This is what's wrong [Archive] - Sean Hannity Discussion

southtx30

March 5th, 2009, 4:34 pm

Greyclouds

March 5th, 2009, 4:36 pm

Chuangtzu

March 5th, 2009, 4:49 pm

graatz

March 5th, 2009, 4:55 pm

Why have people been turned off to chrisitianity?

What percentage of Americans were Christians during the time before we "went wrong"? What percentage are now?

I dont want to hear seperation of church and state lie. That statement exists no where in our constitution.

The Bill of Rights does have an Establishment Clause. It follows by proper application of the Establishment Clause that school prayer and using the Bible as a textbook are Unconstitutional.

If we would just put all this in fighting behind us and stop letting Satan get a foot hold.

When do you think Christians started allowing Satan to get a foot hold?

southtx30

March 5th, 2009, 4:56 pm

Do you believe Christians should subscribe to all Old Testament laws and New Testament laws?

Again you prove my point.

The answer is in the New Testament, the apostles asked the same question.

Sorry I havent answered your question directly. My post is not to disclose my belief or yours just making a rant about how we christians get into discussions. That non-believers cant comprehend and get confused. Also how we let our guard down and next thing we know bam! Bible no longer allowed in public schools.

southtx30

March 5th, 2009, 5:06 pm

The Bill of Rights does have an Establishment Clause. It follows by proper application of the Establishment Clause that school prayer and using the Bible as a textbook are Unconstitutional.

Yes it does have an establishment clause, If you would continue to read the next independent clause following establishment, you will read "or prohibit the free excersie thereof". We stop at establishment clause and stop reading. Usually!

We also need to ask: Did framers and signers of Decleration of Independence and the US Constitution beleive that Christianity was the only true religion? That false religions would not be protected by the establishment clause. That the only true religions in their view/eyes are based on christianity and the Holy Bible.

Greyclouds

March 5th, 2009, 5:08 pm

Again you prove my point.

The answer is in the New Testament, the apostles asked the same question.

Sorry I havent answered your question directly. My post is not to disclose my belief or yours just making a rant about how we christians get into discussions. That non-believers cant comprehend and get confused. Also how we let our guard down and next thing we know bam! Bible no longer allowed in public schools.

Well, Jesus gives one answer and Paul another:

Matthew 5:18-19

vs

Romans 7:4, 6

That is the only reason why I ask. In light of Jesus' recommendation, I believe its safe to say that the majority of Christians do not follow much of the Levitical laws and their prescribed punishments (death in most cases, for transgressions as minor as talking back to one's parents).

southtx30

March 5th, 2009, 5:21 pm

Well, Jesus gives one answer and Paul another:

Matthew 5:18-19

vs

Romans 7:4, 6

That is the only reason why I ask. In light of Jesus' recommendation, I believe its safe to say that the majority of Christians do not follow much of the Levitical laws and their prescribed punishments (death in most cases, for transgressions as minor as talking back to one's parents).

Yes you are correct in the versus you listed. Go back to Exodus and Leviticus to read about the laws and why they were established.

Sorry I dont want to devulage to much more info as to give away my position.

Again this is exactly what I am talking about!

Meriweather

March 5th, 2009, 5:23 pm

What's wrong with America? What has happened to our country's foundational belief in God? Why have people been turned off to chrisitianity?

What people have been turned off to Christianity? Are you speaking of those who used to profess Christianity as their religion and have converted to Buddhism, Hinduism, or discover they have no belief in God at all?

I see it as the example this forum shows. We, those who call ourselves christian, gripe and complain amongst each other. We have sat by and let prayer be taken our of schools, let evolution kick creation out of schools and science books, and Bible's removed as school text books.

Of course we Christians on this forum are going to discuss these matters amongs ourselves! Surely you are not suggesting we remain quiet? ;)

Perhaps you are not as familiar with schools as I am. There are prayers around the flagpole at some schools I am familiar with; another school had a group of us teachers meeting before school to pray for our students. I have seen students of all faiths pause to pray.

I do agree it is too bad that we cannot join together as a community at school when prayer might be appropriate, but we do make use of our moments of silence.

I still hear students discussing their religions amongst themselves.

I have taught evolution and there is nothing wrong with teaching students what science has observed. While politicians and other outsiders may be horrified at the thought of creationism being taught at schools, trust me, the students have no problem discussing that amongs themselves, either. The greatest percentage see science as the steps God took in creating the universe. Some who are young earth disagree with even this much, and they have no hesitation about telling others what they think in the appropriate class setting.

I dont want to hear seperation of church and state lie. That statement exists no where in our constitution. The lie about seperation of church and state is also part of the problem.

I agree. I hope there comes a day where atheists no longer hold such fear of religion that they feel government cannot even whisper of it.

As "christians" we either believe that the Bible is God's unadulterated word or we pick and choose what suits our beliefs to make ourselves feel better about actions we take in our lives. Ex: Old testament not relevant only New testament matters; God's not against homosexuality, There is no trinity, Only The Apostles were allowed to speak in tonges, heal the sick, cast out demons, prophesy and such, There is really no anti christ, Jesus was just a prophet, Jesus only matters Holy Spirit not important, Bible is just a bunch of stories, Just be good and you'll go to heaven confession of sins not important, Ok to drink alcohol or not ok to drink it. I could go on.

If we would just put all this in fighting behind us and stop letting Satan get a foot hold. Oh wait thats another one, hell is only for Satan not sinners and bad people they will go somewhere else, lesser heaven.

Ok my rant! done for now.

While you may see some of the discussions of your above topics as "fighting" I see it as very good times as people take the time and energy to explain their beliefs and how they came to hold them.

I loved your rant. Feel free to come back and rant any time!

graatz

March 5th, 2009, 5:30 pm

or prohibit the free excersie thereof

Does restricting state-sponsored prayer prohibit you from practicing Christianity? :eh:

That false religions would not be protected by the establishment clause.

The Bill of Rights doesn't require that a religion proof itself to be true. If it did, Christianity wouldn't be protected, either. :rolleyes:

optrader

March 5th, 2009, 5:32 pm

So what do you do with those of use who don't believe your religious stories? How do you deal with the problem of our intransigence? What measures do you take, vis a vis we unbelievers, to ensure that American stops going "wrong"?

Prithee, tell.

DEATH TO ALL YE GODLESS HEATHENS!!!!

Sorry, couldn't resist :D

Chuangtzu

March 5th, 2009, 5:33 pm

DEATH TO ALL YE GODLESS HEATHENS!!!!

Sorry, couldn't resist :D

Perhaps you'll be tolerant of this, then - since I cannot resist - "godless" and "heathen" modify each other poorly.

Meriweather

March 5th, 2009, 5:34 pm

Does restricting state-sponsored prayer prohibit you from practicing Christianity? :eh:

No, it does not prohibit me from practicing my faith. We are saying there is NO need for such a restriction. Or are you of the mind that, as a matter of course, Government restrictions are a good thing?

The Bill of Rights doesn't require that a religion proof itself to be true. If it did, Christianity wouldn't be protected, either. :rolleyes:

Let's ask what is meant by "true" before we toss out Christianity.

optrader

March 5th, 2009, 5:37 pm

[QUOTE]Does restricting state-sponsored prayer prohibit you from practicing Christianity? :eh:

What do you consider state sponsored prayer? How does school prayer "establish" a religion?

Meriweather

March 5th, 2009, 5:38 pm

So what do you do with those of use who don't believe your religious stories? How do you deal with the problem of our intransigence? What measures do you take, vis a vis we unbelievers, to ensure that American stops going "wrong"?

Prithee, tell.

Well, first of all, you would have to meet my standard of a "problem" before I would start dealing or taking measures. So far, you're doing just fine.

optrader

March 5th, 2009, 5:39 pm

Perhaps you'll be tolerant of this, then - since I cannot resist - "godless" and "heathen" modify each other poorly.

That was actually a joke. Perhaps you are unfamilar with my particular brand of humor... Atheism or other religions don't offend me.

graatz

March 5th, 2009, 5:41 pm

Or are you of the mind that, as a matter of course, Government restrictions are a good thing?

I'm saying the government is obligated to acquiesce to my rights and liberties. Public school are state-sponsored, and as such they are obligated to the Establishment Clause. Does this mean that the government is restricted or required to impose restrictions? Well, yeah, basically. But if you don't like your rights and liberties, I'm sure you can find somewhere else to live that doesn't protect the same set of them...

Let's ask what is meant by "true" before we toss out Christianity.

:shrugs: The OP suggested a definition, taking it as a matter of assumption that the Founding Fathers knew that Jesus Christ was Lord and Savior and any religious claims otherwise must not actually represent true religions and therefore deserve no protection. But if the religious claims of a religion must be proven in order to be afforded protection, when did Christianity prove to the Courts that, indeed, Jesus Christ rose from the dead and will come again to judge the quick and the dead? :eh:

optrader

March 5th, 2009, 5:44 pm

graatz

March 5th, 2009, 5:45 pm

What do you consider state sponsored prayer? How does school prayer "establish" a religion?

School teachers are figures of authority. If they order one of their wards to pray to the Christian God, they are requiring a child to participate in a particular religious ceremony. Even if they explicitly sanction Christian ritual but allow their students to opt out, they are establishing that the school specifically sanctions Christianity and those who don't follow are outsiders to the establishment.

How many majority decisions have you read in regards to the Establishment Clause. I think you'll find that if you invest the time, you will see how the Courts have clarified the meaning of the Establishment Clause and how your "armchair attorney" view on it is flawed.

graatz

March 5th, 2009, 5:46 pm

Should parents then get to send theor children to a religious school using tax dollars?

No.

southtx30

March 5th, 2009, 5:47 pm

Does restricting state-sponsored prayer prohibit you from practicing Christianity? :eh:

The Bill of Rights doesn't require that a religion proof itself to be true. If it did, Christianity wouldn't be protected, either. :rolleyes:

The consitution is used to govern itself, the states and the people. The second clause in the first amendment could then be perceived to contradict the first. That congress cannot restrict religion in the first place. Either in public places govt run organizations or private. Congress then clearly does not have the power to establish a law either way, establishing or forbiding.

DRS

March 5th, 2009, 5:49 pm

Am I the only person here who is religous and is not the least bit surprised that human self rule has failed?

No form of human government ever makes even the majority happy never mind doing what the bible says is going to happen

graatz

March 5th, 2009, 5:52 pm

The second clause in the first amendment could then be perceived to contradict the first.

They aren't in contradiction. The religious liberties of the First Amendment are basically as follows:

1) You have the liberty to follow the religion of your choice.
2) Government will not be used to establish or endorse any particular religions.

The second liberty is one that has required some legal clarification. You'll need to read Court decisions to follow how the second liberty has been clarified.

European

March 5th, 2009, 5:54 pm

In my opinion people invented all sorts of Religions just because they can't take the fact that we,the human civilization, are so useless and so trival in this whole universe .So through religions we try to make us more (dont find the right words in english) meaningfull (???).Infact we aren't....
Most religions (not all) belive that only there point of view is totally right and that all others who dont belive in their god should be punished.
I think thats pretty stupid still I respect all sort's of different religions as long as they don't start to harm people...

RayMan

March 5th, 2009, 5:58 pm

Thor

March 5th, 2009, 5:59 pm

optrader

March 5th, 2009, 6:01 pm

No.

The problem I have with this is that Christian parents, or for that matter, most parents, don't have the money to send their children to a private school. Since these Christian parents can't afford to send their children to private school, they are forced to send their kids to secular schools, where they're forced to attend classes that teach evolution or other things that go against their beliefs.

What is the difference between the children of atheist parents being exposed to Christian belief and the children of Christians being exposed/forced to listen to atheist belief? As you imply, schools are funded by tax dollars. Would you object to Christian parents opting out of local school taxes so they could use their tax money instead to send their children to a religious school? If so why? Would you object if every parent got to use their tax money to send their kids to the school of their choice?

DRS

March 5th, 2009, 6:02 pm

So, who is supposed to govern people, if not people?

When God put Adam and Eve here He gave them a rule and then let them experience life

Meriweather

March 5th, 2009, 6:03 pm

I'm saying the government is obligated to acquiesce to my rights and liberties. Public school are state-sponsored, and as such they are obligated to the Establishment Clause. Does this mean that the government is restricted or required to impose restrictions? Well, yeah, basically. But if you don't like your rights and liberties, I'm sure you can find somewhere else to live that doesn't protect the same set of them...

Everyone feels that the government is obligated to acquiesce to their rights and liberties. We pay for the public schools; we elect school boards and it is the Federal government who, after more than a hundred years, abruptly did an about face, and placed restrictions on when and how prayer might be voiced, despite what local school districts had instituted for their communities.

To me, it seems that it is people with your view that worked to make government more restrictive for us all.

:shrugs: The OP suggested a definition, taking it as a matter of assumption that the Founding Fathers knew that Jesus Christ was Lord and Savior and any religious claims otherwise must not actually represent true religions and therefore deserve no protection. But if the religious claims of a religion must be proven in order to be afforded protection, when did Christianity prove to the Courts that, indeed, Jesus Christ rose from the dead and will come again to judge the quick and the dead? :eh:

If we are going by the OP, then wouldn't all we need to prove is that there are writings that prove what some of the Founding Father's believed, not the status of those beliefs?

Meriweather

March 5th, 2009, 6:06 pm

No.

Why not? Why don't people have the right to choose? By not allowing choice, aren't you endorsing a nanny state where the government makes all the choices for its citizens?

DRS

March 5th, 2009, 6:11 pm

Why not? Why don't people have the right to choose? By not allowing choice, aren't you endorsing a nanny state where the government makes all the choices for its citizens?

Just a question if you allow religous ideas in school whose views should be taught ?

Thor

March 5th, 2009, 6:12 pm

When God put Adam and Eve here He gave them a rule and then let them experience life

First of all, you have no evidence that this tale is true. It is simply something you believe.

Secondly, how do you suggest that we be governed by an invisible, undetectable and unresponsive deity?

DRS

March 5th, 2009, 6:16 pm

First of all, you have no evidence that this tale is true. It is simply something you believe.

Secondly, how do you suggest that we be governed by an invisible, undetectable and unresponsive deity?

What evidence to prove this to not be true?

Who says God is unresponsive and undectable?

optrader

March 5th, 2009, 6:17 pm

First of all, you have no evidence that this tale is true. It is simply something you believe.

Secondly, how do you suggest that we be governed by an invisible, undetectable and unresponsive deity?

Could such a government be worse than being governed by VISIBLE, DETECTABLE, UNRESPONSIVE leaders who merely think they are deity? :think:

Tim

March 5th, 2009, 6:17 pm

(snip)...and the children of Christians being exposed/forced to listen to atheist belief? (snip)

I'm unaware of any school where Christians are forced to listen to atheist belief. Where is this happening? For that matter, the only "belief" that is "athiest" is actually a "lack of belief" in god(s).... there are no "atheist beliefs" that I am aware of and I am an atheist - I do not believe in god(s).

Are you objecting to children being exposed to the fact that there are people in the world who don't believe in god(s)?

Please don't take my questions as being argumentative. I really don't understand and am trying to ascertain what you mean.

Tim

March 5th, 2009, 6:21 pm

What evidence to prove this to not be true?

(snip)

If schools taught everything that can't be proven to be false there would be no time left for readin', writin' and 'rithmetic. For instance, should children be taught the finer points of Zoroastrianism just because we cannot prove them to be false?

RayMan

March 5th, 2009, 6:28 pm

Meriweather

March 5th, 2009, 6:29 pm

Just a question if you allow religous ideas in school whose views should be taught ?

All right. Let's say I was Chair for the school district. First I would want to know my demographics. Let's propose that eighty percent of my district are Christians of various denominations and let's say that twenty percent are non-Christian of varying beliefs or non beliefs.

Focusing on the eighty percent, I would then call for an ecumenical council of Christian faiths to devise a basic curriculum upon which all could agree.

If demand supported it, students might be assigned one science class over another. For example, there is so much science to be learned, perhaps some students would not even be introduced to evolution, but their focus might be more on plant and geological sciences than evolutionary sciences.

Those who do not wish to have God or religion introduced during their school day could attend schools who work around this wish.

Chuangtzu

March 5th, 2009, 6:32 pm

All right. Let's say I was Chair for the school district. First I would want to know my demographics. Let's propose that eighty percent of my district are Christians of various denominations and let's say that twenty percent are non-Christian of varying beliefs or non beliefs.

Focusing on the eighty percent, I would then call for an ecumenical council of Christian faiths to devise a basic curriculum upon which all could agree.

If demand supported it, students might be assigned one science class over another. For example, there is so much science to be learned, perhaps some students would not even be introduced to evolution, but their focus might be more on plant and geological sciences than evolutionary sciences.

Those who do not wish to have God or religion introduced during their school day could attend schools who work around this wish.

No one will be educated, with this invitation to perpetual litigation.

Tim

March 5th, 2009, 6:34 pm

You atheist folk do believe differently than us religious folk concerning religious things don't you? Even though the atheist viewpoint is not presented as a belief system you still believe that we are wrong in what we believe, even those of you who do so politely.

Throwing aside the finer points of semantics involved, atheists do have a belief system, even if it is just comprised of your disagreement with those of us who believe in God.

Okay, I'll bite... what is our belief system?

Also, what's important about people believing differently from each other? Baptist don't believe the same as Catholics, Christians don't believe the same as Muslims, etc. Each thinks the other is wrong in their beliefs and, presumably, don't want their children taught the "wrong" beliefs to their children in public schools.

But I digress... what is the atheist belief system? (I became an atheist the moment I stopped believing in God... beyond that I know of no new belief system that I adopted or was supposed to have adopted).

Meriweather

March 5th, 2009, 6:35 pm

No one will be educated, with this invitation to perpetual litigation.

The students would continue in school while the "adults" happily went to their litigations.

Chuangtzu

March 5th, 2009, 6:37 pm

The students would continue in school while the "adults" happily went to their litigations.

Injunction. (http://law.freeadvice.com/general_practice/legal_remedies/injunction_order.htm)

optrader

March 5th, 2009, 6:41 pm

I'm unaware of any school where Christians are forced to listen to atheist belief. Where is this happening? For that matter, the only "belief" that is "athiest" is actually a "lack of belief" in god(s).... there are no "atheist beliefs" that I am aware of and I am an atheist - I do not believe in god(s).

Evolution is a good example of an atheist belief. Evolution is a theory, not a demonstrable fact. There are many holes in the theory, yet it is taught as a scientific fact. Since you, as an atheist, obviously don't believe in creation and believe it to be a theory put forth by Christians, would you object if your children were likewise taught the theory of creation?

My objection is that Christian parents don't have the option to send their children to a religious school, yet they are forced to pay for a school that teaches secular belief. Allow all parents to use their tax dollars to send their kids to the school of their choice and the problem is solved and the solution is fair. It is liberals who are forcing their belief and agenda on our kids! It is liberals who object to school choice!

Are you objecting to children being exposed to the fact that there are people in the world who don't believe in god(s)?

Not at all. At some point, the influence of the parent gives way to the choice of the child. School (and other seculare activities) often take more of the kids time than their parents have to give them, thus parents are at a disadvantage in instilling the values they wish their children to grow up with. Kids don't have a level playing field to make their decisions if exposure to religion is denied in every "public" place they go. I'm not advocating forcing children to worship Jesus at school, merely that the hostility towards christianity at school be scaled way back. Treat Christian beliefs with equal respect.

Please don't take my questions as being argumentative. I really don't understand and am trying to ascertain what you mean.

I didn't take it as argumentative at all, I enjoy the exchange of ideas even if I disagree...

Meriweather

March 5th, 2009, 6:43 pm

Okay, I'll bite... what is our belief system?

Also, what's important about people believing differently from each other? Baptist don't believe the same as Catholics, Christians don't believe the same as Muslims, etc. Each thinks the other is wrong in their beliefs and, presumably, don't want their children taught the "wrong" beliefs to their children in public schools.

