The creationists are BACK

[AllieBaba]

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.

What fundamentalists? You mean people who don't read things into the Constitution that aren't there? I guess that's a sort of fundamentalism.

Respecting an establishment doesn't mean the government can't endorse. It means the government cannot seek to ESTABLISH. You are right, it's a simple concept. Endorsing and establishing are two different things.



es·tab·lish [ i stábblish ]

1. start or set up something: to start or set up something that is intended to continue or be permanent
2. place something permanently: to place something securely and permanently in a position, situation, or condition
3. confirm truth of something: to investigate something and prove or confirm its truth or validity

Synonyms: set up, found, start, create, begin, launch, bring about, form, inaugurate, institute



en·dorse [ in dáwrss ]

1. approve something formally: to give formal approval or permission for something
2. support somebody or something: to give public support to somebody or something, especially during an election
3. promote product: to give public approval of a product for advertising purposes

The founding fathers endorsed Christianity every time they turned around. Our founding documents endorse Christianity. But at no time did they seek to ESTABLISH a theocracy, or create any stipulations that it was necessary to adhere to a particular religion.

Do you see the diff?

No, of course you don't.

So you claim our government endorses Christianity over all other religions?

Of course. You can't look at our money and say it doesn't.

But my point is that endorsing and establishing are two entirely different things. I can endorse Cesar Millan the dog whisperer by praising him daily; but I'm not going to establish him as a government dog trainer by requiring that people get dogs only after they contact him and get the okay.

Endorse =/= establish.

 

[logical4u]

It's not the topic until someone calls into question my biases. Scroll up and you'll see that happened not but 2 or 3 posts ago with some other guy. That's why it's relevant.

People should be free to practice their religion until it affects someone else. A prayer in a school classroom isn't innocuous. A Jewish child either has to sit there and take it...or go outside the room and feel ostracized/unnormal. Even a bland prayer that only says "God" - be it the Muslim god or Jewish god or what have you...still puts an atheist child in a separate box.

Are you suggesting all the missionary work and charities should stop, immediately because it "affects" others? Maybe we should just list the works of the religions around the world and let the children decide for themselves?

 

[thereisnospoon]

Uh, no. Religion is a distinctly constitutional issue. The same laws that ensure that your own right to practice your religion are not infringed upon (which I am assuming is true as you haven't been able to give an example of being deprived of your religious freedoms) also protect others from being compelled to participate in another person's religion.

The founding fathers, who you love to reference, put that in there.

It's a double edged sword.

Who at this graduation is being compelled to participate in the prayer?
Is it your assertion that just being in an area where the prayer is audible constitutes "coercion"?
I look at this in reverse. The girl's religious rights are being infringed upon by one agnostic. How do we account for that?
As a matter of fact, the problem I see is the agnostic found a judge that chose to interpret the First Amendment in his own way and not the way of the Amendment's intent.
The judge has essentially thumbed his nose at the community. If his judgeship is political, I doubt it if he'll be re-elected.

In this instance, she is going to open with "let us pray". As stated, her intent is to lead her classmates in prayer. Whether that is coercion or not is debatable. The issue is whether it's the establishment of religion.

The Federal Appeals court didn't think so.

However, by that precedence, a Muslim student should be covered to call their classmates to prayer.

Would you be equally accepting of that?

a Muslim student should be covered to call their classmates to prayer.

Would you be equally accepting of that? Umm asked and answered....
Is she going to say the words "Let us pray"?
Where is the "establishment of religion"?
I have posted twice the establishment clause form the US Constitution and as of yet you've been unable to state where said establishment is to take place.
BTW, this is also a Freedom of Speech issue as well. The Judge with his ruling has in effect suppressed the girl's right to free speech.
DO you see where this is going? One silly agnostic individual has decided to be a pain in the ass by using the courts to allow him to be a pain in the ass, and the whole community is being turned upside down.
The agnostic's son's rights are not being violated. He is free to ignore the prayer. He may use ear plugs. He can read. He can sing to himself. He can endure a 30 second prayer.
This is much ado about nothing. This agnostic person will move forward to his next idiotic crusade where he will become offended because he views religion as offensive and he will find another judge sympathetic to his pathetic need to be recognized.
I see however ,he's got people like you on his side.
Merry Christmas!!!! Does that offend you? Good....Happy Easter.

 

[logical4u]

It's not the topic until someone calls into question my biases. Scroll up and you'll see that happened not but 2 or 3 posts ago with some other guy. That's why it's relevant.

