. To say that science is a religion or requires faith is an oxymoron.

The scientific approach is just another faith-based approach to understanding our world and the universe at large. Anyone who takes the time to look into it will find that 'science' is based on a large number of unprovable assumptions which are in no way superior to or at all different from the so-called unprovable assumptions or articles of faith of any other religion.

I'm sorry but if this is your honest opinion regarding science or the scientific method then you are painfully ignorant about it.

Faith is the belief in things not seen, not proven. Science is the complete opposite.

Scientific method refers to bodies of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses. (source)

The mere definition of faith is the opposite of all these things.

Human beings have the ability to think and to reason, to actually figure things out for ourselves, although we are all trained from a very early age to avoid doing so at all costs.

Yes we do have those abilities, and science is the field of exercising those abilities.

And yes we are trained, for the most part, from an early age to avoid thinking and reasoning for ourselves, and that's greatly due to religious dogmas and their respective cultural influences.

Originally posted by visible_villain
Human beings have the ability to think and to reason, to actually figure things out for ourselves, although we are all trained from a very early age to avoid doing so at all costs.

So when the little kids ask their parents what is God and religion and what is purpose of all this (?) you are suggesting we should stay neutral and let the lil' buggers think and decide for themselves ?

Hell no, I will indoctrinate my children into thinking EXACTLY as I do, cuz I love them (so does Jesus BTW), school indoctrination with idea of God is what is gonna set our children free and apart form those perverted European youngsters

Originally posted by visible_villain
Clearly Mr. Allen must be residing on some planet far removed from the one I live on called Earth. Because from where I'm standing things have never been darker, and it is the 'scientists' which have led us here.

Well I don't know what planet you're living on.

If you dislike science so much why don't you just abandon medicine,electricity,automobiles,telephones,air travel,cleaning products,computers (and a myriad of other things you depend on) and go and live in a cave?

Before you go into self imposed exile could you perhaps offer us a viable alternative to the impartial,objective scientific method?

Anything will do - as long as it's not fear based on superstition and ignorance.

Just like in that old fairy-tale, soon it will be time for us all to pay the piper !

Oh I see you're into 'unhinged end times fanaticism' as well.
Why am I not surprised?


[edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12]

April 21, 1649 - The Maryland Toleration Act is passed.

"Be it therefor ... enacted ... that no person or persons whatsoever within this province ... professing to believe in Jesus Christ shall ... henceforth be any ways troubled, molested (or disapproved of) ... in respect of his or her religion nor in the free exercise thereof ..."

Originally posted by karl 12


Well I don't know what planet you're living on.

If you dislike science so much why don't you just abandon medicine,electricity,automobiles,telephones,air travel,cleaning products,computers (and a myriad of other things you depend on) and go and live in a cave?


[edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12]

Oh yes! How did we ever make it this far without the dumb theory of evolution being taught in our public schools!

Let me see now, were they teaching creationism or evolution when the telephone was invented ??

How about the electric lightbulb?

The automobile?

the atom? Yes yes I think it was creationism but in 1947 some Atheist had to mis interpret a letter written to the danbury baptists to mean it was to be integrated into the constitution of the United States when separation powers are nowhere to be found.

The words this is a secular nation is nowhere to be found!

Ill tell you what IS in there and each and everyone of the framers of that contract signed it in full agreement that we have certain unalienable rights we are endowed with by OUR CREATOR!

It doesn't say by Natural Selection or random mutation but OUR CREATOR and I would just BET you,, that the creator they are talking about going by the letters they have written including the one to the danbury baptist, have something to do with the God of the Bible.

In fact

H. Res. 847

In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

December 11, 2007.
Whereas Christmas, a holiday of great significance to Americans and many other cultures and nationalities, is celebrated annually by Christians throughout the United States and the world;

Whereas there are approximately 225,000,000 Christians in the United States, making Christianity the religion of over three-fourths of the American population;

Whereas there are approximately 2,000,000,000 Christians throughout the world, making Christianity the largest religion in the world and the religion of about one-third of the world population;

Whereas Christians and Christianity have contributed greatly to the development of western civilization;

Whereas the United States, being founded as a constitutional republic in the traditions of western civilization, finds much in its history that points observers back to its Judeo-Christian roots;

Whereas on December 25 of each calendar year, American Christians observe Christmas, the holiday celebrating the birth of their savior, Jesus Christ;

Whereas for Christians, Christmas is celebrated as a recognition of God's redemption, mercy, and Grace; and

Whereas many Christians and non-Christians throughout the United States and the rest of the world, celebrate Christmas as a time to serve others: Now, therefore, be it


Resolved, That the House of Representatives--

(1) recognizes the Christian faith as one of the great religions of the world;

(2) expresses continued support for Christians in the United States and worldwide;

(3) acknowledges the international religious and historical importance of Christmas and the Christian faith;

(4) acknowledges and supports the role played by Christians and Christianity in the founding of the United States and in the formation of the western civilization;

(5) rejects bigotry and persecution directed against Christians, both in the United States and worldwide; and

(6) expresses its deepest respect to American Christians and Christians throughout the world.
Attest:

Clerk. thomas.loc.gov...:2:./temp/~c110Ch4KW5::

Jefferson not a Christian?

ultramedia.freehostia.com...

ultramedia.freehostia.com...

