Right, but what you didn't write was a clear definition of what you assumed "respecting" to mean, and the way you seemed to substitute it for "support" implied that you interpreted "respecting" to mean that Congress couldn't show deference to religion, or pay it respect, or honor it, or other, more common meanings of "respect"; contrary to what it does mean in the context, which is "referring to."That's it, pretty much. You're free to assert that your post was clear as day, but two intelligent people totally misunderstood you, and I have years of formal training in the interpretation of written English. Up to you, I guess.

Is Confucianism a religion? Religion can entail more than worship of a Creator.But more to the point, the aspect of religion that is a concern of the first amendment entails beliefs, and since you are arguing "purpose", it's pretty darn clear that ideology fits the same concerns.Prohibiting public officials from religious participation in a public capacity is prohibiting religious expression. YOu said so yourself. You feel only secularism can be expressed with your tax dollars, and presumable mine too. So the Christian should have to pay to promote secularism, and that's OK, but any entaglement the other way around is wrong.Gotcha.

Huh, that sounds familiar. Where did I first read that?Oh, right - in my own posts to you, in another thread, where I said:

quote:

---

I never have maintained that stance. As I've said, different religions ascribe different properties to their gods. The fact that the god of the Soviets was not held to be the creator of the world is no more an indicator of atheism then the fact that the god that you believe in doesn't have the eight arms of Hindu deities.

---

And what was your position in thread? Let's see:

quote:

---

What they meant is that there is no God. They considered the concept of a Creator or Divine being to be an unhealthy psycholigical aberration that needed to be stamped out, by force if necessary.

​

Their position was that God does not exist. They were officially atheist.

---

quote:

---

Do you think the Soviets believed the Soviet state created the world or was God in the sense of being the Creator?

---

quote:

---

Sorry, but your unlinked to quote taken out of context does not prove that they felt the state was a god that created the worlds. The sheer idiocy of your continuing to maintain that stance is very telling.

---

Truly, your intellectual cowardice is breathtaking. There's literally no position you won't flip-flop on in order to continue your irrational vendetta against me. Not to mention, your insulting dishonesty. You truly are the biggest liar currently posting on EvC. Truly amazing. Well, you got one thing right, at least.

Fortunately, there are people in the world that are beginning to understand secularism is it's own religion. In Scotland, for instance, non-Christian clerics are calling for more Christian beliefs in education to combat the influence of secularism. They are aware that the real threat to pluralism stems from secularism, not Christianity. Home | The ScotsmanThis message has been edited by randman, 11-28-2005 07:42 PM

Cool off time. If you want to discuss Church/State issues, start another thread.

---

Do not reply to church/state separation issues here

---

When I last presented a paper in this forum, I was told by one of the administrators that the paper was so complete that he was afraid it didn't really leave anything to discuss. Nevertheless, there was a great deal of discussion. In part, this was due to my taking a rather hands-on approach. In part, it was thanks to Faith who -- just as the discussion was winding down -- managed to breath new life into it.
Nevertheless, while I was quite happy with the discussion, I felt that there were some aspects of the paper that were left unexplored. Moreover, when Faith resucitated the discussion, I felt almost as if we had moved on to a different topic altogether. And at the same time, I felt as if I was at least partly involved in this shift.For this reason, I have chosen to present a somewhat different kind of essay this time around.In the essay itself, I speak of a puzzle which students are supposed to put together, presumably in order to achieve greater understanding. But the essay itself consists of several puzzles. However, different puzzles are aimed at different age groups, or in some cases, different audiences. In the case of these puzzles, it is a little bit of both.At the same time, one should probably distinguish between the objective of a puzzle and its purpose. The objective of a puzzle is to solve it, and this is the goal placed before the intended puzzle solver. But the purpose of a puzzle is the goal of the puzzle maker. The purpose may be as simple as providing people with a source of enjoyment, or it may be as mercenary as that of making money. So for the purpose of discussion, I would suggest three interrelated questions:1. What are the puzzles in this essay?
2. Who are the intended puzzle-solvers?
3. What is the purpose of the puzzle?Because this essay involves a number of different puzzles, it should be a little more interactive. As such, the involvement of Faith and I will probably be a little less important or needed, but I will still get involved to some extent, as I suspect so will Faith.

