Missouri ‘Right To Pray’ Amendment Will Allow Creationists To Refuse To Study Evolution

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by murphy22
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

We all pay taxes. Why is both theories/Ideas not taught?

Because not all theories/ideas are equal.

Dang right - who are these people to not accept the majority theory as approved for them by the State.

All the commandments are gone, and all that is written there now is “All animals are equal, But some animals are more equal than others.”

www.online-literature.com...

The circle is complete...the leaders invoked thier right to tell the others what to think.

Anyway, as to why the proposition...

Amazingly enough in the current political environment basic rights need to be restated at the State level because the Federal Government has lost sight of its limits and role and wants to be the thought police.

Therefore the People (by a margin of like 7:1) agree that while it may not be good science the right of individuals to be secure in their own ignorance is a right in America and that you cannot legislate thought.

You are an avowed Socialist so I don't say this with malice but Socialists and Communist and all sorts of liberals on the left feel that if they legislate enough they can change the way people think regardless of evidence to the contrary.

I am from Missouri – I am an atheist. However, I voted for the proposition. I don’t care if your kid prays at school, before a football game or a test, I don’t care if there is a club after school even one lead by a Christian Teacher that teaches God shoots lightning out his ass and masturbation will make you go to hell, I don’t care if your kid ignores the science of evolution and claims the Devil planted dinosaur bones to test your faith. Who cares! I respect a legislators right to pray before he conducts a meeting or a diner or whatever, it’s not going to burn out my ears or anything and likely it’s important to 70+% of the people present. I just stay quiet and respectful while it happens.

If you don’t like the will of the people of the State of Missouri don’t live here – simple really. We won’t miss you. Conversely, we don’t want to live in a liberal crap hole.

Let’s just let the Republic go on as intended and let the people of every State decide what works for them shall we.

Originally posted by ElohimJD

Originally posted by GR1ill3d

Originally posted by Witness2008
reply to post by GR1ill3d

 

Neither can be proved. One is scientific speculation, the other is religious speculation.

Evolution is a proven fact it happens it has stood up to the scrutiny of many scientists and more then 1 field of science like paleontology and biography point to the same conclusion there are other fields that point that way as well but i won't get into all that. Creation is purely speculative and nothing else, It has no physical evidence to back it up, it cannot stand up to scientific scrutiny and further more, none of the religions that teach it cannot agree on which "God" did it, They all come to different conclusions.

Plese understand that adaptation utilizing generational genetic modification (micro-evolution) is not the same as the theory of macro-evolution or the study of the origins of life on Earth.

Micro-evolution is prooven fact.

Macro-evolution and special origins is a theory being studied.

They are not the same and the factual evidence is not equal regarding all the facits of evolution.

God Bless,

Micro-evolution and macro-evolution are not different things - they are only the same thing at different scales. the difference is only important to people trying to discredit the theory of evolution. The terms differ to provide a convenient seperation point for discussion, identifying fields of study - but it is well understood that macroevolution is nothing moer than an extended period of microevolution - ie the time scales differ -

Macroevolution can be seen as the sum of long periods of microevolution, and thus the two are qualitatively identical while being quantitatively different.

- wiki

Contrary to anti-evolutionist propaganda, macro-evolution has been demonstrated multiple times in both the laboratory and in nature - it IS fact.

A scientific theory is NOT the same thing as a theory you might have as to why the moon landings were faked (just as an example - no prejudice intended)

A scienttific theory is a generally accepted conclusion about something that represents the very best of scientific knowledge on that subject at the moment. the only thing stronger than a theory in science is a law.

And if you do insist that there are factual problems with evolution, then how about we discuss the factual problems with creationism - eg there aer NO facts to support it at all - plenty of belief and faith - but not one, single, verifiable fact.....EVER.

And of course I think if schools have to provide equal time for creationism, then churches should provide equal time for evolution.

Oh and how about all the hundreds of creation myths from OTHER religions...????

Originally posted by MDDoxs
Let them do what they want, as long it does not infringe upon you, your family or your friends.