I AM SO SICK AND TIRED OF THIS BALONEY

Convergence and his wishfull thinking that this is a secular nation is BUNK. The same laws that exist here to allow Darwins Billboards up are the same ones that allow Religious expression and if it wants to express itself in nature and in science then it should but if Science wants to continue to act as if it is a competing religion, then maybe we should treat it with the same ACLU tactics they have the very ideology to use against Prof. Sternberg.

Our Declaration of Independence and Constitution are based on Judeo-Christian teachings. This does not mean that all the people were ALL Christian. It merely means that there was a Christian consensus and all our founding documents, laws, moral codes and institutions are based on Christian principles. The danbury baptists were afraid the muslims would take control or a specific denomination of Christianity would become the next Church of england. The idea that simply BECAUSE someone BELIEVES in this religion should be kept in Church and out of PUBLIC VEIW is an idea born out of the same Ideology that brought Stalinism to our world.

1772 - Samuel Adams: "The right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty ... The rights of the colonists as Christians may be best understood by reading and carefully studying the institutes of the great Law Giver which are to be found clearly written and promulgated in the New Testament."

Shintoism made Japan what it is. Hinduism made India what it is. Islam made the middle east and North Africa what it is and Christianity made America what she is and and the constant bashing of Christianity while woman get abortions like it was removing a wart and gays want to get married and teen pregnancy goes sky high while other kids in school credit Darwin for shooting all their classmates, serial killers like Jeffery Dahmer say he always thought that people were just animals because that is what they taught in school.

No, sorry, an alternative to this crap called Darwin is needed BADLY and if you can't see that then you are part of the problem. It's interesting people like this talk about tolerance and equal rights yet think thoser terms means everyone but a Christian when it was Christianity that fought just as hard as anyone else for it and Christianity that has got Science off the ground. You want to bring out the extreme anomalies of the religion and say LOOK LOOK is this good behavior!

I could do the same thing and bring up all kinds of garbage atheist regimes and the science of eugenics of Godless societies, that NO country has flourished where their was no religion and those without it died out fast.

1776 - The Declaration of Independence says: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness - That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men ... "

There you have some profound statements


1787 - At an impasse of several weeks at the Constitutional Convention, Benjamin Franklin rose and said:

, "I have lived, Sir, a long time and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth: that God governs in the affairs of man. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can arise without His aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this." He then moved they resort to prayer.

Ben Franklin one of the few ATHEISTS resorting to prayer!
Amazing that someone that intelligent could POSSIBLY endorse such a silly idea but he was a LOT smarter than the atheists we have today who only see religion as the enemy NOT of Science because they don't OWN Science but of their vices

while some in Science THINK they own it www.uncommondescent.com...

The reason grades in science are falling in our public schools today isn't because of religion, in fact has got this bad because of those in control of it now and the majority in a particular and superfluous addon to the science once respected till it turned into a religion, namely BIOLOGY!

1892 - The Supreme Court of the United States after citing 87 precedents decided:

"Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of Mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise: and in this sense and to this extent our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian ... This is a religious people. This is historically true. From the discovery of this continent to the present hour, there is a single voice making this affirmation ... we find everywhere a clear recognition of the same truth. These and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation."

1891 - The U.S. Supreme Court restates that America is a "Christian Nation"

"Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise; and in this sense and to this extent our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian ... this is a religious people. This is historically true. From the discovery of this continent to the present hour, there is a single voice making this affirmation ... we find everywhere a clear definition of the same truth ... this is a Christian nation." (Church of the Holy Trinity vs. United States, 143 US 457, 36 L ed 226, Justice Brewer)

This IS and always WAS a Christian Nation



[edit on 18-2-2009 by Aermacchi]

reply to post by Aermacchi


Ranting away about non provable opinion won't solve anything.

Just who are you trying to convince?