People should be free to practice their religion until it affects someone else. A prayer in a school classroom isn't innocuous. A Jewish child either has to sit there and take it...or go outside the room and feel ostracized/unnormal. Even a bland prayer that only says "God" - be it the Muslim god or Jewish god or what have you...still puts an atheist child in a separate box.

You do not have the right to not be offended.

You must understand these folks.. they want a world sanitized of all that they find offensive. Screw everybod basiaclly...

Let me get this straight, they want the "right" to offend others, but want the government to protect "them" from being offended by the same people they are offending?

 

[logical4u]

Speaking of "sanitizing everything they find offensive"...were you one of the ones CRYING when a mosque was proposed near Ground Zero?

Talk about relative religious sanitization! Christians are so in the minority, they have no idea when they're offending others...and just think...oh it's minor...just "live and let live" while we fuck you over.

evidence, links?

 

[Gadawg73]

What fundamentalists? You mean people who don't read things into the Constitution that aren't there? I guess that's a sort of fundamentalism.

Respecting an establishment doesn't mean the government can't endorse. It means the government cannot seek to ESTABLISH. You are right, it's a simple concept. Endorsing and establishing are two different things.



es·tab·lish [ i stábblish ]

1. start or set up something: to start or set up something that is intended to continue or be permanent
2. place something permanently: to place something securely and permanently in a position, situation, or condition
3. confirm truth of something: to investigate something and prove or confirm its truth or validity

Synonyms: set up, found, start, create, begin, launch, bring about, form, inaugurate, institute



en·dorse [ in dáwrss ]

1. approve something formally: to give formal approval or permission for something
2. support somebody or something: to give public support to somebody or something, especially during an election
3. promote product: to give public approval of a product for advertising purposes

The founding fathers endorsed Christianity every time they turned around. Our founding documents endorse Christianity. But at no time did they seek to ESTABLISH a theocracy, or create any stipulations that it was necessary to adhere to a particular religion.

Do you see the diff?

No, of course you don't.

So you claim our government endorses Christianity over all other religions?

Of course. You can't look at our money and say it doesn't.

But my point is that endorsing and establishing are two entirely different things. I can endorse Cesar Millan the dog whisperer by praising him daily; but I'm not going to establish him as a government dog trainer by requiring that people get dogs only after they contact him and get the okay.

Endorse =/= establish.

Allie, it was not on $$ when this nation was founded, took 100 years before it appeared on coins and it took until 1957 to have it on paper $$.
Accordingly, that comment is absurd and without merit. As usual.
The Constitution endorses no religion.
If you are making the point that our government endorses ALL religion you may have a case.
But all is a lot.
POLITICS is why we have God on our money. The Founders never would have done that.

 

[logical4u]

That's exactly what I'm advocating, let's keep religion practicing out of textbooks and out of government and keep it in the private sect (aka churches, private school, businesses, private individuals, etc).

Ok, and while we're at it, let's keep all the condoms on bananas, "My Two Moms", California was stolen from Mexico, etc. out as well, ok?

What's talking about gays have to do with government promoting religion?

I've never heard the Cal-Mex line so I dunno how to reply to that.

Promoting 'gays' is promoting a false god: promiscuity. It is promoting a 'faith' over another.

 

[Gadawg73]

Who at this graduation is being compelled to participate in the prayer?
Is it your assertion that just being in an area where the prayer is audible constitutes "coercion"?
I look at this in reverse. The girl's religious rights are being infringed upon by one agnostic. How do we account for that?
As a matter of fact, the problem I see is the agnostic found a judge that chose to interpret the First Amendment in his own way and not the way of the Amendment's intent.
The judge has essentially thumbed his nose at the community. If his judgeship is political, I doubt it if he'll be re-elected.

In this instance, she is going to open with "let us pray". As stated, her intent is to lead her classmates in prayer. Whether that is coercion or not is debatable. The issue is whether it's the establishment of religion.

The Federal Appeals court didn't think so.

However, by that precedence, a Muslim student should be covered to call their classmates to prayer.

Would you be equally accepting of that?

a Muslim student should be covered to call their classmates to prayer.

Would you be equally accepting of that? Umm asked and answered....
Is she going to say the words "Let us pray"?
Where is the "establishment of religion"?
I have posted twice the establishment clause form the US Constitution and as of yet you've been unable to state where said establishment is to take place.
BTW, this is also a Freedom of Speech issue as well. The Judge with his ruling has in effect suppressed the girl's right to free speech.
DO you see where this is going? One silly agnostic individual has decided to be a pain in the ass by using the courts to allow him to be a pain in the ass, and the whole community is being turned upside down.
The agnostic's son's rights are not being violated. He is free to ignore the prayer. He may use ear plugs. He can read. He can sing to himself. He can endure a 30 second prayer.
This is much ado about nothing. This agnostic person will move forward to his next idiotic crusade where he will become offended because he views religion as offensive and he will find another judge sympathetic to his pathetic need to be recognized.
I see however ,he's got people like you on his side.
Merry Christmas!!!! Does that offend you? Good....Happy Easter.

Do you know the difference in school led prayer and individual prayer?
My kids prayed at home. They prayed to themselves many times at school.
School is for learning, not for allowing every religion everywhere there is to have prayer groups.
Bow towards Mecca all you want but do it at your own home.
This Christian victim mentality is a crock of shit. No one stops anyone from practicing their religion at home. Pray there. You are there 3/4s of the day. Prayer and religion is a personal matter. Do triple duty on Saturday and Sunday to get it all out. Leave it at home.

 

[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.

Where are the 5 major extinction events mentioned in the Bible?

Like I said, science adds some details and pretends that they are original.

 

[AllieBaba]

Our constitution doesn't say we have to practice our religion at home.

That is the exact sort of persecution the pilgrims were fleeing. They refused to pretend they were of the state religion.

In this case, the state religion is no religion. And people who want to adhere to their faith as they choose are being told to hide out of sight.

No difference.

 

[Gadawg73]

Ok, and while we're at it, let's keep all the condoms on bananas, "My Two Moms", California was stolen from Mexico, etc. out as well, ok?

What's talking about gays have to do with government promoting religion?

I've never heard the Cal-Mex line so I dunno how to reply to that.

Promoting 'gays' is promoting a false god: promiscuity. It is promoting a 'faith' over another.

That is your religous belief. The church I go to does not believe that. We accept everyone and do not judge them.
Are you claiming we should go by your way and teach that in the schools?
You keep your business to yourself with your religous beliefs. They have no place in the public schools.
If you want your kids to be taught that there is something wrong with gays then that is okay. But I am there to fight you on that if you carry that over into the public schools. You can't do it and it will not be allowed.
Get used to it. You may not like that but tough. That is the way it is. Either you go by the rules and teach your kids to go by the rules or suffer the consequences.

 

[AllieBaba]

And PS, I don't care if you chose to hide your kids in the basement to school them away from the light of day.

We have a right to freedom of speech, and freedom of religion. Fuck you, I don't have to cower in my house, nor do my kids, when it comes to the practice of my faith.

 

[SillyWabbit]

Who at this graduation is being compelled to participate in the prayer?
Is it your assertion that just being in an area where the prayer is audible constitutes "coercion"?
I look at this in reverse. The girl's religious rights are being infringed upon by one agnostic. How do we account for that?
As a matter of fact, the problem I see is the agnostic found a judge that chose to interpret the First Amendment in his own way and not the way of the Amendment's intent.
The judge has essentially thumbed his nose at the community. If his judgeship is political, I doubt it if he'll be re-elected.

In this instance, she is going to open with "let us pray". As stated, her intent is to lead her classmates in prayer. Whether that is coercion or not is debatable. The issue is whether it's the establishment of religion.



The Federal Appeals court didn't think so.

However, by that precedence, a Muslim student should be covered to call their classmates to prayer.

Would you be equally accepting of that?

a Muslim student should be covered to call their classmates to prayer.

Would you be equally accepting of that? Umm asked and answered....
Is she going to say the words "Let us pray"?
Where is the "establishment of religion"?
I have posted twice the establishment clause form the US Constitution and as of yet you've been unable to state where said establishment is to take place.
BTW, this is also a Freedom of Speech issue as well. The Judge with his ruling has in effect suppressed the girl's right to free speech.
DO you see where this is going? One silly agnostic individual has decided to be a pain in the ass by using the courts to allow him to be a pain in the ass, and the whole community is being turned upside down.
The agnostic's son's rights are not being violated. He is free to ignore the prayer. He may use ear plugs. He can read. He can sing to himself. He can endure a 30 second prayer.
This is much ado about nothing. This agnostic person will move forward to his next idiotic crusade where he will become offended because he views religion as offensive and he will find another judge sympathetic to his pathetic need to be recognized.
I see however ,he's got people like you on his side.
Merry Christmas!!!! Does that offend you? Good....Happy Easter.