Ignorance is bliss, it keeps them happy

But if brainwashed kids pray in schools it exposes other kids to such brainwashing. As an atheist I wouldn't want my young and impressionable children exposed to such crap until they are mature enough to make up their own minds on this topic.

Originally posted by Golf66

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by murphy22
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

We all pay taxes. Why is both theories/Ideas not taught?

Because not all theories/ideas are equal.

Dang right - who are these people to not accept the majority theory as approved for them by the State.

You have a right to be ignorant sure - but the state does not have to pay for it, and the staet does not actually enforce the "majority theory" eithe - feel free to home school or send your kids to some other sub-standard educational institution that will hamper them for the rest of their lives.

But if the state is spending taxpayer money then the state has the right to ensure a particular standard of education - and currently the standard is "science" - verifiable evidence, supported by factual research and study.

Originally posted by MDDoxs

In time, i believe it will no longer be practical or possible to remain ignorant, and these fanatical beliefs will eventually fade into obscurity.

edit on 12-8-2012 by MDDoxs because: (no reason given)

No, no, no. Try this scenario out: You're a teenager and your father tells you to mow the lawn. In the garage you have a push mover and a rider mower. Which one are you going to use? The rider mower, of course. Why? Because teens will always go for what's easier.

What's easier here: Complex science or learning one simple phrase of 'God did it'?

This is why religion will never die.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
You have a right to be ignorant sure - but the state does not have to pay for it, and the state does not actually enforce the "majority theory" eithe - feel free to home school or send your kids to some other sub-standard educational institution that will hamper them for the rest of their lives.

Here is a pro-tip for the more left leaning... The "State" doesn't fund education - the people do and therefore as the buyer or consumer of the service that is education they have the right to get what they want from it. I know that's hard for you to understand but the State actually doesn't "pay" for anything.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
But if the state is spending taxpayer money then the state has the right to ensure a particular standard of education - and currently the standard is "science" - verifiable evidence, supported by factual research and study.

Again, wrong - they have to provide the opportunity (and an equal one for all children) to receive the best education possible with the best information available. However, they don't have the right to force them to accept it or even listen to it if they should choose not to.

Finally, just because the kids can opt out for reasons of religion there is no provision in the bill that the schools provide for an alternative course of learning that meets their beliefs. Therefore it is not a burden to the taxpayers for the children to opt out. Now if the bill required the teacher to have a separate program of instruction for those who are so offended by creationism as to disallow their children even being exposed to it I'd be on your side.

Allowing kids to pray and sit out sex-ed or whatever other objectionable school crap they want doesn't cost us anything.

Who cares what people do? Other than the liberal thought police that is...

Originally posted by jiggerj
But if brainwashed kids pray in schools it exposes other kids to such brainwashing. As an atheist I wouldn't want my young and impressionable children exposed to such crap until they are mature enough to make up their own minds on this topic.

Now if it’s an individual student choosing to pray or for the school even allowing for a moment to quietly reflect on your beliefs before a sporting event or whatever I have no problem. If they make it a "Let us pray or let's all bow our heads type thing that insinuates the school is endorsing it the line is more fine.

When my daughter was young she'd ask what prayer, and god and such was all about and why we didn't go to church like so in so...

I just all people believe differently and someday (and not anytime soon) when you get older you will hear about many things people believe and you may have different thoughts on that than me and Mommy. That's ok with us. If you would like to go to church with one of your friends you can to see what it is all about. She did go to a few different churches with her friends - never go into it. Would have been fine with me if she had. She never really go into it.

Further I'd explain that some parents insist their children learn what they believe and they only know the one way of thought and not until they are a lot older and sometimes not even then will they critically think about what they personally believe.

I'd also ensure that she understand some people need religion very much and a majority of people here do so please just be quiet and respectful of their proceedings and know that just because most people do it doesn't make it wrong for you to not.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

Dear Aloysius the Gaul,

Please take this post lightly, as if we were good friends who had just had a couple of glasses of Scotch each. Peace, OK?