Apt Quotes:

"Think of how many religions attempt to validate themselves with prophecy. Think of how many people rely on these prophecies, however vague, however unfulfilled, to support or prop up their beliefs. Yet has there ever been a religion with the prophetic accuracy and reliability of science? ... No other human institution comes close".
Carl Sagan

"I do not believe any type of religion should ever be introduced into the public schools of the United States."
Thomas Edison

“I have examined all the known superstitions of the word, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half of the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth.
Thomas Jefferson

Originally posted by karl 12
reply to post by Aermacchi

 

Ranting away about non provable opinion won't solve anything.

Just who are you trying to convince?

Apt Quotes:

"Think of how many religions attempt to validate themselves with prophecy. Think of how many people rely on these prophecies, however vague, however unfulfilled, to support or prop up their beliefs. Yet has there ever been a religion with the prophetic accuracy and reliability of science? ... No other human institution comes close".
Carl Sagan

"I do not believe any type of religion should ever be introduced into the public schools of the United States."
Thomas Edison

“I have examined all the known superstitions of the word, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half of the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth.
Thomas Jefferson

Thomas Jefferson to Charles Thomson Monticello, January 9, 1816
MY DEAR AND ANCIENT FRIEND,

-- An acquaintance of fifty-two years, for I think ours dates from 1764, calls for an interchange of notice now and then, that we remain in existence, the monuments of another age, and examples of a friendship unaffected by the jarring elements by which we have been surrounded, of revolutions of government, of party and of opinion. I am reminded of this duty by the receipt, through our friend Dr. Patterson, of your synopsis of the four Evangelists.

I had procured it as soon as I saw it advertised, and had become familiar with its use; but this copy is the more valued as it comes from your hand. This work bears the stamp of that accuracy which marks everything from you, and will be useful to those who, not taking things on trust, recur for themselves to the fountain of pure morals. I, too, have made a wee-little book from the same materials, which I call the Philosophy of Jesus;

it is a paradigma of his doctrines, made by cutting the texts out of the book, and arranging them on the pages of a blank book, in a certain order of time or subject. A more beautiful or precious morsel of ethics I have never seen; it is a document in proof that I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus, very different from the Platonists, who call me infidel and themselves Christians and preachers of the gospel, while they draw all their characteristic dogmas from what its author never said nor saw.

They have compounded from the heathen mysteries a system beyond the comprehension of man, of which the great reformer of the vicious ethics and deism of the Jews, were he to return on earth, would not recognize one feature.

If I had time I would add to my little book the Greek, Latin and French texts, in columns side by side. And I wish I could subjoin a translation of Gosindi's Syntagma of the doctrines of Epicurus, which, notwithstanding the calumnies of the Stoics and caricatures of Cicero, is the most rational system remaining of the philosophy of the ancients, as frugal of vicious indulgence, and fruitful of virtue as the hyperbolical extravagances of his rival sects.


I retain good health, am rather feeble to walk much, but ride with ease, passing two or three hours a day on horseback, and every three or four months taking in a carriage a journey of ninety miles to a distant possession, where I pass a good deal of my time. My eyes need the aid of glasses by night, and with small print in the day also; my hearing is not quite so sensible as it used to be; no tooth shaking yet, but shivering and shrinking in body from the cold we now experience, my thermometer having been as low as 12 degrees this morning. My greatest oppression is a correspondence afflictingly laborious, the extent of which I have been long endeavoring to curtail.

This keeps me at the drudgery of the writing-table all the prime hours of the day, leaving for the gratification of my appetite for reading, only what I can steal from the hours of sleep. Could I reduce this epistolary corvee within the limits of my friends and affairs, and give the time redeemed from it to reading and reflection, to history, ethics, mathematics, my life would be as happy as the infirmities of age would admit, and I should look on its consummation with the composure of one "qui summum nec me tuit diem nec optat."

So much as to myself, and I have given you this string of egotisms in the hope of drawing a similar one from yourself. I have heard from others that you retain your health, a good degree of activity, and all the vivacity and cheerfulness of your mind, but I wish to learn it more minutely from yourself. How has time affected your health and spirits? What are your amusements, literary and social?

Tell me everything about yourself, because all will be interesting to me who retains for you ever the same constant and affectionate friendship and respect.

You want to blame RELIGION for things what man has done? You ever hear of the logical fallacy of killing the messenger?

I can do the same ignorance with Science let me tell you because their has been many tragic outcomes due directly to science and scientists but I don't get into tit for tat logical fallacy games that you seem to insist we get into No thanks

You answered my post in under 5 mins after I posted it

Why should I read yours when you don't read mine

I tell you what,, welcome to my ignore list if that is how you want it


'



[edit on 18-2-2009 by Aermacchi]

Originally posted by Aermacchi
The words this is a secular nation is nowhere to be found!

Then besides being ignorant about Evolution, assuming you're American, you're also ignorant about your own country's Constitution.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. source

Here, do some reading on the Establishment Clause.

