Many Texas Schools Teach Creationism

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

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.

First, there is no animal sacrifices in any of the Christian denominations, nor in Hinduism, nor Islam .... sorry.

Second, you can not dictate someone's faith by denying that person the opportunity of prayer. To remove ALL religion in favor of more of a secular view is in itself "establishment". You can not publicly deny someone's freedom to follow their faith, as we are not a nation that is without religion. To do so infringes on THEIR rights of that individual who carries a faith of belief in favor
of conforming their beliefs to fit with a non religious view.

To believe you have the right to hinder and individuals faith is what's called an inaccurate interpretation of the First Amendment.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"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.

Find all the ‘historical evidence’ you want, but only First Amendment jurisprudence matters.

 

[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.

First, there is no animal sacrifices in any of the Christian denominations, nor in Hinduism, nor Islam .... sorry.

Second, you can not dictate someone's faith by denying that person the opportunity of prayer. To remove ALL religion in favor of more of a secular view is in itself "establishment". You can not publicly deny someone's freedom to follow their faith, as we are not a nation that is without religion. To do so infringes on THEIR rights of that individual who carries a faith of belief in favor
of conforming their beliefs to fit with a non religious view.

To believe you have the right to hinder an individual's faith is what's called an inaccurate interpretation of the First Amendment.

First, the animal sacrifice and the plural marriage (which you ignored) and other evils of religious expression can be barred, no doubt about it.

Second, you moved from expression to faith (belief), which was not the point. Of course, you can believe in whatever you want, but the government can forbid its expression if necessary.

You clearly do not understand the First Amendment, shakles.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

First, there is no animal sacrifices in any of the Christian denominations, nor in Hinduism, nor Islam .... sorry.

Second, you can not dictate someone's faith by denying that person the opportunity of prayer. To remove ALL religion in favor of more of a secular view is in itself "establishment". You can not publicly deny someone's freedom to follow their faith, as we are not a nation that is without religion. To do so infringes on THEIR rights of that individual who carries a faith of belief in favor
of conforming their beliefs to fit with a non religious view.

To believe you have the right to hinder and individuals faith is what's called an inaccurate interpretation of the First Amendment.

No one seeks to deny anyone religious expression in any venue, public or private.

At issue is inappropriate government endorsement of religion in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment:

Every analysis in this area must begin with consideration of the cumulative criteria developed by the Court over many years. Three such tests may be gleaned from our cases. First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion, Board of Education v. Allen, 392 U.S. 236, 243 (1968); [p613] finally, the statute must not foster "an excessive government entanglement with religion." Walz, supra, at 674.

Lemon v. Kurtzman

Consequently, for example, teaching creationism/religion in public schools is un-Constitutional, as it lacks a secular legislative purpose, its primary effect is to advance religion, and it manifest an excessive government entanglement with religion. See: Edwards v. Aguillard (1987).

Disallowing creationism/religion in public schools in no way interferes with religious expression: children are at liberty to pray in school provided it is not at the behest of teachers or other school officials.

The Constitution’s requirement that there be a separation between church and state, where government may not endorse or advance religious dogma, is fundamental to maintaining our free society, in accordance with the original intent of the Framers.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Both far right and far left are inaccurate in their summaries.

Reynolds vs US is but one example of government forbidding certain expression of religious belief.

Nothing in federal law prevents creationism, ID, or other religious comparative study to be held in public high school humanities classrooms.

Neither endorses or forbids religious belief, but does wisely recognize the limits of belief and non-belief.

 

[boilermaker55]

What in the hell are you talking about? Liberalism/religion. You have such a disgust for someone with a contradiction to your ideology this is what you come up with and call it religion. If that is what you feel then those on the right have their religion.
Stay on subject.

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

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

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.

First, there is no animal sacrifices in any of the Christian denominations, nor in Hinduism, nor Islam .... sorry.

Second, you can not dictate someone's faith by denying that person the opportunity of prayer. To remove ALL religion in favor of more of a secular view is in itself "establishment". You can not publicly deny someone's freedom to follow their faith, as we are not a nation that is without religion. To do so infringes on THEIR rights of that individual who carries a faith of belief in favor
of conforming their beliefs to fit with a non religious view.

To believe you have the right to hinder an individual's faith is what's called an inaccurate interpretation of the First Amendment.

First, the animal sacrifice and the plural marriage (which you ignored) and other evils of religious expression can be barred, no doubt about it.

Second, you moved from expression to faith (belief), which was not the point. Of course, you can believe in whatever you want, but the government can forbid its expression if necessary.

You clearly do not understand the First Amendment, shakles.

Those who make the "claim" that they are more knowledgeable on the First Amendment have the ability to back that up with some form of historical facts. Lets see if you can back up your argument with more than just your opinion, as I find your knowledge on the subject as questionable. When you can, then you can try to question MY understanding of the First Amendment.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You are making a claim that you asserted in principle above in the page: that you know more about the 1st Amendment. Now you are shifting the proof of that claim to me.

You are scattered in your thinking.

I gave more than opinion, and my evidence trumped yours, shakles.

You may believe whatever you want, but you are limited in its expression both the workplace and in public tax supported places.

 

[kaz]

What in the hell are you talking about? Liberalism/religion. You have such a disgust for someone with a contradiction to your ideology this is what you come up with and call it religion. If that is what you feel then those on the right have their religion.
Stay on subject.

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?

The dominant religion taught in public schools is liberalism

Totally on subject. A religion is a belief for which there is no empirical proof, you believe it on faith. Liberalism defies all logic as well as empirical data. It doesn't work. Yet liberalism is blasted down the throats of our kids in our government schools on a daily basis. Teachers can be openly political as long as it's liberalism. Capitalism, conservatism, and any thought other than their own are met with not only disdain but anger and aggression. Liberalism is totally a religion, and practitioners of the view are militantly hostile to any other thought.

