Judge outlaws prison group's Bible program

Ah, but here's the catch Kevn, if religious history could be taught accurately in school, I would have no issue with it. But unfortunately, even you christians can't agree what happened when. And... most of you have it wrong, as science and archeology have shown.

This is true. It seems that there are more than a few Republicans in the House and Senate who do not agree with the President... as for the Supreme Court, you cannot always be sure that a judge will "take your side" even though you appointed him

What parts are wrong?

Read the first post of this thread. They can't have tax dollars for that program anymore.

Read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover - in which a republican, church-going judge smacks down intelligent design in public schools. In fact he said the following:

"Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the Board's decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources."

That cross is coming down in San Diego.

Student-led prayers at school events are not allowed.

I could go on and on, but why?

One administration and current republican majority does not a massive, ever-changing body of law make, no matter how much you may wish it true.

Speaking of "pendulums", Did I mention that I can't wait for mid-term elections?

The problem with teaching religion is that it is easily swayed by personal belief. Finding a teacher to teach JUST the FACTS of the whole thing and not their personal spin would be difficult. It runs too deep in people's veins to be seperated.

Seperating the History of religions .. the facts of religions is hard for some people. Many people will claim that there is a magical cup a'la Indianna Jones and the Last Crusade out there somewhere that heals wounds and makes you live forever ... or a diety's face on a piece of Grilled Cheese ... or a mystical waterfall that holds the tears of a creator-god that blesses crops and cures ailments. I do not feel those are facts .. but mythology. I have no problem with a "Mythology of Religion" class being taught either .. but Mytholgy to one person is another's 'truth'.

I mean ... geez ... look at what we call "World History" ... when the winner gets to write the books and the loser is dragged through the mud and bastardized. I seriously doubt you could find enough people to fill schools with Religion teachers that didn't inject their own spin on the lesson plan.

Its just not going to happen, sadly, so its better to leave it to children to learn through their personal studies outside of school when they can go at it with an open mind without being leaned one way or the other .... to their parents to teach them (although they're also biased) and to the various religions hierarchy (supremely biased).



As for what we have in common ... I'll have to step back from that. I personally am (in the nicest of explainations) "faithless". Have been for years.

Kevin, in all seriousness - do you not see the danger of what you have said in these statements?

Are you Familiar with the term "Tyranny of the Majority"?


Becuase those of us arguing for a clear, distinct seperation fo church and state actually have everyone's - including the Christains - ULTIMATE future in mind.

you are seeing things on a very narrow minded issue by issue terms. We are arguing that one of our freedoms has to be from impossed morality of a majority.

It has to be.

If Christains were a minority you would see that.

Ultimately our protections of freedom from legislated morality have to come from more than just which way a political pendulum swings I think.

Yes. But as our system is a tad broken at the moment, no.

If you think THIS state of affairs is on the left/liberal, you're doomed to total and complete disappointment when it actually does start swinging to the left again.

Oh I agree. I was just trying to give Kevn a bit back there. The pendulum I was referring to is a different one than the one he is referring to.

This is why I pointed out to him, that the judge who put the kibosh on ID was a church-going republican.

Whatever the outcome, the next two and one-half years in American politics is going to be an interesting period to watch unfold.

Aint THAT the truth.

And civil unrest ensues...

Clearly, you misunderstand my opinion. I am not suggesting any religion have power over another. The point is all religions deserve the same treatment from the government. I'm not arguing this from a Christian perspective, all faiths, according the the ultimate law of the land (the Constitution), have the freedom to practice their religion freely, and we don't want the government picking a religion to support over all others. This is an American point of view, not Christian.

I have never suggested Christians should get preferred treatment. Every religion should be the same in the government's eyes.

The government can and does aid religions and religious institutions legally and constitutionally. The fact you disagree with it doesn't change the fact of the law.

In my post I wasn't praising the fact the pendulum is swinging right. I'm pointing out that the reason it's swinging so hard is the left was pushing very hard, now comes the reaction, which is the opposite of the original action. If the left hadn't pushed their agenda so hard we wouldn't see this backlash.

Definitly agree.

And it has been for some time.

if , in your opinion , in order to practice your religeon freely you need to ban gay marriage and teach intelligent design in school (for two examples) then you are doing so at the cost of the beliefs of others. Since those both have only a theological base to them.




you still .. do not understand me - the fact that the Majority has passed laws which codify religous morality in the US is exactly the problem. You argueing that its already law is the entire abomination that i am trying to point out to you, even though you refuse to see.



This of course becomes a meaningless statement in rebuttal if you understood what i am saying. The entire seperation of church and state shouldnt even be availible to public reforendum nor legislative politics.

Sorry for the tripple post -

I decided i need to make this more an elementary school explaination;

This is my arguement -


YOUR religeon shouldnt be able to tell me how to live

MY religeon shouldnt be able to tell you how to live

Someone with no religeon shouldnt be able to tell US how to live.

******************

ANY legislation based on any CHURCH's doctrine rather than to ensure Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.. IS wrong.

those beliefs should be taught at that church and at home by the followers of that church.