Originally posted by converge

Originally posted by Aermacchi
The words this is a secular nation is nowhere to be found!

Then besides being ignorant about Evolution, assuming you're American, you're also ignorant about your own country's Constitution.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. source

Here, do some reading on the Establishment Clause.

I have read over one hundred books on evolution and just because I don't agree with it does NOT mean I don't understand it.

Not everyone who does not agree to it means YOU are smarter than they are so get off your high horse.

Sorry guy it is YOU that has to understand what that means and it means NO religion becomes THEE religion like the Church of England. The freedom of expression does NOT mean ONLY in Church and you know why I know that it doesn't mean that??

Because IT DOESN'T SAY THAT!

It basically says when it comes to religion the Government stays out of it. That doesn't mean it get to play referee

Got it?




[edit on 18-2-2009 by Aermacchi]

Originally posted by Aermacchi
Sorry guy it is YOU that has to understand what that means.

Oh no, I'm pretty sure it's you.

It basically says when it comes to religion the Government stays out of it. That doesn't mean it plays referee
Got it?

Prohibiting an establishment of religion means that the state is secular.

By the way, not "playing referee"? Clearly you don't understand the concept of a secular state.

Further important decisions came in the 1960s, during the Warren Court era. One of the Court's most controversial decisions came in Engel v. Vitale in 1962. The case involved the mandatory daily recitation by public school officials of a prayer written by the New York Board of Regents, which read "Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our Country". The Supreme Court deemed it unconstitutional and struck it down, with Justice Black writing "it is no part of the official business of government to compose official prayers for any group of American people to recite as part of a religious program carried out by the Government."

In Abington Township v. Schempp (1963), the case involving the mandatory reading of the Lord's Prayer in class, the Supreme Court introduced the "secular purpose" and "primary effect" tests, which were to be used to determine compatibility with the establishment clause. Essentially, the law in question must have a valid secular purpose, and its primary effect must not be to promote or inhibit a particular religion. Since the law requiring the recital of the Lord's Prayer violated these tests, it was struck down.

In Wallace v. Jaffree (1985), the Supreme Court struck down an Alabama law whereby students in public schools would observe daily a period of silence for the purpose of private prayer. The Court did not, however, find that the moment of silence was itself unconstitutional. Rather, it ruled that Alabama lawmakers had passed the statute solely to advance religion, thereby violating the secular purpose test.

In Lee v. Weisman (1992), the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional the offering of prayers by religious officials before voluntarily attended ceremonies such as graduation. Thus, the Court established that the state could not conduct religious exercises at public occasions even if attendance was not strictly compulsory. In Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe (2000), the Court ruled that even a vote of the student body could not authorize student-led prayer prior to school events.

In 2002, controversy centered on a ruling by the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow (2002), which struck down a California law providing for the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance (which includes the phrase "under God") in classrooms.

I find it funny that you blame karl12 for not reading your post but you don't even bother to read mine, because if you had, you had realized how misinformed your previous post was.

Or maybe I'm just expecting too much out of you.

[edit on 18-2-2009 by converge]

Originally posted by converge

Originally posted by Aermacchi
Sorry guy it is YOU that has to understand what that means.

Oh no, I'm pretty sure it's you.

It basically says when it comes to religion the Government stays out of it. That doesn't mean it plays referee
Got it?

Prohibiting an establishment of religion means that the state is secular.

By the way, not "playing referee"? Clearly you don't understand the concept of a secular state.

Further important decisions came in the 1960s, during the Warren Court era. One of the Court's most controversial decisions came in Engel v. Vitale in 1962. The case involved the mandatory daily recitation by public school officials of a prayer written by the New York Board of Regents, which read "Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our Country". The Supreme Court deemed it unconstitutional and struck it down, with Justice Black writing "it is no part of the official business of government to compose official prayers for any group of American people to recite as part of a religious program carried out by the Government."

In Abington Township v. Schempp (1963), the case involving the mandatory reading of the Lord's Prayer in class, the Supreme Court introduced the "secular purpose" and "primary effect" tests, which were to be used to determine compatibility with the establishment clause. Essentially, the law in question must have a valid secular purpose, and its primary effect must not be to promote or inhibit a particular religion. Since the law requiring the recital of the Lord's Prayer violated these tests, it was struck down.

In Wallace v. Jaffree (1985), the Supreme Court struck down an Alabama law whereby students in public schools would observe daily a period of silence for the purpose of private prayer. The Court did not, however, find that the moment of silence was itself unconstitutional. Rather, it ruled that Alabama lawmakers had passed the statute solely to advance religion, thereby violating the secular purpose test.