Let's not drag the Easter Bunny into this. He's just doing his job. It is a bit asinine that one schmoe is causing so much trouble. Look, I am not a practicing Christian. I am agnostic. But, I am not going to sit here and complain about one girl praying as part of graduation. It's no big whoop. That's why God put Angry Birds on my iphone

 

[AllieBaba]

What's talking about gays have to do with government promoting religion?

I've never heard the Cal-Mex line so I dunno how to reply to that.

Promoting 'gays' is promoting a false god: promiscuity. It is promoting a 'faith' over another.

That is your religous belief. The church I go to does not believe that. We accept everyone and do not judge them.
Are you claiming we should go by your way and teach that in the schools?
You keep your business to yourself with your religous beliefs. They have no place in the public schools.
If you want your kids to be taught that there is something wrong with gays then that is okay. But I am there to fight you on that if you carry that over into the public schools. You can't do it and it will not be allowed.
Get used to it. You may not like that but tough. That is the way it is. Either you go by the rules and teach your kids to go by the rules or suffer the consequences.

Fuck off and fucking die. There are no consequences, and if you try to visit consequences upon people for their faith, in the US, you will go to prison. If you survive.

Our constitution does not provide that people must hide away to practice their religion. Quite the opposite. Move to North Korea, you piece of shit. And stay the fuck away from other people's children.

 

[Gadawg73]

Our constitution doesn't say we have to practice our religion at home.

That is the exact sort of persecution the pilgrims were fleeing. They refused to pretend they were of the state religion.

In this case, the state religion is no religion. And people who want to adhere to their faith as they choose are being told to hide out of sight.

No difference.

You go to school to learn. At school you have to go by the rules. The rules are that no organized school (government) prayer is allowed.
Don't like the rules go to a private school.
We taught our kids to go by the rules.
Every American can pray all they want at any time in any public school.
Funny you mention the Pilgrims! They did come here to escape the CONSERVATISM forced onto them. They were liberals of their time.

 

[thereisnospoon]

In this instance, she is going to open with "let us pray". As stated, her intent is to lead her classmates in prayer. Whether that is coercion or not is debatable. The issue is whether it's the establishment of religion.

The Federal Appeals court didn't think so.

However, by that precedence, a Muslim student should be covered to call their classmates to prayer.

Would you be equally accepting of that?

a Muslim student should be covered to call their classmates to prayer.

Would you be equally accepting of that? Umm asked and answered....
Is she going to say the words "Let us pray"?
Where is the "establishment of religion"?
I have posted twice the establishment clause form the US Constitution and as of yet you've been unable to state where said establishment is to take place.
BTW, this is also a Freedom of Speech issue as well. The Judge with his ruling has in effect suppressed the girl's right to free speech.
DO you see where this is going? One silly agnostic individual has decided to be a pain in the ass by using the courts to allow him to be a pain in the ass, and the whole community is being turned upside down.
The agnostic's son's rights are not being violated. He is free to ignore the prayer. He may use ear plugs. He can read. He can sing to himself. He can endure a 30 second prayer.
This is much ado about nothing. This agnostic person will move forward to his next idiotic crusade where he will become offended because he views religion as offensive and he will find another judge sympathetic to his pathetic need to be recognized.
I see however ,he's got people like you on his side.
Merry Christmas!!!! Does that offend you? Good....Happy Easter.

Do you know the difference in school led prayer and individual prayer?
My kids prayed at home. They prayed to themselves many times at school.
School is for learning, not for allowing every religion everywhere there is to have prayer groups.
Bow towards Mecca all you want but do it at your own home.
This Christian victim mentality is a crock of shit. No one stops anyone from practicing their religion at home. Pray there. You are there 3/4s of the day. Prayer and religion is a personal matter. Do triple duty on Saturday and Sunday to get it all out. Leave it at home.

Yeah...One is when a faculty member or a student directed by a faculty member to state a prayer to a captive audience.
This is not going to happen. Case closed.
Ahh see, you want to live in a nation free of the inconvenience religion obviously causes you. Well too bad.....
What's next? A law requiring Churches be rendered invisible? A ban on Christmas lights or Manger Scenes on private property which is visible from the street?
You people have so very little respect for our nation's traditions and values. What is it you hate so much about your own country?
Well sunshine, there is no constitutional right to not be inconvenienced.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Gravity is just a theory too


Why do things fall to earth? Because God wants them to

Good thing too - Newton had it wrong. There is no attraction, bodies deform the fabric of space, as Einstein demonstrated.

