The creationists are BACK

[Jack Fate]

Why are you so insecure about your beliefs? Practice them in your own time, with other Christians, and keep it out of anyone elses business. This need for Christians to leach off of others privacy and spirituality is purely annoying and obnoxious. What's worse is that they do it with such self-rigtheous arrogance. You have NOTHING TO COMPLAIN ABOUT. You are not oppressed as you sound. There are Churches in every neighborhood in America. Hell, even in Airports and truck stops, so, get over it. It is so ridiculous the crying I hear from the religious about this kind of thing. If religion is supposed to be between you and God, then it shouldn't even matter where a building stands or doesn't stand. Teach your children about religion. A parents influence is always a thousand times stronger than a schools influence, if you are a good parent and your child trusts you.

Talk about "self-righteous".......

You're talking about constitutional rights. Remember that.

I have remembered that. Obviously you have completely forgotten it, and like the bible, have interpreted the constitution to mean whatever you want it to mean to suit your needs at any given time.

I'm not the one who would have tried to stop George Washington from using a bible to take is oath as President. YOU are.

 

[AllieBaba]

I respect people's belief in their religion....however...this creationary theory has been proven to be hogwash numerous times by sound scientific data. Anyone advocating that their children be taught this in a public school should be found guilty as UNFIT parents.

Science proved there was no substances before there was light?
Science proved the atmosphere came before light and substances?
Science proved the earth was not seperated from the sea?
Science proved that plant life came after animal life?
Science proved the moon was here before the earth was here?
Science proved that mammals came before sea creatures and birds?
Science proved that animals have dominion over men?
Science has proved that there was never an Adam and Eve?

I don't see how any of these questions matter at all. That these are mentioned in the bible, if at all (specific passages?), isn't saying much. Of course there was darkness before light. Go into a dark room, and turn on a light. Voila! LIght and substnaves before atmosphere? What does that even mean? I don't even understand the third questions. It is common sense, even to ancestors, that built such things as the Great Pyramids, that looking at nature, it is clear that plantlife is the foundation of the entire animal kingdom. I assure you, they were attuned to this. Native Americans were very attuned to this nature. Attuned to the Earth. This is not a big deal. I don't even know where you are getting the sixth question. Obviously men have dominion over animals if we are the ones writing the books, otherwise we would be hiding in caves and wouldn't have time to write books. How does that help the case of creation? How has science proved there was an Adam and Eve. ANY links to any of these claims would be much appreciated. I'm just curious as to where you are getting your info. If you are going to say such things and be taken serious, be prepared to back it up.

there is no genetic Adam and Eve as you say either. Prove it. Provide a link.

"Eventually we reach a point in the past where all humans can be divided into two groups: those who left no descendants today and those who are common ancestors of all living humans today. This point in time is termed the identical ancestors point. Even though each living person receives genes (in original or mutated forms) in dramatically different proportions from these ancestors from the identical ancestors point, from this point back all living people share exactly the same set of ancestors, all the way to the very first single-celled organism. "

Genealogy - GeneaWiki, The Free Genealogy Guide.

 

[geauxtohell]

Talk about "self-righteous".......

You're talking about constitutional rights. Remember that.

I have remembered that. Obviously you have completely forgotten it, and like the bible, have interpreted the constitution to mean whatever you want it to mean to suit your needs at any given time.

I'm not the one who would have tried to stop George Washington from using a bible to take is oath as President. You are.

I am? I have no problem with a person swearing an oath on a religious artifact that has meaning to them, be it a bible, talmund, or koran.

Why keep referencing Washington? This practice is still in play today.

Once again, that is a person exercising their personal religious freedom. You apparently can't or refuse to see the difference. Thankfully, the courts can.

Again, how has the government deprived you of your right to worship?

 

[peach174]

Why are you so insecure about your beliefs? Practice them in your own time, with other Christians, and keep it out of anyone elses business. This need for Christians to leach off of others privacy and spirituality is purely annoying and obnoxious. What's worse is that they do it with such self-rigtheous arrogance. You have NOTHING TO COMPLAIN ABOUT. You are not oppressed as you sound. There are Churches in every neighborhood in America. Hell, even in Airports and truck stops, so, get over it. It is so ridiculous the crying I hear from the religious about this kind of thing. If religion is supposed to be between you and God, then it shouldn't even matter where a building stands or doesn't stand. Teach your children about religion. A parents influence is always a thousand times stronger than a schools influence, if you are a good parent and your child trusts you.

Talk about "self-righteous".......

You're talking about constitutional rights. Remember that.

I have remembered that. Obviously you have completely forgotten it, and like the bible, have interpreted the constitution to mean whatever you want it to mean to suit your needs at any given time.

the 1st Amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
Can't get any plainer than that.
Yet there are all kinds of attacks taken into the courts about not having any religious symbols in public,especially Christian ones.

 

[AllieBaba]

"CORNELIUS TACITUS (55 - 120 A.D.) Tacitus was a 1st and 2nd century Roman historian who lived through
the reigns of over half a dozen Roman emperors. Considered one of the greatest historians of ancient Rome,
Tacitus verifies the Biblical account of Jesus' execution at the hands of Pontius Pilate who governed Judea from
26-36 A.D. during the reign of Tiberius.

"Christus, the founder of the [Christian] name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the
reign of Tiberius. But the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time, broke out again, not only through Judea,
where the mischief originated, by through the city of Rome also." Annals XV, 44"

The Historicty of Jesus Christ: Did Jesus Exist

"
Tacitus was a Roman historian writing early in the 2nd century A.D. His Annals provide us with a single reference to Jesus of considerable value. Rather frustratingly, much of his work has been lost, including a work which covers the years 29-32, where the trial of Jesus would have been had he recorded it. [Meie.MarJ, 89]
Here is a full quote of the cite of our concern, from Annals 15.44. Jesus and the Christians are mentioned in an account of how the Emperor Nero went after Christians in order to draw attention away from himself after Rome's fire of 64 AD:

But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the bounties that the prince could bestow, nor all the atonements which could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero from the infamy of being believed to have ordered the conflagration, the fire of Rome. Hence to suppress the rumor, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. ​

A survey of the literature indicates that this citation by Tacitus has not been given enough regard, having often been overshadowed by the citations in Josephus (see next entry). Respected Christian scholar R. T. France, for example, does not believe that the Tacitus passage provides sufficient independent testimony for the existence of Jesus [Franc.EvJ, 23] and agrees with G. A. Wells that the citation is of little value. It is unfortunate that France so readily agreed with Wells' assessment. An investigation into the methods and background of Tacitus, as reported by Tacitean scholars (whose works, incidentally, France does not consult), tells us that this is an extremely reliable reference to Jesus and for early Christianity."

Tacitus and Jesus. Christ Myth Refuted. Did Jesus Exist? A Christian Response

In the Annals of the Roman historian Tacitus (ca 56 A.D. - ca 117 A.D.), in book 15, chapter 44, written ca. 116 A.D., there is a passage which refers to Christ, to Pontius Pilate, and to mass executions of the Christians.[1 "

Tacitus on Christ - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"
Gaius Plinius Caecilius Secundus, (born 61 AD ), better known as Pliny the Younger, was Governor of Bithynia et Pontus as well as a priest, lawyer and author. He is known for his hundreds of surviving letters, which are an invaluable historical source for the period. Of particular interest to Christians are his references to Christ and Early Christians.
Pliny was considered an honest and moderate man, but brutal in his persecution of Christians. He was a friend of the historian Tacitus and employed the biographer Suetonius in his staff. "

"
Pliny had certain unique qualifications that makes his references to Christ valuable to modern historians. It is important to remember that Pliny, prior to being a governor, held the position of State Priest - the same position held somewhat earlier by Cicero. His job as state priest included acting as an overseer in the state religion and would bring him into contact with other religions and sects. In order to "safeguard the wise conduct of religion," he was expected to be knowledgeable about Christ and his followers. In light of the fact that Christianity was recognized as a threat to public order, it is therefore likely that, while his knowledge of Christianity itself was largely second-hand, he also had firsthand knowledge of basic facts such as Jesus' existence.[4][5][6]
More important here, however, is the testimony by Pliny that Christians died for their faith. Pliny explains:

Even this practice, however, they had abandoned after the publication of my edict, by which, according to your orders, I had forbidden political associations. I therefore judged it so much more the necessary to extract the real truth, with the assistance of torture, from two female slaves, who were styled deaconesses: but I could discover nothing more than depraved and excessive superstition."

Pliny the Younger on Christ - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There is all sorts of evidence that verify the existence of Christ, but the most compelling evidence is that nobody came forward in the years after his crucifixion to deny his existence. People don't go through torture and death (all apostles but one were executed, and as you can see from this passage, they were not the only ones) unless they believe in what they're doing. Why would all save one of the apostles willingly die gruesome deaths just to promote a man who didn't exist?

Unless you are proposing the apostles didn't exist, either...nor any of the Christians butchered by anti-Christian bigots...
​

​

 

[Jack Fate]

I have remembered that. Obviously you have completely forgotten it, and like the bible, have interpreted the constitution to mean whatever you want it to mean to suit your needs at any given time.

I'm not the one who would have tried to stop George Washington from using a bible to take is oath as President. You are.

I am? I have no problem with a person swearing an oath on a religious artifact that has meaning to them, be it a bible, talmund, or koran.

Why keep referencing Washington? This practice is still in play today.

Once again, that is a person exercising their personal religious freedom. You apparently can't or refuse to see the difference. Thankfully, the courts can.

Again, how has the government deprived you of your right to worship?

Would you allow bibles in public schools?

 

[Gadawg73]

I'm not the one who would have tried to stop George Washington from using a bible to take is oath as President. You are.

I am? I have no problem with a person swearing an oath on a religious artifact that has meaning to them, be it a bible, talmund, or koran.

Why keep referencing Washington? This practice is still in play today.

Once again, that is a person exercising their personal religious freedom. You apparently can't or refuse to see the difference. Thankfully, the courts can.

Again, how has the government deprived you of your right to worship?

Would you allow bibles in public schools?

They are there now. The Bible is taught in public schools all the time.
Praying is allowed at any time in school.
Just not organized prayer.
But it is PARENTS that object to the way the Bible is taught and that is why it is not taught in many schools now.
Just one of many reasons why the Bible can not be taught as fact in many areas:
A small example is many conservative Christian parents want their kids to be taught that Moses wrote the Pentateuch. Many other Christian parents want their children taught that the Pentateuch was edited by anonymous authors, not Moses.
So if we teach the Bible as religon and not hostorically then which do we teach? Which is objective and which is not?
Just 1 of thousands of potential conflicts that would happen if religious differences entered into the teaching the Bible in a religous setting. That is up to parents and not schools.
As long as the Bible is taught in the public schools as:
neutral towards religion and if the Bible is taught then all of the other religous books have to be taught or examined to remain neutral.
The course can not promote religion over secularism
Of course CONSERVATIVE Christians object to the Bible taught this way.
Blame them. I have no problem with the Bible taught in public schools.

 

[geauxtohell]

I'm not the one who would have tried to stop George Washington from using a bible to take is oath as President. You are.

I am? I have no problem with a person swearing an oath on a religious artifact that has meaning to them, be it a bible, talmund, or koran.

Why keep referencing Washington? This practice is still in play today.

Once again, that is a person exercising their personal religious freedom. You apparently can't or refuse to see the difference. Thankfully, the courts can.

Again, how has the government deprived you of your right to worship?

Would you allow bibles in public schools?

For students to use on their own? Sure. That isn't against the law as it stands.

As part of the reading curriculum or for teachers to use on students? Absolutely not.

How has the government infringed upon your right to worship?

 

[geauxtohell]

Talk about "self-righteous".......

You're talking about constitutional rights. Remember that.

I have remembered that. Obviously you have completely forgotten it, and like the bible, have interpreted the constitution to mean whatever you want it to mean to suit your needs at any given time.

the 1st Amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
Can't get any plainer than that.
Yet there are all kinds of attacks taken into the courts about not having any religious symbols in public,especially Christian ones.

The law is pretty simple. You guys keep wanting to complicate it.

A.) "Respecting an establishment" means that a government or public entity can't endorse any particular religion.

B.) "Prohibiting the free exercise thereof" means that a government or public entity can't hinder a private individual from exercising their faith.

Again, not a difficult concept. What I see a lot of, is fundamentalists claiming that A.) = B.). That is not true and only a dense person would claim that it was.

 

[Jack Fate]

I am? I have no problem with a person swearing an oath on a religious artifact that has meaning to them, be it a bible, talmund, or koran.

Why keep referencing Washington? This practice is still in play today.

Once again, that is a person exercising their personal religious freedom. You apparently can't or refuse to see the difference. Thankfully, the courts can.

Again, how has the government deprived you of your right to worship?

Would you allow bibles in public schools?

For students to use on their own? Sure. That isn't against the law as it stands.

As part of the reading curriculum or for teachers to use on students? Absolutely not.

How has the government infringed upon your right to worship?

I'm answering your question.

I think I see you thinking. Correct me if I'm wrong. You don't want the teacher indoctrinating the children. Is that correct?

 

[geauxtohell]

Would you allow bibles in public schools?

For students to use on their own? Sure. That isn't against the law as it stands.

As part of the reading curriculum or for teachers to use on students? Absolutely not.

How has the government infringed upon your right to worship?

I'm answering your question.

I think I see you thinking. Correct me if I'm wrong. You don't want the teacher indoctrinating the children. Is that correct?

Indoctrination is a loose term that implies hyperbole and I know where you are going with this.

Let's stick to religion.

I don't want public school teachers reading scripture to school children or leading prayer, and I support the law as it stands on this. Your assumption is that, if this were allowed, every teacher that engaged in this would be Christian. However, quite hypocritically, if a teacher started reading out of the Koran in front of class, you guys would have a shit fit.

Evoking religion as it relates to history? No problem. Religion is an important facet of history. I draw the line at proselytizing.

If you are convinced your children are being deprived without religion in the school, send the to parochial school. It's not against the law (quite logically) for religious schools that are privately funded to evoke religion in the class room.

It is against the law to use taxpayer dollars to support a glorified bible school.

Again, simple.

Again, how have your right's to practice your religion been hindered by the government?

 

[logical4u]

I respect people's belief in their religion....however...this creationary theory has been proven to be hogwash numerous times by sound scientific data. Anyone advocating that their children be taught this in a public school should be found guilty as UNFIT parents.

Science proved there was no substances before there was light?
Science proved the atmosphere came before light and substances?
Science proved the earth was not seperated from the sea?
Science proved that plant life came after animal life?
Science proved the moon was here before the earth was here?
Science proved that mammals came before sea creatures and birds?
Science proved that animals have dominion over men?
Science has proved that there was never an Adam and Eve?

I don't see how any of these questions matter at all. That these are mentioned in the bible, if at all (specific passages?), isn't saying much. Of course there was darkness before light. Go into a dark room, and turn on a light. Voila! LIght and substnaves before atmosphere? What does that even mean? I don't even understand the third questions. It is common sense, even to ancestors, that built such things as the Great Pyramids, that looking at nature, it is clear that plantlife is the foundation of the entire animal kingdom. I assure you, they were attuned to this. Native Americans were very attuned to this nature. Attuned to the Earth. This is not a big deal. I don't even know where you are getting the sixth question. Obviously men have dominion over animals if we are the ones writing the books, otherwise we would be hiding in caves and wouldn't have time to write books. How does that help the case of creation? How has science proved there was an Adam and Eve. ANY links to any of these claims would be much appreciated. I'm just curious as to where you are getting your info. If you are going to say such things and be taken serious, be prepared to back it up.

there is no genetic Adam and Eve as you say either. Prove it. Provide a link.

If "science" had proved any of those, then "science" would have an original thought. Science has not proved any of those. Science has uncovered evidence that the order of creation was as it is stated in Genesis (first chapter for the Biblically illiterate). That is my point; science is saying the same thing the Bible does (right up to evolution), only it puts in more details about specific times which it has no way of proving. If "science" reaffirms what the Bible says, why not pay attention to what the Bible says? If you want to say that other religions have their own creation theories, I am okay with that, if science backs it.

