Stupidity and lunacy defeated in Dover, Pennsylvania...

[theweatherman]

[ QUOTE ]
Generally, I hope that ID can be a part of public school's education. I don't think it should be taught in science classes, however. Perhaps if it could be offered in another class, I am not sure of the type of class it would have to be.

This has a lot to do with the issue of seperation of church and state, obviously. IMO, the constitution and the basic foundations of our government are based on religious (re:christian) ideals. (once again: IMO,) our government is based on tolerating other religions and beliefs, not creating a secular culture. The seperation of church and state was created to stop leaders from forcing a citizen to believe a certain way, with punishment due if they didn't. That is not what would happen if ID was taught in public schools. No one is making you believe it. Is it really hurting you to hear it though?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, you can teach it in schools as long as EVERY other crazy belief is given equal treatment. My new relgion of virgin sacrifice also hsa to be taught. Oh wait, I just came up with a NEWER religion! This one invloves killing minorities. But you should teach it, because, after all, im not making you believe it. Just wasting your time by forcing you to listen to it.

Like I said, this country lets you believe whatever you want. However, it was not founded on the religion of virgin sacrifice. Rather, it has a basic Christian grounding. Therefore I don't see what would be wrong with it being offered as a choice in public schools. Notice I keep saying "offered as a choice" or "not in a science class." Let me try to phrase this as best I can: We cannot force ID to be taught as how science works (at least in science classes). But I see no problem or violation of rights with a school offering a class teaching about ID and all different philosophies regarding our planet and its origins. Including your minority killing fetish [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img].


BTW, you are splitting hairs here. I can draw a number of comparisions and possibilities regarding my own new religions that I create on a politics forum, but I don't because I try to use arguments I would use in an actual debate. Imagine a noted (or any) politican standing up and saying what you just said about killing virigins and minorities? How seriously would he be taken then? Not seriously. Why? Because his argument is silly and presumes something that will never happen.

[theweatherman]

[ QUOTE ]
Like I said, this country lets you believe whatever you want. However, it was not founded on the religion of virgin sacrifice. Rather, it has a basic Christian grounding. Therefore I don't see what would be wrong with it being offered as a choice in public schools. Notice I keep saying "offered as a choice" or "not in a science class." Let me try to phrase this as best I can: We cannot force ID to be taught as how science works (at least in science classes). But I see no problem or violation of rights with a school offering a class teaching about ID and all different philosophies regarding our planet and its origins. Including your minority killing fetish [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img].

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a different story. Presenting ID as a tangental view of the the scientific mainstream is one thing. Presenting it as a rival to the mainstream is another. Your first post made it seem like you think that ID should be taught as comprable to science, your second makes it seem much less so.

FYI: The US was founded by Christians, but deffintitly not with a Christian mindset. The constitution is not meant to make a Christian country be tolerant of other religions but to set up a secular society.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Like I said, this country lets you believe whatever you want. However, it was not founded on the religion of virgin sacrifice. Rather, it has a basic Christian grounding. Therefore I don't see what would be wrong with it being offered as a choice in public schools. Notice I keep saying "offered as a choice" or "not in a science class." Let me try to phrase this as best I can: We cannot force ID to be taught as how science works (at least in science classes). But I see no problem or violation of rights with a school offering a class teaching about ID and all different philosophies regarding our planet and its origins. Including your minority killing fetish [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img].

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a different story. Presenting ID as a tangental view of the the scientific mainstream is one thing. Presenting it as a rival to the mainstream is another. Your first post made it seem like you think that ID should be taught as comprable to science, your second makes it seem much less so.

FYI: The US was founded by Christians, but deffintitly not with a Christian mindset. The constitution is not meant to make a Christian country be tolerant of other religions but to set up a secular society.

[/ QUOTE ]

As you'll see in my thread about euthanasia, I frequently mis-speak in the rush to type something. My mistake. But the idea of Christian leaders founding a secular country is where this all seems to stem from. I don't mean to thread hijack, and someone can create a new thread if they think I am, but what was the intention of our founding fathers in your opinion? A free society with laws that stemmed from the morals of christianity, that did not condemn those who worshiped another religion? Or a society which stood upon being purely secular, promoting the freedom of all religions without having one it based its laws upon? Or something different?

[theweatherman]

Enlightenment thought had thoughly grounded morals and ethics on secular principals. Religion was no longer needed to base moral judgements upon. As well read students of the enlightenment the founding fathers set out to create a society based on this secular thought. Freedom of and from Religion are key components of this society.

[ QUOTE ]

Enlightenment thought had thoughly grounded morals and ethics on secular principals. Religion was no longer needed to base moral judgements upon. As well read students of the enlightenment the founding fathers set out to create a society based on this secular thought. Freedom of and from Religion are key components of this society.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, freedom from religion meant a society that did not force people to think a certain way. Enlightenment distaste of religion stemmed more from governments forcing its citizens to be catholics or protestants, and the wars that followed, rather than a distaste for believers. Voltaire believed that the church (and he was right) was being hyprocritical and was a burden on the "modernizing" world. He thought that fanatacism and persecution due to religion were the problems, not that religion (specifically Christianity) existed. In short, the Enlightenment's distaste of religion was based on a corrupt Church, not the belief in some "entity". THIS was the fear of the founding fathers, that a corrupt church would attempt to have control over their new country. This is why they wanted freedom of religion, not because they had stopped believing in christianity and its teachings as a source of authority. If they wanted a government that had nothing to do with religion, why are so many examples of christianity in so many things? Currency, Thomas Jefferson saying " endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights", the anthem saying "one nation under God", etc. Whether or not our country should use these decidedly religious things in modern times is one debate, it is entirely another to claim that the founding fathers wanted a secular state.

[jj_frap]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Enlightenment thought had thoughly grounded morals and ethics on secular principals. Religion was no longer needed to base moral judgements upon. As well read students of the enlightenment the founding fathers set out to create a society based on this secular thought. Freedom of and from Religion are key components of this society.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, freedom from religion meant a society that did not force people to think a certain way. Enlightenment distaste of religion stemmed more from governments forcing its citizens to be catholics or protestants, and the wars that followed, rather than a distaste for believers. Voltaire believed that the church (and he was right) was being hyprocritical and was a burden on the "modernizing" world. He thought that fanatacism and persecution due to religion were the problems, not that religion (specifically Christianity) existed. In short, the Enlightenment's distaste of religion was based on a corrupt Church, not the belief in some "entity". THIS was the fear of the founding fathers, that a corrupt church would attempt to have control over their new country. This is why they wanted freedom of religion, not because they had stopped believing in christianity and its teachings as a source of authority. If they wanted a government that had nothing to do with religion, why are so many examples of christianity in so many things? Currency, Thomas Jefferson saying " endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights", the anthem saying "one nation under God", etc. Whether or not our country should use these decidedly religious things in modern times is one debate, it is entirely another to claim that the founding fathers wanted a secular state.

[/ QUOTE ]

So another conservatwit is dragging out the One Nation Under God canard?

The Pledge was written during the 1930s by a Baptist minister with very socialist political views and did NOT include any references to deity. Such references were not added until the 1950s, when Congress caved to Joe McCarthy's pressure and added the words. Somehow, these peons thought that Jeffersonianism had to be related to Judeo-Christianity in order to be morally superiour to Stalinism...if you're so ignorant of and unconfident in your ideology that you need to convince yourself that an invisible fairy godfather finds your beliefs more moral than the totalitarian garbage of a man who murderred 40 million, you need either a better education or a better ideology.

And while I find Jeffersonianism far from perfect, it's certainly -- with or without God -- better than Stalinism and better than pretty well everything that doesn't involve a mix of civil libertarianism, secularism, and social democracy.

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]

conservatwit


[/ QUOTE ]

Hahaha.

[theweatherman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Enlightenment thought had thoughly grounded morals and ethics on secular principals. Religion was no longer needed to base moral judgements upon. As well read students of the enlightenment the founding fathers set out to create a society based on this secular thought. Freedom of and from Religion are key components of this society.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, freedom from religion meant a society that did not force people to think a certain way. Enlightenment distaste of religion stemmed more from governments forcing its citizens to be catholics or protestants, and the wars that followed, rather than a distaste for believers. Voltaire believed that the church (and he was right) was being hyprocritical and was a burden on the "modernizing" world. He thought that fanatacism and persecution due to religion were the problems, not that religion (specifically Christianity) existed. In short, the Enlightenment's distaste of religion was based on a corrupt Church, not the belief in some "entity". THIS was the fear of the founding fathers, that a corrupt church would attempt to have control over their new country. This is why they wanted freedom of religion, not because they had stopped believing in christianity and its teachings as a source of authority. If they wanted a government that had nothing to do with religion, why are so many examples of christianity in so many things? Currency, Thomas Jefferson saying " endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights", the anthem saying "one nation under God", etc. Whether or not our country should use these decidedly religious things in modern times is one debate, it is entirely another to claim that the founding fathers wanted a secular state.

[/ QUOTE ]

Frapp isright about hte pledge bussiness, and from that quote Jefferson could of believed he was created by an all powerful Cat-god. It makes no reference to Christianity.

As I said before the enlightenment made religion unessesary for the formulation of moral judgements. You didnt address this at all, instead made a completely non responding post.

Even if the Foundong fathers were Christians, it amkes no difference. Their intentions to set up a secular society free from relgious influence is clear. If you want your children exposed to ID then send them to private school, orteach it to them yourself. Anything that falls into the category of religious "science" has no place in the public school system.

[New001]

Also, please don't forget what ID actually is. It's not "Creationism" in the traditional sense. It's a fairly small, but growing (?) belief that claims, and somebody correct me if I'm wrong, that because the odds of our planet and species being formed as they are now are so small, that some "higher power" must have been involved. As poker players that should have at least some grounding in statistics, I would hope we can see the fallacy in that statement.

Including that in the curriculum of a science class would be lunacy. Including it in the curriculum of a religion or creation stories class of some sort would be fine.