But I digress... what is the atheist belief system? (I became an atheist the moment I stopped believing in God... beyond that I know of no new belief system that I adopted or was supposed to have adopted).

Some atheists tend to believe children should not be taught about God--that they can learn about God as adults, if they so wish. They want all semblance of religion removed from society's sight (In God we Trust, One nation under God, etcetera.) I don't think of it so much as an an atheist belief system, as I think of it as a system some atheists then begin to follow.

As you say, Christians have different denominations, and even within the same denomination, beliefs are sometimes argued. I would say the same is true within the atheist "collective" (so to speak).

optrader

March 5th, 2009, 6:45 pm

Injunction. (http://law.freeadvice.com/general_practice/legal_remedies/injunction_order.htm)

Injunction, junction, whats your function...

Reliving childhood here... :whistle:

Meriweather

March 5th, 2009, 6:46 pm

Injunction. (http://law.freeadvice.com/general_practice/legal_remedies/injunction_order.htm)

Wouldn't the injunction be against introducing the program to begin with, not continuing on with the "as is" system now in place?

Do you really believe educating children would come to a screeching halt if society tried to implement a new idea?

I'm more optimistic.

RayMan

March 5th, 2009, 6:47 pm

Okay, I'll bite... what is our belief system?

Also, what's important about people believing differently from each other? Baptist don't believe the same as Catholics, Christians don't believe the same as Muslims, etc. Each thinks the other is wrong in their beliefs and, presumably, don't want their children taught the "wrong" beliefs to their children in public schools.

But I digress... what is the atheist belief system? (I became an atheist the moment I stopped believing in God... beyond that I know of no new belief system that I adopted or was supposed to have adopted).

Shucks Tim, I don't know what your belief system is aside from the fact that it is different from mine as regards spiritual things. You guys haven't, to my knowledge, had the decency to print up an Atheist's Bible yet so I am left in the dark. :angel:

I do know that you believe that I am wrong in my beliefs, so there is a start. I am just pointing out that you guys have your beliefs just like anyone else, even though you don't recite a creed or have an non-holy book which lays them out line upon line and precept upon precept.

Chuangtzu

March 5th, 2009, 6:47 pm

Wouldn't the injunction be against introducing the program to begin with, not continuing on with the "as is" system now in place?

Do you really believe educating children would come to a screeching halt if society tried to implement a new idea?

I'm more optimistic.

I think if you tell the parents of children who don't have Christian beliefs to "go elsewhere," you're going to be up to your ears in injunctions.

optrader

March 5th, 2009, 6:52 pm

Shucks Tim, I don't know what your belief system is aside from the fact that it is different from mine as regards spiritual things. You guys haven't, to my knowledge, had the decency to print up an Atheist's Bible yet so I am left in the dark. :angel:

I do know that you believe that I am wrong in my beliefs, so there is a start. I am just pointing out that you guys have your beliefs just like anyone else, even though you don't recite a creed or have an non-holy book which lays them out line upon line and precept upon precept.

A most brilliant interjection of scripture here Ray!

RayMan

March 5th, 2009, 6:53 pm

A most brilliant interjection of scripture here Ray!

Shh....the only atheist that will get it is Tim...:cool:

Meriweather

March 5th, 2009, 6:59 pm

I think if you tell the parents of children who don't have Christian beliefs to "go elsewhere," you're going to be up to your ears in injunctions.

Parents who don't have Christian beliefs can go to Christian schools if they wish. I did not meant to imply that they could not. I meant to state they did not HAVE to go to Christian schools; there would be schools or a non-Christian curriculum for them, too.

Chuangtzu

March 5th, 2009, 7:00 pm

Parents who don't have Christian beliefs can go to Christian schools if they wish. I did not meant to imply that they could not. I meant to state they did not HAVE to go to Christian schools; there would be schools or a non-Christian curriculum for them, too.

Separate but equal, eh?

captusa

March 5th, 2009, 7:00 pm

Again you prove my point.

The answer is in the New Testament, the apostles asked the same question.

Sorry I havent answered your question directly. My post is not to disclose my belief or yours just making a rant about how we christians get into discussions. That non-believers cant comprehend and get confused. Also how we let our guard down and next thing we know bam! Bible no longer allowed in public schools.

The ACLU has an open offer to defend anyone who is barred from bringing a Bible to school and/or reading it in their free time.
Of course teaching that the Bible is fact is a violation of the 1st Amendment.

mtdim

March 5th, 2009, 7:02 pm

Those who do not wish to have God or religion introduced during their school day could attend schools who work around this wish.

You honestly don't see anything wrong with telling 20% (in this hypothetical case) of your community to "take a hike"?

And having God or religion introduced during the school day is perfectly OK, as long as religions aren't endorsed or denigrated. In highschool, my philosophy classes were rife with religious discussion, as were certain history classes.

mtdim

March 5th, 2009, 7:07 pm

captusa

March 5th, 2009, 7:08 pm

Meriweather

March 5th, 2009, 7:09 pm

Separate but equal, eh?

Who said separate but equal? First, schools can accommodate different educational programs. Can you say, IEP?

When you go shopping, do you always select from the One Size Fits All rack?

Chuangtzu

March 5th, 2009, 7:10 pm

Who said separate but equal? First, schools can accommodate different educational programs. Can you say, IEP?

When you go shopping, do you always select from the One Size Fits All rack?

I don't shop for religions. I don't send my children to school to be shopped by different sects. So ends your comparison.

Meriweather

March 5th, 2009, 7:13 pm

You honestly don't see anything wrong with telling 20% (in this hypothetical case) of your community to "take a hike"?

First of all, accommodating twenty percent who believe differently from eighty percent is not telling them to take a hike. It is accommodating them.

From my perspective, it seems it is you who doesn't mind telling the eighty percent to take a hike. ;)

And having God or religion introduced during the school day is perfectly OK, as long as religions aren't endorsed or denigrated. In highschool, my philosophy classes were rife with religious discussion, as were certain history classes.

Yes. You must have missed my first post in this thread where I wrote students still do discuss God, religion, beliefs at school.

Meriweather

March 5th, 2009, 7:16 pm

I don't shop for religions. I don't send my children to school to be shopped by different sects. So ends your comparison.

Which is why I was giving your children a place where they would not be touched by this. You could shop for what YOU feel is the best education for your children. I could shop for what I feel is the best education for my children. And it COULD all be done within a public school system.

captusa

March 5th, 2009, 7:18 pm

Yes it does have an establishment clause, If you would continue to read the next independent clause following establishment, you will read "or prohibit the free excersie thereof". We stop at establishment clause and stop reading. Usually!
Forcing children to be exposed to religious indoctrination of a religion different from their parents is interfering with the free practice of the religion of the child and parents.
I assume you believe the 1st Amendment allows a public school teacher to teach the existance of several Gods.

We also need to ask: Did framers and signers of Decleration of Independence and the US Constitution beleive that Christianity was the only true religion?
Some did.
Some didn't.
I assumed you knew that.

That false religions would not be protected by the establishment clause. That the only true religions in their view/eyes are based on christianity and the Holy Bible.

The establishment clause forbids the government from deciding which religion, if an, were the true religion.

Chuangtzu

March 5th, 2009, 7:18 pm

Which is why I was giving your children a place where they would not be touched by this. You could shop for what YOU feel is the best education for your children. I could shop for what I feel is the best education for my children. And it COULD all be done within a public school system.

And we're back to separate but equal.

How about this - keep religion in churches, ashrams, synagogues, masjids, groves and temples, and educational instruction in schools?

Meriweather

March 5th, 2009, 7:21 pm

And we're back to separate but equal.

How about this - keep religion in churches, ashrams, synagogues, masjids, groves and temples, and educational instruction in schools?

No, we're back to choice instead of the government deciding what it is going to teach our children.

captusa

March 5th, 2009, 7:25 pm

DEATH TO ALL YE GODLESS HEATHENS!!!!

Sorry, couldn't resist :D

And I repeat:
Godless Heathen is an oxymoron since most Heathens have far more Gods than Jews, Christians and Moslem.

RayMan

March 5th, 2009, 7:27 pm

And I repeat:
Godless Heathen is an oxymoron since most Heathens have far more Gods than Jews, Christians and Moslem.

Hi Cap,
Actually it was Godless Pagans last time. :D

Chuangtzu

March 5th, 2009, 7:28 pm

No, we're back to choice instead of the government deciding what it is going to teach our children.

You're choice is no choice at all. It's majoritarian compulsion, with a little "separate but equal" tossed in as a bone to those who question it enough to ask, "Hey, wait a minute?"

Chuangtzu

March 5th, 2009, 7:28 pm

Hi Cap,
Actually it was Godless Pagans last time. :D

No, he wrote Heathens.

Meriweather

March 5th, 2009, 7:33 pm

You're choice is no choice at all. It's majoritarian compulsion, with a little "separate but equal" tossed in as a bone to those who question it enough to ask, "Hey, wait a minute?"

So say you. I believe it is the parents and local school boards who should be running our schools, and not the federal government. If I had switched the statistics so that eighty percent of the schools were silent about God/religion and twenty percent were inclusive of God/religion, would you still be accusing "Separate but equal?" There is nothing separate but equal about this. It is choice. A non-Christian could still choose to attend a Christian school. A Christian could still choose a non-Christian school. No one is dividing anyone. Choice is being presented. Is choice such a scary option to you?

Chuangtzu

March 5th, 2009, 7:36 pm

So say you. I believe it is the parents and local school boards who should be running our schools, and not the federal government. If I had switched the statistics so that eighty percent of the schools were silent about God/religion and twenty percent were inclusive of God/religion, would you still be accusing "Separate but equal?" There is nothing separate but equal about this. It is choice. A non-Christian could still choose to attend a Christian school. A Christian could still choose a non-Christian school. No one is dividing anyone. Choice is being presented. Is choice such a scary option to you?

It is no "choice" when the choice is "religious indoctrination in school" or "go away."

mtdim

March 5th, 2009, 7:38 pm

First of all, accommodating twenty percent who believe differently from eighty percent is not telling them to take a hike. It is accommodating them.

From my perspective, it seems it is you who doesn't mind telling the eighty percent to take a hike. ;)

But the eighty percent aren't being told to take a hike. If they want to pray in school, they are allowed to do that; the current system isn't set up to either discourage, nor encourage prayer. However, in your proposed system, the school would be encouraging prayer, and thus would actually be telling the 20% that they "can take a hike," so to speak.

Yes. You must have missed my first post in this thread where I wrote students still do discuss God, religion, beliefs at school.

Ah, I thought you meant they discuss it amongst themselves, not in class. In either case, Science class isn't really the place for such discussions, unless it was a philosophy of science type course.

captusa

March 5th, 2009, 7:49 pm

They aren't in contradiction. The religious liberties of the First Amendment are basically as follows:

1) You have the liberty to follow the religion of your choice.
2) Government will not be used to establish or endorse any particular religions.

The second liberty is one that has required some legal clarification. You'll need to read Court decisions to follow how the second liberty has been clarified.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
"or prohibiting the free exercise thereof " prohibits the government interferring with the free practice of any religion.
This includes making laws that allow the practice of one religion to interfer with the free practice of another.
I believe it was Oliver Wendell Holmes that explained the limitation of freedom as "Your freedom to move your hand stops at my nose."

captusa

March 5th, 2009, 7:55 pm

[/B]
You respect stupidity? :eh:

If you don't have the freedom to be stupid, what freedoms do you have ?

Of course some people abuse the priviledge.

graatz

March 5th, 2009, 7:57 pm

The problem I have with this is that Christian parents, or for that matter, most parents, don't have the money to send their children to a private school. Since these Christian parents can't afford to send their children to private school, they are forced to send their kids to secular schools, where they're forced to attend classes that teach evolution or other things that go against their beliefs.

Religious institutions are free to reduce or eliminate the fee for their schools, if they care to provide their services to the less fortunate. Public funds shouldn't fund religious schools any more than they should fund churches. I wouldn't be opposed to parents opting their children out of the teaching of evolution, if they really feel strongly that their kids can't hear it.

What is the difference between the children of atheist parents being exposed to Christian belief and the children of Christians being exposed/forced to listen to atheist belief? As you imply, schools are funded by tax dollars. Would you object to Christian parents opting out of local school taxes so they could use their tax money instead to send their children to a religious school? If so why? Would you object if every parent got to use their tax money to send their kids to the school of their choice?

I'm not asking for public schools to teach atheism. I'm not even sure what that kind of curriculum would entail...

captusa

March 5th, 2009, 8:00 pm

Hi Cap,
Actually it was Godless Pagans last time. :D

There are more than just one oxymoron.
Civil War and Military Intelligence are 2 of my favorites.

graatz

March 5th, 2009, 8:03 pm

Everyone feels that the government is obligated to acquiesce to their rights and liberties. We pay for the public schools; we elect school boards and it is the Federal government who, after more than a hundred years, abruptly did an about face, and placed restrictions on when and how prayer might be voiced, despite what local school districts had instituted for their communities.

It's not my fault that local schools weren't upholding the Establishment Clause until they were recently compelled to comply. You make it sound like local governments should have the right to deny us basic liberties. If you want this kind of democracy, go live somewhere where it's promoted. Me? I'm happy that we have certain liberties that can't so easily be denied us...

To me, it seems that it is people with your view that worked to make government more restrictive for us all.

No, our government was established to restrict the freedom of the majority to oppress the liberties of the minority.

If we are going by the OP, then wouldn't all we need to prove is that there are writings that prove what some of the Founding Father's believed, not the status of those beliefs?

If the Founding Fathers didn't think we should have the freedom to practice anything other than Christianity, they would have just established Christianity as the national religion... :rolleyes:

graatz

March 5th, 2009, 8:05 pm

Why not? Why don't people have the right to choose? By not allowing choice, aren't you endorsing a nanny state where the government makes all the choices for its citizens?

Straw man. I'm not denying you the right to choose. I'm denying you the freedom to spit on our liberties. If religious schools want more parishioners to attend, they should try to raise the private funding to grant scholarships...

Mikko

March 5th, 2009, 8:06 pm

Yes it does have an establishment clause, If you would continue to read the next independent clause following establishment, you will read "or prohibit the free excersie thereof". We stop at establishment clause and stop reading. Usually!
Barring prayer from school and the use of the Bible as a textbook in tax-supported schools in no way prohibits the free exercise of anyone's religion. That's what churches, synagogues, temples, and mosques are for.

We also need to ask: Did framers and signers of Decleration of Independence and the US Constitution beleive that Christianity was the only true religion? That false religions would not be protected by the establishment clause. That the only true religions in their view/eyes are based on christianity and the Holy Bible.
The religion of Christianity is mentioned neither in the Declaration of Independence nor the Constutition of the United States; thus, whether or not the framers considered Christianity the only true religion is purely academic.:)

captusa

March 5th, 2009, 8:26 pm

Evolution is a good example of an atheist belief. Evolution is a theory, not a demonstrable fact. There are many holes in the theory, yet it is taught as a scientific fact. Since you, as an atheist, obviously don't believe in creation and believe it to be a theory put forth by Christians, would you object if your children were likewise taught the theory of creation?

And Gravity is a Theory , not a demonstrable fact. There are many holes in the theory, yet it is taught as a scientific fact.

The Bohr atom is a Theory , not a demonstrable fact. There are many holes in the theory, yet it is taught as a scientific fact(with modifications)

A Christian Scientist does not believe in the use of medicine, transfusions or vaccines.
The history of medicine should not be taught to them.
BTW Would you object if your children were taught incantations, magic potions and summoning Satan.

My objection is that Christian parents don't have the option to send their children to a religious school, yet they are forced to pay for a school that teaches secular belief. Allow all parents to use their tax dollars to send their kids to the school of their choice and the problem is solved and the solution is fair. It is liberals who are forcing their belief and agenda on our kids! It is liberals who object to school choice!

Schools teach what is the body of knowledge at the time and evolution is accepted as a scientific fact.
IOW In the absense of credible contrary evidence and the vast amount supporting evidence evolution is accepted beyond a reasonable doubt.
Come up with a workable theory that explain the origin of the species consistant with the evidence available you would create reasonable doubt (and win at least one Nobel prize)
Go for it!

Not at all. At some point, the influence of the parent gives way to the choice of the child. School (and other seculare activities) often take more of the kids time than their parents have to give them, thus parents are at a disadvantage in instilling the values they wish their children to grow up with. Kids don't have a level playing field to make their decisions if exposure to religion is denied in every "public" place they go. I'm not advocating forcing children to worship Jesus at school, merely that the hostility towards christianity at school be scaled way back. Treat Christian beliefs with equal respect.
What hostility to Christianity ?
The majority of students and teachers are Christian.
What about the hostility towards Atheists?
Government sponsorship of exposure to religion in a public place is limited but religions have the same access to public places as any other group.
The ACLU won a case that allowed a church to perform Baptism in the lake in a public park.

I didn't take it as argumentative at all, I enjoy the exchange of ideas even if I disagree....

Ditto.

I hope you learned something.*

*I apologize. I just couldn't resist a cheap shot.

southtx30

March 5th, 2009, 8:41 pm

Barring prayer from school and the use of the Bible as a textbook in tax-supported schools in no way prohibits the free exercise of anyone's religion. That's what churches, synagogues, temples, and mosques are for.

The religion of Christianity is mentioned neither in the Declaration of Independence nor the Constutition of the United States; thus, whether or not the framers considered Christianity the only true religion is purely academic.:)

Correct!

Yet references to a creator exist.
Yet the phrase Year of our Lord is there. As in Lord Jesus Christ?

What is funny is how Agnostics and Atheist want religion out of government by government taking there view and forbiding the mention of religion anywhere in government places, So who is forcing there views on whom. What right do Atheist have concerning religion, since the 1st amendment concerns freedom of religion not freedom from religion. Just my take

Chuangtzu

March 5th, 2009, 8:44 pm

Correct!

Yet references to a creator exist.
Yet the phrase Year of our Lord is there. As in Lord Jesus Christ?

What is funny is how Agnostics and Atheist want religion out of government by government taking there view and forbiding the mention of religion anywhere in government places, So who is forcing there views on whom. What right do Atheist have concerning religion, since the 1st amendment concerns freedom of religion not freedom from religion. Just my take

A calendrical convention used by almost every English speaking person of the period is not sure sign that the writers of the Constitution intended a Holy Nation, devoted to Christian worship.

If they'd wanted that, they'd probably have invoked Jesus, or the name, Christ.

Meriweather

March 5th, 2009, 8:50 pm

It is no "choice" when the choice is "religious indoctrination in school" or "go away."

Where did I say "religious indoctrination in school" or even "go away?" There are parents who would not mind having religion or prayer in school. There are some who would. Why not provide the choice? I think it could be done.

I understand you see all sorts of bugaboos and are fearful of them. I see nothing that I fear. I like the idea of me having a choice without you having to give up what you already like.

Meriweather

March 5th, 2009, 8:58 pm

But the eighty percent aren't being told to take a hike. If they want to pray in school, they are allowed to do that; the current system isn't set up to either discourage, nor encourage prayer. However, in your proposed system, the school would be encouraging prayer, and thus would actually be telling the 20% that they "can take a hike," so to speak.

We are starting to veer into two different discussions. I was addressing a post which asked IF Christianity were to be taught in schools, how I would address the problem of so many Christian denominations and various teachings, as well as those who were non-Christian.

I'm telling no one to take a hike. I'm being accused of telling people to take a hike which is an unfair derailment of what I said. Again, I addressed both the majority and the minority. In MY proposal, no one would be neglected; no one would be left out.

Ah, I thought you meant they discuss it amongst themselves, not in class. In either case, Science class isn't really the place for such discussions, unless it was a philosophy of science type course.

Sorry. If I put students in groups to plan and prepare posters depicting evolutionary theory, and one of the things they wish to discuss among themselves in God and Creationism, I let them be. I think that is more productive than them discussing what Jenny told Sally who told Jimmy.