In Lee v. Weisman (1992), the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional the offering of prayers by religious officials before voluntarily attended ceremonies such as graduation. Thus, the Court established that the state could not conduct religious exercises at public occasions even if attendance was not strictly compulsory. In Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe (2000), the Court ruled that even a vote of the student body could not authorize student-led prayer prior to school events.

In 2002, controversy centered on a ruling by the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow (2002), which struck down a California law providing for the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance (which includes the phrase "under God") in classrooms.

I find it funny that you blame karl12 for not reading your post but you don't even bother to read mine, because if you had, you had realized how misinformed your previous post was.

Or maybe I'm just expecting too much out of you.

The problem is I have read yours and answered them have I not? My posts are longer and address the response . You only say this about Karl because you side with his opinion

I can make just as many posts showing just as many quotes from the supreme court to the contrary of all of yours and one thing you'll notice if you pay close attention is they are ALL between Christian and Atheists all the way back to when this country was started.

NOT HINDU

NOT ISLAM

NOT BUDDHIST

BUT CHRISTIAN!

That ought to tell you something.

Teaching ID Science is not teaching religion and if the concept of a creating force an intelligent hand was behind our being here why wouldn't science want to know? They scared ? If you can muster the wit, tell me, what religion is GOD anyway? Baptist? Catholic? Islam?

You can't tell me because you don't know! So why then do we know GOD IS a religion when it comes to teaching alternative theory in school?

The idea that ID answers abiogenesis is wrong, it doesn't talk to that for the same reasons Darwinists gave up on that. That doesn't mean it can't show a process for design just because it cannot prove a designer. If you are going to hold that science to the logical fallacy of assuming the consequent then we have every right to insist darwinists do the same.

They will say NOOOO we only show what might have happened after life started! Gee I wonder why pffft!

Oh and by the way, secular humanism was found to be a religion by the supreme court, so again it does NOT mean the country is secular because that would be a state religion! It only means the distinction for the two is that one is not the same philosophical meaning NOT that it is the defacto ideology of the United States and for that reason gets to win every argument.

It means that NO religion will be THEE religion INCLUDING secular humanism. It only states what it is NOT, NOT what it is.

This battle in the courts has been going on and on but I am not your enemy, hell I don't even know if you live here

There are two basic approaches to defining religion: a substantive approach, which focuses on the content of belief; and a functional approach, which focuses on what the belief system does for the individual or community. As James Davison Hunter explains:

The substantive model generally delimits religion to the range of traditional theism: Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and so on. The functional model, in contrast, is more inclusive. By defining religion according to its social function, the functional model treats religion largely as synonymous with such terms as cultural system, belief system, meaning system, moral order, ideology, world view and cosmology.[1]
“Education is thus a most powerful ally of Humanism, and every American public school is a school of Humanism.”
In other words, a functional definition describes religion as "a set of beliefs, actions and emotions, both personal and corporate, organized around the concept of an Ultimate Reality. This Reality may be understood as a unity or a plurality, personal or nonpersonal, divine or not, and so forth, differing from religion to religion."[2] Such a definition clearly encompasses the worldview of Secular Humanism.

U.S. courts have moved from a generally substantive definition of religion (where the religion must affirm a transcendent deity) to a functional definition of religion even including Secular Humanism. For example, in United States v. Kauten (2d Cir. 1943), conscientious objector status was granted to Mathias Kauten, not on the basis of his belief in God, but on the basis of his “religious conscience.” The court concluded: "Conscientious objection may justly be regarded as a response of the individual to an inward mentor, call it conscience or God, that is for many persons at the present time the equivalent of what has always been thought a religious impulse."[3] Thus, the court clearly adopted the functional definition of religion as opposed to a substantive or distinctly theistic one.

Another example of the adoption of a functional understanding of religion occurred in Fellowship of Humanity v. County of Alameda (1957). In this case, the Fellowship of Humanity sought recovery of property taxes because, it argued, its grounds were used for religious worship (though not the worship of a transcendent deity). They were awarded a refund of paid property taxes.[4] In praise of the decision, Paul Blanshard, a signatory of the Humanist Manifesto II, declared that the court's decision regarding the Fellowship of Humanity represented "another victory for those who would interpret the word religion very broadly [viz. to include Secular Humanism]… "[5]

One final example is well-known. In 1961 the Supreme Court handed down the Torcaso v. Watkins decision regarding a Maryland notary public who was disqualified from office because he would not declare a belief in God. The Court ruled in his favor. It argued that theistic religions could not be favored by the Court over non-theistic religions. In fact, in a footnote that clarifies what the Court means by non-theistic religions, we read, "Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism, and others."[6]

Clearly, American courts understand religion to include non-theistic religions like Secular Humanism.

