Many Texas Schools Teach Creationism

[ScienceRocks]

You are the dumbass.

Separation of church and state is in the constitution.

It's in the first amendment. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

That means separation of church and state, dumbass.

No.. it does not.. dumbass

It means that government shall not establish a state church or religion

So if we don't have separation of churhc and state as you claim, than what is the state religion?

Hopefully none

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

First of all, you don't know that they are calling it science, second, it doesn't hurt real science, and third you didn't say how it hurts you exactly.

‘Creationism’ is likely not being taught in Texas pubic schools, at least officially, that would be un-Constitutional. See: Edwards v. Aguillard (1987).

That you fail to understand why conjoining church and state in violation of the Constitution and Framers’ intent is harmful comes as no surprise.

Actually, it comes as no surprise to me that you aren't smart enough to know that separation of church and state is not in the constitution.

Dumbass.

Separation church and state is indeed in the Constitution, as the Constitution exists only in the context of its case law:

The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another…Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups, and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and State." Reynolds v. United States, supra, at 164.

Everson v. Board of Education of the Township of Ewing

Creationism is religion, as determined by the Supreme Court in Edwards v. Aguillard, and teaching it in public schools violates the doctrine of separation of church in state mandated by the First Amendment.

You should consider researching first before posting, thus avoiding exhibiting your ignorance.

 

[ScienceRocks]

‘Creationism’ is likely not being taught in Texas pubic schools, at least officially, that would be un-Constitutional. See: Edwards v. Aguillard (1987).

That you fail to understand why conjoining church and state in violation of the Constitution and Framers’ intent is harmful comes as no surprise.

Actually, it comes as no surprise to me that you aren't smart enough to know that separation of church and state is not in the constitution.

Dumbass.

Separation church and state is indeed in the Constitution, as the Constitution exists only in the context of its case law:

The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another…Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups, and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and State." Reynolds v. United States, supra, at 164.

Everson v. Board of Education of the Township of Ewing

Creationism is religion, as determined by the Supreme Court in Edwards v. Aguillard, and teaching it in public schools violates the doctrine of separation of church in state mandated by the First Amendment.

You should consider researching first before posting, thus avoiding exhibiting your ignorance.

Is this separation the same with islam?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Actually, it comes as no surprise to me that you aren't smart enough to know that separation of church and state is not in the constitution.

Dumbass.

Separation church and state is indeed in the Constitution, as the Constitution exists only in the context of its case law:

The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another…Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups, and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and State." Reynolds v. United States, supra, at 164.

Everson v. Board of Education of the Township of Ewing

Creationism is religion, as determined by the Supreme Court in Edwards v. Aguillard, and teaching it in public schools violates the doctrine of separation of church in state mandated by the First Amendment.

You should consider researching first before posting, thus avoiding exhibiting your ignorance.

Is this separation the same with islam?

You need to get some sort of mental health treatment for this bizarre, unfounded obsession, fear, and hatred of Islam.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Matthew recognizes that separation of church and state in America keeps those who would from persecuting Islam.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Separation church and state is indeed in the Constitution, as the Constitution exists only in the context of its case law:



Creationism is religion, as determined by the Supreme Court in Edwards v. Aguillard, and teaching it in public schools violates the doctrine of separation of church in state mandated by the First Amendment.

You should consider researching first before posting, thus avoiding exhibiting your ignorance.

Is this separation the same with islam?

You need to get some sort of mental health treatment for this bizarre, unfounded obsession, fear, and hatred of Islam.

I look at the middle east and that's all I need to know about islam. Forcing Christians to adopt their belief system is sad.

 

[JakeStarkey]

If you don't live in the ME, then you can be sad about it, but that's all.

You can't violate the Constitution, Matthew, to get at them here.

 

[Old Rocks]

According to the Reading and Writing and Religion II a report by the Texas Freedom Network, many Texas children are being taught creationism including the myth that the earth is only 6,000 years old. So what do you think of this development? What should we do about it? Should creationism be taught in schools?

Edit:
I can't post a link right now because I don't have enough posts however a simple google search will provide you with enough sources.

And that hurts you how exactly?

Teaching nonsense to our children does harm to our nation.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Old Rocks, your set opinion is why we have a Constitution.

You can have your opinion, but you can only work on it within the charter, case law, statute, and judicial review.

