B
Brad
Guest
A creation myth? So you subscribe to the theory that everything came from nothing?
- Status
T
trogiah
Guest
I have looked around a little and have not seen clear definitions of all the terms used in the RCW. I did notice that many of them seem to come from something Benjamin Franklin wrote - the 13 virtues or something like that.
I have to say that I have not seen clear definition of “the principles of free government” or of “the true comprehension of the rights duty and dignity of American citizenship” either. (to some I think it means simply that you have to allow students the opportunity to say the pledge of allegiance every day.) I have my own ideas on all those things and so far nobody has called a lawyer on me.
I should add that finding that RCW and making it a part of my focus in class probably saved my teaching career. It is not possible (for me at least) to teach in a moral vacuum.
-Jim
D
Diddi
Guest
Creation science is here to stay. It is not going away. It is growing, fleshing out, and has already made contributions especially in the realms of semantics and philosophy.
Is it science? Who cares. It is opening people’s minds to understanding the limits of empirical science. It is ironic that the growth of creation science is being aided by the senseless paranoia of those who would consign it to obscurity by not allowing it in the science classroom.
I personally open my freshman biology classes each year with the the following statements:
- “Welcome to Biology, History, Art, Poetry, Chemistry, Physics, Strange, Common Place, Ugly, Beautiful, Philosophy, Semantics, Politics, Debate, Forensics, Math, Emotion, Life, Health, Death, Religion, Love, …”
- “Everybody is invited to excel!”
- “Biology is “the scientific study of life,” but there is more to life than biology.
During the course, we cover the history, development, strengths and weaknesses of evolutionary theory and are not shy about covering the supposedly controversial areas. We are able to do so because we give fair shift to creation theory and acknowledge its strengths and weaknesses also. The system works.
G
Genesis315
Guest
The state is currently failing to protect the most basic civic freedom: life.
While allowing millions of the weakest in society to be butally slaughtered every year, I don’t think our government can get any more indifferent. Oh wait, who are the people who support this atrocity? The same people who are afraid of religion.
B
buffalo
Guest
S
Semper_Fi_1
Guest
Or how about a USA with Benedict XVI as its Head of State?
G
Genesis315
Guest
Semper Fi:
Do I sense a few fellow ultramontanists?Or how about a USA with Benedict XVI as its Head of State?
B
ben_dy
Guest
Leslie,I do not like the idea of a state religion. I like the idea that we are free to worship a God of our understanding here in the US. However, I am so confused by this issue that I cannot form a real opinion.
Let me tell you about a situation here in the Central Valley. We have ‘sober living houses’ that are sponsored by an organization known as The Church of Modesto. It is an ecumenical organization of Catholic and Protestant Churches. One of the sober living homes is for women and children. They are required to attend 12 step meetings AND church services at the Southern Baptist Church because it is the primary sponsor of the home.
Some of the women there are refered by Drug Court. In other words, they are sent there as a condition of their probation or to avoid jail time after a relapse. The homes, therefore, are linked to the judicial system.
It would seem to be that, in the strict sense of the idea, this is a violation of Church and State, right?
The 12 step programs are the only programs offered these women for their recovery. There are step programs that do not incorporate a spiritual aspect to recovery from alcoholism or drug addiction. These programs are not offered.
Now, it would seem to me, that having the judicial system order people to 12 step programs or sober living housing that require church service attendance would be a violation of this axiom.
BTW - I have 13 yrs sober in AA and am a obedient daughter of the Holy Mother Church (most days, anyway) so I have no hidden agenda on this subject. I am, quite simply, flumoxed.
I am somewhat familiar with such programs which provide for those with alcohol and drug addiction and use a 12 step approach in programs that include residential housing for anywhere for 3 to 18 months; while ‘non-denominational’ they are Christian and a primarily supported by protestant (and, to a large extent, Baptist) sects.
As I understand it, these programs have a greater degree of success in helping those with addiction than other non-residential, non-Christian, ‘secular’ programs and so I find no fault in them nor in judges offering this type of ‘sentence’ in lieu of jail terms.
That there are not similar programs widely available supported by, and thus influenced by, we Catholics is our own problem. It seems to me that we are simply far less charitable than our separated brethren. Yes, there are Catholic charities - but they seem only shadows when compared with protestant charities. Religious instruction and programs and services for the imprisoned? Again, our separated brethren beat us, hands down.
It is sometimes amazing to me that, in the majority of cities I’ve lived in in which Catholics have been in a minority, we who teach the importance of good works are so seldom seen to be doing good works.
Ben
P
Petergee
Guest
Here in Australia, Catholics are a minority (26%) of the population and the majority are protestant, as in the US. But the activities of Catholic charities in services for alcoholics, drug addicts, prisoners, and every other type of charity is FAR larger and more comprehensive than those run by Protestants (I’m not knocking the Protestants, they do a good job too, just in a more limited way and they devote less resources to it.). I would be VERY surprised if this is not also the case in the US. Maybe the area Ben lives is very atypical.