You know, of course, that ThinkProgress is politically between the Comunist Party USA, and the socialists, right? Ok, as long as we've got that straight. You may be surprised, but I share some concern over the same part of the amendment that TP does. Here's the clause:

that no student shall be compelled to perform or participate in academic assignments or educational presentations that violate his or her religious beliefs

See, the problem is that this clause can be interpreted in different ways. Oh, sure, one is the TP way, but that doesn't have to be the only way.

For example a student could be asked to read a page, then write an analysis of it. It could be argued that there is nothing in that assignment that anyone could object to. So what if it covers evolution? Now, be forced to write a paper with a required anti-religious slant, would be a problem.

My take? A lot of uproar that will be ironed out easily enough when it comes time to apply it. Pretty much like any other law. But I wish they had rewritten that clause.

Oh, here's the link to the amendment: www.house.mo.gov...

With respect,
Charles1952

Originally posted by Golf66

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
You have a right to be ignorant sure - but the state does not have to pay for it, and the state does not actually enforce the "majority theory" eithe - feel free to home school or send your kids to some other sub-standard educational institution that will hamper them for the rest of their lives.

Here is a pro-tip for the more left leaning... The "State" doesn't fund education - the people do and therefore.....

I do believe I said that the State uses taxpayers money in the bit you managed to not quote...."therefore" please don't mislead like this.

however the state is also required, but the law the people keep quoting, to keep religion seperate and to not promote it - something to do with the constitution I think.

therefore "the people" do NOT get to say "we want to teach religion in our schools" by stealth - which is what this really is.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


I say hold their GEDs until they have completed the study of evolution. If it was against your religion to learn math would you still be allowed a GED? probably not. So I say let these idiots suffer for their stupid decisions. Want to be intellectually illiterate fine. It should be held against you in the work place like when you don't have a HS GED or a college degree.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
I do believe I said that the State uses taxpayers money in the bit you managed to not quote...."therefore" please don't mislead like this.

Latter in your post you mentioned taxpayers money but clearly you said..(emphasis bold is mine for clarity)

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
You have a right to be ignorant sure -but the state does not have to pay for it, and the state does not actually enforce the "majority theory" eithe - feel free to home school or send your kids to some other sub-standard educational institution that will hamper them for the rest of their lives.

Don't know how else to take that..other than you think the State pays for education. You may indeed be aware that the state collects money from taxpayers but it also appears to me you consider the state as the “payer” when it comes to education.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
however the state is also required, but the law the people keep quoting, to keep religion separate and to not promote it - something to do with the constitution I think.

Please then explain for me how allowing individuals to exercise their religion is equal to religion and State being somehow conjoined? The State is not supporting or endorsing any religion simply stating that individuals who happen to be at school cannot be disallowed the exercise thereof because they are in a government building at the time. Separation of church and state doesn't imply that you can be prevented from its exercise in a publicly funded facility. Allowance for the exercise of religion is not the same as the promotion/endorsement of religion…regardless of what the ACLU would have you believe.

Separation of church and state simply implies that the State or its agents cannot make the exercise of any religion seem a requisite for participation in a government event or program or endorse a certain religion as the official religion of the State. Huge difference.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
therefore "the people" do NOT get to say "we want to teach religion in our schools" by stealth - which is what this really is.

If you can substantiate any implication, direct or indirect that allowing students to not be forced to learn a principle that violates their faith is equal to the State teaching religion to them I will eat my hat sir. As a comparison allowing a Jehovah’s witness to abstain from the pledge of allegiance as it violates their faith is not equal to teaching them Jehovah’s witness principles. It's simply allowing them to not participate - not the same as endorsing/promoting a certain religion, not even close.

Please link anywhere in the bill it states that any alternative course of religious based education acceptable to the student be provided at taxpayer expense as a substitute for the regular program of instruction.

Originally posted by Golf66

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
I do believe I said that the State uses taxpayers money in the bit you managed to not quote...."therefore" please don't mislead like this.

Latter in your post you mentioned taxpayers money but clearly you said..(emphasis bold is mine for clarity)

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
You have a right to be ignorant sure -but the state does not have to pay for it, and the state does not actually enforce the "majority theory" eithe - feel free to home school or send your kids to some other sub-standard educational institution that will hamper them for the rest of their lives.

