|
Post by gillianren on Mar 12, 2010 20:51:37 GMT -4
...and he had wooden teeth...why don't you have wooden teeth Jason? Seemed like a good idea 200 years ago. Not true. They were ivory from various sources, including human and hippopotamus. So you don't care about the US Constitution? The question is, literalist or constructionist?
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Mar 15, 2010 8:32:16 GMT -4
...it still states that George and the other Founding Fathers were religious... Who the hell cares what people 200+ years ago thought?? Most of us on this board live under a British common law system that is based on what people thought hundreds of years ago. We care because some principles of law are good and need to be persistent so we have continuity of law. In the US many of us honor the founders because some of them were among the best thinkers of the enlightenment and the Constitution among the best documents defining the rights of individuals to be free from overweening governments. One of the best principles set down in the constitution was the prohibition of founding a state religion. That is one I would not like to see revised.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Mar 15, 2010 11:16:40 GMT -4
Who the hell cares what people 200+ years ago thought?? Most of us on this board live under a British common law system that is based on what people thought hundreds of years ago. We care because some principles of law are good and need to be persistent so we have continuity of law. In the US many of us honor the founders because some of them were among the best thinkers of the enlightenment and the Constitution among the best documents defining the rights of individuals to be free from overweening governments. One of the best principles set down in the constitution was the prohibition of founding a state religion. That is one I would not like to see revised. Apart from the churches of "environmentalism" and "political correctness" I believe there never has been a serious attempt to establish a state religion in the U.S. on the Federal level and most likely never will be. Issues like national prayer days, prayer opening the Congress, the Pledge of Allegiance containing a reference to God, and our currency carrying "In God We Trust" are not really attempts to establish a national religion. Certainly they do not benefit any one religious sect over another.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Mar 15, 2010 18:54:35 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... I dunno RAF, some of it impresses me... (Now don't make me look it up! )
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Mar 22, 2010 9:58:41 GMT -4
Most of us on this board live under a British common law system that is based on what people thought hundreds of years ago. We care because some principles of law are good and need to be persistent so we have continuity of law. In the US many of us honor the founders because some of them were among the best thinkers of the enlightenment and the Constitution among the best documents defining the rights of individuals to be free from overweening governments. One of the best principles set down in the constitution was the prohibition of founding a state religion. That is one I would not like to see revised. Apart from the churches of "environmentalism" and "political correctness" I believe there never has been a serious attempt to establish a state religion in the U.S. on the Federal level and most likely never will be. Issues like national prayer days, prayer opening the Congress, the Pledge of Allegiance containing a reference to God, and our currency carrying "In God We Trust" are not really attempts to establish a national religion. Certainly they do not benefit any one religious sect over another. Sorry for the late reply, but I have been out of town and in a hotel that charges rapacious fees for internet access. I see a substantial effort to establish some vague set of "Christian" beliefs as government policy. The Intelligent Design movement is one example. The movement doesn't get beyond that because it gets knocked down at that point. Those of us who follow the wacky happenings at the Texas Education Agency have watched this unfold over the last few years as elected board members have embarrassed the agency and the entire state by opening pushing a self admittedly religious agenda to have text books include religious based ideas as facts. It is about as blatant an attempt to establish a state religion as can be found in this country. One that is unconstitutional and should be opposed by all who believe in a rational basis for education.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Mar 22, 2010 11:29:43 GMT -4
"Intelligent Design" by itself also doesn't benefit any particular religious sect, and it's doubtful it will ever get anywhere on a federal level anyway.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Mar 22, 2010 12:33:11 GMT -4
"Intelligent Design" by itself also doesn't benefit any particular religious sect, and it's doubtful it will ever get anywhere on a federal level anyway. ID is promoted by a loose affiliation of religious zealots for religious purposes. Just because they are not a single organized sect in no way makes it less an attempt to establish state religious principals. In fact it would benefit many such sects as it would be allowing them special influence in setting educational standards to there liking without regard for rationality or truthfulness. This is unconstitutional even if those benefits come from the ballot box, as they have in Texas. The Constitution prohibits the establishment of religion at the state level just as much as it does a national church.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Mar 22, 2010 12:47:07 GMT -4
ID is promoted by a loose affiliation of religious zealots for religious purposes. Just because they are not a single organized sect in no way makes it less an attempt to establish state religious principals. The prohibition against a state religion in my view does not prohibit state-recognized principals which are obviously religious in origin. Such as "thou shalt not kill". Sorry, I just don't see it as a crises. In fact, I think adding some of the criticisms ID makes of evolution to textbooks could aid students in learning critical thinking skills. It didn't really until the 14th amendment. Before then state churches were perfectly legal.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Mar 22, 2010 13:45:40 GMT -4
The prohibition against a state religion in my view does not prohibit state-recognized principals which are obviously religious in origin. Such as "thou shalt not kill".
True but not particularly relevant to establishment of religion. Sorry, I just don't see it as a crises.Nor do I, just something to be watchful of and thankful we have explicit protection from. In fact, I think adding some of the criticisms ID makes of evolution to textbooks could aid students in learning critical thinking skills.To my knowledge, the ID crowd has offered no scientific criticisms to the theory of evolution and produced no additions to our understanding of the origins of the current array of life. Therefor, there is nothing from ID to consider in the study of science in high school. From a sociology perspective the ID movement is very interesting, like the study of all cranks. But studying that as course material in public schools would be fraught with distracting politics. ID has been used as a topic in high school debate. The coach at my daughters school is a bit of a right wing nut and advocated ID in class. It has been a wonderful opportunity to discuss reason and evidence based thinking with her, even when her coach fails to do so. I don't oppose his advocating ID because it is clearly his personal opinion and agreement is irrelevant to grading. He is far more interested in winning tournaments. It didn't really until the 14th amendment. Before then state churches were perfectly legal. True, thank God for small favors.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Mar 22, 2010 13:51:04 GMT -4
To my knowledge, the ID crowd has offered no scientific criticisms to the theory of evolution and produced no additions to our understanding of the origins of the current array of life. Well, they have criticized the theory of evolution, but every criticism they've brought forth has been based on a failure of research, so I'm not sure how much it counts. Same with creationism, really. People who look at the evidence see the science and turn away from silliness.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Mar 22, 2010 14:12:48 GMT -4
The prohibition against a state religion in my view does not prohibit state-recognized principals which are obviously religious in origin. Such as "thou shalt not kill".
True but not particularly relevant to establishment of religion. But I don't view the agenda of "ID zealots" as an attempt to establish religion. Yes some are pursuing ID for religious purposes, but not in my view to establish their religion as a state religion. I agree with you there. Well, all the states had already given up on the idea before then anyway, with none of them using public funds for a specific religion, and most state constitutions already gauranteeing religious freedom.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Mar 22, 2010 21:22:21 GMT -4
The prohibition against a state religion in my view does not prohibit state-recognized principals which are obviously religious in origin. Such as "thou shalt not kill".
True but not particularly relevant to establishment of religion. But I don't view the agenda of "ID zealots" as an attempt to establish religion. Yes some are pursuing ID for religious purposes, but not in my view to establish their religion as a state religion. I'm not sure what else one should call an attempt to use the government to force purely religious ideas into the curriculum in an attempt to replace scientific ideas that conflict with the religion.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Mar 23, 2010 11:20:53 GMT -4
But I don't view the agenda of "ID zealots" as an attempt to establish religion. Yes some are pursuing ID for religious purposes, but not in my view to establish their religion as a state religion. I'm not sure what else one should call an attempt to use the government to force purely religious ideas into the curriculum in an attempt to replace scientific ideas that conflict with the religion. Establishing a state religion would in my view be things like devoting tax income to a particular sect, or requiring that you belong to a certain religion to hold political office, things of that nature. Trying to have your ideas influence government and the country is what all lobby groups do, and I don't think one set of ideas should be excluded simply because they might be religious in origin.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Mar 23, 2010 13:15:58 GMT -4
Well it is our good fortune, in my opinion, that the courts in this country agree with me on this issue.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Mar 23, 2010 13:27:45 GMT -4
I don't think one set of ideas should be excluded simply because they might be religious in origin. If what we're talking about is science textbooks then I do think it's reasonable to exclude ideas that are religious in origin. ID is a poorly disguised version of creationism. Once you get children to accept ID it's easier to push creationism on them. It's like cigarette companies using cartoon characters to promote their product... "oh no, we're not trying to influence children" they say. Yeah, right.
|
|