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has not been consistent in applying its definition of religion to its present interpretation of the First Amendment. If the no-establishment clause of the First Amendment really means that there should be a wall of separation between religion and the state, why are only theistic religions being forced out of the public square specifically Christianity? If Secular Humanism is a religion, something the U.S. Supreme Court has acknowledged and something countless Humanists insist is true[7], why is it allowed in our public schools? As James Davison Hunter says,


To be legally consistent the courts will either have to articulate a constitutional double standard or apply the functional definition of religion to the no establishment clause just as they have to the free exercise [clause]. The latter would mean that secularistic faiths and ideologies would be rigorously prohibited from receiving even indirect support from the state, which needless to say would have enormous implications for public education.[8]
Enormous implications indeed! Even Leo Pfeffer, the Humanist attorney who argued the Torcaso case, declared that Fundamentalists, individually or collectively, have manifested no indication of giving up in their crusade against secular humanism in the public schools. Pfeffer fears that if the Supreme Court upholds its current understanding of religion to include Secular Humanism and orders the teachings of Humanism to be removed from the public schools "the consequences may be no less than the disintegration of our public school system and the end of Horace Mann's dream."[9]
But Humanism remains de facto the established religion of our land, and the public schools are the main vehicle for the promotion of its worldview. As one great Humanist triumphantly declared: Education is thus a most powerful ally of Humanism, and every American public school is a school of Humanism. What can the theistic Sunday-school, meeting for an hour once a week, and teaching only a fraction of the children, do to stem the tide of a five-day program of humanistic teaching

[edit on 18-2-2009 by Aermacchi]

I think the founding fathers were 'deists' not 'theists' - big difference.

Also I suspect,if these quotes are anything to go by,they didn't hold 'organised abrahamic religion' in very high regard:

Synopsis
“Point for point, the Founding Fathers’ argument for liberty was the exact counterpart of the Puritans’ argument for dictatorship — but in reverse, moving from the opposite starting point to the opposite conclusion. Man, the Founding Fathers said in essence (with a large assist from Locke and others), is the rational being; no authority, human or otherwise, can demand blind obedience from such a being — not in the realm of thought or, therefore, in the realm of action, either. By his very nature, they said, man must be left free to exercise his reason and then to act accordingly, i.e., by the guidance of his best rational judgment. Because this world is of vital importance, they added, the motive of man’s action should be the pursuit of happiness. Because the individual, not a supernatural power, is the creator of wealth, a man should have the right to private property, the right to keep and use or trade his own product. And because man is basically good, they held, there is no need to leash him; there is nothing to fear in setting free a rational animal.
“This, in substance, was the American argument for man’s inalienable rights. It was the argument that reason demands freedom.”
—Leonard Peikoff, “Religion vs. America,” The Voice of Reason


United States Constitution

The First Amendment
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...”

Article VI, Section 3
“...no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”


John Adams (the second President of the United States)

Adams signed the Treaty of Tripoli (June 7, 1797). Article 11 states:
“The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.”

From a letter to Charles Cushing (October 19, 1756):
“Twenty times in the course of my late reading, have I been upon the point of breaking out, ‘this would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it.’”

From a letter to Thomas Jefferson:
“I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved — the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!”

Additional quotes from John Adams:
“Where do we find a precept in the Bible for Creeds, Confessions, Doctrines and Oaths, and whole carloads of trumpery that we find religion encumbered with in these days?”

“The Doctrine of the divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity.”

“...Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind.”


Thomas Jefferson (the third President of the United States)

Jefferson’s interpretation of the first amendment in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association (January 1, 1802):
“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between church and State.”

From Jefferson’s biography:
“...an amendment was proposed by inserting the words, ‘Jesus Christ...the holy author of our religion,’ which was rejected ‘By a great majority in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and the Mohammedan, the Hindoo and the Infidel of every denomination.’”

Jefferson’s “The Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom”:
“Our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, more than on our opinions in physics and geometry....The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”

From Thomas Jefferson’s Bible:
“The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.”

Jefferson’s Notes on Virginia:
“Reason and persuasion are the only practicable instruments. To make way for these free inquiry must be indulged; how can we wish others to indulge it while we refuse ourselves? But every state, says an inquisitor, has established some religion. No two, say I, have established the same. Is this a proof of the infallibility of establishments?”

Additional quotes from Thomas Jefferson:
“It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself.”

“They [the clergy] believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition of their schemes. And they believe rightly: for I have sworn upon the alter of god eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.”

“I have examined all the known superstitions of the word, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half of the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth.”

“In every country and in every age the priest has been hostile to liberty; he is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.”

“Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear....Do not be frightened from this inquiry by any fear of its consequences. If it end in a belief that there is no God, you will find incitements to virtue on the comfort and pleasantness you feel in its exercise and in the love of others which it will procure for you.”

“Christianity...[has become] the most perverted system that ever shone on man....Rogueries, absurdities and untruths were perpetrated upon the teachings of Jesus by a large band of dupes and importers led by Paul, the first great corrupter of the teaching of Jesus.”

“...that our civil rights have no dependence on religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics and geometry.”


James Madison (the fourth President of the United States)

Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments:
“Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise....During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in laity; in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution.”

Additional quote from James Madison:
“Religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.”


Benjamin Franklin

From Franklin’s autobiography, p. 66:
“My parents had given me betimes religious impressions, and I received from my infancy a pious education in the principles of Calvinism. But scarcely was I arrived at fifteen years of age, when, after having doubted in turn of different tenets, according as I found them combated in the different books that I read, I began to doubt of Revelation itself.”

From Franklin’s autobiography, p. 66:
“...Some books against Deism fell into my hands....It happened that they wrought an effect on me quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which were quote to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations, in short, I soon became a thorough Deist.”


Additional from Thomas Paine

From The Age of Reason, pp. 8–9:
“I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of....Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and of my own part, I disbelieve them all.”

From The Age of Reason:
“All natural institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.”

From The Age of Reason:
“The most detestable wickedness, the most horrid cruelties, and the greatest miseries that have afflicted the human race have had their origin in this thing called revelation, or revealed religion.”

From The Age of Reason:
“What is it the Bible teaches us? — rapine, cruelty, and murder.”

From The Age of Reason:
“Loving of enemies is another dogma of feigned morality, and has beside no meaning....Those who preach the doctrine of loving their enemies are in general the greatest prosecutors, and they act consistently by so doing; for the doctrine is hypocritical, and it is natural that hypocrisy should act the reverse of what it preaches.”

From The Age of Reason:
“The Bible was established altogether by the sword, and that in the worst use of it — not to terrify but to extirpate.”

reply to post by karl 12


Don't give me that A-typical answer Atheist revisionists have undertaken to have them proofs removed from the history books. I have seen them placed back in their proper historical settings and have seen the actual historical documents where the words JESUS CHRIST the BIBLE and the many many scriptures FROM the BIBLE were taken from.


Their is NO doubt that they were by and large Christians who disliked religion. If you would kindly keep inn mind the FACT they were against the Church of England and NOT against Christianity.

Oh but that wouldn't bode well for your materialist worldview would it

I have seen this same tactic used to portray George Washington as a "deist" yet reading his daughters letters she mentions how he would ride his horse for hours to meet with her every sunday to a Christian church and led the prayer meetings ending them in Jesus Christs name.

Had it not been for finding those letters of hers this evidence would have been kept from us by the ACLU who has nothing but contempt for democracy but only when it suits their communist ways



[edit on 18-2-2009 by Aermacchi]

Originally posted by Aermacchi
I can make just as many posts showing just as many quotes from the supreme court to the contrary of all of yours

You can show me quotes from the Supreme Court ruling the contrary of what I've just said? That religion has no place in public schools? That religious beliefs cannot be taught in public schools? Because that's what I addressed.

I showed you quotes of Supreme Court rulings striking down prayer and other nonsense in schools. I anxiously await your Supreme Court quotes showing the contrary to this.

Teaching ID Science is not teaching religion and if the concept of a creating force an intelligent hand was behind our being here why wouldn't science want to know? They scared ? If you can muster the wit, tell me, what religion is GOD anyway? Baptist? Catholic? Islam?

There's one of your problems right there, ID is not science. It can't be taught in science classes because it is not science, and it could never be taught in public schools because ID is Creationism with a different name.

The consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that "creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science." The U.S. National Science Teachers Association and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have termed it pseudoscience.

And it doesn't really matter what your personal opinion or belief is on this matter, nor mine. What matters is the legality for it to be taught in schools, and that has been ruled on multiple times.

Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987) was a case heard by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1987 regarding creationism. The Court ruled that a Louisiana law requiring that creation science be taught in public schools along with evolution was unconstitutional, because the law was specifically intended to advance a particular religion.

Since Creationists couldn't get Creationism in schools, they re-labeled it Intelligent Design and decided to try again. And that was resolved in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District too.

Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District was the first direct challenge brought in the United States federal courts against a public school district that required the presentation of intelligent design as an alternative to evolution. The plaintiffs successfully argued that intelligent design is a form of creationism, and that the school board policy thus violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Even Michael Behe, an Intelligent Design proponent who testified in Kitzmiller v. Dover, admits that ID cannot be proven by experimentation.