Meriweather

March 5th, 2009, 9:01 pm

It's not my fault that local schools weren't upholding the Establishment Clause until they were recently compelled to comply. You make it sound like local governments should have the right to deny us basic liberties. If you want this kind of democracy, go live somewhere where it's promoted. Me? I'm happy that we have certain liberties that can't so easily be denied us...

No, our government was established to restrict the freedom of the majority to oppress the liberties of the minority.

If the Founding Fathers didn't think we should have the freedom to practice anything other than Christianity, they would have just established Christianity as the national religion... :rolleyes:

Saying a prayer does not establish a religion. Teachers leading a prayer does not establish a religion. People can be just as free to participate as not to participate.

Meriweather

March 5th, 2009, 9:06 pm

Straw man. I'm not denying you the right to choose. I'm denying you the freedom to spit on our liberties. If religious schools want more parishioners to attend, they should try to raise the private funding to grant scholarships...

Advocating the freedom to exercise (or not) one's religious choices is not me spitting on liberty. Nor is it a strawman. It is the people who should have the choice to choose their children's education, not the government.

If you want the government to choose your child's education, that is okay with me. I simply believe it would be more in line with a free society if it is the individual, not the government, making the choice.

Tim

March 5th, 2009, 9:09 pm

(snip) You guys haven't, to my knowledge, had the decency to print up an Atheist's Bible yet so I am left in the dark. :angel:

(snip)

By golly, that's a great idea... I need to write an Atheist's Bible....

Don't worry, I'll remember you when I'm a star!!!!! :))

Seriously though, apart from the belief in a deity you and I probably have quite a bit in common. I tend to agree with the vast majority of the things you post.

I hope that doesn't ruin your reputation. :eek::D

Tim

March 5th, 2009, 9:11 pm

Shh....the only atheist that will get it is Tim...:cool:

Now you're gonna ruin my rep... :cool:

mtdim

March 5th, 2009, 9:37 pm

We are starting to veer into two different discussions. I was addressing a post which asked IF Christianity were to be taught in schools, how I would address the problem of so many Christian denominations and various teachings, as well as those who were non-Christian.

So do you or do you not think Christianity should be allowed to be taught in a public school if the majority of the community is Christian? Because if so, the marginalization of the non-Christian minority certainly becomes an issue.

I'm telling no one to take a hike. I'm being accused of telling people to take a hike which is an unfair derailment of what I said. Again, I addressed both the majority and the minority. In MY proposal, no one would be neglected; no one would be left out.

Well ignoring the obvious inefficiency involved with dividing up the entire local school system into a religious and non-religious sub-system, it's hard to say that no one would be neglected.

Even if these problems didn't exist, what is the point? What is the reason for wanting religious discussion in school? When I was a kid, I went to Sunday school, and another religious class that took place Monday evenings. That meant four hours a week of purely religious instruction, discussion, etc., certainly more time than a school could ever hope to devote to religious instruction in a week, given its obligation to teach other subjects. Why go through all this trouble to try to make religious instruction in public schools "fair" (which I doubt could ever happen, anyway), when it is the easiest thing in the world for parents to find a good Sunday school program if they so choose?

There's no need to mix public education and religion when keeping them separate is not only so much simpler, but does not at all infringe anyone's right to get religious instruction for their child should they so choose.

Sorry. If I put students in groups to plan and prepare posters depicting evolutionary theory, and one of the things they wish to discuss among themselves in God and Creationism, I let them be. I think that is more productive than them discussing what Jenny told Sally who told Jimmy.

I agree that it's perfectly fine to let students discuss those things amongst themselves.

DRS

March 5th, 2009, 9:57 pm

All right. Let's say I was Chair for the school district. First I would want to know my demographics. Let's propose that eighty percent of my district are Christians of various denominations and let's say that twenty percent are non-Christian of varying beliefs or non beliefs.

Focusing on the eighty percent, I would then call for an ecumenical council of Christian faiths to devise a basic curriculum upon which all could agree.

If demand supported it, students might be assigned one science class over another. For example, there is so much science to be learned, perhaps some students would not even be introduced to evolution, but their focus might be more on plant and geological sciences than evolutionary sciences.

Those who do not wish to have God or religion introduced during their school day could attend schools who work around this wish.

What happens though if some evolutionary thoughts do not contradict the bible?

Meriweather

March 5th, 2009, 10:00 pm

So do you or do you not think Christianity should be allowed to be taught in a public school if the majority of the community is Christian? Because if so, the marginalization of the non-Christian minority certainly becomes an issue.

I believe parents, not government should choose their children's education. If the majority of the parents in the community want Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, or Norse Mythology taught at school, I think it should be in the curriculum. I believe in supply and demand. Further I absolutely do not understand the hysteria of a child being exposed to differing beliefs.

I've raised two Catholic daughters in an atheist environment. One daughter's best friend (and eventually roommate) is Hindu. The other daughter's best friend is Jewish, and this daughter also was influenced by a Wiccan teacher in high school.

Are you telling me that your atheist children are more easily influenced by other beliefs than my Catholic daughters were?

Well ignoring the obvious inefficiency involved with dividing up the entire local school system into a religious and non-religious sub-system, it's hard to say that no one would be neglected.

Even if these problems didn't exist, what is the point? What is the reason for wanting religious discussion in school? When I was a kid, I went to Sunday school, and another religious class that took place Monday evenings. That meant four hours a week of purely religious instruction, discussion, etc., certainly more time than a school could ever hope to devote to religious instruction in a week, given its obligation to teach other subjects. Why go through all this trouble to try to make religious instruction in public schools "fair" (which I doubt could ever happen, anyway), when it is the easiest thing in the world for parents to find a good Sunday school program if they so choose?

There's no need to mix public education and religion when keeping them separate is not only so much simpler, but does not at all infringe anyone's right to get religious instruction for their child should they so choose.

I was not arguing the need for it. My focus has been one of choice; one of Federal government deciding how to educate our children versus the idea of parental choice.

southtx30

March 5th, 2009, 10:10 pm

A calendrical convention used by almost every English speaking person of the period is not sure sign that the writers of the Constitution intended a Holy Nation, devoted to Christian worship.

If they'd wanted that, they'd probably have invoked Jesus, or the name, Christ.

That may be true. Yet there is no challenging the faith of those at the time. Faith in a god or inparticular in God himself. Given the era when the constitution was written how can one not believe what they ment by creator being non other than God.

captusa

March 5th, 2009, 10:34 pm

Correct!

Yet references to a creator exist.
Yet the phrase Year of our Lord is there. As in Lord Jesus Christ?

What is funny is how Agnostics and Atheist want religion out of government by government taking there view and forbiding the mention of religion anywhere in government places, So who is forcing there views on whom. What right do Atheist have concerning religion, since the 1st amendment concerns freedom of religion not freedom from religion. Just my take

Year of our lord was the formal notation of the time.
I use B.C. and A.D. even though I was born Jewish and am an Atheist.

RayMan

March 5th, 2009, 10:35 pm

There are more than just one oxymoron.
Civil War and Military Intelligence are 2 of my favorites.

“Military intelligence is a contradiction in terms.” Groucho Marx

RayMan

March 5th, 2009, 10:36 pm

Now you're gonna ruin my rep... :cool:

All part of my master plan.

Harmonious

March 5th, 2009, 10:41 pm

Injunction, junction, whats your function...

Reliving childhood here... :whistle:
Those were the days, my friend. I have a DVD of all of those wonderful "School House Rock" songs that were once the highlight of my Saturday mornings...

khigh

March 5th, 2009, 10:43 pm

[quote=graatz;50338551]

What do you consider state sponsored prayer? How does school prayer "establish" a religion?

Would you like it if the kids were led in a Hindu mantra every morning? That is the same way I feel about school prayer. My daughter would feel very isolated in a classroom that had Christian prayer. She is being raised in a western Hindu home.

Harmonious

March 5th, 2009, 10:44 pm

If you don't have the freedom to be stupid, what freedoms do you have ?

Of course some people abuse the priviledge.:))

khigh

March 5th, 2009, 10:50 pm

“Military intelligence is a contradiction in terms.” Groucho Marx

You know what's even better? When I had joined the military, I was going into Marine Corps Intelligence. When I told the recruiter that was what I wanted to do, even he laughed at the irony. :D

Harmonious

March 5th, 2009, 10:54 pm

Yes it does have an establishment clause, If you would continue to read the next independent clause following establishment, you will read "or prohibit the free excersie thereof". We stop at establishment clause and stop reading. Usually!

We also need to ask: Did framers and signers of Decleration of Independence and the US Constitution beleive that Christianity was the only true religion? That false religions would not be protected by the establishment clause. That the only true religions in their view/eyes are based on christianity and the Holy Bible.
That's not exactly the way to ingratiate yourself here in the Religion Forum on Hannity.com.

I'm not Christian, nor have I ever been, but I can promise you that I believe that my religion is a, if not the, true religion. But I know that you seriously disagree.

The idea of the establishment clause means that just like you don't have to follow MY religion, I don't have to follow YOUR religion.

I would not be so arrogant as to say that my religion is the true religion, so that all people should follow it, and that all other religions are not protected by the establishment clause.

I am having trouble believing that you have no problem saying that of others.

captusa

March 5th, 2009, 10:55 pm

Those were the days, my friend. I have a DVD of all of those wonderful "School House Rock" songs that were once the highlight of my Saturday mornings...

The author and performer on "School House Rock" is Bob Dorough a jazz composer and pianist.
I was a fan of his long before "School House Rock".
He has recorded with Miles Davis and wrote a Christmas song for Miles for a Columbia Christmas album.
I've met and talked with him many times.

captusa

March 5th, 2009, 10:59 pm

“Military intelligence is a contradiction in terms.” Groucho Marx

What did you think an oxymoron was ?

another:
Act Naturally

Harmonious

March 5th, 2009, 10:59 pm

The author and performer on "School House Rock" is Bob Dorough a jazz composer and pianist.
I was a fan of his long before "School House Rock".
He has recorded with Miles Davis and wrote a Christmas song for Miles for a Columbia Christmas album.
I've met and talked with him many times.

That is very cool. :cool:

RayMan

March 5th, 2009, 11:04 pm

By golly, that's a great idea... I need to write an Atheist's Bible....

Don't worry, I'll remember you when I'm a star!!!!! :))

Seriously though, apart from the belief in a deity you and I probably have quite a bit in common. I tend to agree with the vast majority of the things you post.

I hope that doesn't ruin your reputation. :eek::D

My reputation got trashed when I aligned myself with CID. Having people know you and I get along can't possibly drag my name any further down into the mud.

BTW when writing your atheistic magnum opus never forget the power of the ©.

mtdim

March 5th, 2009, 11:53 pm

I believe parents, not government should choose their children's education. If the majority of the parents in the community want Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, or Norse Mythology taught at school, I think it should be in the curriculum. I believe in supply and demand.

It's not supply and demand because we are not talking about a market. If the majority of people like canned string beans, producers will produce it; this doesn't mean, however, that the minority who didn't demand it must purchase it as well. However, If the majority wants some religion taught in the public school, the minority gets subjected to it same as the majority (and they pay for it as well).

Further I absolutely do not understand the hysteria of a child being exposed to differing beliefs.

I've raised two Catholic daughters in an atheist environment. One daughter's best friend (and eventually roommate) is Hindu. The other daughter's best friend is Jewish, and this daughter also was influenced by a Wiccan teacher in high school.

Are you telling me that your atheist children are more easily influenced by other beliefs than my Catholic daughters were?

No hysteria here. I don't oppose religion in schools because I'm afraid my child will be converted, I oppose it because it is simply not fair. Christians aren't paying more taxes than me, so why should their personal beliefs be taught in public schools and mine ignored? If it were somehow feasible to accommodate ALL religious beliefs (which it isn't), then I'd say go ahead with it.

I was not arguing the need for it. My focus has been one of choice; one of Federal government deciding how to educate our children versus the idea of parental choice.

A public school is just that: public. It's not there to serve your individual needs, it is there to serve the needs of society as a whole. If I wanted my child to become an engineer (not that I'd ever dream of forcing my hypothetical child into a particular profession), I wouldn't complain that public schools don't put enough emphasis on math and physics; that'd be selfishly putting my own needs in front of everybody else's. I would instead look for a private school that put more emphasis on these subjects.

captusa

March 5th, 2009, 11:59 pm

That is very cool. :cool:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWw9BApOHUw&feature=related

http://www.mytuneslive.com/song.php?sid=224197

Meriweather

March 6th, 2009, 12:09 am

It's not supply and demand because we are not talking about a market. If the majority of people like canned string beans, producers will produce it; this doesn't mean, however, that the minority who didn't demand it must purchase it as well. However, If the majority wants some religion taught in the public school, the minority gets subjected to it same as the majority (and they pay for it as well).

Interesting concept, isn't it? Because I am a minority, the majority can't have what they want--they must take what I want.

No hysteria here. I don't oppose religion in schools because I'm afraid my child will be converted, I oppose it because it is simply not fair. Christians aren't paying more taxes than me, so why should their personal beliefs be taught in public schools and mine ignored? If it were somehow feasible to accommodate ALL religious beliefs (which it isn't), then I'd say go ahead with it.

I could give you an entire list of things at school that are not "fair." As long as your child does not have to participate in these classes, why should you care what my child is being taught? Christians pay taxes, too, and have an equal say on what they want their tax dollars are spent on. I pay taxes on many things I have never used.

A public school is just that: public. It's not there to serve your individual needs, it is there to serve the needs of society as a whole. If I wanted my child to become an engineer (not that I'd ever dream of forcing my hypothetical child into a particular profession), I wouldn't complain that public schools don't put enough emphasis on math and physics; that'd be selfishly putting my own needs in front of everybody else's. I would instead look for a private school that put more emphasis on these subjects.

Then our next discussion might be on whether those with religious beliefs and convictions serve the needs of society as a whole. I believe they do.

Again, what if eighty percent of the local population had an interest in engineering and in training their children in physics and math? Shouldn't the school district in that area have the option of incorporating more math and physics into the curriculum if the majority deemed it to be of use and/or value?

captusa

March 6th, 2009, 12:13 am

.......Again, what if eighty percent of the local population had an interest in engineering and in training their children in physics and math? Shouldn't the school district in that area have the option of incorporating more math and physics into the curriculum if the majority deemed it to be of use and/or value?

Math and physics are not covered by the first Amendment.

RayMan

March 6th, 2009, 12:17 am

Hey Meri,
I have been lurking behind the scenes here today enjoying your discussions with various folk. It fascinates me that not a one of them is willing to actually discuss your idea of allowing the majority to have the opportunity to have some say in their children's public school education while allowing the minority the same privilege.

Not one of the person's replying to you has actually debated the concept, they just slide around it and keep insisting that any religiously based education is a bad idea in public schools even though you are making it clear that you are describing a setup where those who don't want their kids to get any religious teaching would be free to opt out while those who did want their kids exposed to a certain religion's beliefs would have that opportunity.

It's like they aren't even really reading your posts and are just giving knee-jerk anti Christian education responses as though you were saying all their kids would be forced into Catholic catechism classes.

Fascinating.

Meriweather

March 6th, 2009, 12:26 am

Math and physics are not covered by the first Amendment.

Right. To the everlasting dismay of most students, no one thought to tell Congress to make no law restricting math and physics.

RayMan

March 6th, 2009, 12:30 am

Right. To the everlasting dismay of most students, no one thought to tell Congress to make no law restricting math and physics.

The Blackguards! A pox on them and their houses. I was checking the online catalog for Foothill College today to figure out what I will take for the Spring semester. Imagine my chagrin when I saw that one of the General Ed requirements for a degree was that I take an Algebra class!

I just finished tutoring my two youngest offspring in High School Algebra and now I will have to take a stinking course of it online.

Phah...

Meriweather

March 6th, 2009, 12:32 am

RayMan

March 6th, 2009, 12:35 am

RayMan, I was so happy to see this post! I was about to concede my apparent ineptness to convey a simple thought to others.

Reminds me of the scene in the First Class section of the airplane in the movie 'The Wedding Singer," where the character played by Adam Sandler says, "See, Billy Idol gets it. I don't know why she doesn't get it." ...

Meriweather

March 6th, 2009, 12:37 am

The Blackguards! A pox on them and their houses. I was checking the online catalog for Foothill College today to figure out what I will take for the Spring semester. Imagine my chagrin when I saw that one of the General Ed requirements for a degree was that I take an Algebra class!

I just finished tutoring my two youngest offspring in High School Algebra and now I will have to take a stinking course of it online.

Phah...

I only enjoy math when I have time for it and little else. And then, I like to pick and choose. I wasn't too fond of trigonometry. Will there be any other math classes required to earn your degree?

RayMan

March 6th, 2009, 12:46 am

I only enjoy math when I have time for it and little else. And then, I like to pick and choose. I wasn't too fond of trigonometry. Will there be any other math classes required to earn your degree?

Naw, just one math class.

I think I will get the English requirement out of the way this semester and leave the math for a later date. You never know, I could be wrong in thinking the Pre-Trib Rapture is a bogus doctrine. If that turns out the way some folk around the RF think it will I could get out of here without taking any math at all!!!

khigh

March 6th, 2009, 12:46 am

Saying a prayer does not establish a religion. Teachers leading a prayer does not establish a religion. People can be just as free to participate as not to participate.

My main problem with prayer in school even if the children can opt out is how this would make that particular child feel. Say this is a mainly Christian classroom and the teacher is Christian and leading the children in a Christian prayer. There is also a Hindu and a Pagan or Atheist in the class. Yes, they can opt out and not say this prayer, but would they feel alienated or embarrassed? What kind of questions would this bring and what kind of discussions would happen between the kids? Would there then be religious bullying or mocking? Would we need to allow each group, no matter how small, to pray as they like?

When I was in high school, I was still following a pagan path (druid) before I found Hinduism. I had no problems expressing my feelings- I wore a pentacle to school. Daily I had messages and those "convert or go to hell" comic book pamphlets put in my locker. I even had an LDS student threaten me. All because of a piece of jewelry. What would happen to the child who opted out of Christian prayer in their classroom? Maybe not much in elementary school, but high school kids can be very mean.

I truly like the idea of the moment of silence. Each child can pray or sit quietly as they choose and not have to worry about what others are thinking about them.

Meriweather

March 6th, 2009, 1:14 am

My main problem with prayer in school even if the children can opt out is how this would make that particular child feel. Say this is a mainly Christian classroom and the teacher is Christian and leading the children in a Christian prayer. There is also a Hindu and a Pagan or Atheist in the class. Yes, they can opt out and not say this prayer, but would they feel alienated or embarrassed? What kind of questions would this bring and what kind of discussions would happen between the kids? Would there then be religious bullying or mocking? Would we need to allow each group, no matter how small, to pray as they like?

When I was in high school, I was still following a pagan path (druid) before I found Hinduism. I had no problems expressing my feelings- I wore a pentacle to school. Daily I had messages and those "convert or go to hell" comic book pamphlets put in my locker. I even had an LDS student threaten me. All because of a piece of jewelry. What would happen to the child who opted out of Christian prayer in their classroom? Maybe not much in elementary school, but high school kids can be very mean.

I truly like the idea of the moment of silence. Each child can pray or sit quietly as they choose and not have to worry about what others are thinking about them.

Humans, and perhaps children especially, feel--and feel intensely about a great many things. The more I observe children and schools, the more I am convinced we need let children feel and help them direct these feelings into positive outcomes. Trying to protect children from their feelings, in my opinion, is one of the most idiotic courses of action that was implemented in our schools.

That being said, the bullying you had to endure is not to be tolerated, either. I would say the greatest percentage of teachers are cognizant of the students in their classrooms. For example, one of my former students was not allowed to run, and I know she was embarrassed when all the others were out running and she couldn't. She always had another activity, and we talked about how she felt. While I empathized with her, I was not going to implement a no running policy so that she would not feel uncomfortable. Running was good for the rest of the class.

It is difficult for kids to feel they are different or outside the mainstream. I believe it is better in the long run for teachers to help students cope, accept, and appreciate their differences rather than "protect" them.

