Why Liberals Hate God...

[no1tovote4]

If a town votes to allow nativity scenes at town hall for instance, and the measure passes, great! But if the measure fails and they disallow it, noone's religious freedoms have been impinged.

That would be true. The problem is when the Federal Government or Courts are making the decisions. The ACLU doesn't sue in the lower courts and therefore it becomes a violation issue.

 

[Hobbit]

Holy crap, I just realized I'm starting to sound like NewGuy. Remember him? With the Hulk avatar? AAAAAAAARRRRGH, must....purge....Constitutional....perfectness....from....brain.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Amazingly here Bully and I agree. However teaching intelligent design along with evolution actually makes sense but still would be religious indoctrination. Those type of classes would be better left to philosophy discussions when children reach that level.

Intelligent design means that you must accept the idea that your nose was designed to keep you eyeglasses from sliding down your face.

 

[CivilLiberty]

The point I thik a lot of people are missing is that the federal government oversteps its bounds when eliminating religion from public property. Unless the property is federally owned, they have no right to regulate it. Their power is derived from the the Constitution. The Constitution gives them no right to regulate non-federal property and specifically states that powers not granted to the federal government go to the state by default. The federal government has no more right to take a nativity scene off of a city hall than it has the right to fire a New York D.A. It's up to the state or local jurisdiction.

You are correct except for the 14th amendment - the 14th amendment extended the the Federal Government's reach of the Bill of Rights over the states.

Prior to the 14th amendment, a state could indeed have it's own religion - 4 of them did.

The 14th is the amendment that virtually ended real "Federalism".

The guarantees of amendments 1 through 10 did not apply directly to the states prior to the 14th - though all state constitutions at the time generally mirrored the federal constitution on issues such as free press, etc. Until the 14th was ratified, the Bill of Rights was considered to apply only to limit the actions of the federal government.


I, for one, would like to see the 14th repealed, and a return to individual state rights. Then those of you in red states could have your Christ and eat him too, leaving those of us in Blue states free to believe otherwise.




Cheers,


Andy

 

[5stringJeff]

I, for one, would like to see the 14th repealed, and a return to individual state rights. Then those of you in red states could have your Christ and eat him too, leaving those of us in Blue states free to believe otherwise.

 

[CivilLiberty]

Amazingly here Bully and I agree. However teaching intelligent design along with evolution actually makes sense but still would be religious indoctrination. Those type of classes would be better left to philosophy discussions when children reach that level.

"Intelligent design" or "creationism" has no place in a SCIENCE class.

"Science" is the act of developing a hypothesis and then setting out to prove it using empirical data.

"Creationism" is a faith based belief in a an omnipotent sentient "higher power" (typically referred to as "God").

As such, creationism is NOT the "Scientific Method" - it's NOT science, it's faith. Therefore it does not belong in a science class.


It DOES belong in a class on faith and philosophy, along with other world philosophies. I'll even go so far as to say that it belongs in public schools where there is strong community demand - provided that any class that caters to a SPECIFIC religion is NOT a "requirement". And that other forms of spirituality, including human secularism, as also available as classes if there is adequate demand for them.


Regards,



Andy

 

[freeandfun1]

"Intelligent design" or "creationism" has no place in a SCIENCE class.

"Science" is the act of developing a hypothesis and then setting out to prove it using empirical data.

"Creationism" is a faith based belief in a an omnipotent sentient "higher power" (typically referred to as "God").

As such, creationism is NOT the "Scientific Method" - it's NOT science, it's faith. Therefore it does not belong in a science class.


It DOES belong in a class on faith and philosophy, along with other world philosophies. I'll even go so far as to say that it belongs in public schools where there is strong community demand - provided that any class that caters to a SPECIFIC religion is NOT a "requirement". And that other forms of spirituality, including human secularism, as also available as classes if there is adequate demand for them.


Regards,

Andy

You did not explain why Intelligent Design has no place in Science class.

Do you think that there are other beings in space that we have yet to discover?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

And that other forms of spirituality, including human secularism, as also available as classes if there is adequate demand for them.

What is spiritual about human secularism? Sounds like a pantload to me.

 

[manu1959]

I, for one, would like to see the 14th repealed, and a return to individual state rights. Then those of you in red states could have your Christ and eat him too, leaving those of us in Blue states free to believe otherwise.

i live in a blue state which is a part of the united states and i would like my son to be taught both sides of every issue so that he can make an informed choice and not be told by an education system which i pay almost $250,000 to yearly what he should or should not belive.

 

[CivilLiberty]

You did not explain why Intelligent Design has no place in Science class.

Do you think that there are other beings in space that we have yet to discover?

Are you saying that space aliens came down here and spliced our DNA?








A

 

[freeandfun1]

Are you saying that space aliens came down here and spliced our DNA?








