Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9094 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: d3r31nz1g3
Post Volume: Total: 901,942 Year: 13,054/6,534 Month: 337/2,210 Week: 278/390 Day: 0/84 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Which religion's creation story should be taught?
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 485 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 111 of 331 (566518)
06-25-2010 5:25 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by JRTjr
06-25-2010 2:27 AM


For those whom are still unclear, the Supreme Court, itself, is in violation of the ‘Constitution of the United States of America’ when it requires that Christian symbols, and historical landmarks be taken down from public domains because they are ‘religious in nature’.
Perhaps this is true in Opposite World, but back in the real world it is putting these things up that violates the Consititution.
Now, if you disagree with my interpretation of the Constitution, then fortunately the Constitution specifically empowers a body to determine what the Constitution means in cases of potential ambiguity, namely the Supreme Court. Constitutionally, therefore, they're right about this just because they say so.
... and even a casual reading of our founding documents will show that our founding fore fathers not only believed in putting religious principle into government they weaved them into every aspect of the founding of this nation.
You seem to rewrite history with the same ease and fluency with which you rewrite constitutional law.
Requiring Crosses, manger scenes, Bibles, etc be taken off public property, buildings, etc. is making something happen.
Specifically, it's defending the Establishment Clause against those who wish to sacrifice the Constitution on the altar of their religion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by JRTjr, posted 06-25-2010 2:27 AM JRTjr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by JRTjr, posted 06-26-2010 6:03 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 485 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 118 of 331 (566757)
06-26-2010 6:58 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by JRTjr
06-26-2010 6:03 PM


Re: Opposite World?!?!?
Is your position so weak you have to resort to belittling your opponent?
No. Your position is so weak that, without belittling you in any way, I pointed out that it was wrong.
This answer reminds me of my mother when I was a little kid. I would ask a question that my mother really did not have an answer to so she would just say Because I said so!
The difference is that in the case of the law this is actually how it works --- this is only one of the many differences between the Supreme Court and your mother.
In effect, the Constitution says that the Supreme Court can have the final say on what the Constitution means, whenever this is legally disputed.
U.S. Constitution, article III, section 2:
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.
In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact , with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.
The ‘small’ point I am making here is this: the Supreme Court is not the Final authority on what the Constitution says; the ‘Constitution of the United States of America’ is the final authority on what the ‘Constitution of the United States of America’ says.
Sure, the Constitution is the final authority on what the Constitution says.
But the Supreme Court are the final arbiters of what it means. If you think about it, someone has to be.
Now, ain’t that the pot calling the kettle black?
O.k. let me give you a few examples: click this link - Legal Information Institute
This does not convince me (nor do I see why it convinces you) that "our founding fore fathers not only believed in putting religious principle into government they weaved them into every aspect of the founding of this nation."
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by JRTjr, posted 06-26-2010 6:03 PM JRTjr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by JRTjr, posted 08-04-2010 4:07 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 485 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 119 of 331 (566761)
06-26-2010 9:33 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by JRTjr
10-08-2009 12:24 AM


Jefferson
I would suggest you read what President Thomas Jefferson actually said about a ‘Separation of Church and State’. It was meant to keep the State out of religious affairs, not to keep religion out of the State’s affairs.
Quite so. And for the State to spend its revenues on promoting one creed or sect or the doctrines thereof would be for the state to meddle in religious affairs.
While you mention Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists, a little context will be provided by reading the letter that they wrote to him:
Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious liberty--that religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals--that no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious opinions--that the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbors.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by JRTjr, posted 10-08-2009 12:24 AM JRTjr has seen this message but not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 485 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 122 of 331 (567600)
07-01-2010 9:24 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by JRTjr
07-01-2010 8:57 PM


Re: Banning religious symbols is freedom of religion?
I’ll close with this question: How does a Bible, sitting in a display case, in front of a court house prohibit the free exercise of an atheist’s religion?; Or a Muslim?; Or Buddhist?
it doesn't. It violates the establishment clause. Duh.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by JRTjr, posted 07-01-2010 8:57 PM JRTjr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by JRTjr, posted 08-08-2010 4:26 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 485 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 151 of 331 (572434)
08-05-2010 7:50 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by JRTjr
08-05-2010 11:10 AM


Re: Except it does violate the 1st amendment!?
I agree with Madison on the point that he is making here; which is that if you start allowing the government to make laws concerning religion (The Church) then the government can begin restricting the free exercise of religion. Which, by the way, is exactly what the First Amendment was placed into the Constitution to prevent: keeping the government from restricting the free exercise of religion. Not to keep religious expression out of the Government.
You keep ignoring the Establishment Clause.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by JRTjr, posted 08-05-2010 11:10 AM JRTjr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by JRTjr, posted 09-30-2010 3:12 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 485 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 157 of 331 (572930)
08-08-2010 5:51 PM


By the way, we now have an ongoing thread on Separation of Church and State, so perhaps we could take discussion of the First Amendment over there and leave this thread to it original purpose.