Most students can find a teacher or administrator who is sympathetic to their plight. Did you have such an adult on campus when you were in high school?

khigh

March 6th, 2009, 1:28 am

Humans, and perhaps children especially, feel--and feel intensely about a great many things. The more I observe children and schools, the more I am convinced we need let children feel and help them direct these feelings into positive outcomes. Trying to protect children from their feelings, in my opinion, is one of the most idiotic courses of action that was implemented in our schools.

I would agree with prayer in school if they, say, had a day for each religion that is represented in the classroom. If there is a Hindu, Muslim, Christian, or Wiccan/Pagan, it could be a good lesson in tolerance and acceptance of other people if each person was represented in the class.

It is a good thing to discuss morality and let children express their feelings in a controlled environment and allow for civil discussion without forcing one belief on them.

That being said, the bullying you had to endure is not to be tolerated, either. I would say the greatest percentage of teachers are cognizant of the students in their classrooms. For example, one of my former students was not allowed to run, and I know she was embarrassed when all the others were out running and she couldn't. She always had another activity, and we talked about how she felt. While I empathized with her, I was not going to implement a no running policy so that she would not feel uncomfortable. Running was good for the rest of the class.

It is difficult for kids to feel they are different or outside the mainstream. I believe it is better in the long run for teachers to help students cope, accept, and appreciate their differences rather than "protect" them.

Most students can find a teacher or administrator who is sympathetic to their plight. Did you have such an adult on campus when you were in high school?

I did thankfully find a teacher on campus who understood where I was coming from. I would sit in his class after school for an hour or so when he was doing plans/7th hour and just talk. We talked about everything from politics (he is a liberal and I am a devout conservative) to pysch theories (he was the psych teacher and former psychiatrist for a teen suicide program- many debates between Freudian and Jung theories- even had a NeoFreudian Revolutionary Club) to religion. He is still a great friend, though I graduated in 2004. I see him weekly for a cup of coffee and to discuss what is going on in my life and his. He is probably the reason I made it through high school with my sanity intact.

RayMan

March 6th, 2009, 1:33 am

I would agree with prayer in school if they, say, had a day for each religion that is represented in the classroom. If there is a Hindu, Muslim, Christian, or Wiccan/Pagan, it could be a good lesson in tolerance and acceptance of other people if each person was represented in the class.

It is a good thing to discuss morality and let children express their feelings in a controlled environment and allow for civil discussion without forcing one belief on them.

I did thankfully find a teacher on campus who understood where I was coming from. I would sit in his class after school for an hour or so when he was doing plans/7th hour and just talk. We talked about everything from politics (he is a liberal and I am a devout conservative) to pysch theories (he was the psych teacher and former psychiatrist for a teen suicide program- many debates between Freudian and Jung theories- even had a NeoFreudian Revolutionary Club) to religion. He is still a great friend, though I graduated in 2004. I see him weekly for a cup of coffee and to discuss what is going on in my life and his. He is probably the reason I made it through high school with my sanity intact.

Very cool and thoughtful post. Thanks for sharing it.

mtdim

March 6th, 2009, 2:25 am

Interesting concept, isn't it? Because I am a minority, the majority can't have what they want--they must take what I want.

The Constitution exists specifically so that the majority can't do whatever they want to the minority. One of the things the majority can't do is establish a state-sponsered religion. It is difficult imagine how having a religious government owned and operated school would not be an example of establishing a religion, even if you offered a secular alternative. It would be like directly funding a Christian Sunday school, but not the Sunday schools of any other religion.

Again, what if eighty percent of the local population had an interest in engineering and in training their children in physics and math? Shouldn't the school district in that area have the option of incorporating more math and physics into the curriculum if the majority deemed it to be of use and/or value?

Since there is no Constitutional stipulation against supporting one subject of study over any other, such an action would be acceptable. However, I'd argue that parental preference should not be the determining factor in such a decision; if standardized tests indicated a particular district was falling behind in math, that would be a good basis for such a decision.

Amallek

March 6th, 2009, 2:35 am

RayMan

March 6th, 2009, 2:40 am

So Amallek,
i am guessing you didn't read the MUST READ sticky for the RF before you started posting here. You might want to do that if it is your intention to stick around. There's this pesky little rule about treating other people's belief's with respect which you don't seem to have picked up on your own.

http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?t=68516

Meriweather

March 6th, 2009, 7:43 am

The Constitution exists specifically so that the majority can't do whatever they want to the minority. One of the things the majority can't do is establish a state-sponsered religion. It is difficult imagine how having a religious government owned and operated school would not be an example of establishing a religion, even if you offered a secular alternative. It would be like directly funding a Christian Sunday school, but not the Sunday schools of any other religion.

Once again, praying in no way establishes a religion. All prayer in school does, even prayer led by a teacher or an administrator, is give a demonstration of people freely exercising their freedom to practice their religion, because no law was made preventing the practice thereof. Another example might be that just because balls are available to children for recess does not mean every child is required to play ball. Further, there is often a child who wants to play ball who feels left out.

I still feel it is a hysterical reaction for people who do not pray, or pray differently, to be so bothered by the prayers of others.

Since there is no Constitutional stipulation against supporting one subject of study over any other, such an action would be acceptable. However, I'd argue that parental preference should not be the determining factor in such a decision; if standardized tests indicated a particular district was falling behind in math, that would be a good basis for such a decision.

What you are still not getting is that there is no Constitutional stipulation against prayer in school. For about a 150 years following the Constitution, prayer was allowed in school, even encouraged.

Even so, I do note that you are against parental/local choice for education; that you would argue that a Federal government should determine how children are educated.

Meriweather

March 6th, 2009, 8:20 am

The greatest lie of all is told by those who claim America was founded as a Christian nation. The founders were deists at best, more likely atheists. After the long history of European religious wars over one brand or another of Christianity they had something different in mind.

You can believe what you want, but you have no right to force me to adopt your principles. And I am a Christian, and I am not troubled by wearing a suit made of two materials, or eating shellfish or pork ribs, or going to Bill and Peter's wedding. I don't believe God created the world in seven days 5000 years ago, or that he makes you speak gibberish while you flop around on the floor like a bass on the beach. I don't think God is a republican and I don't think he has specially blessed America - in fact,if he gets involved in such matters, which I doubt, he is probably mighty disappointed in his flock. Many of them will likely be told at the door that he does not know them.

My advice to Christians is to live the life the Jesus taught. If you can do that, people might pay attention to you. But don't try to cram your heresy down my throat.

Okay, a few teaching moments here. There are Founding Fathers and founding fathers. All the people of the day who took an interest in expressing their views and voicing what they wanted (and did not want) from government were the (lower case) founding fathers. Christianity was practiced by the majority--however, people did not wish to be told how to practice the Christian faith. There were many denominations. This was then extended to people practicing the religion of any faith. The thought was to keep government out of people's lives as much as possible. It was determined that the Federal government did not need to be at all concerned about religion or how anyone practiced it.

God does not "make" anyone speak "gibberish." The terminology we use here in the Religion Forum is Speaking in Tongues or glossolalia, referring to speaking in other languages, or a spiritual language. I prefer the term glossolalia myself because in some ways Tongues is a misnomer--kind of like "Walking on air" is a misnomer. If one is moving through the air, one does not need to walk. It is a similar feeling with Tongues--like one almost does not need a tongue to speak or form words because the words are already formed before they reach one's own tongue. Even so, God does not "make" one speak or voice these words.

Experiencing an ecstasy or the joy of being filled with the Spirit is not the same as a bass flopping around, either. There is nothing joyful about your comparison.

No one is trying to cram any heresy, or change in your own beliefs, down your throat. That does not mean that we will not try to give you a respectful depiction and a passionate defense of our own beliefs. Now that we have (and I see you also have the link to the rules of respect here), we wish you an enjoyable stay here in RF.

Tim

March 6th, 2009, 8:30 am

RayMan, I was so happy to see this post! I was about to concede my apparent ineptness to convey a simple thought to others.

Hey Meri... I thought that I had answered but I might have just "thought about answering" and then got busy with something else. I can't find where I did so here ya go....

First of all, I live in a large city made up of people from many different religions and sects within those religions so what you propose probably would never fly here anyway, however....

If a community were homogenous enough so as to determine that the majority of people wanted Christianity taught in their school, I'd have no problem with that whatsoever. As an atheist, I paid for my daughter to go to a private Christian College Prep school (the church it was associated with is a non-denominational charismatic fellowship). Not only did she get Christian training but it was from a doctrinal standpoint contrary to my beliefs when I was a believer. I sent her there because I felt it offered the best opportunity for a solid education at a price I could (barely) afford.

Back to the idea of public schools teaching religion (Christianity), I really think that most opposition would eventually come from the Christian parents (assuming that the ACLU didn't get involved at the request of a lone atheistic zealot). Having preached in a small community at one time where the vast majority (perhaps 100%) of the people were Christians I know from experience that those folks fought with each other over their doctrinal difference far more than I've seen any atheist and Christian go at it. The community was made up mostly of Baptist, followed by Methodists, Catholics and then Seventh Day Adventist.

I have no doubt that there would be major fighting about which church's doctrine would be taught but, hey... if they want to teach Christianity in their public school, I don't see any problem with it whatsoever from a personal or constitutional perspective. I think the fireworks might even be quite entertaining to watch from the sidelines. :D

optrader

March 6th, 2009, 8:34 am

Evolution is a theory in the same way Newton's Theory of Universal gravitation is a theory. Science deals with theories; such things aren't ever "proven." A "demonstrable fact," in science, is something that can be observed via a repeatable experiment. For example, that an apple falls to earth when dropped is a demonstrable fact which is explained by the theory of gravity, just as allele frequencies changing over time is a demonstrable fact which is explained by the theory of evolution.

There is no "theory of creation," not in the scientific sense of the word "theory."

When the scientists are willing to address the holes in the theory of evolution I might concede that this is an unbiased theory rather than a blatant way to shut out Christian belief from our schools. The holes are ignored and no other explanation is allowed to be taught as to how we got here.

Since scientists know the composition of the primordial ooze and the conditions on the earth when the comet hit or lightning struck, it seems the attempt to spontaneoulsly create life would be a cinch to duplicate given our technology. When this is accomplished, I'll give due credence to the theory of evolution.

Evolution is as much a theory as creation, it can't be proven. The fact that the majority accept it hardly demonstrates that it is true. Science once taught that the earth was flat...

optrader

March 6th, 2009, 8:37 am

And I repeat:
Godless Heathen is an oxymoron since most Heathens have far more Gods than Jews, Christians and Moslem.

Hello! Hello! Humor check here...

Dang, no one home!

graatz

March 6th, 2009, 9:17 am

Saying a prayer does not establish a religion. Teachers leading a prayer does not establish a religion. People can be just as free to participate as not to participate.

You may interpret the Establishment Clause however you want, but the Courts have an interpretation that is, in my opinion, more favorable to our basic liberties. I don't think it's right for me to give a public school teacher authority over my children and then have them abuse that authority by indoctrinating my children with their religion. Does school prayer mean that we've declared an official religion and have shut down all other temples, mosques, etc.? No. But that isn't the only protection afforded to us by the Establishment Clause.

graatz

March 6th, 2009, 9:20 am

Advocating the freedom to exercise (or not) one's religious choices is not me spitting on liberty. Nor is it a strawman. It is the people who should have the choice to choose their children's education, not the government.

You have the choice to home school. You have the choice to choose a private institution. Regarding the use of public funds, you cannot choose to override my liberties. We have certain liberties exactly because the majority would seek to deprive the minority from them.

Meriweather

March 6th, 2009, 9:22 am

Hey Meri... I thought that I had answered but I might have just "thought about answering" and then got busy with something else. I can't find where I did so here ya go....

First of all, I live in a large city made up of people from many different religions and sects within those religions so what you propose probably would never fly here anyway, however....

If a community were homogenous enough so as to determine that the majority of people wanted Christianity taught in their school, I'd have no problem with that whatsoever. As an atheist, I paid for my daughter to go to a private Christian College Prep school (the church it was associated with is a non-denominational charismatic fellowship). Not only did she get Christian training but it was from a doctrinal standpoint contrary to my beliefs when I was a believer. I sent her there because I felt it offered the best opportunity for a solid education at a price I could (barely) afford.

Back to the idea of public schools teaching religion (Christianity), I really think that most opposition would eventually come from the Christian parents (assuming that the ACLU didn't get involved at the request of a lone atheistic zealot). Having preached in a small community at one time where the vast majority (perhaps 100%) of the people were Christians I know from experience that those folks fought with each other over their doctrinal difference far more than I've seen any atheist and Christian go at it. The community was made up mostly of Baptist, followed by Methodists, Catholics and then Seventh Day Adventist.

I have no doubt that there would be major fighting about which church's doctrine would be taught but, hey... if they want to teach Christianity in their public school, I don't see any problem with it whatsoever from a personal or constitutional perspective. I think the fireworks might even be quite entertaining to watch from the sidelines. :D

Entertaining--you bet! But instead of watching from the sidelines, I might want to jump right into the middle of it.

I doubt I would ever make it in business. My first solution is to downsize everything. Corporation? Get rid of them! Partnerships and single proprietorships are what I advocate! Federal government running a school?!? Ridiculous! Let the locals take on that responsibility!

It seems to me people and then small organizations always want to look for someone/something bigger or stronger than themselves to lean on or use as a safety net. I say build up individuals not bloat up the Federal government. When individuals fail, other individuals can extend a helping hand and all goes on. But when a big government fails, the next big government waiting in the wings is not going to be extending a helping hand, more like a grinding heel.

Meriweather

March 6th, 2009, 9:27 am

You have the choice to home school. You have the choice to choose a private institution. Regarding the use of public funds, you cannot choose to override my liberties. We have certain liberties exactly because the majority would seek to deprive the minority from them.

And so would you have the choice to home school. You would have the choice to choose a private institution. No one is overriding your liberties by practicing their own. That is the uniting point between the majority and the minority. No one is seeking to take another's freedom to either pray or not pray.

It is interesting that you believe it is the majority who should have to pay for private institutions or do the home schooling.

Meriweather

March 6th, 2009, 9:30 am

You may interpret the Establishment Clause however you want, but the Courts have an interpretation that is, in my opinion, more favorable to our basic liberties. I don't think it's right for me to give a public school teacher authority over my children and then have them abuse that authority by indoctrinating my children with their religion. Does school prayer mean that we've declared an official religion and have shut down all other temples, mosques, etc.? No. But that isn't the only protection afforded to us by the Establishment Clause.

I understand that you feel the need to be protected from religion. I'm trying to say that, in my opinion, there is no need for such fear. Your own experiences may tell you differently, and that's fine. I see it differently.

Mikko

March 6th, 2009, 9:30 am

Once again, praying in no way establishes a religion.
I think a prayer ending in "in Jesus' name we pray" certainly establishes Christianity.
All prayer in school does, even prayer led by a teacher or an administrator, is give a demonstration of people freely exercising their freedom to practice their religion, because no law was made preventing the practice thereof.
A prayer enunciated in an assembly where children who are nonreligious have to remain silent and be present while the prayer is being enunciated does a lot more than that. It forces them to observe a religious ritual in which they do not believe.
Another example might be that just because balls are available to children for recess does not mean every child is required to play ball. Further, there is often a child who wants to play ball who feels left out.
With all due respect, Meri, that's a pretty weak analogy.
I still feel it is a hysterical reaction for people who do not pray, or pray differently, to be so bothered by the prayers of others.
In a country where we're supposed to be free, I don't think it's hysterical for one to object to being forced to be present during a ritual the underpinning theology of which one does not accept. I can imagine the hue and cry that would issue forth from fudamentalist Christians if they were forced to sit and listen to a Wiccan prayer.:)

What you are still not getting is that there is no Constitutional stipulation against prayer in school. For about a 150 years following the Constitution, prayer was allowed in school, even encouraged.
Until the constitution was interpreted by the SCOTUS as prohibiting prayer in tax-supported schools.

Even so, I do note that you are against parental/local choice for education; that you would argue that a Federal government should determine how children are educated.
Should the government determine how children are educated in a government-supported school?

graatz

March 6th, 2009, 9:37 am

And so would you have the choice to home school. You would have the choice to choose a private institution. No one is overriding your liberties by practicing their own. That is the uniting point between the majority and the minority. No one is seeking to take another's freedom to either pray or not pray.

It is interesting that you believe it is the majority who should have to pay for private institutions or do the home schooling.

How is it a restriction of your liberties not having school-sponsored prayer? :eh: Is it impossible for you and your children to be Christians if you don't have a Christian-led prayer announced over a PA system every morning? :eh: I think you are missing the point. Ultimately, I can't run and hide if the local government has decided to promote Christianity at the expense of other religions. If public funds are being used to indoctrinate my children into religious beliefs, how isn't this Establishment? :eh: If the majority wants to use privately collected funds to push a religious agenda, all the power to them. But the government has to respect the Establishment Clause.

optrader

March 6th, 2009, 9:40 am

Religious institutions are free to reduce or eliminate the fee for their schools, if they care to provide their services to the less fortunate. Public funds shouldn't fund religious schools any more than they should fund churches. I wouldn't be opposed to parents opting their children out of the teaching of evolution, if they really feel strongly that their kids can't hear it.

Why do you assume religious institutions need less money to educate their students than any other school? Why do you assume all attendees are less fortunate? I stated a simple fact that as usual is ignored: Public funds belong to the public! Parents are forced to pay for schools that they don't agree with. Why can't every tax payer choose which schools their tax dollars fund and send their child to that school? If you object to your tax dollars funding another parents childs religious education, why don't religious parents have the same right to object to their tax dollars going to fund your childs' secular education? You send your money and children to the school of your choice and let religious parents send their money and children to the school of their choice. The tax money of religious parents is taken and they are denied choice, and your response is that religious schools should be free?

As I've said (and most other conservatives), liberals, the champions of freedom and choice only champion freedom and choice if it fits their agenda. My solution is fair to all...

I'm not asking for public schools to teach atheism. I'm not even sure what that kind of curriculum would entail...

Kids get taught atheism by default. Religious teachings, like any other, is deliberate. If they aren't getting religious instruction or exposure to religion in school, atheism fills the void, no effort necessary...

optrader

March 6th, 2009, 9:42 am

“Military intelligence is a contradiction in terms.” Groucho Marx

My favorite: Congressional ethics

graatz

March 6th, 2009, 9:42 am

I understand that you feel the need to be protected from religion. I'm trying to say that, in my opinion, there is no need for such fear. Your own experiences may tell you differently, and that's fine. I see it differently.

The Founding Fathers sided with me. They saw the potential for the majority to wipe out the existence of other religions. If everything is left up to vote, why shouldn't Christians vote that tax dollars get used to promote their religion over others? :eh: If tax dollars are being used to promote Christianity in public schools, to young impressionable children, how are other religions supposed to thrive? I very well can't raise my kids to be Muslim or Buddhist if they are being taught by authority figures that Christianity is the one true religious path.

Why aren't you seeing this? The public school system has the potential to indoctrinate our youth like no other establishment can. Lets put it this way: if public schools were being used to explicitly teach children that God is dead and religion is bogus, would Christians be outraged?

RayMan

March 6th, 2009, 9:44 am

Meri,
Please jog my memory. Did you anywhere make a comment about Christianity being the only religion offered in your scenario? People are writing like you did but I don't recall you saying that.

Tim

March 6th, 2009, 9:45 am

Entertaining--you bet! But instead of watching from the sidelines, I might want to jump right into the middle of it.

I doubt I would ever make it in business. My first solution is to downsize everything. Corporation? Get rid of them! Partnerships and single proprietorships are what I advocate! Federal government running a school?!? Ridiculous! Let the locals take on that responsibility!

It seems to me people and then small organizations always want to look for someone/something bigger or stronger than themselves to lean on or use as a safety net. I say build up individuals not bloat up the Federal government. When individuals fail, other individuals can extend a helping hand and all goes on. But when a big government fails, the next big government waiting in the wings is not going to be extending a helping hand, more like a grinding heel.