A

I never said such. But there are some that think that. Plus, if you do think there may be other "beings" out there, then you cannot say that the idea of Intelligent Design has no place in Science. Because you don't know how we got here.....

 

[manu1959]

Are you saying that space aliens came down here and spliced our DNA?








A

noooooooooooooooo, we are aliens and have infected the planet....havn't you seen the matrix yet? sheeeeesh

 

[CivilLiberty]

i live in a blue state which is a part of the united states and i would like my son to be taught both sides of every issue so that he can make an informed choice and not be told by an education system which i pay almost $250,000 to yearly what he should or should not belive.

Separate issue. How is it that you pay $250,000 directly to your STATE/LOCALLY run educational system? And where should the FEDERAL government be involved here? If $250,000 is your total federal tax bill, then only a very small portion of that goes to education - tiny.

Without question, the FEDERAL government should have no part in funding religious education, except where such education covers all the different viewpoints.

The argument over how your STATE/LOCAL taxes are spent on education is and should be a state/local issue.


Regards,


Andy

 

[manu1959]

Separate issue. How is it that you pay $250,000 directly to your STATE/LOCALLY run educational system? And where should the FEDERAL government be involved here? If $250,000 is your total federal tax bill, then only a very small portion of that goes to education - tiny.

Without question, the FEDERAL government should have no part in funding religious education, except where such education covers all the different viewpoints.

The argument over how your STATE/LOCAL taxes are spent on education is and should be a state/local issue.


Regards,


Andy

welll because that is what i give them...the rest is your opinion and the cool thing about the US is i can have mine

 

[manu1959]

Seriously now ...

what is wrong with teaching kids about religion in a public school?

 

[CivilLiberty]

I never said such. But there are some that think that.

Yes, Scientologists - and despite the "science sounding name" they're a religion. A kooky one, but a religion nevertheless.

Plus, if you do think there may be other "beings" out there, then you cannot say that the idea of Intelligent Design has no place in Science. Because you don't know how we got here.....

I do - successive mutation over 3.5 billion years, enforced by natural selection.

As far as other beings - yes, I'm open to the possibility, but stating "yea there are other beings" is pure speculation, and NOT science. What *is* science is the *search* for other beings - a search that to date has turned up nada.

I am open to the possibility of a "omnipotent, sentient higher power". Yes, indeed I am open to the possibility that there is a so called "God".

If one were to devise a set of scientific experiments to define or reveal the existence of "God", then that would be science, teachable in a science class.

However, the faith or belief in "god" is NOT science - it is a mere act of conscience and NOT science nor anything to do with the scientific method.

And if it has nothing to do with the scientific method, it ain't science.



Regards,


Andy

 

[freeandfun1]

You cannot prove evolution. You cannot prove how the solar system was formed. You cannot prove any of that. It is all theories. The idea of intelligent design is also a theory....

Why is it that you think that intelligent design would have to come from a god? Why is it not possible that our planet is an experiment by beings from another place or time? You don't know that. See where I am going? You are trying to say that YOUR theories are fact, when you really don't know if they are or not.

 

[CivilLiberty]

You cannot prove evolution. You cannot prove how the solar system was formed. You cannot prove any of that. It is all theories. The idea of intelligent design is also a theory....

Uh, right. You cannot "prove" gravity, either - yet gravity certainly does exist. The solar system certainly does exist, evolution certainly does exist.

There is no evidence that intelligent design exists, except in the mind of creationists, bitterly clinging to the last shreds of hope that their precious bible is somehow a book of absolute facts, not allegories.


Regards,

Andy

 

[freeandfun1]

Uh, right. You cannot "prove" gravity, either - yet gravity certainly does exist. The solar system certainly does exist, evolution certainly does exist.

There is no evidence that intelligent design exists, except in the mind of creationists, bitterly clinging to the last shreds of hope that their precious bible is somehow a book of absolute facts, not allegories.


Regards,

Andy

Funny how you discount one theory, yet grasp onto another and then say that the idea of intelligent design exists only in the mind of creatonists.

What are you scared of? Being wrong?

 

[CivilLiberty]

Why is it that you think that intelligent design would have to come from a god? Why is it not possible that our planet is an experiment by beings from another place or time? You don't know that. See where I am going? You are trying to say that YOUR theories are fact, when you really don't know if they are or not.

No, as I stated, I'm "open" to that possibility - but there is NO evidence to support it. NONE. And no experiments that can or have been devised to prove it or collect such supporting data. As such, it's conjecture and philosophy, not science.

A similar debate is going on right now regarding string theory - it's a theory, with no way to create an experiment to define or "prove" it beyond the mathematics of it. As such, there are some in the scientific community that resist calling it "science". It is, at the moment, pure mathematical theory.


However, there is ample proof of evolution. And no proof or evidence of "ID".


Regards


Andy