Ind. Senators Vote for Creationism

  • Thread starter Thread starter buffalo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
bbarrick8383 said:
What clause?
Click to expand...
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

“no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

Two clauses, my mistake. Those are the basis for separation of church and state.
 
bbarrick8383 said:
I’d argue that we are devolving rather than evolving.

I don’t see any reason why they can’t both be introduced though, now that you’ve conceded the fear of theocracies point.
Click to expand...
To the first thing, that made me laugh, I’ve got to agree with you.

As long as they are both introduced, one as a theory - the scientific definition of a theory, which is almost as solid as a law - and the other as a religious viewpoint, then that is fine.
 
retantion said:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

“no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

Two clauses, my mistake. Those are the basis for separation of church and state.
Click to expand...
Neither one of them can be literally interpreted to mean that schools can not introduce the idea of creationism.
 
bbarrick8383 said:
Neither one of them can be literally interpreted to mean that schools can not introduce the idea of creationism.
Click to expand...
Literally doesn’t mean much around these forums am I right?

The interpretation of these clauses by the Supreme Court has consistently been to keep religion out of schools.
 
retantion said:
Literally doesn’t mean much around these forums am I right?

The interpretation of these clauses by the Supreme Court has consistently been to keep religion out of schools.
Click to expand...
They have mentioned it in one case I believe.

If I was a betting man, I’d say this century will bring about a bit of change in the supreme courts power.
 
To answer your first question, I’d say it means a lot around here. To the SC, not so much.
 
bbarrick8383 said:
To answer your first question, I’d say it means a lot around here. To the SC, not so much.
Click to expand...
Well I really meant that since so much of the bible isn’t taken literally, there is no sense in attacking things for not literally saying what they are interpreted as meaning.
 
retantion said:
Well I really meant that since so much of the bible isn’t taken literally, there is no sense in attacking things for not literally saying what they are interpreted as meaning.
Click to expand...
Another huge leap, The Bible and it’s history can not in any way be compared to the Constitution.

As someone who fears a theocratic government, I would think that you would take the Constitution pretty literal yourself for fear of an oppressive totalitarian government.

Religion and government both have a very similar problem when given too much power, man.
 
bbarrick8383 said:
Another huge leap, The Bible and it’s history can not in any way be compared to the Constitution.

As someone who fears a theocratic government, I would think that you would take the Constitution pretty literal yourself for fear of an oppressive totalitarian government.

Religion and government both have a very similar problem when given too much power, man.
Click to expand...
I agree with you, both of them have their place, in proper doses.

I don’t really see why they can’t be compared. They both are interpreted by people who are considered to be more versed in the original intentions of the writers than the masses. Aside from that, yeah, they’re pretty dissimilar.

And yes, I do fear a theocratic government - or any government aside from a republican government - however, I feel the Supreme Court has done an excellent job of interpreting the Constitution and Bill of Rights in favor of personal liberty.
 
retantion said:
Hopefully this ridiculous breakdown of the separation of church and state doesn’t spread any further than Indiana.
Click to expand...
Code: 
 Atheist, don't you have anything more serious to worry about than a *church takeover* (LOL) of the state? If ID is as silly as you seem to think, it should be easily disproved in class, and then the next generation won't waste any time talking about such nonsense. Right?
 Of course, what you folks really fear is that the cornerstone of your Tower of Babel will be smashed. You are opposed to a free and open debate because it's YOUR side that doesn't have a shred of logic. Cordially, Rob :D
 
retantion said:
This isn’t a cooperation of church and state, it’s a direct advocacy of a religious view by a state run school, the exact opposite of a separation of church and state. History has proven that theocracies don’t work.
Click to expand...
Darwinism is an atheistic view. We should ban that too.
 
retantion said:
And yes, I do fear a theocratic government - or any government aside from a republican government - however, I feel the Supreme Court has done an excellent job of interpreting the Constitution and Bill of Rights in favor of personal liberty.
Click to expand...
The SC does not have the power to interpret the Constitution.

Assuming they do, should give you more fear than a religious takeover of a state government.

Once the SC assumes the right to interpret the Constitution, they can make any laws they wish.

They are supposed to take the Constitution literally, and use it as a guide to determine what laws/action taken by the other two head’s of our government are constitutional or unconstitutional. Giving them the power to interpret the Constitution the way they see fit gives them more power than the other two branches of government.
 
Let’s not forget that the universe is only 6,000 years old, that men coexisted with dinosaurs, and that creation took six 24 hour days - God had to rest on the seventh.👍
 
retantion said:
You are correct. However, the reason we have a separation of church and state is because we learned from the mistakes of the theocracies. Allowing any form of state-sanctioned religion is just begging to open the floodgates for a full-fledged state religion.
Click to expand...
There is nothing in the Constitution about separation of church and state. What it says is that there should be no law imposing a state religion on its people. This acts as a one way valve. Government can and should be informed by religion.

So you would advocate removing the religion of evolution from the science classroom?
 
buffalo said:
There is nothing in the Constitution about separation of church and state. What it says is that there should be no law imposing a state religion on its people. This acts as a one way valve. Government can and should be informed by religion.

So you would advocate removing the religion of evolution from the science classroom?
Click to expand...
Poster is not seeing that state advocates secular humanism which is a religion. State should not advocate or teach any ethics or morality and should enforce that “evolution” has no bearing on any religious beliefs. Which is actually true.
 
buffalo said:
So you would advocate removing the religion of evolution from the science classroom?
Click to expand...
Evolution is not a religion, it is an accepted scientific theory (maybe not by you personally but by the scientific community at large).
 
retantion said:
Evolution is not a religion, it is an accepted scientific theory (maybe not by you personally but by the scientific community at large).
Click to expand...
Evolution has philosophical implications which should not be supported by the state. These implications are used in a religious or existential way.

Secondly, secular humanism is something which the state often pushes and that is a religion.

The State does smuggle in religion through these two concepts. They do teach ethics, teachers do make religious judgements - all of that should be forbidden if there is GENUINE separation of church and state.
 
retantion said:
Evolution is not a religion, it is an accepted scientific theory (maybe not by you personally but by the scientific community at large).
Click to expand...
Empirical science is defined as observable, repeatable and predictable. ********* is what is referred to as “the best explanation”. This is changing because of the latest scientific findings of the last 20 years or so.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top