Don't know how else to take that..other than you think the State pays for education. You may indeed be aware that the state collects money from taxpayers but it also appears to me you consider the state as the “payer” when it comes to education.

Like I said in the post, and as you have YET AGAIN failed to quote and tried to brush off:

But if the state is spending taxpayer money then the state has the right to ensure a particular standard of education - and currently the standard is "science" - verifiable evidence, supported by factual research and study.

so you tell me what is actually wrong with THAT please - because THAT is the nub.

BTW I also mentioned taxpayers in a post athe bottom of page 1 -

Rubbish - they can beleive what they like. however state schools, paid for by the taxpayer, should be teaching good subjects.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
however the state is also required, but the law the people keep quoting, to keep religion separate and to not promote it - something to do with the constitution I think.

Please then explain for me how allowing individuals to exercise their religion is equal to religion and State being somehow conjoined?

I didnt' say conjoined - what does that mean?

Like I said above - if the state (taxpayer) is paying for education, then it is obligated to teach everyone equally.

refusing to accept part of a TAXPAYER funded education on religious grounds, but still taking up a palce in that school, is wasting TAXPAYERS money for RELIGIOUS purposes.

Trying to make it out as something else is jsut another case of special pleading

The State is not supporting or endorsing any religion simply stating that individuals who happen to be at school cannot be disallowed the exercise thereof because they are in a government building at the time.

That is not the case - and the ability for school to "close down" so that religious instruction can be carried out is not what this is about.

Separation of church and state doesn't imply that you can be prevented from its exercise in a publicly funded facility. Allowance for the exercise of religion is not the same as the promotion/endorsement of religion…regardless of what the ACLU would have you believe.

Strawman - completely irrelevant to the OP

Separation of church and state simply implies that the State or its agents cannot make the exercise of any religion seem a requisite for participation in a government event or program or endorse a certain religion as the official religion of the State. Huge difference.

Yep - thanks for making my point.

And by allowing a specific religion to opt out of state funded teaching they are effectively endorsing that religion.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
And by allowing a specific religion to opt out of state funded teaching they are effectively endorsing that religion.

With logic like that the only thing I can say is...wow. They are not allowing a specific religion they are allowing "any" religion to opt out of the program. If you don't see the difference there is not much else to say to you. I fear an impasse that is unbreachable.

While I believe you are entitled to your point of view and the right to express it as allowed under the 1st Amendment and am willing to die for your right to present it - in no way do I endorse or support it.

Just like the State of Missouri believes a student’s right to decline participation in a program of instruction his/her parents find counter to their religious values is allowed under the 1st Amendment the State of Missouri in no way is saying they agree with (endorse) a particular students religion. Not one dime of taxpayer money is being used to teach or endorse a religion in place of the regular program of instruction - if that were the case it would be as you say a separation of church and state issue.

I think your posts are indicative of the lack of logic regarding the separation of church and state issue in general - allowing a person to exercise religion even in a government building is not the same as the government advocating that anyone practice the religion in question or any religion for that matter.

You don't like religion - neither do I. The difference I think is that other people needing it doesn’t bother me at all.

This is all speculative nonsense anyhow. There has been no indication that anyone is going to opt out of science class based in this law. Additionally, the kids just can't opt out because they want to. If they could I am sure they would all opt out of math, or English lit.

If, for example, there were an assignment to do a report on Darwin and what he believed they can't opt out of that on religious grounds. It is an assignment and they have to do it. If their parents have an issue with it they can take it up with the shool and prevent their child from studying Darwin. Which would be proper if the school is teaching what many of you were apparently taught, that evolution is the only possible answer and creationism is stupid. In that case they would be right to opt out. However, general scientific study will still be allowed and studied.

The law is designed to protec them from persecution for praying in school or saying God during the pledge. Stuff like that. Stuff that the ACLU typically tries to prevent people from doing. Which is probably why they are already filing suit against this law.

