Originally posted by Freenrgy2
reply to post by pirhanna
That's just crap. In fact, she was right in what she said. The Constitution doesn't explicitly say "seperation of Church and State".
What is does say is that there shall not be an establishment of religion. The separation is implied in that the United States does not officialy
recognize one religion for its citizens. We, the PEOPLE, have the freedom to chose how we wish to worship and that this shouldn't be impeded upon.
This is what is known as splitting a hair. correct, the words are not present in the first amendment in that specific order, however, the intent is
very clear. No established religion shall take place in the US...be it christianity, islam, satanism, etc...the government shall remain, in all
intensive purposes, agnostic.
What is ironic is the blatant attempt at schools to discriminate against Christian practices (such as bible studies, Christmas plays/concerts, prayer)
but at the same time allowing many other religious practices to take place on its grounds.
bible studies with my tax dollars? I think not...thats what church sunday schools or private schools are for.
Christmas plays? Frosty and Santa are independent of religion..are you talking specifically about the mythical story of christ? again, why should my
tax dollars go into furthering a specific religion? Should I also be responsible for paying a play about islam once islam becomes the majority
religion in the US? ya...didn't think so.
And care to define what other religious practices public schools have implemented (oh, the making national headlines because some twit teacher did
something dumb doesn't count...talking policy here, not individual morons)
By saying that the Constitution does not say "separation of church and state", she was technically correct.
Technically we are also allowed slaves if we use the non-amended constitution..amendments have altered the constitution
Technically, she is a twit.
And the implied separation has been widely misused in my opinion. She was also right when she mentioned "Intelligent Design" as being a permissible
teaching concept. Of course, Coons would rather use the term "Creationism" to highlight the Christian viewpoint.
Then you agree I am right that students should be also taught every single theory anyone can come up with to explain how we are here, be it evolution,
creationism, dream matrix, the great tree, hyperdimensional impressions, illusionary universe, etc etc etc.
All equal time, right? because there are thousands of variations that are neither evolution or "I.D."
bet you wont answer that question.
Intelligent design does not necessarily indicate that God created or was responsible for the universe or our existence. (at least for me is doesn't)
For those those who believe in other life in the universe, wouldn't intelligent design suggest that our existence could have been a result of life
from another planet coming to Earth and aiding our evolution?
and THAT is the actual problem..
how do you even teach it? how can you possibly teach such a thing.
No evidence, just speculation and some old books from cavemen to build an argument..thats it.
you honestly think that deserves the same timeframe as a scientific discussion showing mountains of evidence on evolution?
And then the philosophy comes up in a science class (philosophy and science should never mix.)
Well, who created the creators? well, it must all be magic then.
But to make the leap that because the Constitution does not explicityly state "separation of church and state" means she wants a theocracy is just
It means she has been thinking about just that...and why do people think about it to begin with? She read the constitution and took notes that there
was no wording in the original document..why...think for just a half second why someone would seek out that whom is also seeking power to rule..not
some academic curiousity, but a subject matter that is literally running her life as she quests for power over the masses.
time to engage in critical thinking.