Which religion's creation story should be taught?

The constitution isn't a living breathing thing. The Constitution cannot be right or wrong. It has been interpreted many times and many ways by the courts. According to the constitution, the Supreme Court is allowed to determinbe the constitutionality of laws. If they say it is unconstitutional then that is it. Other courts could decide otherwise in the future but until then that is the final say.The Supreme Court cannot make an unconstitutional decision. They may make a decision that someone thinks goes against the constituition, but that does not make the decision unconstitutional.P.S.
Drop the colors. It makes your post hard to read and makes you look even more juvenile than your arguments do.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Please show me where this is evidenced? Just one little source please.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

I have a big problem with this statement. Most of the people of the original colonies were not a deeply religious people. We have this vision of everyone that emigrated to America s people that were escaping religious persecution. This is far from true. The elites tended to be thus(Puritan leaders, the Penns, the Catholics in Maryland0, but the average everyday person was not caught up ion religious fervor. Were they christians? Yes. But not christian as you know it now. The American christian you know now was a result of the Great Awakenings. The second and third are the probable basis for the evangelical Christianity people want to associate with colonial America. This new type of christianity though was post formation of the USA.Also, the laws norms and customs of the americas were not based on christianity. They were based on english common law. Were there christian undertones to it? Of course, but the prime basis was english common law that has roots in the pre christian england. The ideals in the Constitution are not Christian. Where do you find them in christian writings? A lot of the ideas go back to the greeks and romans.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Do I smell a new true Scotsmen coming?

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Since you are the one that brought up 'right' and 'wrong', you will need to be the one to define them. Message 115Ever notice how everyone else gets along with understanding peoples quotes without a need for lame colors. I realize you think it makes your arguments impressive, but they do not. The green is tough to read against the blue background and the red is especially hard to pick out with that cursive script you seem to favor.
But if you think it helps your arguments an makes you look better, by all means keep it up. Maybe I am the only one that feels this way so why don't you just ignore me.
How about you actually try to make your argument.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

First of all, the Declaration is not a US legal document. Secondly, the use of "creator", is not a reference to the christian god. This and the other terms used in the declaration like Nature’s God, and Divine Providence were terms used in the deism that was common among many of the founding fathers. Just looking at the beliefs of the writer of the declaration will show that it is in no way a reference to the Christan god. It could be a reference to any deity and no deity. That is the beauty of the founding fathers. They did not set much in stone.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

First of all the Declaration is not a US legal document.
Secondly, still looking for any reference to christianity. So, I guess on your part that is a fail. Nothing about christianity there, other than the Mayflower compact and a ruling by the supreme court that religion as a place in American society, but nothing stated that Christianity is the correct one.Therefore this statement from Message 128
is still not evidenced.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Who is responsible for determining what the constitution means? Do you have an example where the Constitution is "right", but the Supreme Court was "wrong"?

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

I am really not sure how you think TJ's 1st inaugural supports your view. Maybe you can 'splain.How about this line from the same speech.

quote:

---

And let us reflect that, having banished from our land that religious intolerance under which mankind so long bled and suffered, we have yet gained little if we countenance a political intolerance as despotic, as wicked, and capable of as bitter and bloody persecutions.

---

Does this support your view too? If so, how?

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Not it isn't. Neither is the Mayflower Compact or the Articles of Confederation. Excuse me while I laugh a bit. Cutting and pasting from fundy sites will always get you in trouble. Did you even bother to follow the link?
Let me see who signed it.
Oh George Washington. Not Thomas Jefferson.

quote:

---

No Thanksgiving proclamations were issued by Thomas Jefferson

---

Source
If you don't like wiki as a source. I can find dozens more that will confirm this.Maybe you were confused between Thomas Jefferson and Jefferson Davis.

quote:

---

Once more upon the plains of Manassas have our armies been blessed by the Lord of Hosts with a triumph over our enemies. It is my privilege to invite you once more to His footstool, not now in the garb of fasting and sorrow, but with joy and gladness, to render thanks for the great mercies received at His hand. A few months since, and our enemies poured forth their invading legions upon our soil. They laid waste our fields, polluted our altars and violated the sanctity of our homes. Around our capital they gathered their forces, and with boastful threats, claimed it as already their prize. The brave troops which rallied to its defense have extinguished these vain hopes, and, under the guidance of the same almighty hand, have scattered our enemies and driven them back in dismay. Uniting these defeated forces and the various armies which had been ravaging our coasts with the army of invasion in Northern Virginia, our enemies have renewed their attempt to subjugate us at the very place where their first effort was defeated, and the vengeance of retributive justice has overtaken the entire host in a second and complete overthrow.
To this signal success accorded to our arms in the East has been graciously added another equally brilliant in the West. On the very day on which our forces were led to victory on the Plains of Manassas, in Virginia, the same Almighty arm assisted us to overcome our enemies at Richmond, in Kentucky. Thus, at one and the same time, have two great hostile armies been stricken down, and the wicked designs of their armies been set at naught.
In such circumstances, it is meet and right that, as a people, we should bow down in adoring thankfulness to that gracious God who has been our bulwark and defense, and to offer unto him the tribute of thanksgiving and praise. In his hand is the issue of all events, and to him should we, in an especial manner, ascribe the honor of this great deliverance.
Now, therefore, I, Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States, do issue this, my proclamation, setting apart Thursday, the 18th day of September inst., as a day of prayer and thanksgiving to Almighty God for the great mercies vouchsafed to our people, and more especially for the triumph of our arms at Richmond and Manassas; and I do hereby invite the people of the Confederate States to meet on that day at their respective places of public worship, and to unite in rendering thanks and praise to God for these great mercies, and to implore Him to conduct our country safely through the perils which surround us, to the final attainment of the blessings of peace and security.
Given under my hand and the seal of the Confederate States, at Richmond, this fourth day of September, A.D.1862.

---

SourceGee how did that lord of hosts do for them?

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

First of all I do not even know who Richard Lewontin is, but he is not some sort of high priest of Atheism and he speaks only for himself, no one else.Second maybe you should read the whole quote, not just snippets that have been altered. No where does he mention atheists. Where in the original is Atheist mentioned?

quote:

---

"With great perception, Sagan sees that there is an impediment to the popular credibility of scientific claims about the world, an impediment that is almost invisible to most scientists. Many of the most fundamental claims of science are against common sense and seem absurd on their face. Do physicists really expect me to accept without serious qualms that the pungent cheese that I had for lunch is really made up of tiny, tasteless, odorless, colorless packets of energy with nothing but empty space between them? Astronomers tell us without apparent embarrassment that they can see stellar events that occurred millions of years ago, whereas we all know that we see things as they happen. When, at the time of the moon landing, a woman in rural Texas was interviewed about the event, she very sensibly refused to believe that the television pictures she had seen had come all the way from the moon, on the grounds that with her antenna she couldn't even get Dallas. What seems absurd depends on one's prejudice. Carl Sagan accepts, as I do, the duality of light, which is at the same time wave and particle, but he thinks that the consubstantiality of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost puts the mystery of the Holy Trinity "in deep trouble." Two's company, but three's a crowd.

​

Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen."

---

The "we" seems to be generally people with a science background as a whole, not atheists. Unless you think all scientific people are atheists.Some comments on how what he said was manipulated.

quote:

---

Answers in Genesis makes it appear as if by "patent absurdity", Lewontin means evolution, when he is really talking about astronomy.

​

Gitt makes it appear as if Lewontin thinks that materialism cannot be justified and is a personal decision. But in reality Lewontin gives a reason just after creationists stop quoting him.

​

Also, many scientists will disagree with him in the detail creationists are emphasizing, and say that methodological naturalism is a necessary component of science, giving exactly the reason Lewontin gave.

---

Remember creationist sites lie.Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

You had a whole post, even pretty fonts, and still you provided no evidence. You have provided nothing to see. Repeatedly you have been asked to provide evidence of Christianity in the Constitution and to date you have not provided one scrap of evidence. What are the references? It is not a US government document. It is a document prior to the formation of the United States. Though it is and should be accorded great respect it's purpose was to separate the United States from Britain, not to prescribe legal rights for the people living in the colonies. If you want to state that Christianity is the basis of US law then it is.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

You ever heard of the first amendment?

quote:

---

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

---

I am not going to link to a source on the internet. You should be able to find it on your own.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Still no evidence I see. Gee, colour me surprised.Are you ready to admit there is no evidence of christianity in the US Constitution? I am not sure what this mumbo-jumbo means, but I think you are trying to say that it is what you believe so it is true. Am I right?

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Wow.Is it that you can't read or is there a comprehension issue?You live in reverse world?So to you

quote:

---

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

---

means the gov't cannot make any law preventing the establishment of religion?Can you show any legal or constitutional scholars that agree with this?
Can you show that any founding fathers meant this bizarre interpretation?

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts