|
Post by Ginnie on Jan 13, 2010 20:36:07 GMT -4
Sorry Gillianren, I deleted my post because I thought it was dumb, not knowing you had already responded to it. I guess even if the separation of church and state does exist, the vast majority of the population of the United States still belong to a Christian Church and would naturally be opposed to legislation that runs counter to that. Plus, they would naturally vote for someone who goes to church. What the First Amendment seems to do is enable everyone enjoy the benefits of living under the Constitution without interference from the Church, at least on some level. I hadn't double checked that creationism was/wasn't taught in some areas in America but thought that it was. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_and_evolution_in_public_education#Recent_developments_in_state_education_programsIn 2000, a People for the American Way poll among Americans found that: * 29% believe public schools should teach evolution in science class but can discuss creationism there as a belief; * 20% believe public schools should teach evolution only; * 17% believe public schools should teach evolution in science class and religious theories elsewhere; * 16% believe public schools should teach creation only; * 13% believe public schools should teach both evolution and creationism in science class; * 4% believe public schools should teach both but are not sure how.
Just the thought that 16% of Americans - representing millions of parents - believe that only creationism should be taught amazes and is shocking to me.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jan 14, 2010 0:04:42 GMT -4
Yeah, it is pretty terrible. Blessedly, the First Amendment prevents us from catering to what the majority believes just because they believe it. If it's religion, it's not in science class.
|
|
|
Post by trevor on Jan 14, 2010 0:20:43 GMT -4
Absolutely, I fail to see how anyone can expect creationism to be taught in a science class, even as a alternative theory. It has nothing to do with science and should remain in the Religious Studies classes.
Unfortunately there are many instances all around the world were certain services or products are not available to the public because of the religious stance of politicians. Contraception, Abortion, Euthanasia, Same sex marriages and even homosexuality, Stem cell research etc. Give people a choice and live and let live for goodness sake life is too short. (Mini rant)
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 14, 2010 12:03:07 GMT -4
The First Ammendment's religious protections are really there to protect religion from the state. The Founding Fathers were not attempting to excise religion from public life. Rather, they were attempting to curtail state interference in religious practices.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Jan 14, 2010 13:09:05 GMT -4
The First Ammendment's religious protections are really there to protect religion from the state. The Founding Fathers were not attempting to excise religion from public life. Rather, they were attempting to curtail state interference in religious practices. They were also trying to prevent people who didn't believe in a particular religion from having it forced upon them, such as in a court of law. Non-believers shouldn't have to swear on a bible in order for their words to be considered honest.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Jan 14, 2010 13:41:28 GMT -4
The First Ammendment's religious protections are really there to protect religion from the state. The Founding Fathers were not attempting to excise religion from public life. Rather, they were attempting to curtail state interference in religious practices. True, but this also extends to curtailing state interference in the non-practice of religion. The founding fathers were men of the enlightenment many were rightly disgusted with the religious practices of their time, which had a recent history of corruption and brutality that exceeds that of Iran today. Without allowing equal protection to non-practice you will always have religious interference by the state.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jan 14, 2010 14:08:42 GMT -4
They were also trying to prevent people who didn't believe in a particular religion from having it forced upon them, such as in a court of law. Non-believers shouldn't have to swear on a bible in order for their words to be considered honest. Oh, certainly true. While some of them considered themselves Christians, very few of them wanted to belong to any particular church. Heck, when Ben Franklin, midway through the Constitutional Convention, suggested that they begin starting their sessions with a prayer, they didn't even vote on it. Madison, at least, was strongly opposed to chaplains for Congress--or the military. These were not, by and large, men who thought religion had any place in government. It is worth noting that, while the Deist "Creator" is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, not even that appears in the Constitution.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 14, 2010 15:02:12 GMT -4
And yet George Washington swore his oath of office on a Bible and added "so help me God" to the end of the oath.
I suspect that many people confuse the Founding Fathers' disastisfaction with the organized religions of the day as anatagonism toward religious thought in general.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Jan 15, 2010 10:28:05 GMT -4
I suspect that many people confuse the Founding Fathers' disastisfaction with the organized religions of the day as anatagonism toward religious thought in general. I believe that religious views and practices then, as now, varied. Some held a variety of faiths while others were generic deist without any particular practice. I haven't read of any that were stated atheist, but it wouldn't surprise me if some were.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 15, 2010 12:07:58 GMT -4
I should have said "...confuse some of the Founding Fathers' disastisfaction...." Some of the most prominant, like Jefferson and Franklin, were definitely anti-clerical. I don't think any were self-professed atheists.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jan 15, 2010 14:35:03 GMT -4
I believe that religious views and practices then, as now, varied. Some held a variety of faiths while others were generic deist without any particular practice. I haven't read of any that were stated atheist, but it wouldn't surprise me if some were. Oh, there's speculation. Actually, Thomas Jefferson seems to have been voted into office at least in part because, though certain sects thought he was an atheist, they thought he was better than a President (Adams) who was of a religion they felt would oppress them with his own. (I've been reading a lot about this lately.) Probably a majority of the Founding Fathers could be describe as deist, though there were also Quakers, Catholics, Episcopalians, and so forth. It's why they were so adamant about separating the two, in fact. Even the devout ones wanted protection from someone else's religion taking precedence over their own. It is true that Patrick Henry was known to be in favour of taxes to support the clergy, but we also have at least one letter (I think from Madison, but it could be Adams) saying, well, we'll just have to wait for him and his generation to die in order to have things as they ought to be.
|
|
|
Post by carpediem on Mar 12, 2010 0:03:59 GMT -4
And yet George Washington swore his oath of office on a Bible and added "so help me God" to the end of the oath. I suspect that many people confuse the Founding Fathers' disastisfaction with the organized religions of the day as anatagonism toward religious thought in general. hnn.us/articles/59548.htmlQuelle surprise it turns out to be from "Everyone thought the world was flat" idiot Washington Irving.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Mar 12, 2010 12:10:11 GMT -4
And yet George Washington swore his oath of office on a Bible and added "so help me God" to the end of the oath. I suspect that many people confuse the Founding Fathers' disastisfaction with the organized religions of the day as anatagonism toward religious thought in general. hnn.us/articles/59548.htmlQuelle surprise it turns out to be from "Everyone thought the world was flat" idiot Washington Irving. Thank you, but I prefer to believe David McCullough. Even if you buy this article, though, it still states that George and the other Founding Fathers were religious, and notes that he kissed the Bible on which he took the oath and attended worship services immediately afterward.
|
|
|
Post by RAF on Mar 12, 2010 19:34:35 GMT -4
...it still states that George and the other Founding Fathers were religious... Who the hell cares what people 200+ years ago thought?? ...and he had wooden teeth...why don't you have wooden teeth Jason? Seemed like a good idea 200 years ago. Clue up buddy. The idea that politicians did something centuries ago does not impress anyone...in fact just the opposite...
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Mar 12, 2010 20:11:24 GMT -4
...it still states that George and the other Founding Fathers were religious... Who the hell cares what people 200+ years ago thought?? So you don't care about the US Constitution?
|
|