 

[NoNukes]

I was taught both, yet it has in no way inhibited my education or evaluation of existence.
I teach my kids both also.
Truth be known, we don't really know which is factual.

Do you believe that the earth is only 6,000 years old and hand and dinosaurs coexisted?

 

[Smilodonfatalis]

It seems obvious we are in need of some education on the understanding and relevance of the First Amendment. The left profess that it means all "public" display of religion be forbidden, but then get tripped up when they have to explain when Congress must ALSO not "prohibit the free exercise thereof". There is two segments to the first amendment addressing TWO concerns of government. Had there been a need to fully prohibit religion all together, the Founders simply would have stated "Congress shall make no law towards an establishment of religion". However the First Amendment reads "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit the free exercise thereof . It's basic logic and reading comprehension.

When the First Amendment was being discussed by the House Select Committee on August 15,1789, one possible version stated:

"NO RELIGION shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed"[1]

However that version was REJECTED as Peter Sylvester, Representative of New York stated the Select Committee's version:

"It might be thought to have a tendency to abolish religion altogether."[2]

James Madison then proposed the insertion of the word "national" before religion, but this was not accepted. Madison's interpretation of the wording was:

"That Congress should not establish a religion, and embrace the legal worship of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience."[3]

Congressman Benjamin Huntington, son of the prestigious governor of Connecticut, protested that:

"The words might be taken in such latitude as to be extremely hurtful to the cause of religion."[4]

Congressman Huntington then made the suggestion:

"The Amendment be made in such a way as to secure the rights of religion, but not to patronize those who professed no religion at all."[5]

Madison then responded agreeably to Congressman Huntington and Congresan Sylvester, that he:

".....believes that the people feared one sect might obtain a preeminence, or two [Congregational and Angelican] combined and ESTABLISH a religion to which they would COMPEL OTHERS TO CONFORM."[6]



There's that word "Establishment" and the TRUE concerns of the Founders, a SINGLE sect or denomination to which all other religious denominations must conform to. Those who profess no religion at all was not the overall focus surrounding the First Amendment (sorry to deflate those views that presumably think otherwise).

Should you wish to need further examples surrounding the TRUE intent of the First Amendment, I have plenty more sources and quotes that I can include in another reply. To fully comprehend it's meaning, you must first have the basic understanding of the word "establishment", before you go on citing some other quote that has nothing to do with the final interpretation of the First Amendment.



SOURCES:

[1]Congress of the United States of America August 15, 1789, the House Select version of the First Amendment. Aunals of the Congress of the United States - First Congress (Washington D.C. : Gales & Seaton, 1834), Vol. I, p. 434 David Barton, The Myth of Separation (Aledo, TX: Wallbuilder Press, 1991) p. 27, Edwin S. Gaustad, Neither King nor Prelate - Religion and the New Nation, 1776-1826 (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eardmans Publishing Company. 1993), p. 157

[2]Congress of the United States of America August 15,1789, Peter Sylvester of New York debating the First Amendment. M.E. Bradford, Religion & The Framers: The Biographical Evidence (Marlborough, NH: The Plymouth Rock Foundation, 1991), p. 11

[3] Congress of the United States of America August 15, 1789 James Madison in the debates on the First Amendment. Wells Bradley, "Religion and Government: The Early Days" p. 7

[4] Congress of the United States of America August 1789, Benjamin Huntington, in the debates on the First Amendment. M.E. Bradford, Religion & The Framers: The Biographical Evidence (Marlborough, NH: The Plymouth Rock Foundation, 1991),p. 7

[5]Congress of the United States of America August 1789, Benjamin Huntington proposing adjustment to the wording of the First Amendment. M.E. Bradford, Religion & The Framers: The Biographical Evidence (Marlborough, NH: The Plymouth Rock Foundation, 1991), p. 11. Wells Bradley, "Religion and Government: The Early Days" p. 7

[6]Congress of the United States of America August 1789, James Madison's response to Benjamin Huntington and Peter Sylvester regarding the First Amendment. Philip B. Kurland and Ralph Lerner, eds. The Founder's Constitution, 5 vols (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987), Vol. V, p. 93 M.E. Bradford, Religion & The Framers-The Biographical Evidence (Marlborough, NH: The Plymouth Rock Foundation, Inc, 1991), p. 12

You completely failed to answer the logic of my question?