 

[logical4u]

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?

The law can be changed. Leading a prayer is not "proselytizing". Why are you afraid of the little baby Jesus? He never hurt anyone.

You give away your bias by this statement..."glorified bible school". The idea of separation of church and state is to keep the government out of our lives so Americans can be free to experess their religious beliefs. There is nothing in the US Constitution about keeping any references to God out of our schools.

How come we have a chaplain in the congress who leads in prayer, but to lead in a prayer at school is against the law? Are you all afraid some little kid might find out Jesus loves him and not fall in line like everyone else?

The same thing can be said in reverse. Why must you have organized prayer in schools. What EDUCATINAL purpose does it serve? YOU belive that prayer is a good thing. Many do not. Why must our children be paraded through organized prayer to the benefit of your children?

The fact is, church does not belong in school in any form. It has no purpose there. I cannot understand this irrational NEED to take your personal belief in prayer into a public forum where there are children from all stripes. Is your time at home not enough? There is nothing to stop a student from praying. There is only laws that prevent them from being put in that situation without their consent or choice.

Where to begin .....
How about with church? What is church? A church is a 'body' of people that believe in the same diety. Traditionally, church was the place people went for WISDOM, JUSTICE, TRUTH, MORAL COMPASS. (I will refrain from contemplating why it would be important for children not to be taught these things in liberal schools).

Also, for centuries (history before the USA), the 'church' was the main place for education (if your parents were not royalty or you were not raised in a royal household. The Bible is still the best selling book of all time ... imagine?

Our Savior told us that where two or more are gathered "in His name", there, also will He be. For us 'simpletons' that means, when we call on Him, as a group, evil cannot prevail. Those of you that are offended and happen to be there are still protected from evil even though you might not believe it exists.

I am not suggesting that there should be 'forced' prayer, but I see absolutely nothing wrong with a moment of silence. I see nothing wrong with a 'prayer' of thanks giving to celebrate days that were designated 'holy days' before the enterprising made them 'holidays' and turned a profit by selling to those that celebrated (even unwittingly so). That is just a basic history lesson. If you claim it is forcing a religion on you, can't I claim that homosexuals are 'forcing' their 'faith' on me for 'stating' homosexuality is not a sin? Ideas are a very good thing; but, only by openly, discussing them, can we determine which ideas are the best choice for us and our families.

 

[Gadawg73]

Promoting 'gays' is promoting a false god: promiscuity. It is promoting a 'faith' over another.

That is your religous belief. The church I go to does not believe that. We accept everyone and do not judge them.
Are you claiming we should go by your way and teach that in the schools?
You keep your business to yourself with your religous beliefs. They have no place in the public schools.
If you want your kids to be taught that there is something wrong with gays then that is okay. But I am there to fight you on that if you carry that over into the public schools. You can't do it and it will not be allowed.
Get used to it. You may not like that but tough. That is the way it is. Either you go by the rules and teach your kids to go by the rules or suffer the consequences.

Fuck off and fucking die. There are no consequences, and if you try to visit consequences upon people for their faith, in the US, you will go to prison. If you survive.

Our constitution does not provide that people must hide away to practice their religion. Quite the opposite. Move to North Korea, you piece of shit. And stay the fuck away from other people's children.

So supporting equal rights is a "religion"?
I say what I want, when I want to and do not answer to any religous zealot. Much less a milk weak nothing like you.
Get used to it. There is nothing you or anyone can do about it.

 

[AllieBaba]

Our constitution doesn't say we have to practice our religion at home.

That is the exact sort of persecution the pilgrims were fleeing. They refused to pretend they were of the state religion.

In this case, the state religion is no religion. And people who want to adhere to their faith as they choose are being told to hide out of sight.

No difference.

You go to school to learn. At school you have to go by the rules. The rules are that no organized school (government) prayer is allowed.
Don't like the rules go to a private school.
We taught our kids to go by the rules.
Every American can pray all they want at any time in any public school.
Funny you mention the Pilgrims! They did come here to escape the CONSERVATISM forced onto them. They were liberals of their time.

Oh bullshit, you brain dead loon. There may be rules at the school, that's great. But it is not constitutional to have rules forbidding the practice of one's faith. At school, or anywhere else, unless that practice is taking place with the explicit intention of establishing a state religion.