 

[Gadawg73]

Science proved there was no substances before there was light?
Science proved the atmosphere came before light and substances?
Science proved the earth was not seperated from the sea?
Science proved that plant life came after animal life?
Science proved the moon was here before the earth was here?
Science proved that mammals came before sea creatures and birds?
Science proved that animals have dominion over men?
Science has proved that there was never an Adam and Eve?

I don't see how any of these questions matter at all. That these are mentioned in the bible, if at all (specific passages?), isn't saying much. Of course there was darkness before light. Go into a dark room, and turn on a light. Voila! LIght and substnaves before atmosphere? What does that even mean? I don't even understand the third questions. It is common sense, even to ancestors, that built such things as the Great Pyramids, that looking at nature, it is clear that plantlife is the foundation of the entire animal kingdom. I assure you, they were attuned to this. Native Americans were very attuned to this nature. Attuned to the Earth. This is not a big deal. I don't even know where you are getting the sixth question. Obviously men have dominion over animals if we are the ones writing the books, otherwise we would be hiding in caves and wouldn't have time to write books. How does that help the case of creation? How has science proved there was an Adam and Eve. ANY links to any of these claims would be much appreciated. I'm just curious as to where you are getting your info. If you are going to say such things and be taken serious, be prepared to back it up.

there is no genetic Adam and Eve as you say either. Prove it. Provide a link.

If "science" had proved any of those, then "science" would have an original thought. Science has not proved any of those. Science has uncovered evidence that the order of creation was as it is stated in Genesis (first chapter for the Biblically illiterate). That is my point; science is saying the same thing the Bible does (right up to evolution), only it puts in more details about specific times which it has no way of proving. If "science" reaffirms what the Bible says, why not pay attention to what the Bible says? If you want to say that other religions have their own creation theories, I am okay with that, if science backs it.

Genesis has 2 versions of the order of creation.
God created the Sun halfway through. But without a sun there would be no days. Without a sun for the earth to rotate around there would have been no days and nights.
Doesn't make sense.
The writers of Genesis, man, did not know that the earth rotated around the sun.
If God had inspired these texts he would have known that simple fact.

 

[logical4u]

I don't see how any of these questions matter at all. That these are mentioned in the bible, if at all (specific passages?), isn't saying much. Of course there was darkness before light. Go into a dark room, and turn on a light. Voila! LIght and substnaves before atmosphere? What does that even mean? I don't even understand the third questions. It is common sense, even to ancestors, that built such things as the Great Pyramids, that looking at nature, it is clear that plantlife is the foundation of the entire animal kingdom. I assure you, they were attuned to this. Native Americans were very attuned to this nature. Attuned to the Earth. This is not a big deal. I don't even know where you are getting the sixth question. Obviously men have dominion over animals if we are the ones writing the books, otherwise we would be hiding in caves and wouldn't have time to write books. How does that help the case of creation? How has science proved there was an Adam and Eve. ANY links to any of these claims would be much appreciated. I'm just curious as to where you are getting your info. If you are going to say such things and be taken serious, be prepared to back it up.

there is no genetic Adam and Eve as you say either. Prove it. Provide a link.

If "science" had proved any of those, then "science" would have an original thought. Science has not proved any of those. Science has uncovered evidence that the order of creation was as it is stated in Genesis (first chapter for the Biblically illiterate). That is my point; science is saying the same thing the Bible does (right up to evolution), only it puts in more details about specific times which it has no way of proving. If "science" reaffirms what the Bible says, why not pay attention to what the Bible says? If you want to say that other religions have their own creation theories, I am okay with that, if science backs it.

Genesis has 2 versions of the order of creation.
God created the Sun halfway through. But without a sun there would be no days. Without a sun for the earth to rotate around there would have been no days and nights.
Doesn't make sense.
The writers of Genesis, man, did not know that the earth rotated around the sun.
If God had inspired these texts he would have known that simple fact.

You are confusing "light" and "sun". The two are different.