This is why gay marriage bans are fundamentally flawed. The same with Intelligent design. Prayer in schools. governement support of Churches, etc, etc.

Abortion has a valid non-theological arguement this is why its such a difficult issue.


******************
to make this clear - this isnt the way things are - this is the way things would be if we were truley free and enlightened.

This is what i beleive - in that Quote posted by Chip - was what Thomas Jefferson was lauding in the creation of the idea of Church and State.

This idea is the Core of true liberty of thought and belief.

1. There are 2 sides to your idea of freedom. Did it ever occur to you that by forcing kids to only hear only the atheist's side of origins that is legislating a belief system that the majority reject? Or did you ever consider gay marriage isn't a religious argument, just because many within religions are against it? It's similar to the abortion debate, not everyone who is pro-life is religious, but don't tell that to the pro-abortion side.

2. If you think there are laws which are not constitutional, feel free to contest them. I agree there may be laws that are unconstitutional, but I would there are at least as many laws that wrongfully prohibit free exercise of religion as there are that wrongly allow religion.

The main point is, the constitution doesn't say there is a wall that keeps religion out of government. The wall is to keep government from interfering with religion and keeping the government from establishing a religion. That's it. When talking of constitutionality, we are only talking about what the constitution says.

3. The pendulum swings because the constitution can be amended, and congress can make laws, as long as those laws don't prohibit the free exercise of religion and don't establish a religion. The people still have power to adjust to the times.

I am surprised that many people with an avowed reverence for concepts much larger than the mundane aspects of this world can cling to such narrow definitions of such things as liberty and freedom.

I will let your post , speak for itself.

I think what many of the "ban gay marriage" people seem to forget is...

There are religions that allow gay marriage.

Banning gay marriage is therefore passing legislation preventing certain religious groups from having the same freedoms as christianity.

gay marriage ban = discrimination/unconstitutional/bigoted/civil rights violation.

I know a few people with PhD's in various forms of true-to-life Science who are also religiously oriented that would take offence to that statement about it being "the atheist's side of origins".

There is a difference between "Scientific evidence places the beginning of the Earth's existance ______ years ago" or "species on the planet continue to evolve as their environment changes around them" and the statements "I believe a man build a giant wooden boat and put two of every animal in it so save the planet" or "we believe that thunder happens when our mighty god is angry at us because our goat sacrifice did not make her happy".




I personally believe that putting all your faith in one thing without question is true ignorance. Be that thing a diety, religion, government, or parent/caregiver. It is by asking questions and questioning faith that we as people grow, learn the true answers to life's questions, and better mankind.

.. and before the response "Well people put too much faith in science!" comes in ... no, we don't. Imagine if no one ever questioned if certain drugs worked properly ... etc. We'd never have advances in medicine, for instance. Back in the day .. you just threw penecillian at EVERYTHING and hoped you got better ... before that we were attaching leaches to people to "suck the sickness out".

I always ask .... how come our views on science, technology, and politics can evolve and change as time goes on ... but our views on religion cannot? If we can step back and go "wow .. that was a bad idea" and alter something to correct it when it comes to drugs, or computers, or space travel .. why can't people look at religious text as anything but unevolving, unrelenting truth?

We ban things all the time that I'm sure you can find religions that allow.

*/Devil's advocate on*

There are religions of this world that have basis/believe in carnivorism, human sacrifice, polygamy, torture (both self and of others), child endangerment (through sexual contact or mistreatment of) .. etc ... but these things we can't allow just because one religion in the world says it is alright.

*/Devil's advocate off*


Personally I like the idea of gay marriage and dislike the idea of not letting certain groups "in the club" if you don't like what they do at home. If I loved someone enough and wanted to be with them forever and believed marriage was anything worth doing for myself I'd be in line like everyone else demanding a gay marriage of my own. (If that partner was a woman, obviously.)

You consider science a belief system? I'm sorry that scientific evidence contradicts your world view, but science class is for science. Do you propose that we not teach science to our children?


No, its a religious argument because there is no other reason to oppose it.


Most people who are pro-choice are also pro-life. Come to think of it, I've never met any pro-abortion people.


People do that. The judicial system is responsible for being a check on the legislative and executive branches of government. Its their job to ensure that laws enacted by majority vote do not violate the constitutional rights of the minority. When the courts do their job they get labeled as "activist judges". Democracy without civil rights becomes opression by the majority. This is not just hypothetical, it has happened in the past and it continues to happen to democracies around the world today. The US is safe only as long as we maintain a strong tradition of civil rights for everyone.


Yes, it can. Religous leaders led the movement to pass the 18th ammendment with great success.


And does not violate any other part of the consitution.

Um... no. It's just the most common one.

Marriage is a religious concept... that's what the christians keep saying. If that is the case, then gay marriage cannot be banned, because it is valid with some belief systems. It's that simple.

Any non theology based arguement to gay marraige is more a house of cards arguement. Basically constructed so they can claim is a secular reason to oppose it.

Becuase of individual rights - banning something that would hurt the rights of another individual is correct.

So banning gay marriage is wrong (its really only about the lovers involved)

banning human sacrifice is right (allowing it would of course would deny the rights of the person being sacrificed)