If the constitution doesn't guarantee the separation of church and state as you claim, than what is the state religion?

You can't answer that because the 1st amendment does guarantee separation of church and state.

No it is not about separation of church and state, if you were able to follow history, it's about government allowing the freedom of religion of all denominations to freely worship according to their beliefs. There is nothing in history or the drafting of the first amendment that speaks of the REMOVAL of religion to instill a "secular" form of view in its place. Government was meant to "get out if the way" and allow all denominations to openly express their beliefs. You have to know what is meant by the word ESTABLISHMENT in the context of the Founders.

Are you dense?

You still won't address my point.

If we don't have separation of church and state as you falsely claim, than there would be an official state religion?

What is it?

Not having an established religion means the exact same thing as separation of church and state...just in different words.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, it only means there could be a national church.

If that part of the amendment were changed, then a national church could be established not there would be a state religion at the moment of the ratification of the amendment's change.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

You completely failed to answer the logic of my question?

If the constitution doesn't guarantee the separation of church and state as you claim, than what is the state religion?

You can't answer that because the 1st amendment does guarantee separation of church and state.

No it is not about separation of church and state, if you were able to follow history, it's about government allowing the freedom of religion of all denominations to freely worship according to their beliefs. There is nothing in history or the drafting of the first amendment that speaks of the REMOVAL of religion to instill a "secular" form of view in its place. Government was meant to "get out if the way" and allow all denominations to openly express their beliefs. You have to know what is meant by the word ESTABLISHMENT in the context of the Founders.

Are you dense?

You still won't address my point.

If we don't have separation of church and state as you falsely claim, than there would be an official state religion?

What is it?

Not having an established religion means the exact same thing as separation of church and state...just in different words.

There is no false claim as I have supported it through the views of our Founders (you know, a little known thing I like to call "factual proof"). Your ignorance on the subject however, obviously proceeds you.

Just an added observation, mind you, of your inability to find any documented facts to support your view of this "separation of church and state".

 

[JakeStarkey]

Smilodonfatalis is flatly incorrect, and although ShaklesOfBigGov generally has the better of it, the Founders'' orginalist thinking means nothing today other than as a gloss.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

No, it only means there could be a national church.

If that part of the amendment were changed, then a national church could be established not there would be a state religion at the moment of the ratification of the amendment's change.

To add, the First Amendment was a direct reaction to what the Founders had experienced with the Church of England. It was about the freedom of any religious denomination to worship according to their conscience, not have one denomination as the dominate authority to which all other religious denominations must conform. This amendment has everything to do with the freedom of all religious denominations to freely worship without any hindrance from the government.... NOT for government to dictate the religious rights of all faiths to conform with more of a "secular" view.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"This amendment has everything to do with the freedom of all religious denominations to freely worship without any hindrance from the government...."

The bolded above is false.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

"This amendment has everything to do with the freedom of all religious denominations to freely worship without any hindrance from the government...."

The bolded above is false.

"..... nor prohibit the FREE exercise thereof."

Government can not interfere or dictate the doctrine of a denomination's religious rights. That is the whole part of religious freedom, by not allowing GOVERNMENT to establish rights that people of other faiths and denominations must follow. Sorry Jake, you could not be more wrong with respect to the interpretation and original meaning of the First Amendment in this case. I can find plenty of other historical evidence on the matter if you like.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The government does hinder free expression of religion if it violates the public and personal interest.

You cannot sacrifice animals or humans.

You cannot marry polygamously.

You cannot disrupt the public classroom with religious expression that disrupts the educational process and infringes on your neighbor's right to be left alone.

And so forth.

Sorry, shakles, but that is how the law has been determined.

 

[boilermaker55]

Well then lets open it up to all religions and their theory's being taught in the classroom. Or is this just specific to your religious thoughts?

Bible based teachings should be encouraged in ALL public schools.

Creation by a higher power makes more sense than anything else.

Not all of us Christians believe in the 6,000-8,000 years earth age belief. I believe in the "gap theory."

 

[kaz]

Well then lets open it up to all religions and their theory's being taught in the classroom. Or is this just specific to your religious thoughts?

Bible based teachings should be encouraged in ALL public schools.

Creation by a higher power makes more sense than anything else.

Not all of us Christians believe in the 6,000-8,000 years earth age belief. I believe in the "gap theory."

The dominant religion taught in public schools is liberalism