:clap::clap::clap: (Except the partnership thing... I had a partnership and the split up was not fun. Fortunately for me, I won in the end but I'll never form another partnership again!) My political philosophies are more in line with classical libertarianism than anything else so you can bet I'm all for local government over federal!

Meriweather

March 6th, 2009, 9:49 am

I think a prayer ending in "in Jesus' name we pray" certainly establishes Christianity.

We must be using different definitions for the word "establish." In Jesus name we pray establishes the background of those praying, not the religion itself.

A prayer enunciated in an assembly where children who are nonreligious have to remain silent and be present while the prayer is being enunciated does a lot more than that. It forces them to observe a religious ritual in which they do not believe.

Cover their eyes! Stuff their ears! Let's teach them about homosexuality because understanding differences is healthy! But let's not let them observe religious differences because that might damage them! Don't you see the irony? I do and irony makes me laugh.

With all due respect, Meri, that's a pretty weak analogy.
In a country where we're supposed to be free, I don't think it's hysterical for one to object to being forced to be present during a ritual the underpinning theology of which one does not accept. I can imagine the hue and cry that would issue forth from fudamentalist Christians if they were forced to sit and listen to a Wiccan prayer.:)

Where I was going with the analogy is that there are many times at school where a child is going to feel left out or apart. Therefore to claim we shouldn't include prayer in school because a child might feel apart or left out is what does not make for a good argument prohibiting prayer.

As far as the Wiccan analogy goes, I've already addressed that. My daughter had a practicing Wiccan teacher who brought her beliefs into the classroom and to the students. As a Christian, as a Catholic, as an American, I have no problem with my children being exposed to different beliefs. I am confident of the strength in their own beliefs and that we can discuss any questions they have.

Students don't live in a vacuum. I am Catholic, but I'm one of the first Muslim students approach during lunch at Ramadan as a safe place to be. I've helped Jewish students argue their faith with Christians, stood with LDS students against their critics.

Again, I don't see anything to fear by having religion(s) in plain sight and within hearing during the school day.

Tim

March 6th, 2009, 9:53 am

Meri,
Please jog my memory. Did you anywhere make a comment about Christianity being the only religion offered in your scenario? People are writing like you did but I don't recall you saying that.

I don't think Merri said that either... however the point was made that the majority in a community should be able to decide what religion, if any, is taught and in America that majority will, more often than not, be Christian.

Boy oh boy, though... look out when a fundamentalist protestant's kid ends up being taught the finer points of Catholicism because that is the majority choice! Let the fireworks begin!!! :))

Mikko

March 6th, 2009, 9:53 am

We must be using different definitions for the word "establish." In Jesus name we pray establishes the background of those praying, not the religion itself.

Cover their eyes! Stuff their ears! Let's teach them about homosexuality because understanding differences is healthy! But let's not let them observe religious differences because that might damage them! Don't you see the irony? I do and irony makes me laugh.

Where I was going with the analogy is that there are many times at school where a child is going to feel left out or apart. Therefore to claim we shouldn't include prayer in school because a child might feel apart or left out is what does not make for a good argument prohibiting prayer.

As far as the Wiccan analogy goes, I've already addressed that. My daughter had a practicing Wiccan teacher who brought her beliefs into the classroom and to the students. As a Christian, as a Catholic, as an American, I have no problem with my children being exposed to different beliefs. I am confident of the strength in their own beliefs and that we can discuss any questions they have.

Students don't live in a vacuum. I am Catholic, but I'm one of the first Muslim students approach during lunch at Ramadan as a safe place to be. I've helped Jewish students argue their faith with Christians, stood with LDS students against their critics.

Again, I don't see anything to fear by having religion(s) in plain sight and within hearing during the school day.
Alas, my good colleague, I was hoping you wouldn't respond before I had to leave. I do, sadly, have to leave my office right now. I will, however, grace you with my scintillating riposte upon my return in a few ours.:)

Meriweather

March 6th, 2009, 9:55 am

Meri,
Please jog my memory. Did you anywhere make a comment about Christianity being the only religion offered in your scenario? People are writing like you did but I don't recall you saying that.

Christianity is not the only religion offered in my scenario. It floated to the top, because this discussion seems to want to center on the rights of the majority versus the rights of the minority.

I'm in favor of all religions, beliefs being out in the open in our schools.

RayMan

March 6th, 2009, 9:56 am

I don't think Merri said that either... however the point was made that the majority in a community should be able to decide what religion, if any, is taught and in America that majority will, more often than not, be Christian.

Boy oh boy, though... look out when a fundamentalist protestant's kid ends up being taught the finer points of Catholicism because that is the majority choice! Let the fireworks begin!!! :))

I don't believe Meri was speaking in terms of one religion being in the majority, but rather that 80% of the community was of one type of religion or another and that those of whatever religion should have some say in their children's schooling. You guys are making it a Christian vs Atheist thing, not Meri.

graatz

March 6th, 2009, 10:01 am

Why do you assume religious institutions need less money to educate their students than any other school?

This is a straw man of my argument. Public funds are not to be used to promote religion. It'd be no different than tax dollars funding renovations of a church.

Why do you assume all attendees are less fortunate?

I'm not the one upset that some parents can't afford to send their children to a religious school as opposed to the public school that's made available through public funding.

Public funds belong to the public!

Public funds are spent by the government, which is restricted according to the Constitution.

Parents are forced to pay for schools that they don't agree with.

What's so disagreeable about a school that doesn't have a prayer in the morning led by public address? :eh: I've already said that parents should have the right to excuse their children from lessons on evolution, or sex ed for that matter, if they really feel strongly that those are in opposition of their religion (not all Christians feel this way). This will probably make them feel ostracized, but they aren't religious or specifically anti-religious subjects, so a public school should be allowed to have them in the curriculum.

Why can't every tax payer choose which schools their tax dollars fund and send their child to that school? If you object to your tax dollars funding another parents childs religious education, why don't religious parents have the same right to object to their tax dollars going to fund your childs' secular education? You send your money and children to the school of your choice and let religious parents send their money and children to the school of their choice. The tax money of religious parents is taken and they are denied choice, and your response is that religious schools should be free?

Public funds are not to be used to promote religion. It'd be no different than tax dollars funding renovations of a church.

As I've said (and most other conservatives), liberals, the champions of freedom and choice only champion freedom and choice if it fits their agenda. My solution is fair to all...

I prefer to think of myself as a progressive. And actually, my insistence to grant us certain liberties and the majority opinion be damned is a conservative one...

Kids get taught atheism by default.

What does this even mean? Is it part of any curriculum in existence that all religions are bogus? Are you aware of any public school that requires a class that teaches children that religions are wrong and there is no God? I sure don't.

Tim

March 6th, 2009, 10:02 am

I don't believe Meri was speaking in terms of one religion being in the majority, but rather that 80% of the community was of one type of religion or another and that those of whatever religion should have some say in their children's schooling. You guys are making it a Christian vs Atheist thing, not Meri.

"You guys"? If I did, it certainly wasn't my intention. I'll have to go back and read my post to see if I misspoke. I'm pretty sure that I stated that I think the problems will arise between people of different God-beliefs (whether different religions or just different sects/denominations within a religion). If I recall, I even kind of demeaned any atheist input when I refered to "atheist zealots" who might get the ACLU involved.

Personally I'm all for letting local communities teach religion in the schools. I took a religion class in high school in 1974 called "Christianity as a History". The teacher was an old lady, wife of a Methodist preacher. It was a horribly boring class that often got a bit rowdy because she couldn't control the class which had a large number of deadbeats who took the class figuring it would be an easy "A".

graatz

March 6th, 2009, 10:03 am

because that might damage them!

I think the word you are looking for is "indoctrinate" not "damage."

Meriweather

March 6th, 2009, 10:04 am

How is it a restriction of your liberties not having school-sponsored prayer? :eh: Is it impossible for you and your children to be Christians if you don't have a Christian-led prayer announced over a PA system every morning? :eh: I think you are missing the point. Ultimately, I can't run and hide if the local government has decided to promote Christianity at the expense of other religions. If public funds are being used to indoctrinate my children into religious beliefs, how isn't this Establishment? :eh: If the majority wants to use privately collected funds to push a religious agenda, all the power to them. But the government has to respect the Establishment Clause.

My point is how are your liberties being trod upon if others choose to pray at school?

I am not claiming the government does not allow me to practice my religion. Again, my argument is against the Federal government running a local school.

You use the word "promote" but "allowing an opportunity" is equally as apropos in the discussion.

I do see your points. I think you are missing mine. ;) (Which is why our discussion continues to travel on.)

Tim

March 6th, 2009, 10:08 am

I don't believe Meri was speaking in terms of one religion being in the majority, but rather that 80% of the community was of one type of religion or another and that those of whatever religion should have some say in their children's schooling. You guys are making it a Christian vs Atheist thing, not Meri.

By the way, explain the difference between:

"I don't believe Meri was speaking in terms of one religion being in the majority..."

and

"...but rather that 80% of the community was of one type of religon or another and that those of whatever religion should have some say in their children's schooling."

Isn't 80% a majority? I'm guessing that you meant something else but I just didn't get it.

By the way, I looked back at my post and did indeed use "religion" and "christianity" somewhat interchangeably. My thinking at the time was that in America, the majority (80%) religion is going to be Christianity more often than not. My bad!

Meriweather

March 6th, 2009, 10:13 am

The Founding Fathers sided with me. They saw the potential for the majority to wipe out the existence of other religions. If everything is left up to vote, why shouldn't Christians vote that tax dollars get used to promote their religion over others? :eh: If tax dollars are being used to promote Christianity in public schools, to young impressionable children, how are other religions supposed to thrive? I very well can't raise my kids to be Muslim or Buddhist if they are being taught by authority figures that Christianity is the one true religious path.

You took a leap here that is not implied in my writings. Prayer in school is an entirely different issue than teaching any religion is the one true religion to children whose parents hold differing beliefs. My premise is that everyone should be able to find a curriculum that correctly corresponds to his/her child's beliefs.

Why aren't you seeing this? The public school system has the potential to indoctrinate our youth like no other establishment can. Lets put it this way: if public schools were being used to explicitly teach children that God is dead and religion is bogus, would Christians be outraged?

It seems to me you are blowing everything I say out of proportion and making unfounded leaps into areas far beyond what I am proposing. I have been proposing that school districts present the opportunity for parents to choose their child's education. I am flummoxed that from such a statement you are claiming that I am promoting that the school system indoctrinating students into beliefs parents DON'T want them to have.

You and I don't seem to be discussing the same topic any more.

Meriweather

March 6th, 2009, 10:16 am

Alas, my good colleague, I was hoping you wouldn't respond before I had to leave. I do, sadly, have to leave my office right now. I will, however, grace you with my scintillating riposte upon my return in a few ours.:)

I look forward to it, Mikko. It is always a pleasure for me when you and I find ourselves on the opposite side in a debate.

graatz

March 6th, 2009, 10:16 am

My point is how are your liberties being trod upon if others choose to pray at school?

Straw man, Meri. I'm not proposing that we restrict the ability of children to pray. I'm agreeing with the Courts that leading the student body in prayer at public schools is Unconstitutional. I know you know the difference.

Again, my argument is against the Federal government running a local school.

By requiring them to adhere to the Constitution. This is another straw man. The Federal government isn't (or shouldn't, for that matter), run local schools. But the Federal government is required to intervene when the school is engaging in Unconstitutional acts. It reminds me of cases where school dress codes have banned pentacles in their dress code, lumping them together with gang signs. The Federal government has been called in to intervene on behalf of the pagan students whose rights were being violated by the institution.

I do see your points. I think you are missing mine. ;) (Which is why our discussion continues to travel on.)

So far it seems like your points have been to tinker with mine just enough to make them sound like disagreeable ones, and then disagree. Can children pray in school? Yes. Can the locals choose to add comparative religion and history of religion to the curriculum as elective courses? Yes. Can public schools have Bible study clubs that convene on school property? Yes, as long as they are afforded no special treatment over other religious or anti-religious clubs. Are there any other straw men you'd like to try to set out in place of my real arguments? :eh:

graatz

March 6th, 2009, 10:23 am

My premise is that everyone should be able to find a curriculum that correctly corresponds to his/her child's beliefs.

Public schools exist to give our children secular educations (please note that this isn't the same as training them to be atheists. Reading, writing, and arithmetic are secular studies). There's no reason for a public school to have a class about how to be a good Catholic, or how to mediate to align your mind with the Buddha, or how to prepare holy meals for Krishna. Do you know why Thomas Jefferson was so adamant about not giving public funds to religious organizations? Because he realized that it would give the government a vested interest in the Church. I'm sure lots of religious people are happy that the government doesn't have strings attached to their places of worship. There's a good reason to keep the two separate.

I have been proposing that school districts present the opportunity for parents to choose their child's education. I am flummoxed that from such a statement you are claiming that I am promoting that the school system indoctrinating students into beliefs parents DON'T want them to have.

You have a choice. How don't you have a choice? :eh:

Meriweather

March 6th, 2009, 10:33 am

By the way, explain the difference between:

"I don't believe Meri was speaking in terms of one religion being in the majority..."

and

"...but rather that 80% of the community was of one type of religon or another and that those of whatever religion should have some say in their children's schooling."

Isn't 80% a majority? I'm guessing that you meant something else but I just didn't get it.

By the way, I looked back at my post and did indeed use "religion" and "christianity" somewhat interchangeably. My thinking at the time was that in America, the majority (80%) religion is going to be Christianity more often than not. My bad!

What I was envisioning when I came up with the 80% / 20% analogy is that people could then CHOOSE between curriculums, not that curriculums would be eliminated or that children would be forced into a curriculum they might find distasteful.

For example, we all want our children to learn various standards. The standards are still taught in every English/history class, but if demand warranted it, parents/students could select an English class that used Christian literature or and stories as opposed to a class that used animal stories to teach the same standards. The history class might focus a little more on religion.

I am not against my children learning about evolution, but some feel very strongly about it. My thought is that there is so much science and so much that is not even touched upon, parents could elect to have their children being taught more about plants and herbology, rocks and minerals, etcetera than touching on evolution.

I was thinking more along the lines that the children in Period 1 science learn evolution, while those in Period 2 are taught a separate unit, such as herbology. It is the parents, not the school and definitely not the federal government, who make the choice.

Tim

March 6th, 2009, 10:38 am

What I was envisioning when I came up with the 80% / 20% analogy is that people could then CHOOSE between curriculums, not that curriculums would be eliminated or that children would be forced into a curriculum they might find distasteful.

For example, we all want our children to learn various standards. The standards are still taught in every English/history class, but if demand warranted it, parents/students could select an English class that used Christian literature or and stories as opposed to a class that used animal stories to teach the same standards. The history class might focus a little more on religion.

I am not against my children learning about evolution, but some feel very strongly about it. My thought is that there is so much science and so much that is not even touched upon, parents could elect to have their children being taught more about plants and herbology, rocks and minerals, etcetera than touching on evolution.

I was thinking more along the lines that the children in Period 1 science learn evolution, while those in Period 2 are taught a separate unit, such as herbology. It is the parents, not the school and definitely not the federal government, who make the choice.

I think that you and I are on the same page. But then we are both very secure in our relationships with our children and able to deal effectively with views taught that might be contrary to our own. Personally, I love having my views challenged and have always sought to challenge my children - even when their views were/are in agreement with my own. My motto with them is and has always been "THINK OUTSIDE YOUR COMFORT ZONE".

Meriweather

March 6th, 2009, 10:39 am

Straw man, Meri. I'm not proposing that we restrict the ability of children to pray. I'm agreeing with the Courts that leading the student body in prayer at public schools is Unconstitutional. I know you know the difference.

By requiring them to adhere to the Constitution. This is another straw man. The Federal government isn't (or shouldn't, for that matter), run local schools. But the Federal government is required to intervene when the school is engaging in Unconstitutional acts. It reminds me of cases where school dress codes have banned pentacles in their dress code, lumping them together with gang signs. The Federal government has been called in to intervene on behalf of the pagan students whose rights were being violated by the institution.

So far it seems like your points have been to tinker with mine just enough to make them sound like disagreeable ones, and then disagree. Can children pray in school? Yes. Can the locals choose to add comparative religion and history of religion to the curriculum as elective courses? Yes. Can public schools have Bible study clubs that convene on school property? Yes, as long as they are afforded no special treatment over other religious or anti-religious clubs. Are there any other straw men you'd like to try to set out in place of my real arguments? :eh:

I apologize if my presentations are so poor you only see straw men and will step aside from continuing this debate with you. It seems to me we are running along parallel courses where we are focusing on two very separate issues. That may be why you are only seeing the straw.

Meriweather

March 6th, 2009, 10:46 am

I think that you and I are on the same page. But then we are both very secure in our relationships with our children and able to deal effectively with views taught that might be contrary to our own. Personally, I love having my views challenged and have always sought to challenge my children - even when their views were/are in agreement with my own. My motto with them is and has always been "THINK OUTSIDE YOUR COMFORT ZONE".

That is a great motto. When they were little I would challenge my girls to come home and teach me somthing I did not already know. Sigh. There came a time in high school that my oldest found it impossible to teach me how to correctly pronounce, "Frau." They sort of gave up teaching me at that point, but we continued to have very lively discussions and do to this day. My youngest loves finding areas she thinks we might disagree. I am a registered Republican, so she went out and proudly signed up as Libertarian to underscore the differences between mother/daughter. Then she discovered that while I may be registered as a Republican I have some Libertarian leanings. I'm not sure she's forgiven me.

Tim

March 6th, 2009, 10:56 am

That is a great motto. When they were little I would challenge my girls to come home and teach me somthing I did not already know. Sigh. There came a time in high school that my oldest found it impossible to teach me how to correctly pronounce, "Frau." They sort of gave up teaching me at that point, but we continued to have very lively discussions and do to this day. My youngest loves finding areas she thinks we might disagree. I am a registered Republican, so she went out and proudly signed up as Libertarian to underscore the differences between mother/daughter. Then she discovered that while I may be registered as a Republican I have some Libertarian leanings. I'm not sure she's forgiven me.

LOL - I love it!

I really like your challenge of "teach me something I don't already know." I'm gonna use that with my grandchildren (if/when I get any). I want to be like my grandfather (he was already in his 80's when I was little and looked very much like Abraham Lincoln - he was also an incredibly 'gentle' and 'humble' man) He would sit for hours on end with his grandchildren and encouraged them to talk, talk, talk... something most adults, understandably, grow tired of in the daily grind of living. He had the time and he gave that time to children... I sure do miss that man!

Meriweather

March 6th, 2009, 11:01 am

LOL - I love it!

I really like your challenge of "teach me something I don't already know." I'm gonna use that with my grandchildren (if/when I get any). I want to be like my grandfather (he was already in his 80's when I was little and looked very much like Abraham Lincoln - he was also an incredibly 'gentle' and 'humble' man) He would sit for hours on end with his grandchildren and encouraged them to talk, talk, talk... something most adults, understandably, grow tired of in the daily grind of living. He had the time and he gave that time to children... I sure do miss that man!

What a great testimony you have given him; what a great example he has given. I'm going to remember that (if I get any grandchildren).

RayMan

March 6th, 2009, 11:06 am

Harmonious

March 6th, 2009, 12:14 pm

i would agree with prayer in school if they, say, had a day for each religion that is represented in the classroom. If there is a hindu, muslim, christian, or wiccan/pagan, it could be a good lesson in tolerance and acceptance of other people if each person was represented in the class.

It is a good thing to discuss morality and let children express their feelings in a controlled environment and allow for civil discussion without forcing one belief on them.

I did thankfully find a teacher on campus who understood where i was coming from. I would sit in his class after school for an hour or so when he was doing plans/7th hour and just talk. We talked about everything from politics (he is a liberal and i am a devout conservative) to pysch theories (he was the psych teacher and former psychiatrist for a teen suicide program- many debates between freudian and jung theories- even had a neofreudian revolutionary club) to religion. He is still a great friend, though i graduated in 2004. I see him weekly for a cup of coffee and to discuss what is going on in my life and his. He is probably the reason i made it through high school with my sanity intact.
very cool and thoughtful post. Thanks for sharing it.

+1

graatz

March 6th, 2009, 12:21 pm

Mikko

March 6th, 2009, 12:23 pm

I would agree with prayer in school if they, say, had a day for each religion that is represented in the classroom. If there is a Hindu, Muslim, Christian, or Wiccan/Pagan, it could be a good lesson in tolerance and acceptance of other people if each person was represented in the class.
If it were done in this fashion, then it would not be establishing a particular religion.;)It is a good thing to discuss morality and let children express their feelings in a controlled environment and allow for civil discussion without forcing one belief on them.
Even then, the teacher has to be careful that some little jerk in his classroom doesn't go home and misrepresent the process to his/her parents.:)I did thankfully find a teacher on campus who understood where I was coming from. I would sit in his class after school for an hour or so when he was doing plans/7th hour and just talk. We talked about everything from politics (he is a liberal and I am a devout conservative) to pysch theories (he was the psych teacher and former psychiatrist for a teen suicide program- many debates between Freudian and Jung theories- even had a NeoFreudian Revolutionary Club) to religion. He is still a great friend, though I graduated in 2004. I see him weekly for a cup of coffee and to discuss what is going on in my life and his. He is probably the reason I made it through high school with my sanity intact.
As a teacher, I can tell you that you are as much a blessing to that teacher as he is to you.:)

mtdim

March 6th, 2009, 12:37 pm

Once again, praying in no way establishes a religion. All prayer in school does, even prayer led by a teacher or an administrator, is give a demonstration of people freely exercising their freedom to practice their religion, because no law was made preventing the practice thereof.

No, praying does not establish religion, which is why I'm not against prayer in school. What I'm against is prayers of a specific religion being officially sponsered and lead by a teacher/administrator. As I said, it marginalizes those of a different religion or without a religion, and needlessly so; just allowing a moment of silence so that anyone can pray anyway they want, or just reflect on anything they want, is an effective way of allowing prayer in school without supporting any one religious belief over any others.

Another example might be that just because balls are available to children for recess does not mean every child is required to play ball. Further, there is often a child who wants to play ball who feels left out.

There is no Consitutional stipulation regarding children playing ball, as far as I know.

I still feel it is a hysterical reaction for people who do not pray, or pray differently, to be so bothered by the prayers of others.

The prayers of others don't bother me. But when an authority figure in a school steps forward and officially supports one particular religion, while ignoring all others, I must object; it sends the message that that particular religion is better, or at least more acceptable.

What you are still not getting is that there is no Constitutional stipulation against prayer in school. For about a 150 years following the Constitution, prayer was allowed in school, even encouraged.

I agree. What I don't agree with is having a teacher support one specific kind of prayer, lending more credence to that prayer in the minds of the children who have always been taught to respect their teachers' authority.

Even so, I do note that you are against parental/local choice for education; that you would argue that a Federal government should determine how children are educated.

I'm against the majority manipulating things in their favor at the expense of the minority. Public schools ideally serve the entire community, not just the group that can muster up the most votes. As an analogy, Obama is the "President of the United States," not the "President of the People who Voted Him," and his duty is to serve the nation, not the Democrats.

And I don't believe the Federal government should determine education, only that states, when forming curriculum, should keep the good of the entire community in mind, not just the good of the current majority group.

RayMan

March 6th, 2009, 12:38 pm

"You guys"? If I did, it certainly wasn't my intention. I'll have to go back and read my post to see if I misspoke. I'm pretty sure that I stated that I think the problems will arise between people of different God-beliefs (whether different religions or just different sects/denominations within a religion). If I recall, I even kind of demeaned any atheist input when I refered to "atheist zealots" who might get the ACLU involved.

Personally I'm all for letting local communities teach religion in the schools. I took a religion class in high school in 1974 called "Christianity as a History". The teacher was an old lady, wife of a Methodist preacher. It was a horribly boring class that often got a bit rowdy because she couldn't control the class which had a large number of deadbeats who took the class figuring it would be an easy "A".

Sorry, should have said, "Youse guys." :angel:

You were still in High School in '74?

Whippersnapper.

I took Independent Study Science, Independent Study Creative Writing and Oral English (forensics or debate) my senior year to get those easy "A's."

mtdim

March 6th, 2009, 12:59 pm

When the scientists are willing to address the holes in the theory of evolution I might concede that this is an unbiased theory rather than a blatant way to shut out Christian belief from our schools. The holes are ignored and no other explanation is allowed to be taught as to how we got here.

Out of curiosity, what holes, specifically, are you speaking of? Science always has holes; if it didn't, science would be "done," so to speak. So of course there are things we don't know; that comes part and parcel with science. There are big holes in Newton's theory of gravity, yet it was accepted for many years because it was the best explanation; later, Einstein's General Relativity corrected the theory and filled some holes.

Science's current understanding of any phenomena is never accepted as being absolute, only the best current understanding.

Since scientists know the composition of the primordial ooze and the conditions on the earth when the comet hit or lightning struck, it seems the attempt to spontaneoulsly create life would be a cinch to duplicate given our technology. When this is accomplished, I'll give due credence to the theory of evolution.

The start of life is not dealt with in the Theory of Evolution. I know many people who believe God created the universe, earth, and life, and then let evolution take its course to form all the species we know today. Evolution deals with the diversity of species after the first life; how that life got there is a different question altogether.

Evolution is as much a theory as creation, it can't be proven. The fact that the majority accept it hardly demonstrates that it is true. Science once taught that the earth was flat...

Apart from not being able to be proven, a 'theory' in the scientific sense has some very specific characteristics. Evolution has these characteristics, creationism does not. Just because they both can't be proven, doesn't mean they are on equal footing, scientifically speaking.

optrader

March 6th, 2009, 2:06 pm

Those were the days, my friend. I have a DVD of all of those wonderful "School House Rock" songs that were once the highlight of my Saturday mornings...

I loved schoolhouse rock! 30 years later, I can still remember the words, (and the lesson) to almost all of them. They were a great learning tool and made it fun. Wonder why they aren't still around? Probably deemed politically incorrect...

optrader

March 6th, 2009, 2:27 pm

Out of curiosity, what holes, specifically, are you speaking of? Science always has holes; if it didn't, science would be "done," so to speak. So of course there are things we don't know; that comes part and parcel with science. There are big holes in Newton's theory of gravity, yet it was accepted for many years because it was the best explanation; later, Einstein's General Relativity corrected the theory and filled some holes.

I'm not a doctor or scientist, nor did I ever play one on TV. Aside from that elusive missing link, I would ask questions such as:

If we evolved from apes, how come the apes are still here?
If we evolved from single celled organisms, ditto?
Why is there no evidence of something being in the process of evolution today?

Science's current understanding of any phenomena is never accepted as being absolute, only the best current understanding.

The start of life is not dealt with in the Theory of Evolution. I know many people who believe God created the universe, earth, and life, and then let evolution take its course to form all the species we know today. Evolution deals with the diversity of species after the first life; how that life got there is a different question altogether.

The problem is that evolution can't happen UNTIL life has begun. Thus the atheist has the burden of demonstrating how life began before even proposing that we evolved. If the atheist wishes to duck the issue of the beginning of life by saying it just spontaneously happened, then knowing the conditions and chemical makeup of the primitive earth should allow life to be created, yet with all the advances in science, it hasn't been done.

Apart from not being able to be proven, a 'theory' in the scientific sense has some very specific characteristics. Evolution has these characteristics, creationism does not. Just because they both can't be proven, doesn't mean they are on equal footing, scientifically speaking.

They are not on "equal footing" theologically speaking either. It isn't that evolution is taught that I object to, it's that creationism is not just ommitted, but scorned.

Harmonious

March 6th, 2009, 3:00 pm

I loved schoolhouse rock! 30 years later, I can still remember the words, (and the lesson) to almost all of them. They were a great learning tool and made it fun. Wonder why they aren't still around? Probably deemed politically incorrect...

Rather, I think they were deemed to "innocent". They were carefully apolitical, although they favored the Colonists, rather than the British when it came to the American Revolution. They did describe Manifest Destiny, without describing the Native Americans who were displaced and killed. They described specifically targeted things in history.

They described the concept of taxes, without comment to social programs. They described the concept of how a bill became a law without describing filibustering and other political drama. They described how the three branches of Federal Government worked (or, at least, how they are supposed to work). They described the concept of women's sufferage. It was rather idealistic when it came to the "melting pot" of America, but I don't see that as a bad thing.

The DVD has a new song that has was never heard during the '70s, when "School House Rock" was available for regular television viewing. It describes the function of the electorial college. The message was to encourage the adults watching along with the children to get out and vote, without suggesting HOW one should vote.

I would be very unhappy to think that the idea of "But I know I'll be a law someday/ At least I hope and pray that I will,/ But today I am still just a bill," is too "politically incorrect."

optrader

March 6th, 2009, 3:05 pm

This is a straw man of my argument. Public funds are not to be used to promote religion. It'd be no different than tax dollars funding renovations of a church.

There is a difference between promoting religion and allowing religion. I wouldn't want to force children to pray to Jesus at school. Would you object to a moment of silence to allow those who might wish to pray to do so?

I'm not the one upset that some parents can't afford to send their children to a religious school as opposed to the public school that's made available through public funding.

As usual, liberals can't grasp the concept that tax money does not belong to the government. I object that you force people to fund your childs' education in a school you are happy with, while at the same time, not being willing to fund the education of other peoples children in a school they are happy with! As long as your children are not being forced to attend religious schools, why, other than the omnipotent hypocrisy of liberalism, do you care where other parents send their children???

Public funds are spent by the government, which is restricted according to the Constitution.

If a parent were allowed to withhold that portion of their tax money that goes toward education and be able to give it to the school of their choice, it would never make it to the "public fund spent by the government." Thus, your argument falls apart. This BTW, might allow parents to afford private school. But again, liberals only champion choice that fits their agenda!

What's so disagreeable about a school that doesn't have a prayer in the morning led by public address? :eh: I've already said that parents should have the right to excuse their children from lessons on evolution, or sex ed for that matter, if they really feel strongly that those are in opposition of their religion (not all Christians feel this way). This will probably make them feel ostracized, but they aren't religious or specifically anti-religious subjects, so a public school should be allowed to have them in the curriculum.

Didn't you use the "children might feel ostracized" argument to support your position that there should not be school led prayer? But apparently being ostracized for opting out of lessons that take a secular view is ok. Typical...

Public funds are not to be used to promote religion. It'd be no different than tax dollars funding renovations of a church.

Redundant!

I prefer to think of myself as a progressive. And actually, my insistence to grant us certain liberties and the majority opinion be damned is a conservative one...

Fantastic!! Then since the majority, even in the most liberal states of Massachusetts and California have rejected gay marriage, I assume you liberals will finally let that issue drop! Bets anyone?

What does this even mean? Is it part of any curriculum in existence that all religions are bogus? Are you aware of any public school that requires a class that teaches children that religions are wrong and there is no God? I sure don't.

Are you aware of any public school that teaches that any child that opts out of prayer or isn't Christian is damned to hell? Again, their is a difference between allowing religion and promoting/forcing religion. Why does a prayer, or discussing the beliefs of creation in school offend?

Harmonious

March 6th, 2009, 3:23 pm

Sigh. I forgot... The story of Noah's Ark is depicted in the song for the two times tables. The song is "Elementary, My Dear".

Ah, well.

graatz

March 6th, 2009, 4:43 pm

I wouldn't want to force children to pray to Jesus at school.

Then we are in agreement. :hug:

Would you object to a moment of silence to allow those who might wish to pray to do so?

I think there is plenty of opportunity to pray at school. Are you saying that every morning should have a moment of silence? Or at the beginning of every school-sponsored event? No, I think that's still a little out of scope. A moment of silence after a national tragedy? I won't object.

I object that you force people to fund your childs' education in a school you are happy with, while at the same time, not being willing to fund the education of other peoples children in a school they are happy with!

I think it's a stretch to say that I'm happy with public schools. I think that tax payers have a vested interest in making the public school system an agreeable one. And I absolutely support the public funding of education. But where I think we aren't seeing eye-to-eye is that the public should only be funding the school that can be government-regulated. If public money goes to private institutions, how are they private? And should the state government, for example, get to take over a religious school if they are failing standardized tests as they do in my state? :eh:

As long as your children are not being forced to attend religious schools, why, other than the omnipotent hypocrisy of liberalism, do you care where other parents send their children???

I prefer parents take advantage of local schools, because if more parents feel personally vested, there will be more interest in fixing the system. I think that home schooling is bad parenting and am willing to debate people who take an opposite position. But ultimately I don't care if parents choose those alternatives, as in I don't see any reason to take away those alternatives [although as a side note, I would seriously reform home schooling to make it less disagreeable to the children who barely seem to have a say in the matter... I know a few kids who were "home schooled" by staying home alone while the single parent was at work all day, and I'm sure this isn't an isolated problem].

If a parent were allowed to withhold that portion of their tax money that goes toward education and be able to give it to the school of their choice, it would never make it to the "public fund spent by the government."

If a local government decides to abolish the school tax, so be it. This is part of the reason I'd wish for more parents to take an interest in public school reform. If a wealthy community would rather pay next-to-nothing to fund schools because they prefer private schools, and the tax break would help fund their decision, it means that the public school is seriously underfunded.

Didn't you use the "children might feel ostracized" argument to support your position that there should not be school led prayer?

Not that I'm aware. School-led prayer is a violation of the Establishment Clause, according to the Courts (whom I agree with). Sex ed and teaching evolution (by the way, how many school curricula even include evolution? They might have an an optional Bio II class at my high school, but I don't think origin of species was Bio I, but then again all I remember about Biology is that I failed dissection) are not. But if parents really feel like these topics are bad for their children to learn based on their religion, they should have the right to opt out, but they should be aware that their kids are going to be labeled at the Rod and Todd Flanders of the school. But because these aren't religious or anti-religious topics, and because they fall within the scope of valid educational topics, they should still be offered.

Fantastic!! Then since the majority, even in the most liberal states of Massachusetts and California have rejected gay marriage, I assume you liberals will finally let that issue drop! Bets anyone?

Me? Liberal? How glib... It seems to me that on both sides of the aisle, there are topics where we prefer to say "the majority rules" and other topics where we say "we have liberties that cannot be denied." The lines seem to have been drawn arbitrarily, not as a matter of principle, but rather as a matter of what motivated the constituency. Me? I'm the well-armed lamb ;)

Again, their is a difference between allowing religion and promoting/forcing religion. Why does a prayer, or discussing the beliefs of creation in school offend?

I have already mentioned in a previous post some acceptable ways for a public school to allow religion. I'm not aware of any public school that prohibits students from being religious. Prayer in school is fine; I'm not going to stop anyone from saying grace before lunch or pleading to God before midterms. Discussing creationism? Hopefully not in a biology class. In an elective class on comparative religion discussing many creation myths/stories? Sure! :)

mtdim

March 6th, 2009, 5:05 pm

I'm not a doctor or scientist, nor did I ever play one on TV. Aside from that elusive missing link, I would ask questions such as:

The term "missing link" is very vague. What does it mean for there to be a "missing link" in evolutionary history? Consider this scenario: we find the fossil of a species from 200,000 years ago, and a fossil that we believe to be its descendent from 100,000 years ago. Would you say there is a "missing link" between the two? But then suppose we found a fossil from 150,000 years ago that we suspect to be the intermmediate of the other two. Are there now two "missing links," one between the 200,000 and 150,000 year old fossils and another between the 150,000 and 100,000 year old fossils?

I guess what I'm asking is, how close together (temporally speaking) must two fossil findings be before you will accept that there is not a "missing link" between them?

If we evolved from apes, how come the apes are still here?

The process of evolution works at the population level, not the species level. Say there is a group of apes of some kind (exact species isn't important for this example), and they split into two groups, A and B. Group A remains in the same place, but group B migrates to a new environment. The new environment causes group B to evolve into a new species, however group A remains in the old environment, and hence remains unchanged. Now we have a new species descended from the old one (group B), but the old species remains in existence (group A).

If we evolved from single celled organisms, ditto?

Same answer as above; one group of single celled organisms broke off from the rest of the group and evolved into more complex eukaryotes, leaving the rest unchanged.

Why is there no evidence of something being in the process of evolution today?

What consitutes evidence of "being in the process of evolution"? Because changes in allele frequencies over generations is something that has been and is observed in the present. If you mean that we should be seeing half-speciesA and half-speciesB creatures walking around, such things are impossible to see in the present. Why? Because we don't where we are headed from an evolutionary standpoint.

But try this little thought experiment. Pretend it is the future, and us humans have continued to become taller, and continued to lose hair; we are now 12 foot tall hairless creatures. From this future, we might look back at the current human form and say "hey, those humans were exact hybrids of short fur-covered apes and the 12 foot tall hairless beings." Basically, us humans probably look like a blend of furry apes and whatever beings we will become in our evolutionary future. But, because we don't know what the future form will be, to our eyes in the present we just look like humans, not a mix of any two species.

The problem is that evolution can't happen UNTIL life has begun. Thus the atheist has the burden of demonstrating how life began before even proposing that we evolved. If the atheist wishes to duck the issue of the beginning of life by saying it just spontaneously happened, then knowing the conditions and chemical makeup of the primitive earth should allow life to be created, yet with all the advances in science, it hasn't been done.

This argument doesn't make sense to me. You're correct that evolution can't happen until life has begun. But guess what? Gravity can't happen until mass exists. Does that mean all theories of gravity that don't explain the origin of matter are not valid theories?

The fact is, life DID begin, one way or another. In light of this fact, it is perfectly valid to construct theories about that life, even if we acknowledge that we don't know how that life got there.

And please stop saying that evolutionary theory is somehow "atheistic." I know plenty of Christians, Jews, etc., who accept evolutionary theory. And "the atheist" doesn't have the burden of demonstrating anything; it is a perfectly accetable ontological position to simply say "I don't know how life began."

They are not on "equal footing" theologically speaking either. It isn't that evolution is taught that I object to, it's that creationism is not just ommitted, but scorned.

Creationism is omitted only because it doesn't have a hypothesis that can be scientifically formulated. This doesn't mean it's wrong, only that it shouldn't be taught in science classes. I don't know many people who scorn Creationism; mostly people scorn the idea that Creationism is science and should be taught in a science class.

One simple characteristic that a scientific hypothesis must have is that it must be testable. How could a Creationism hypothesis be formed so that it was testable? I'm not saying it couldn't be done, I'm just saying that, as far as I know, it hasn't been done.

Mikko

March 6th, 2009, 5:32 pm

I'm not a doctor or scientist, nor did I ever play one on TV. Aside from that elusive missing link, I would ask questions such as:
Ask away.:)If we evolved from apes, how come the apes are still here?
ET doesn't hold that we evolved from apes; it holds that we and modern apes evolved from a common ancestor. With all due respect, that you even ask this question demonstrates a serious problem with your understanding of the very theory you're criticizing.:)
If we evolved from single celled organisms, ditto?
Ditto the answer. We and modern single-celled organisms evolved from a common ancestor.:)Why is there no evidence of something being in the process of evolution today?The evidence of that abounds.:)The problem is that evolution can't happen UNTIL life has begun. Thus the atheist has the burden of demonstrating how life began before even proposing that we evolved.
No, that absolutely is not the case. ET begins with the first organisms; it doesn't address how they came to exist.
If the atheist wishes to duck the issue of the beginning of life by saying it just spontaneously happened, then knowing the conditions and chemical makeup of the primitive earth should allow life to be created, yet with all the advances in science, it hasn't been done.
Which neither proves nor disproves anything.:)They are not on "equal footing" theologically speaking either. It isn't that evolution is taught that I object to, it's that creationism is not just ommitted, but scorned.Evolution is science; creationism is a religious belief that can't be falsified. Hence, it is not science.:)

Gem

March 6th, 2009, 5:53 pm

No.