Early Earth Reducing AtmosphereCalculations favor reducing atmosphere for early Earth
Was Miller-Urey experiment correct?
Public release date: 7-Sep-2005
Calculations favor reducing atmosphere for ea | EurekAlert!RNA and RibozymeLife's Origins Were Easier Than Was Thought
Date: 2005-09-19
http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2005/09/050916075214.htmBiochemists Gain Crystal-Clear Insight Into 'Ancient' Enzyme
Date: 1998-05-15
http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/1998/05/980515080552.htmMolecular Midwives Hold Clues To The Origin Of Life
Date: 2004-04-04
http://www.sciencedaily.com/print.php?url=/releases/2004/...Ribose (other than amino acids, the one essential component in nucleic acids)UF STUDY SUGGESTS LIFE ON EARTH SPRANG FROM BORAX MINERALS
Jan. 8, 2004
http://www.napa.ufl.edu/2004news/earthstart.htmPeptides (not a really big fan, but I am including this nevertheless)2004
Volcano gas, amino acids make peptides
Study is important in understanding transformation of monomers into polymers
By Graciela Flores
Oct. 8, 2004
http://www.the-scientist.com/news/20041008/021993 (including it for historical value)
From amino acids to prebiotic active peptides:
A chemical reconstitution
Andr C Brack
Pure & Appl. Chem., Vol. 65, No. 6, pp. 1141-1151,1993.
http://www.iupac.org/publications/pac/1993/pdf/6506x1143.pdfNote: More to be added in a later post...

Faith was the first to address church/state separtation. Why? Because it was in response to the OP statement below. It's not easy to address the topic aside from these issues, especially when the view of the OP author on church/state is expressed. Is his viewpoint suppose to prevail with no oportunity for response/debate?

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw

It would be on topic to discuss whether the purpose of ID was to get around separation. The question of whether the courts have misapplied the separation issue is very different, and clearly off-topic.A separate thread could be opened for discussing such issues.

---

Nice try.Yes -- in the original essay, one sentence mentions the dishonesty of those who attempt to circumvent the "Separation of Church and State" by means of the introduction of ID. But this is not an argument for or against the "Separation of Church and State." If you wish to argue that this is a mischaracterization of ID, that would be one thing, but arguing for or against the "Separation of Church and State" is quite another.I can understand if those who support either creationism or intelligent design would like to shift the topic: for the past several years (decades?), you have been able to play the offensive, whereas the pro-Evolution side has been playing defensive. This article is about changing the rules of the game. This article is about the pro-Evolution side taking the offensive -- taking the game to you.If after this point, someone attempts to argue the "Separation of Church and State," I would ask that all educated individuals refrain from responding. To respond is to grant that individual the power to determine the topic. This message has been edited by TimChase, 11-29-2005 08:58 PM

I have no intention of continuing this topic as I agree at least that it is a side issue.However, the context in which it is valid on this thread is that Tim accused IDers of deceit in trying to "get around" the principle of the separation of church and state as he defines it, when the truth is that no deceit is involved and Tim is simply wrong and committing slander against them and there is nothing wrong with my coming to their defense.They simply do not agree with his definition of the idea of separation, but hold to the one I was defining as the original intent of the framers. This came up in order to explain how it exonerates them from deceit. They are acting completely honestly on their belief that they have been given the right based on the First Amendment to promote their religious or any other views in the classroom through democratic channels. They are also not being deceitful to describe what they want to teach as science as they sincerely believe this. All Bible believers believe that there is no such thing as science that does not conform to God's revelation.They are not deceitful and in answering that slam by Tim I was not off topic although I agree that it is a subordinate issue and at this point should be dropped.It would be good of Tim to put a PROPER end to the discussion of this side issue by conceding the point, rather than have admin do it.This message has been edited by Faith, 11-29-2005 09:00 PMThis message has been edited by Faith, 11-29-2005 09:01 PM

There is no shifting of any topic here, merely a perfectly legitimate answer to your slander of the IDers as dishonest. And I am writing this to protest your further accusation of dishonesty of anyone who defends them as motivated by the desire to change the topic. You aren't God, Tim, you cannot read people's motives. Try giving your opponents the benefit of the doubt. It's good form in debate.

Two Questions for Faith1. Are you arguing that the intelligent designer isn't God?2. Are you arguing that while it is God, the ID-proponents quite honestly concede that it is God? Message 1This message has been edited by TimChase, 11-29-2005 09:14 PM

They are being honest to stick to the purely scientific point that a designer is implied by scientific facts themselves, avoiding the whole irrelevant question in that context of who the designer is. They don't want to discuss it as it is irrelevant to ID's SCIENCE focus.But it is known that many IDers do believe in the Biblical God. Others may believe in other religious views of God. It doesn't matter. All creationist views can be accommodated by ID.But when you accuse them of trying to sneak God into the classroom, you need to be answered that there is nothing wrong with ANYBODY's believing God belongs in the classroom and everywhere else in American society.IDer's don't need to say this if they believe it because they are concerned about the science question as stated above. I don't see them trying even to get God into the classroom, as they consistently argue that scientifically speaking the created world itself demonstrates a designer and no particular religious view need be discussed.But again, IF they were, your insistence on your own definition of separation is going to get challenged as revisionist.