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 485 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 162 of 331 (573305)
08-10-2010 7:37 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by JRTjr
08-10-2010 4:15 PM


Re: Banning religious symbols is freedom of religion?
So, the fervently healed belief that this universe is ‘all that there is’ can be defined as a ‘Religion’ and, of course, the name of that ‘Religion’ is ‘Atheism’.
While that is debatable, for the purposes of the First Amendment atheism is indeed counted as a religion; which is why, for example, an atheist public school teacher would not be allowed teach students that there is no God, nor could a school board packed with atheists make it compulsory for all teachers so to teach.
Do you want to change that in the name of free exercise?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by JRTjr, posted 08-10-2010 4:15 PM JRTjr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by JRTjr, posted 10-01-2010 2:02 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 485 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 165 of 331 (573345)
08-10-2010 11:18 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by JRTjr
08-10-2010 11:16 PM


I have actually given several examples in this string; however let’s just start with the Declaration of Independence which sited more then two dozen Biblical violations as the justification for their need for independence from England.
No.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by JRTjr, posted 08-10-2010 11:16 PM JRTjr has seen this message but not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 485 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 184 of 331 (581021)
09-12-2010 11:50 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by JRTjr
09-04-2010 7:38 AM


Re: Except it does violate the 1st amendment!?
As I have been trying to point out ‘your idea of what President Jefferson called ‘separation of Church and State’’ is not what even he meant by it.
I do't see how your quotations are even relevant to separation.
Please, read what Thomas Jefferson (One of the ‘Deists’ who sighed ‘The Declaration of Independence’) said when he implemented ‘Thanksgiving’ ‘General Thanksgiving By the PRESIDENT of the United States Of America A PROCLAMATION’
As has been pointed out, that was Washington.
But while we're on the subject, let's hear what Madison, who wrote the First Amendment, had to say about religious proclamations by the executive:
Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history.
[...]
Religious proclamations by the Executive recommending thanksgivings & fasts are shoots from the same root with the legislative acts reviewed.
Altho' recommendations only, they imply a religious agency, making no part of the trust delegated to political rulers.
So the author of the First Amendment felt that proclamations such as Washington's were an encroachment on separation. The fact that Washington did nonetheless make such a proclamation doesn't mean that it's an example of someone keeping on the right side of the wall.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by JRTjr, posted 09-04-2010 7:38 AM JRTjr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by JRTjr, posted 11-03-2010 12:09 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 485 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 203 of 331 (584366)
10-01-2010 1:40 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by JRTjr
10-01-2010 12:38 PM


Re: Atheism!?!?
As for what Atheists believe or do not believe; I am only going by what they themselves have stated.
Er ... you seem to be getting your ideas of what atheists think from an essay entitled "I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist".
Surely some mistake?
Can you provide some context for your quote?
Of course not. It was quote-mined for you.
Finally, let me point out that Lewontin is only one person, and that your "they themselves" is disingenuous.
I do have enough lack-of-faith to be an athiest. Here is what I think:
We {Atheists} do not have a prior commitment to materialism. It is that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, and we are not forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover that materialism is not absolute for we can in principle allow a divine foot in the door.
Now you know what one self-proclaimed atheist does believe, and you can read it in the context in which it was written.
Feel free to quote me next time you want to talk about what atheists think.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by JRTjr, posted 10-01-2010 12:38 PM JRTjr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 252 by JRTjr, posted 11-03-2010 10:12 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 485 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 204 of 331 (584367)
10-01-2010 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 202 by bluegenes
10-01-2010 1:33 PM


Re: Atheism!?!? + Jainism
I know that quote, and I know who Lewontin is. The "We" really refers to "scientists".
Ah, I see. He was actually talking about methodological naturalism, then, and not atheism at all.
I also disagree with methodological naturalism as it is usually understood, though for reasons which would be beyond the scope of this thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by bluegenes, posted 10-01-2010 1:33 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by bluegenes, posted 10-01-2010 2:49 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 485 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 212 of 331 (584452)
10-01-2010 9:25 PM
Reply to: Message 205 by JRTjr
10-01-2010 2:02 PM