So. Dont everyone get your panties up in a bunch. it doesn't affect you anyhow and all the posts here full of vitriol are evidence to who the real morons are. Just because someone chooses to believe in something hat you dont does not make them ignorant. But you making fun of them for their beliefs does make you ignorant and intolerant.

Otherwise known as a bigot.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


I think the only religious group who will benefit from this amendment
will be the muslims, not the christians.

Originally posted by jiggerj

Originally posted by MDDoxs
Let them do what they want, as long it does not infringe upon you, your family or your friends.

Ignorance is bliss, it keeps them happy

But if brainwashed kids pray in schools it exposes other kids to such brainwashing. As an atheist I wouldn't want my young and impressionable children exposed to such crap until they are mature enough to make up their own minds on this topic.

What do you suggest? Want to segregate the schools again? I think it would be part of your job as a parent to prepare your child for these eventualities. They will always run into people with differing opinions and beliefs, why not preparing them early?

Originally posted by jiggerj

Originally posted by MDDoxs

In time, i believe it will no longer be practical or possible to remain ignorant, and these fanatical beliefs will eventually fade into obscurity.

edit on 12-8-2012 by MDDoxs because: (no reason given)

No, no, no. Try this scenario out: You're a teenager and your father tells you to mow the lawn. In the garage you have a push mover and a rider mower. Which one are you going to use? The rider mower, of course. Why? Because teens will always go for what's easier.

What's easier here: Complex science or learning one simple phrase of 'God did it'?

This is why religion will never die.

Give this generation of kids some more credit please. Not all children are inheritably lazy. That is a wide sweeping assumption, i for one know lots of the new generation of kids and they are much more intelligent and street smart then you seem to believe.

Who knows though, time will tell. I dont discount any possibility.

reply to post by littled16


Also there's nothing against Intelligent Creation IMO.

I personally don't believe that a god directed evolution, but I've seen no evidence against it.. And Christian Scientists that argue against Biological and Cosmic Evolution usually just shoot themselves in the foot with silly arguments like "Devil is Darwin" or just plain wrong information about evolution.

Those guys are like the village idiots of the nation

And even funnier...they're proud of it

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

The idea that religion is somehow suppressed in the USA is ridiculous- the US population is strongly religious, and no-one is taking away any of their rights and privileges at all. Indeed we see an increase in x-ian fundamentalism that clearly repudiates and suggestion of repression!

But somehow they are turning something that doesnt exist into a reason to deny kids a proper education in the public school system!

and it is not like evolution is actually controversial at all except for zealots and fanatics - it happens every day - warnings about a resistant strain of Gonorrhrea have come out just this week, and the idea that evolution and some sort of creationism are "equal" and should be given "equal time" or somesuch is also nonsense - evolution is a widely accepted scientific theory, which has had millions of hours of research put into it - all versions of creationism are at best personal belief, at worst wishful thinking and confirmation bias.

Thats weird, you talk about evolution as though is a proven fact or something. The only thing I have read about it was that early stages of it were witnessed in some aquatic life, some viruses and some bacteria. I can tell you that what other believe and preach about here on ATS varries greatly on that.

At any rate, one thing is for sure, evoltuion has been given the name to something when change is detected. They have never been able to identify whats making the change, just that it happens so it must be evolution. As you can tell I'm not to fond of the pseudo science that has taken place about it.

You were comparing religion to evolution and how you feel about them in schools. The biggest problem that I always see people do is the exact same thing. The problem is that the bible is classified in a supernatural section while evolution would be more like science. Supernatural things are not testable by science, in fact...

su·per·nat·u·ral/ˌso͞opərˈnaCH(ə)rəl/Adjective: (of a manifestation or event) Attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.


Noun: Manifestations or events considered to be of supernatural origin.


Synonyms: preternatural - unearthly - weird - miraculous

www.google.com...=en&q=supernatural&tbs=dfn:1&tbo=u&sa=X&ei=jecrUM7rN6HpigKbvoCYDA&sqi=2&ved=0CEwQkQ4&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp =dc835c07362cbb1a&biw=1115&bih=541

As you can see, its beyond scientific understanding.

We don't have anything else to reference it with, and there is nothing to compare it to either.