Indeed, Behe concedes, "You can't prove intelligent design by an experiment." source

That's it, plain and simple: Creationism is not science, and it doesn't matter what name it goes by.

The idea that ID answers abiogenesis is wrong, it doesn't talk to that for the same reasons Darwinists gave up on that. ... If you are going to hold that science to the logical fallacy of assuming the consequent then we have every right to insist darwinists do the same. They will say NOOOO we only show what might have happened after life started! Gee I wonder why pffft!

You wonder why? Well... because Darwin's theory of Evolution doesn't address abiogenesis, perhaps?!

The theory of Evolution addresses the natural process that causes genetic variation and adaption along the generations. Process that has been verified and proven by multiple and different types of evidence (fossilized records, DNA).

Anyone who denies this process is either ignorant because he doesn't know about it, or willingly ignorant because he denies it.

You say ID doesn't address abiogenesis. OK fine, then what does ID actually address? What evidence and data can it present to support its claim? No need to answer this, it's merely rhetorical, because there's really no evidence or data that can be presented for it.

Oh and by the way, secular humanism was found to be a religion by the supreme court, so again it does NOT mean the country is secular because that would be a state religion!

And where did I talk about secular Humanism? I was afraid of this, but apparently you don't even understand what secular means...

A secular state is a state or country that is officially neutral in matters of religion, neither supporting nor opposing any particular religious beliefs or practices.

Secular states become secular either upon establishment of the state (e.g. United States) or upon secularization of the state (e.g. France). source

It means that NO religion will be THEE religion INCLUDING secular humanism. It only states what it is NOT, NOT what it is.

Again, nowhere I mentioned secular Humanism.

If there was a campaign to teach any form of religion, regardless of its name, ideologies, beliefs or dogmas, it would be equally unconstitutionally to have that taught in public schools, as it is to teach Creationism/ID.

Thanks for the attention to my post. I did not intend to be deliberately provocative. It is simply an accurate and unembellished statement of one person's viewpoint - my own.

And I have studied the sciences, and worked professionally in the field, and have some valid basis for my opinion regarding the nature of the scientific endeavor, both technically and sociologically, which admittedly is rather a negative one.

I will focus on what I consider to be the heart of the matter by responding to only one poster who commented on my most recent post -


reply to post by converge

you said:

The scientific approach is just another faith-based approach to understanding our world and the universe at large. Anyone who takes the time to look into it will find that 'science' is based on a large number of unprovable assumptions which are in no way superior to or at all different from the so-called unprovable assumptions or articles of faith of any other religion.

I'm sorry but if this is your honest opinion regarding science or the scientific method then you are painfully ignorant about it.

Faith is the belief in things not seen, not proven. Science is the complete opposite.

Well, let's look at it this way - Here's how the 'scientific method' works in a nutshell -

Theorem I. If it can't be measured, it don't exist. ( I )

There are now a number of very important corollaries which follow from I -

Corollary I.1 - If the experimental results don't meet the funding agency's expectations then you're out of business. ( I.1 )

Corollary I.2 - Since continued funding is the goal of all professional scientific endeavor, always design your experiments so as not to violate I.1. ( I.2 )

Corollary I.3 - If you've designed your experiment according to the requirements of I.2 and your results don't fit expectations anyway, then find a way to ignore it. ( I.3 )

Any questions ?


Having worked for many years in scientific research, both in the ivory towers of academia and in the trenches of industry, I've seen this in action. Believe me, this is the way it works.

Anyone who thinks otherwise still believes in the stories for children they were taught in grade school.

Hope this helps ...

reply to post by visible_villain


I appreciate your opinion and response.

What you describe is not the scientific method but what sometimes happens in the field, when funding (money) becomes more important than the actual scientific work.

I don't deny that it happens, of course it does, as well as in other areas and fields, but that sort of thing has a name, and in the scientific field it's bad science.

reply to post by converge

... in the scientific field it's bad science.

I'm afraid it is what it is, my friend ...

It's simply the way it works - and yes you're right it's got very little to do with science and almost everything to with politics, and it's the way everybody does 'science', because why ?

How else are you going to get your funding ?

It's a total joke, it's a trainwreck, and it's the reason those who are listening can hear the piper just around the corner ...

Originally posted by visible_villain
Theorem I. If it can't be measured, it don't exist. ( I )

Theorem or assumption ?

LHC (Large Hadron Collider): If it can't be measured build a bigger more powerful tool/instrument ...

Rouge part of the scientific community which only see one thing (money) are out there, that is the fact, but, does that really undermine importance, logic and humongous success of the scientific method or tells you more about people themselves ?