 

[thereisnospoon]

A little background. We have had many school boards in Georgia cave in to the religous whackos in the last decade over putting labels on all Biology books concerning evolution.
"Evolution is a theory only and there are other theories that are in the scientific community concerning the origins of life" type BS was on all Biology in many school districts.
I know, this stuff is so crazy but remember we are in Georgia where folks would believe the Spaghetti Monster is to be worshipped first and foremost if their preacher or Republican representative told them so. Science be damned.
Well sports fans, the creationists are backagain under the disguise of "intelligent design" claiming that there beliefs are science.
Now anyone with just a high school education knows full well, yet many will not publicly admit it because of worrying about getting the business in Sunday school, that creationism and intelligent design is not science but they keep plowing forward even if it is with a one legged mule after the Dover Pa. case.
Yesterday our Governor Sonny "Doesn't" Perdue announced that he, and his power house Republican buddies in the Legislature, want to make the State School Superintendent an appointed position. The religous right is behind it. Evolution is and has been their main target.
More to come folks.

Every presidential election cycle Evangelical Christians and radical rightists rear their heads and try to steer the republican platform. Every election cycle the above mentioned groups eventually become marginalized by mainstream conservatives who dread having religion entering the process because most mainstream conservatives believe in God, go to church but do not live and die by religious doctrine., In fact we'd rather the religious wing just take their ball and go home. Which in fact happens every presidential election cycle.

 

[Polk]

I am? I have no problem with a person swearing an oath on a religious artifact that has meaning to them, be it a bible, talmund, or koran.

Why keep referencing Washington? This practice is still in play today.

Once again, that is a person exercising their personal religious freedom. You apparently can't or refuse to see the difference. Thankfully, the courts can.

Again, how has the government deprived you of your right to worship?

Would you allow bibles in public schools?

For students to use on their own? Sure. That isn't against the law as it stands.

As part of the reading curriculum or for teachers to use on students? Absolutely not.

How has the government infringed upon your right to worship?

I don't even have an objection to it as part of the reading curriculum, depending on the context. I know it was included in our books, along with some works from other faiths.

 

[AllieBaba]

I am? I have no problem with a person swearing an oath on a religious artifact that has meaning to them, be it a bible, talmund, or koran.

Why keep referencing Washington? This practice is still in play today.

Once again, that is a person exercising their personal religious freedom. You apparently can't or refuse to see the difference. Thankfully, the courts can.

Again, how has the government deprived you of your right to worship?

Would you allow bibles in public schools?

They are there now. The Bible is taught in public schools all the time.
Praying is allowed at any time in school.
Just not organized prayer.
But it is PARENTS that object to the way the Bible is taught and that is why it is not taught in many schools now.
Just one of many reasons why the Bible can not be taught as fact in many areas:
A small example is many conservative Christian parents want their kids to be taught that Moses wrote the Pentateuch. Many other Christian parents want their children taught that the Pentateuch was edited by anonymous authors, not Moses.
So if we teach the Bible as religon and not hostorically then which do we teach? Which is objective and which is not?
Just 1 of thousands of potential conflicts that would happen if religious differences entered into the teaching the Bible in a religous setting. That is up to parents and not schools.
As long as the Bible is taught in the public schools as:
neutral towards religion and if the Bible is taught then all of the other religous books have to be taught or examined to remain neutral.
The course can not promote religion over secularism
Of course CONSERVATIVE Christians object to the Bible taught this way.
Blame them. I have no problem with the Bible taught in public schools.

I hear this all the time but have yet to see an example.

I'm sure you have many. Provide them please?

 

[AllieBaba]

A little background. We have had many school boards in Georgia cave in to the religous whackos in the last decade over putting labels on all Biology books concerning evolution.
"Evolution is a theory only and there are other theories that are in the scientific community concerning the origins of life" type BS was on all Biology in many school districts.
I know, this stuff is so crazy but remember we are in Georgia where folks would believe the Spaghetti Monster is to be worshipped first and foremost if their preacher or Republican representative told them so. Science be damned.
Well sports fans, the creationists are backagain under the disguise of "intelligent design" claiming that there beliefs are science.
Now anyone with just a high school education knows full well, yet many will not publicly admit it because of worrying about getting the business in Sunday school, that creationism and intelligent design is not science but they keep plowing forward even if it is with a one legged mule after the Dover Pa. case.
Yesterday our Governor Sonny "Doesn't" Perdue announced that he, and his power house Republican buddies in the Legislature, want to make the State School Superintendent an appointed position. The religous right is behind it. Evolution is and has been their main target.
More to come folks.