Re: The religion of Atheism !?!?!?
Thank you for, at least partially, acknowledging that Atheism is a religion.
I did not do so. If you continue to pretend that I did, then you are a degraded liar wallowing in your own filth.
What I said is that the judiciary have (rightly) agreed to treat atheism as a religion for the purposes of interpreting the First Amendment.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by JRTjr, posted 10-01-2010 2:02 PM JRTjr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by JRTjr, posted 11-07-2010 3:52 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 485 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 221 of 331 (588553)
10-26-2010 2:32 PM
Reply to: Message 214 by JRTjr
10-26-2010 12:42 PM


Re: Avoiding Your Question??
If that is so then the Supreme Court has no grounds to demand the removal of a Bible sitting in a display case
No, you're not following this.
It's not "free exercise", so it's not protected. It is "establishment", so it's forbidden.
A Court House should be adorned as the citizens of the community or state wish it to be adorned. There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that gives the Federal Government the right to say how the buildings and grounds of local governments may or may not be used.
Yes there is. First Amendment, remember?
Also, I guess you have forgotten that, until recently, when a witness was sworn in at any court proceedings, in any court in this land, they placed their right hand on a Bible and swore to tell the Truth, the hole Truth, and nothing but the Truth. Not only that, but the end of that oath was So help me God.
They still do. One can take the oath on the Bible, or on the Koran, or one can "affirm" --- it's a personal choice. That's free exercise.
If I go to a Court House, and am speaking to an individual about how this Country’s laws and heritage are Christian (are of Christian origin), and the Federal Government has forcibly removed all references of that Christian heritage then, yes, I have been hindered from worshiping my God because part of my Worship is to speak the Truth.
Well, there are so many things wrong with this I'll have to number them.
(1) You are still absolutely free to say what you like. But no-one is obliged to provide you with what you consider to be corroborating evidence.
If you believed that all atheists eat babies, I would not be taking away your freedom of speech or religion by refusing to publicly eat a baby. And if I did agree to eat a baby, then the police would not be taking away your freedom of speech or religion by arresting me before I could eat the baby.
It would hinder you in making your message plausible, but it would not stop you from saying what you like. Which is all that freedom of speech guarantees.
(2) You are playing with a two-edged sword. You are a Christian, and you believe that this country's laws are of Christian origin. I, on the other hand, am an atheist, and I think that America was founded on secular principles.
If you say that it interferes with your speech and/or religion for someone to take down a public display of the Ten Commandments, might I not equally claim that it interferes with my rights to put them up?
(3) It's not about "heritage", is it?
If someone wanted to chip the Ten Commandments off a courthouse wall where they'd been since the eighteenth century, I should oppose that with you. A nation's history should be preserved. I'm fine with, for example, the statues of Moses and Mohammad in the Supreme Court building, because that is "heritage".
But the problem is that now people want to put the Bible or the Ten Commandments in places where they've never ever been since 1776 to this present day. That's not "heritage". If people are depriving you of that, how are they depriving you of arguments for a "Christian heritage"?
A modern innovation is not "heritage".
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by JRTjr, posted 10-26-2010 12:42 PM JRTjr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 290 by JRTjr, posted 02-28-2011 8:49 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 485 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 224 of 331 (588641)
10-27-2010 12:32 AM
Reply to: Message 223 by Adminnemooseus
10-27-2010 12:00 AM


Re: I suspect this topic has been about 0.1% on theme
I suspect this topic has been about 0.1% on theme.
Alternatively, it's been 99.9% on theme, and you should delete the OP for being off-topic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by Adminnemooseus, posted 10-27-2010 12:00 AM Adminnemooseus has seen this message but not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 485 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 242 of 331 (589517)
11-03-2010 4:31 AM
Reply to: Message 238 by JRTjr
11-03-2010 1:08 AM


Re: Myths, Legends, Science??
So, just because something is a myth, does that automatically disqualify it for scientific investigation?
No. It disqualifies it from being taught as a fact to children until scientific investigation has shown that it is not a myth.
Incidentally, most if not all of your examples are wrong.
And, how about the Creation account that has evidence to support it.
How about the pig with beautiful silver wings?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by JRTjr, posted 11-03-2010 1:08 AM JRTjr has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2022 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022