But it seems to me that you dont mind the christians tax dollars paying for the city schools do you.

I believe the goverment should let the christians tax dollars go to the christians schools.

Gem

March 6th, 2009, 6:21 pm

And we're back to separate but equal.

How about this - keep religion in churches, ashrams, synagogues, masjids, groves and temples, and educational instruction in schools?

How about this.

Let the Christians who have children in school age keep their tax dollars to send their children to christian schools .

Right now christian families are paying their tax dollars to the public schools , where they should be allowed to pay tax dollars to the christian schools where their children go to school at.

Koushi Shinigami

March 6th, 2009, 6:36 pm

If I were in charge of a Christian school, I would not accept any tax money.

Chuangtzu

March 6th, 2009, 6:53 pm

How about this.

Let the Christians who have children in school age keep their tax dollars to send their children to christian schools .

Right now christian families are paying their tax dollars to the public schools , where they should be allowed to pay tax dollars to the christian schools where their children go to school at.

Public education is publicly funded, for a reason. We are all responsible for a minimum contribution to the next generation.

Religious instruction is not best provided, by this medium. Primary education is...

captusa

March 6th, 2009, 7:15 pm

The term "missing link" is very vague. What does it mean for there to be a "missing link" in evolutionary history? Consider this scenario: we find the fossil of a species from 200,000 years ago, and a fossil that we believe to be its descendent from 100,000 years ago. Would you say there is a "missing link" between the two? But then suppose we found a fossil from 150,000 years ago that we suspect to be the intermmediate of the other two. Are there now two "missing links," one between the 200,000 and 150,000 year old fossils and another between the 150,000 and 100,000 year old fossils?

I guess what I'm asking is, how close together (temporally speaking) must two fossil findings be before you will accept that there is not a "missing link" between them?

The process of evolution works at the population level, not the species level. Say there is a group of apes of some kind (exact species isn't important for this example), and they split into two groups, A and B. Group A remains in the same place, but group B migrates to a new environment. The new environment causes group B to evolve into a new species, however group A remains in the old environment, and hence remains unchanged. Now we have a new species descended from the old one (group B), but the old species remains in existence (group A).

Same answer as above; one group of single celled organisms broke off from the rest of the group and evolved into more complex eukaryotes, leaving the rest unchanged.

What consitutes evidence of "being in the process of evolution"? Because changes in allele frequencies over generations is something that has been and is observed in the present. If you mean that we should be seeing half-speciesA and half-speciesB creatures walking around, such things are impossible to see in the present. Why? Because we don't where we are headed from an evolutionary standpoint.

But try this little thought experiment. Pretend it is the future, and us humans have continued to become taller, and continued to lose hair; we are now 12 foot tall hairless creatures. From this future, we might look back at the current human form and say "hey, those humans were exact hybrids of short fur-covered apes and the 12 foot tall hairless beings." Basically, us humans probably look like a blend of furry apes and whatever beings we will become in our evolutionary future. But, because we don't know what the future form will be, to our eyes in the present we just look like humans, not a mix of any two species.

This argument doesn't make sense to me. You're correct that evolution can't happen until life has begun. But guess what? Gravity can't happen until mass exists. Does that mean all theories of gravity that don't explain the origin of matter are not valid theories?

The fact is, life DID begin, one way or another. In light of this fact, it is perfectly valid to construct theories about that life, even if we acknowledge that we don't know how that life got there.

And please stop saying that evolutionary theory is somehow "atheistic." I know plenty of Christians, Jews, etc., who accept evolutionary theory. And "the atheist" doesn't have the burden of demonstrating anything; it is a perfectly accetable ontological position to simply say "I don't know how life began."

Creationism is omitted only because it doesn't have a hypothesis that can be scientifically formulated. This doesn't mean it's wrong, only that it shouldn't be taught in science classes. I don't know many people who scorn Creationism; mostly people scorn the idea that Creationism is science and should be taught in a science class.

One simple characteristic that a scientific hypothesis must have is that it must be testable. How could a Creationism hypothesis be formed so that it was testable? I'm not saying it couldn't be done, I'm just saying that, as far as I know, it hasn't been done.

Excellent well formed logical explaination without asserting who is right and no value judgements to confuse the issue.
Now I'll start a pool to guess how long it will be before someone posts, "If we evolved from apes, why are there still apes?"

captusa

March 6th, 2009, 7:22 pm

How about this.

Let the Christians who have children in school age keep their tax dollars to send their children to christian schools .

Right now christian families are paying their tax dollars to the public schools , where they should be allowed to pay tax dollars to the christian schools where their children go to school at.

My tax dollars contribute the support of the Smithsonian and the National Gallery of Art and The Metropolitan Museum.
The have lots of Catholic and Protestant Crucifixions.
If I don't go to the Met should they refund my tax dollars so I can but black velvet Elvis portraits ?

Gem

March 6th, 2009, 7:23 pm

If I were in charge of a Christian school, I would not accept any tax money.

We should not be forced to give it to the city schools.
they have enough parents who have kids in the city schools to pay for their own kids education I think.

Chuangtzu

March 6th, 2009, 7:24 pm

We should not be forced to give it to the city schools.
they have enough parents who have kids in the city schools to pay for their own kids education I think.

If you don't want to support a minimum education, perhaps you'll be willing to pay considerably more for maximum incarceration?

Gem

March 6th, 2009, 7:28 pm

Public education is publicly funded, for a reason. We are all responsible for a minimum contribution to the next generation.

Religious instruction is not best provided, by this medium. Primary education is...

I don't know why because the christian schools give a better education anymore that the public schools.

I have 4 children that went to christian schools and collage and is making a great life for them selves and their children.

City schools is awful anymore with all the sex and dope as well as alcohol and fights and killings going on in the public schools anymore.

captusa

March 6th, 2009, 7:53 pm

If you don't want to support a minimum education, perhaps you'll be willing to pay considerably more for maximum incarceration?

The high cost of education is nothing compared to the cost of ignorance.I'll credit the quote when I fiind out who said it.

graatz

March 6th, 2009, 7:58 pm

I don't know why because the christian schools give a better education anymore that the public schools.

Proof? :eh:

Lie Sniper

March 6th, 2009, 8:01 pm

Excellent well formed logical explaination without asserting who is right and no value judgements to confuse the issue.
Now I'll start a pool to guess how long it will be before someone posts, "If we evolved from apes, why are there still apes?"

Capt,

If we evolved from apes, how come there are still apes?:))

Do I win the pool?

smyrna

March 6th, 2009, 8:17 pm

Proof? :eh:

for shame, for shame, for shame...:naughty:

gpd®

March 6th, 2009, 8:43 pm

Proof? :eh:

That's funny.

mtdim

March 6th, 2009, 8:48 pm

Excellent well formed logical explaination without asserting who is right and no value judgements to confuse the issue.
Now I'll start a pool to guess how long it will be before someone posts, "If we evolved from apes, why are there still apes?"

Thank you, sir! I certainly hope no one asks that question, as I endeavored to answer it as clearly as possible somewhere within that massive post. :D

khigh

March 6th, 2009, 10:47 pm

If it were done in this fashion, then it would not be establishing a particular religion.;)
Even then, the teacher has to be careful that some little jerk in his classroom doesn't go home and misrepresent the process to his/her parents.:)

It's one of the reasons I will probable home school. I want my daughter to have a good education with a Hindu background. The Vedas and Upanishads would be great stories to work on in English (beautiful poetry and prose) when she got a little older and sanskrit would be a great/unique language to learn. I don't know if there are any private schools in the US near military bases that are Hindu based like their are Christian and Catholic schools.

Yeah, the teacher would have to be very careful about it, which is probably why it won't happen the way I would like. I don't know how many parent's in this day in America that would enjoy their children learning about alternate paths, especially a Muslim path.

As a teacher, I can tell you that you are as much a blessing to that teacher as he is to you.:)

Had coffee with him tonight and had a long discussion about the difference between Solopsism and Solipsism. I don't know what I am going to do when/if we move half way across the world.

Mikko

March 7th, 2009, 1:14 pm

It's one of the reasons I will probable home school. I want my daughter to have a good education with a Hindu background. The Vedas and Upanishads would be great stories to work on in English (beautiful poetry and prose) when she got a little older and sanskrit would be a great/unique language to learn. I don't know if there are any private schools in the US near military bases that are Hindu based like their are Christian and Catholic schools.

Yeah, the teacher would have to be very careful about it, which is probably why it won't happen the way I would like. I don't know how many parent's in this day in America that would enjoy their children learning about alternate paths, especially a Muslim path.

Had coffee with him tonight and had a long discussion about the difference between Solopsism and Solipsism. I don't know what I am going to do when/if we move half way across the world.
Hindu! Fascinating. I love the Hindu scriptures (what little I've read of them). They make a great deal of sense. Now, I've got to go look up those two homonyms.:)
ETA: I found "solipsism," which meant what I remembered it as meaning. I could not, however, find "solopsism.":)

khigh

March 7th, 2009, 10:17 pm

Hindu! Fascinating. I love the Hindu scriptures (what little I've read of them). They make a great deal of sense. Now, I've got to go look up those two homonyms.:)
ETA: I found "solipsism," which meant what I remembered it as meaning. I could not, however, find "solopsism.":)

Solopsism- you are the only person in the world and everything was created for your life.

Solipsism-everything is a creation of your mind and it is only there because you think it is there.

optrader

March 9th, 2009, 12:52 pm

optrader

March 9th, 2009, 12:58 pm

My tax dollars contribute the support of the Smithsonian and the National Gallery of Art and The Metropolitan Museum.
The have lots of Catholic and Protestant Crucifixions.
If I don't go to the Met should they refund my tax dollars so I can but black velvet Elvis portraits ?

Our tax dollars should not be supporting the arts. Let those who wish to enjoy it pay for it! If you wish to buy a black velvet Elvis, it's your right, but tax dollars shouldn't be spent on that either.

Mikko

March 9th, 2009, 1:21 pm

Our tax dollars should not be supporting the arts. Let those who wish to enjoy it pay for it! If you wish to buy a black velvet Elvis, it's your right, but tax dollars shouldn't be spent on that either.
The arts enrich culture.:)

optrader

March 9th, 2009, 2:58 pm

The arts enrich culture.:)

Perhaps so, that still doesn't mean it should be funded by tax dollars. Some people believe pornography is a form of art, should it be funded. Who makes such decision?

optrader

March 9th, 2009, 3:50 pm

Ask away.:)
ET doesn't hold that we evolved from apes; it holds that we and modern apes evolved from a common ancestor. With all due respect, that you even ask this question demonstrates a serious problem with your understanding of the very theory you're criticizing.:)

Ditto the answer. We and modern single-celled organisms evolved from a common ancestor.:)The evidence of that abounds.:)
No, that absolutely is not the case. ET begins with the first organisms; it doesn't address how they came to exist.

Which neither proves nor disproves anything.:)Evolution is science; creationism is a religious belief that can't be falsified. Hence, it is not science.:)

How we got here IS of importance. Since the atheist doesn't believe in God, then they must believe in the spontaneous creation of life. There are 2 prominent secular theories on how life began, (at least only 2 I know of.) One theory says that the stuff of life was brought by an asteroid or comet colliding with earth, another theory says it was caused by a lightning bolt. What I find interesting is that an asteroid collision generates such heat and destruction, that one caused the EXTINCTON of nearly every form of life on earth 65 million years ago! Sorry, I have to rule out this theory based on "scientific evidence." That leaves the lightning theory.

From everything I've heard or read about this, the odds seem impossible, yet here we are! First, we have the exact necessary ingredients in the primordial ooze, then zap, life begins!
You find humor in my ape question so lets go back a little further:

1. We have to assume that despite the huge odds against that lightning strike it happened.

2. We have to assume that the instant that life began, the environment would be such that that new life would continue instead of immediately dying. It happened.

3. We have to assume that there was a sufficient supply of nutrients. I would ask why there would be, since a microsecond before that lightning strike, there were no organisms that needed nutrients. It happened.

4. We have to assume that the newly created organism was able to either procreate with another organism, which of course had to be spontaneously created as well and able to reproduce. (this of course greatly increases the odds against the first 3 assumptions) or have the ability to reproduce asexually. We will go with the latter assumption to simplify. It happened.

5. We must assume that this organism, having beaten the odds and survived for millions of years, had a reason to leave it's environment, which generated the need to evolve new characteristics over and over and over, and it happened. Here we are!!

How did one single cell organism develop every species on earth? Were there multiple lighning stikes? Did each strike create a different organism depending on the ingredients of the ooze? If there are multiple single cell organisms that developed, and then evolved into the different species, why do we still have single celled organisms? How did they get here if they didn't come into being by that lightning strike. If they have been here all along, why didn't they evolve? The environment changed as much for them as it did for the organisms that did evolve. How did they survive for billions of years?

Tru, I aren't as edgeukayted as you am, but again, before evolution can occur, life had to begin, regardless of how much "science" you proclaim or produce. This is not a chicken or egg situation...

mtdim

March 9th, 2009, 4:46 pm

Tru, I aren't as edgeukayted as you am, but again, before evolution can occur, life had to begin, regardless of how much "science" you proclaim or produce. This is not a chicken or egg situation...

And before gravity can occur, matter had to exist. Therefore, any theory of gravity that doesn't explain the origin of matter is invalid.

See how ridiculous that logic is? Evolutionary Theory doesn't have to explain the origin of life in order to be a valid theory any more than a theory of gravity must explain the origin of matter in order to be a valid theory. The fact is, life got here, one way or the other. In light of that fact, it is perfectly valid to discuss theories about that life.

If you had things your way, I wouldn't even be able to hypothesize that the sun will rise tomorrow morning until I explained the origin of the universe.

optrader

March 10th, 2009, 9:15 am

And before gravity can occur, matter had to exist. Therefore, any theory of gravity that doesn't explain the origin of matter is invalid.

See how ridiculous that logic is? Evolutionary Theory doesn't have to explain the origin of life in order to be a valid theory any more than a theory of gravity must explain the origin of matter in order to be a valid theory. The fact is, life got here, one way or the other. In light of that fact, it is perfectly valid to discuss theories about that life.

If you had things your way, I wouldn't even be able to hypothesize that the sun will rise tomorrow morning until I explained the origin of the universe.

There is a difference. The effects of gravity were known long before Newton invented the math that made it explainable. The effects of gravity are observable, demostrable and repeatable. These were some of the criteria given that label somthing as "science" rather than theory or faith.

Science looks at the DNA and bone structure of creature A and then says because their is great similarity between creature A and this creature which lived 50 million years ago, we must have "evolved" from that creature. Prove it by the criteria I was given! You cannot observe this evolution, you can not demonstrate this evolution and you can not repeat this evolution. Therefore, it is a THEORY, not fact! It is presented as fact by those with an agenda.

It is just as valid to present the idea that an omnipotent God could create a few different strands of DNA and bone structures and then manipulate these few "archtypes" to produce the different species of life.

Yes, I do comprehend that evolution deals with existing life, not how life got here, thank you for typing slow so I could follow along. I was pointing out how "ridiculous" the theories put forth by atheists regarding the origin of life are! One theory, evolution, supported by a ridiculous theory, lightning strike or space seed, tends to make a very questionable scientific foundation to build upon. When science can create life, I may then buy the notion that it began to evolve after it's spontaneous creation...

mtdim

March 10th, 2009, 4:02 pm

There is a difference. The effects of gravity were known long before Newton invented the math that made it explainable. The effects of gravity are observable, demostrable and repeatable. These were some of the criteria given that label somthing as "science" rather than theory or faith.

Of course there is a difference between the theories. I was just pointing out the fallacy of saying that the lack of a satisfying explanation for the origin of life somehow weakens Evolutionary Theory; in that respect, the gravity comparison is extremely apt.

Science looks at the DNA and bone structure of creature A and then says because their is great similarity between creature A and this creature which lived 50 million years ago, we must have "evolved" from that creature. Prove it by the criteria I was given! You cannot observe this evolution, you can not demonstrate this evolution and you can not repeat this evolution. Therefore, it is a THEORY, not fact! It is presented as fact by those with an agenda.

Yes, Evolutionary Theory is a theory; if you've heard anyone say otherwise, then he or she was certainly mistaken. If you can show me where someone is presenting it as a fact, I will join with you in telling them they are wrong.

It is just as valid to present the idea that an omnipotent God could create a few different strands of DNA and bone structures and then manipulate these few "archtypes" to produce the different species of life.

Unfortunately such a hypothesis is not "just as valid," not in scientific terms anyway. A hypothesis must be testable in order for it to be scientific. How could you test your hypothesis about God creating a few different strands of DNA and bone structures? This is an honest question; think about how you might go about testing your hypothesis. If you find that your hypothesis is not testable after all, then it isn't really scientific.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis#Scientific_hypothesis

Yes, I do comprehend that evolution deals with existing life, not how life got here, thank you for typing slow so I could follow along. I was pointing out how "ridiculous" the theories put forth by atheists regarding the origin of life are! One theory, evolution, supported by a ridiculous theory, lightning strike or space seed, tends to make a very questionable scientific foundation to build upon. When science can create life, I may then buy the notion that it began to evolve after it's spontaneous creation...

This is your faulty premise right here: Evolutionary Theory is not "supported" by other theories regarding the origin of life, not anymore than gravitational theory is "supported" by theories regarding the origin of matter.

As far as Evolutionary Theory is concerned, is doesn't matter how life got here. It could have come from space, spontaneously generated here on Earth, or it could have been created by God. The question of how it happened, though, is not relevant to Evolutionary Theory.

Greyclouds

March 10th, 2009, 4:17 pm

optrader

March 11th, 2009, 9:12 am

Of course there is a difference between the theories. I was just pointing out the fallacy of saying that the lack of a satisfying explanation for the origin of life somehow weakens Evolutionary Theory; in that respect, the gravity comparison is extremely apt.

Creationists have one theory, God did it. While we can't explain how He did it, we accept that he created us and all the other species. Granted, evolution is a separate theory from the origin of life. My point and opinion is that our arrival here as the dominant species becomes less likely by having to rely on multiple, unprovable theories. The odds against evolution are compounded by the odds against spontaneous creation. In your view, the odds against were overcome by time, in my view, they weren't.

Yes, Evolutionary Theory is a theory; if you've heard anyone say otherwise, then he or she was certainly mistaken. If you can show me where someone is presenting it as a fact, I will join with you in telling them they are wrong.

In the absence of other theories being presented, how are kids in school to take evolution as anything other than fact? Especilally if creation, and religion in general are scorned and ridiculed?

Unfortunately such a hypothesis is not "just as valid," not in scientific terms anyway. A hypothesis must be testable in order for it to be scientific. How could you test your hypothesis about God creating a few different strands of DNA and bone structures? This is an honest question; think about how you might go about testing your hypothesis. If you find that your hypothesis is not testable after all, then it isn't really scientific.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis#Scientific_hypothesis

How was evolution tested?

This is your faulty premise right here: Evolutionary Theory is not "supported" by other theories regarding the origin of life, not anymore than gravitational theory is "supported" by theories regarding the origin of matter.

See above

As far as Evolutionary Theory is concerned, is doesn't matter how life got here. It could have come from space, spontaneously generated here on Earth, or it could have been created by God. The question of how it happened, though, is not relevant to Evolutionary Theory.

I object to evolution, as a stand alone theory precisely because it omits the possibility of a divine intelligence. If the schools were to begin the argument in a manner you described above with something like "the three theories of how life originated are space, lightning and God..." By the time evolution was discussed, the kids, having the notion of the possibility of God, would have equal opportunity to make an informed decision about their belief. Granted, it may actually be more the beliefs of their parents at this early stage in their life, but the beliefs and wishes of the parent to raise their kids with a belief in God are not undermimed by the purely secular teachings of evolution. Yet, even mentioning the deity is objectionable to the leftist zealots who have a monopoly of power in our public schools. Surely the left, those self proclaimed champions of choice and freedom, should not object to kids having complete information to make an informed decision. Holy Cow, just look at how thorough sex ed is! After teaching complete information, the school is caring enough to hand out condoms so the little free thinkers have the tools to test for themselves what they have just learned! This is OK, but the values of religion are objectionable???

This diversion into evolution began with the question "what is an atheist belief." My reply was basically that religion, and the values thereof, must be deliberately instilled in kids. Without this deliberateness, atheism is taught by default. If you wish your kids not be exposed to religion, that is your right. I would not force it on you or your kids. However, the left forces secularism on religious parents by confiscating their taxes, which deprives them of the money to send their kids to a religious school. Then the left screams the mythical "separation of church and state" crap to ensure that religion can't even be mentioned in the public schools, and pretend they are for choice. As John Stossel would say, "Gimme a break!!"

Marleysdaddy

March 11th, 2009, 9:44 am

In the absence of other theories being presented, how are kids in school to take evolution as anything other than fact?
Evolution (change in the allele frequency of a population over time) IS a fact...it is observable in nature.

Evolutionary theory attempts to explain how these changes, compounded over billions of years, have led to the diversity of life on this planet.

How was evolution tested?

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php#b6

I object to evolution, as a stand alone theory objectionable precisely because it omits the possibility of a divine intelligence.
There is no phenomenal evidence of a divine intelligence, thus ALL scientific theories must remain silent regarding divine intelligence

If the schools were to begin the argument in a manner you described above with something like "the three theories of how life originated are space, lightning and God..." By the time evolution was discussed, the kids, having the notion of the possibility of God, would have equal opportunity to make an informed decision about their belief.
Granted, it may actually be more the beliefs of their parents at this early stage in their life, but the beliefs and wishes of the parent to raise their kids with a belief in God are not undermimed by the purely secular teachings of evolution.
Parents are welcome to teach their children as they see fit - in Science class, children will only learn Science.
Yet, even mentioning the deity is objectionable to the leftist zealots who have a monopoly of power in our public schools. Surely the left, those self proclaimed champions of choice and freedom, should not object to kids having complete information to make an informed decision.
This is not a left vs. right discussion...there are people from all over the political spectrum on both sides of the Creation/Evolution debate.

optrader

March 11th, 2009, 4:18 pm

[QUOTE=Marleysdaddy;50643591]Evolution (change in the allele frequency of a population over time) IS a fact...it is observable in nature.

Evolutionary theory attempts to explain how these changes, compounded over billions of years, have led to the diversity of life on this planet.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php#b6

What is observed, and confirmed by the website you gave is adaptation. I will admit adaptation does occur. This is not the same as evolution, where a species becomes an entirely new species. A guppy with spots is still a guppy, whether the spots protect it from predators or attract mates. This changing of one species to another has not been observed, thus it is a theory, not a fact.

I fully agree, I can not produce God, nor give direct evidence of His existence. By your reasoning, he is a theory. I accept your definition, though bear in mind, I have not claimed to have anything other than faith in His existence and have not claimed He is a fact.

There is no phenomenal evidence of a divine intelligence, thus ALL scientific theories must remain silent regarding divine intelligence

Parents are welcome to teach their children as they see fit - in Science class, children will only learn Science.

I suspect we would disagree on what constitutes "phenomenal evidence."

I am not asking theology to be taught in science class nor for the theory of evolution to be abolished in schools. I have been saying that mentioning God, creation, religion or allowing prayer in public schools or other places does not "establish" a religion. I have no problem with kids being given the theory of evolution in biology or science class.

My issue has been the deliberate omission, and often downright hostility towards the notion of a creator or religion in general. Admit it, if a teacher so much as utters the name Jesus Christ in a classroom, they are subject to lawsuits and/or discipline which could include being fired. It is not conservatives who are doing this, it is the left. Do you honestly believe this was the intent of the founding fathers? The left will settle for nothing less than the complete removal of every reference to God in any and every public place or from public documents. This is what has happened to society and why we are going downhill!

This is not a left vs. right discussion...there are people from all over the political spectrum on both sides of the Creation/Evolution debate.

I understand there are conservatives and Christians who believe in evolution. The issue did not start out as a Creation/evolution debate. Go back a few dozen posts and you will see where it got sidetracked.

Marleysdaddy

March 11th, 2009, 4:46 pm

What is observed, and confirmed by the website you gave is adaptation. I will admit adaptation does occur. This is not the same as evolution, where a species becomes an entirely new species.
Incorrect - the observed changes/adaptations ARE evolution - 'Speciation' is when a population of a species gives rise to a novel species

I fully agree, I can not produce God, nor give direct evidence of His existence. By your reasoning, he is a theory.
No...theories are supported by phenomenal evidence...
I suspect we would disagree on what constitutes "phenomenal evidence."
I don't see how there is even room for disagreement
A phenomenon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomenon) (from Greek φαινόμενoν, pl. φαινόμενα - phenomena) is ANY observable occurrence

I am not asking theology to be taught in science class nor for the theory of evolution to be abolished in schools.
I have been saying that mentioning God, creation, religion or allowing prayer in public schools or other places does not "establish" a religion.
I agree with you here
I have no problem with kids being given the theory of evolution in biology or science class.
Good
My issue has been the deliberate omission, and often downright hostility towards the notion of a creator or religion in general. Admit it, if a teacher so much as utters the name Jesus Christ in a classroom, they are subject to lawsuits and/or discipline which could include being fired.
I believe this is a straw man - it wasn't so long ago that I was in public school, and both my mother and step-mother are public school teachers, and I am certain they would have mentioned this (they are both Christians)
It is not conservatives who are doing this, it is the left.
There are many conservatives who oppose teaching Creationism in school

The left will settle for nothing less than the complete removal of every reference to God in any and every public place or from public documents.
That is a false statement - there are many people on the left side of the political spectrum who are theists.

optrader

March 12th, 2009, 8:46 am

Incorrect - the observed changes/adaptations ARE evolution - 'Speciation' is when a population of a species gives rise to a novel species

Regardless of the definition, I am talking about the "phenominal evidence" of an ape evolving into a human being or a single celled organism developing into a multi cell organism and then develop into a higher and higher level being. This has not, and can not be observed. the other thing you are not taking into conseideration is that science has developed the ability to manually make genetic alterations to produce certain results. this does not prove that the same changes occur naturally. I would also ask, if man can play with genetics, mightn't also God, or even Satan? (Satan certainly has a huge stake in our deception, just throwing out food for thought here.)

No...theories are supported by phenomenal evidence...

I don't see how there is even room for disagreement
A phenomenon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomenon) (from Greek φαινόμενoν, pl. φαινόμενα - phenomena) is ANY observable occurrence

If I witnessed something miraculous, and posted about in this forum, would you accept it as phenominal evidence of God? I suspect not. I consider the visible universe as phenominal evidence of God, see what I'm getting at here?

I agree with you here

We probably agree about more things than we disagree, just not religion. Perhaps a beer or two would facillitate a quite agreeable discussion. :D

good

Science and religion are not mutually exclusive. God created the laws of science and the chemicals compounds etc., that scientists doctors use. I'm not an anti-science zealot.

I believe this is a straw man - it wasn't so long ago that I was in public school, and both my mother and step-mother are public school teachers, and I am certain they would have mentioned this (they are both Christians)

There are many reports in the news about such. Ask your mother and step mother to wear a small cross necklace outside their clothing and see what kind of reaction they get. Ask them to place a bible on their desk, conspicuously in view, ask them to close their eyes and say a quick silent prayer (not to or for the class, stictly for themselves) before they begin their lesson. I believe you will discover the truth about "hostility" toward such displays.

There are many conservatives who oppose teaching Creationism in school

That is a false statement - there are many people on the left side of the political spectrum who are theists.

True and true, I am speaking of the majority views of conservatives and liberals though.

Marleysdaddy

March 12th, 2009, 9:34 am

Regardless of the definition, I am talking about the "phenominal evidence" of an ape evolving into a human being or a single celled organism developing into a multi cell organism and then develop into a higher and higher level being. This has not, and can not be observed.
You should be thanking your lucky stars it can't be observed...;) because if it could be, it would be FACT, not part of evolutionary theory.

However, I will point out that we have observed speciation.

the other thing you are not taking into conseideration [sic] is that science has developed the ability to manually make genetic alterations to produce certain results. this does not prove that the same changes occur naturally.
1) I am not referring to Genetic manipulation - that would be artificial, not natural selection.

2) Science has had this ability to make genetic alterations for thousands of years...it is how we developed dog breeds, domestic animals, and most of the fruit and vegetable species we consume (look at this link to see a good example - broccoli, cauliflower, cabbage, brussels sprouts, and a few others are all THE SAME species
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brassica_oleracea)

If I witnessed something miraculous, and posted about in this forum, would you accept it as phenominal [sic] evidence of God? I suspect not. I consider the visible universe as phenominal [sic] evidence of God, see what I'm getting at here?
Yes...but Occam's razor holds. What you see as phenomenal evidence of the existence of god, can be explained more parsimoniously without asserting the existence of a deity.
We probably agree about more things than we disagree, just not religion. Perhaps a beer or two would facillitate a quite agreeable discussion. :D

Absolutely ;)

Science and religion are not mutually exclusive. God created the laws of science and the chemicals compounds etc., that scientists doctors use. I'm not an anti-science zealot.
I'm glad to hear that
There are many reports in the news about such. Ask your mother and step mother to wear a small cross necklace outside their clothing and see what kind of reaction they get. Ask them to place a bible on their desk, conspicuously in view, ask them to close their eyes and say a quick silent prayer (not to or for the class, stictly for themselves) before they begin their lesson. I believe you will discover the truth about "hostility" toward such displays.
Perhaps it is because they live in the Midwest, but such "hostility" does not occur in their schools.

Greyclouds

March 12th, 2009, 2:15 pm

Regardless of the definition, I am talking about the "phenominal evidence" of an ape evolving into a human being or a single celled organism developing into a multi cell organism and then develop into a higher and higher level being. This has not, and can not be observed. the other thing you are not taking into conseideration is that science has developed the ability to manually make genetic alterations to produce certain results. this does not prove that the same changes occur naturally. I would also ask, if man can play with genetics, mightn't also God, or even Satan? (Satan certainly has a huge stake in our deception, just throwing out food for thought here.)

<snip>

Evidence of terminal differentiation of cell lines in every single case of it ever having occurred? No.

Observable evidence of terminal differentiation of cell lines in predominantly single-celled domains of life? Oh yeah!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anabaena

Anabaena sp. (Anabaena) is a filamentous cyanobacterium that has two different cell lines that arise from the same exact genome.

The first cell line is capable of reproducing more Anabaena filaments, and continues to have the capability to reproduce more copies of itself in a linear filament. The second cell line, however, turns into a structure known as a "heterocyst," and is no longer capable of reproducing. The heterocyst thereby serves as a non-reproducing tissue that fixes ammonia from nitrogen gas for the rest of the cells in the filament.

The reason why the heterocyst cells cannot reproduce is because of their preferential production of glycolipids that "seal off" the cell walls from oxygen. Oxygen just happens to be toxic for the process of nitrogen fixation, so it must be prevented from entering the heterocyst cell at all costs. Granted, not every single Anabaena cell can become a heterocyst (they wouldn't be capable of reproducing!), so there is a genetic system encoded by the Anabaena genome to prevent every cell from becoming a heterocyst.

This system relies on concentration gradients of certain protein products. Without going into too much detail here, suffice it to say that such systems mirror the developmental segmentation systems present in Eukaryotes!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hox_genes

So, we have a transitional form readily observable: the transition of a single-celled organism to a two-celled organism with one specialized tissue type. Does this observation create DIRECT evidence to single-celled Eukaryotes mutating into multi-cellular Eukaryotes? Not directly. Does it show an example of a genetic system that COULD have paralleled the multi-cellular terminal differentiation of Eukaryotes? You betcha!

mtdim

March 13th, 2009, 12:56 am

Creationists have one theory, God did it. While we can't explain how He did it, we accept that he created us and all the other species. Granted, evolution is a separate theory from the origin of life. My point and opinion is that our arrival here as the dominant species becomes less likely by having to rely on multiple, unprovable theories. The odds against evolution are compounded by the odds against spontaneous creation. In your view, the odds against were overcome by time, in my view, they weren't.

You're still missing the point when you say "the odds against evolution are compounded by the odds against spontaneous creation." Evolutionary Theory is NOT dependent on the fact that life spontaneously generated in any particular way, only that life exists at all.

Think of it this way: what are the odds that life came about on our planet, by some means divine or otherwise? It's 100%, isn't it? We know FOR SURE that it happened, one way or another, because we are here now. So how does the fact that life must exist in order for evolution to occur at all effect the probability of evolution occurring, given that the probability of life existing on Earth is 100%? The answer, of course, is that it doesn't change the chances at all.

In the absence of other theories being presented, how are kids in school to take evolution as anything other than fact? Especilally if creation, and religion in general are scorned and ridiculed?

What other theories would you have presented in a science class regarding the origin of species? There are lots of competing hypothesis within Evolutionary Theory, but I'm not aware of a hypothesis, let alone one that could be considered a "theory," that significantly departs from the basic premise of evolution that you object to. But let me ask, do you also object to Atomic Theory being taught in the classroom without having any competing theories presented? Do you think that gives the wrong impression about Atomic Theory?

How was evolution tested?

Many ways. One example I can think of (I think I got this from a Dr. Kenneth Miller presentation) is when scientists discovered that some apes who are fairly close relatives to humans had one more chromosome than us. Evolutionary Theory predicted that a chromosome could not have just have up and left, and that two chromosomes must have gotten fused together at some point. After some searching, they found that one of our chromosomes is, in fact, the fusion of two other, and it contains genetic material very similar to two separate chromosomes in apes.

I object to evolution, as a stand alone theory precisely because it omits the possibility of a divine intelligence. If the schools were to begin the argument in a manner you described above with something like "the three theories of how life originated are space, lightning and God..." By the time evolution was discussed, the kids, having the notion of the possibility of God, would have equal opportunity to make an informed decision about their belief. Granted, it may actually be more the beliefs of their parents at this early stage in their life, but the beliefs and wishes of the parent to raise their kids with a belief in God are not undermimed by the purely secular teachings of evolution. Yet, even mentioning the deity is objectionable to the leftist zealots who have a monopoly of power in our public schools. Surely the left, those self proclaimed champions of choice and freedom, should not object to kids having complete information to make an informed decision. Holy Cow, just look at how thorough sex ed is! After teaching complete information, the school is caring enough to hand out condoms so the little free thinkers have the tools to test for themselves what they have just learned! This is OK, but the values of religion are objectionable???

Yes, Evolutionary Theory omits God, but it doesn't preclude God. It's exactly like many subjects in school; mathematics, chemistry, physics, etc., all make no mention of God, just like Evolution. So why do you object to Evolutionary Biology, but none of these?

This diversion into evolution began with the question "what is an atheist belief." My reply was basically that religion, and the values thereof, must be deliberately instilled in kids. Without this deliberateness, atheism is taught by default. If you wish your kids not be exposed to religion, that is your right. I would not force it on you or your kids. However, the left forces secularism on religious parents by confiscating their taxes, which deprives them of the money to send their kids to a religious school. Then the left screams the mythical "separation of church and state" crap to ensure that religion can't even be mentioned in the public schools, and pretend they are for choice. As John Stossel would say, "Gimme a break!!"

Secular education is not the same an Atheist education; some topics just have nothing to with God, one way or the other.

Marleysdaddy

March 13th, 2009, 9:20 am

You're still missing the point when you say "the odds against evolution are compounded by the odds against spontaneous creation." Evolutionary Theory is NOT dependent on the fact that life spontaneously generated in any particular way, only that life exists at all.

Think of it this way: what are the odds that life came about on our planet, by some means divine or otherwise? It's 100%, isn't it? We know FOR SURE that it happened, one way or another, because we are here now. So how does the fact that life must exist in order for evolution to occur at all effect the probability of evolution occurring, given that the probability of life existing on Earth is 100%? The answer, of course, is that it doesn't change the chances at all.

What other theories would you have presented in a science class regarding the origin of species? There are lots of competing hypothesis within Evolutionary Theory, but I'm not aware of a hypothesis, let alone one that could be considered a "theory," that significantly departs from the basic premise of evolution that you object to. But let me ask, do you also object to Atomic Theory being taught in the classroom without having any competing theories presented? Do you think that gives the wrong impression about Atomic Theory?

Many ways. One example I can think of (I think I got this from a Dr. Kenneth Miller presentation) is when scientists discovered that some apes who are fairly close relatives to humans had one more chromosome than us. Evolutionary Theory predicted that a chromosome could not have just have up and left, and that two chromosomes must have gotten fused together at some point. After some searching, they found that one of our chromosomes is, in fact, the fusion of two other, and it contains genetic material very similar to two separate chromosomes in apes.

Yes, Evolutionary Theory omits God, but it doesn't preclude God. It's exactly like many subjects in school; mathematics, chemistry, physics, etc., all make no mention of God, just like Evolution. So why do you object to Evolutionary Biology, but none of these?

Secular education is not the same an Atheist education; some topics just have nothing to with God, one way or the other.

All good responses :clap:

Marleysdaddy

March 13th, 2009, 9:44 am

I'm confused by this.

Why would "atheism be the default" if God truly exists as described by Christians?

If humans were created with a sense of God, as the Bible suggests, why would not teaching about God instill a sense that God doesn't exist?

Exactly - humans are not atheists by default.

Most of the time, by default, humans initially adopt the religious beliefs of their parents.

grhayes

March 13th, 2009, 1:42 pm

What's wrong with America? What has happened to our country's foundational belief in God? Why have people been turned off to chrisitianity?

I see it as the example this forum shows. We, those who call ourselves christian, gripe and complain amongst each other. We have sat by and let prayer be taken our of schools, let evolution kick creation out of schools and science books, and Bible's removed as school text books.

I dont want to hear seperation of church and state lie. That statement exists no where in our constitution. The lie about seperation of church and state is also part of the problem.

As "christians" we either believe that the Bible is God's unadulterated word or we pick and choose what suits our beliefs to make ourselves feel better about actions we take in our lives. Ex: Old testament not relevant only New testament matters; God's not against homosexuality, There is no trinity, Only The Apostles were allowed to speak in tonges, heal the sick, cast out demons, prophesy and such, There is really no anti christ, Jesus was just a prophet, Jesus only matters Holy Spirit not important, Bible is just a bunch of stories, Just be good and you'll go to heaven confession of sins not important, Ok to drink alcohol or not ok to drink it. I could go on.

If we would just put all this in fighting behind us and stop letting Satan get a foot hold. Oh wait thats another one, hell is only for Satan not sinners and bad people they will go somewhere else, lesser heaven.

Ok my rant! done for now.

The new testament to me is more like a legal code change. The changes only effect the topics they are on. Example: homosexuality is covered in the old testament it is not directly addressed in the new testament as right or wrong. There for the law would still follow the old testament. However that being said. The bible also says to respect the laws and authority of the land you live in. (Limited) You still can't make idles and worship them and so on or break the 10 commandments.

However, that does not give a Christian the right to vote for a law that is contradictory to Gods law. That would be a direct claim that you know better or what is right in comparison to God. Which means a Christian should never have voted for any pro-gay legislation.

Divorce under old and new testament was never condoned by God. Jesus even makes that point when questioned on the subject which is new testament.

Separation of Church and state was not part of the, "Articles of Confederation" or the "US Constitution".

I think the issue is multi level you have lots of people claiming they are Christian who in no way resemble any portion of Christianity. People need to focus on the bigger pictures of what the bible has to offer.

Then there is the big issue we let people talk us down and giving in because we don't want to fight. The Christians that the bible was written about gave their lives for their belief. The people today would sell the bible out of a dollar.