 

[JakeStarkey]

kaz is right in principle: all atheists are religionists in the sense of faith for which no empirical proof exists.

Such a silly statement this "Capitalism, conservatism, and any thought other than their own are met with not only disdain but anger and aggression. Liberalism is totally a religion, and practitioners of the view are militantly hostile to any other thought" if you are talking about Texas.

 

[boilermaker55]

Not in the context of this post it is not on subject.
To argue what the post is about and then interject a totally different type of context is not correct.

: the belief in a god or in a group of gods

: an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods

kaz is right in principle: all atheists are religionists in the sense of faith for which no empirical proof exists.

Such a silly statement this "Capitalism, conservatism, and any thought other than their own are met with not only disdain but anger and aggression. Liberalism is totally a religion, and practitioners of the view are militantly hostile to any other thought" if you are talking about Texas.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Boilermaker denies the character of atheism, belief in a faith unprovable by empirical data.

In that sense, theists and atheists share common ground.

Not in the context of this post it is not on subject.
: the belief in a god or in a group of gods

: an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods

kaz is right in principle: all atheists are religionists in the sense of faith for which no empirical proof exists.

Such a silly statement this "Capitalism, conservatism, and any thought other than their own are met with not only disdain but anger and aggression. Liberalism is totally a religion, and practitioners of the view are militantly hostile to any other thought" if you are talking about Texas.

 

[boilermaker55]

How and where was that stated in my post? Reference where I specifically posted anything about, for or against any religion.
All you can to is try to inject statements that are not true.
Typical movement by those of your ideology.

Boilermaker denies the character of atheism, belief in a faith unprovable by empirical data.

In that sense, theists and atheists share common ground.

Not in the context of this post it is not on subject.
: the belief in a god or in a group of gods

: an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods

kaz is right in principle: all atheists are religionists in the sense of faith for which no empirical proof exists.

Such a silly statement this "Capitalism, conservatism, and any thought other than their own are met with not only disdain but anger and aggression. Liberalism is totally a religion, and practitioners of the view are militantly hostile to any other thought" if you are talking about Texas.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I am working on inferences on your corner remarks.

Say exactly and directly what it is that you are trying to say.

If you disagree that the theists and atheists share a most important core principle of faith belief, then say so.

How and where was that stated in my post? Reference where I specifically posted anything about, for or against any religion.
All you can to is try to inject statements that are not true.
Typical movement by those of your ideology.

Boilermaker denies the character of atheism, belief in a faith unprovable by empirical data.

In that sense, theists and atheists share common ground.

Not in the context of this post it is not on subject.
: the belief in a god or in a group of gods

: an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods

 

[boilermaker55]

You are INFERRING. There is no need to determine what my religious beliefs are because I have not in any fashion made a negative or positive comment about a religion.
You have you beliefs and I "may" have mine. If you so choose to belief that is your prerogative.
My initial comment was about "EXCLUDING" others beliefs or not excluding them.

Go back and check.

I am working on inferences on your corner remarks.

Say exactly and directly what it is that you are trying to say.

If you disagree that the theists and atheists share a most important core principle of faith belief, then say so.

How and where was that stated in my post? Reference where I specifically posted anything about, for or against any religion.
All you can to is try to inject statements that are not true.
Typical movement by those of your ideology.

Boilermaker denies the character of atheism, belief in a faith unprovable by empirical data.

In that sense, theists and atheists share common ground.

 

[JakeStarkey]

boilermaker is staggering around.

I have no desire to know what he believes.

My point is this: when it comes a faith belief in either atheism or theism, neither is provable.

If boilermaker does or does not agree is immaterial to its truth.

 

[boilermaker55]

But because you cannot see the untruth in your statement of having me make a statement of whether or not "I" believe in atheism or a theism that makes the statement that I have a belief.
Something that you cannot comprehend.
It is not any form of staggering at all.
But keep trying to box me into a corner. It will not work.
If I have a belief or not, again, was the premise of my original comment.

boilermaker is staggering around.

I have no desire to know what he believes.

My point is this: when it comes a faith belief in either atheism or theism, neither is provable.

If boilermaker does or does not agree is immaterial to its truth.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You don't like that I corrected your garble?

OK. You have boxes yourself in your own corner.

Step off.

But because you cannot see the untruth in your statement of having me make a statement of whether or not "I" believe in atheism or a theism that makes the statement that I have a belief.
Something that you cannot comprehend.
It is not any form of staggering at all.
But keep trying to box me into a corner. It will not work.
If I have a belief or not, again, was the premise of my original comment.

boilermaker is staggering around.

I have no desire to know what he believes.

My point is this: when it comes a faith belief in either atheism or theism, neither is provable.

If boilermaker does or does not agree is immaterial to its truth.

 

[boilermaker55]

You have visions of grandeur. You seem to be enthralled with yourself to an indecent extreme.
Enough time has been wasted reading your mush.

You don't like that I corrected your garble?

OK. You have boxes yourself in your own corner.

Step off.

But because you cannot see the untruth in your statement of having me make a statement of whether or not "I" believe in atheism or a theism that makes the statement that I have a belief.
Something that you cannot comprehend.
It is not any form of staggering at all.
But keep trying to box me into a corner. It will not work.
If I have a belief or not, again, was the premise of my original comment.

boilermaker is staggering around.

I have no desire to know what he believes.

My point is this: when it comes a faith belief in either atheism or theism, neither is provable.

If boilermaker does or does not agree is immaterial to its truth.

 

[JakeStarkey]

boilermaker is unhappy that he got pinned.

One, atheists and theists both operate from a false principle: that they can prove or disprove God.

Two, boilermaker operates from a false principle: that his garble means anything to anyone.