Every presidential election cycle Evangelical Christians and radical rightists rear their heads and try to steer the republican platform. Every election cycle the above mentioned groups eventually become marginalized by mainstream conservatives who dread having religion entering the process because most mainstream conservatives believe in God, go to church but do not live and die by religious doctrine., In fact we'd rather the religious wing just take their ball and go home. Which in fact happens every presidential election cycle.

Specifics, please. Names, examples, dates.

 

[Gadawg73]

Would you allow bibles in public schools?

They are there now. The Bible is taught in public schools all the time.
Praying is allowed at any time in school.
Just not organized prayer.
But it is PARENTS that object to the way the Bible is taught and that is why it is not taught in many schools now.
Just one of many reasons why the Bible can not be taught as fact in many areas:
A small example is many conservative Christian parents want their kids to be taught that Moses wrote the Pentateuch. Many other Christian parents want their children taught that the Pentateuch was edited by anonymous authors, not Moses.
So if we teach the Bible as religon and not hostorically then which do we teach? Which is objective and which is not?
Just 1 of thousands of potential conflicts that would happen if religious differences entered into the teaching the Bible in a religous setting. That is up to parents and not schools.
As long as the Bible is taught in the public schools as:
neutral towards religion and if the Bible is taught then all of the other religous books have to be taught or examined to remain neutral.
The course can not promote religion over secularism
Of course CONSERVATIVE Christians object to the Bible taught this way.
Blame them. I have no problem with the Bible taught in public schools.

I hear this all the time but have yet to see an example.

I'm sure you have many. Provide them please?

My first child started public school in 1990.
From 1990 until one month ago when my youngest child graduated public school.
And her graduation May 27, 2011 where she gave a speech was at First Baptist Church, Woodstock, Ga.
Every high school in this county has their graduation ceremony there.
My son had his Fellowship of Christian Athlete meetings AT THE PUBLIC SCHOOL.
21 year track record. What other kind of example is there other than EXPERIENCE?

 

[Gadawg73]

A little background. We have had many school boards in Georgia cave in to the religous whackos in the last decade over putting labels on all Biology books concerning evolution.
"Evolution is a theory only and there are other theories that are in the scientific community concerning the origins of life" type BS was on all Biology in many school districts.
I know, this stuff is so crazy but remember we are in Georgia where folks would believe the Spaghetti Monster is to be worshipped first and foremost if their preacher or Republican representative told them so. Science be damned.
Well sports fans, the creationists are backagain under the disguise of "intelligent design" claiming that there beliefs are science.
Now anyone with just a high school education knows full well, yet many will not publicly admit it because of worrying about getting the business in Sunday school, that creationism and intelligent design is not science but they keep plowing forward even if it is with a one legged mule after the Dover Pa. case.
Yesterday our Governor Sonny "Doesn't" Perdue announced that he, and his power house Republican buddies in the Legislature, want to make the State School Superintendent an appointed position. The religous right is behind it. Evolution is and has been their main target.
More to come folks.

Every presidential election cycle Evangelical Christians and radical rightists rear their heads and try to steer the republican platform. Every election cycle the above mentioned groups eventually become marginalized by mainstream conservatives who dread having religion entering the process because most mainstream conservatives believe in God, go to church but do not live and die by religious doctrine., In fact we'd rather the religious wing just take their ball and go home. Which in fact happens every presidential election cycle.

Specifics, please. Names, examples, dates.

The Bush I Presidential election where Pat Robertson and his Christian Coalition and Religous Wrong crowd attempted to take over the Georgia Republican Convention in Atlanta with a convicted felon as their Georgia Party leader.
Bush won the primary in Georgia but these terrorists bushwhacked the convention here and we had to send TWO seperate delegations to the national convention in New Orleans where Bush was nominated after the circus.
If you do not know this you are either very young, naive, stupid, ignorant or:
ALL OF THE ABOVE.