B
ben_dy
Guest
PG-
Although (from a 2002 Kennedy - latest that I have at home!) the % of the U.S. population who identify themselves as Catholic is 22.9% of the total U.S. population - HOWEVER, you are correct in that (for 55 years of my life!) I’ve lived in the southeastern U.S. which (with a few exceptions) has state populations that are 3-7% Catholic: a definite minority! However, a number of years ago when I was doing volunteer work for a ‘non-denominational’ organization involved in providing a residential program for alcohol and drug addicts, I found that I was the only Catholic on the premisses and had been the only Catholic to volunteer that anyone could recall. This was one of three such programs in this MAJOR SOUTHERN CITY (O.K. - Atlanta, GA!) and I did a bit of research and could only find 41 or 42 such programs that were sponsored by Catholics in the whole of the U.S. (there may be more NOW, and there may have been more THEN that simply were not well ‘advertised’). I was greatly dismayed - by two pastors at two different parishes - who were reluctant to help sponsor a one-Saturday-per-month aid in feeding and ‘evangelizing’ to these groups of men and women. Perhaps my experience are provincial (I hope so) but my experience has been that shelter and food for the poor, praying WITH (as opposed to FOR) the homeless and the poor, aiding those who are sick and visiting the imprisoned, etc., are not a large part of the Catholic laity’s routine - best left to financial contributions and the diocesan charities. One parish that I was in in Atlanta DID have a very active AIDS aid program - but it was in an area in which the majority of parishioners were in homosexual partnerships and is listed as a ‘gay friendly’ parish.
So I am somewhat disheartened by my fellow Catholics commitment to similar charitable works - and yet I fully support a breaking down of the iron curtain that separates Church and State (although, as the fellow who was first in charge of Bush’s first ‘faith-based initiatives’ programs resigned when he realized that the administration had no real commitment to the programs, I am ‘resigned’ to the idea that when I work alongside my separated brethren their doctrines will be as foreign to me as mine would be to them - but that’s not what you’re speaking of when you’re wrapping Christmas gifts for the children of penniless men and women who are doing their best to beat the addiction alcohol or crack cocaine.
From all the literature that I’ve read these types of substance abuse recovery programs, coupled with strong Christian principles, produce a rate of recovery and a decrease in recidivism that far outstrips those which have no Christian focus: my only wish is that there were more - or at least more visible and active - programs with the guidance of the Catholic Church.
Ben
M
m134e5
Guest
I agree on some separation. While I think prayer in school is ok, I don’t think the Church and the State should be totally integrated. If that were the case, since this country was founded by puritans (early fundamentalists, basically), fundamentalist Christianity would be the only legal religion in the US.
P
Petergee
Guest
And it was in Germany (and in England under Henry VIII) in the previous century that the idea of COMBINING Church and State had been invented by Protestants. Indeed historically the main driver of the Protestant Reformation was not doctrinal differences, but the desire of secular rulers to own and control the Church and its property. The Catholic position has always been that Church and State should be separate. Even in the Papal Sates, there was a clear demarcation between the Pope’s religious role and his role as civic ruler. And the 30 Years War was not primarily over religion, but a struggle for power between various German princes. “Catholic” France fought on the same side as the (mainly) Protestant German princes.
Neither Northern Ireland nor Lebanon has an established State religion.
P
Petergee
Guest
I hope it was not mischievous that you omitted to point out that this is merely a means of apportioning aid fairly. The reason people’s religion is registered is because the aid is distributed to different churches and religious bodies strictly in proportion to their presence in the population. i.e. those who can afford to are obliged to help support their own religious body, but people are free to belong to any or no religious body. At present the proportions in Germany are something like 35% Catholic, 45% Lutheran, 10% other Protestant, 5% non-Christian religions, 5% no religion.
M
Montie_Claunch
Guest
I have political ambitions of various sorts and I would cry if I had to give up my God for any amount of time to do so. I think that the decline and fall of nations is forseen by their devotness to God. The Soviets and the Nazis should have won in their perpective places in time. Both had what it took. The Soviets had all the resources in the world that one would need (more than we ever did) but they fell. The Nazis also heald most of the european continent and the soviets which had enough to have an orgy of blood (which both did but not to the extent they could have) and if one wants I could proboly do some research and find countless other examples of it.
So I think this philoshopy of seperation of C&S really holds us down more than holds us up. But then again I just might be nieve.
So I think this philoshopy of seperation of C&S really holds us down more than holds us up. But then again I just might be nieve.
P
Petergee
Guest
Actually I see now a more recent source quotes 35% Catholic, 30% Lutheran, 10% other Christian, 5% non-Christian religions (mainly Islam) and 20% no religion. My point is that it is quite wrong to state that “every tax payer” pays money to the Catholic Church. Only those Catholics who can afford it do so. Non-Catholics and poor Catholics pay nothing to the Church.
K
Kristina_P
Guest
I prefer “total separation” as laid down in the Constitution, not as judged by most modern folk. While it’s certainly a human construct and not a religious doctrine or anything, I think it’s best in a country made up of varying religious cultures for the government to stay out of religious matters altogether, as long as a religious group isn’t violating the rights of anyone else. Unfortunately, most people don’t realize that the “right not to be offended” doesn’t exist. If a group of high school kids wants to pray in a public school, they have that right. No one can take it away from them on the sole basis that they disagree with the practice of prayer. That’s like me saying, “I hate math. It really rankles me that there’s a math club over there working calculus problems. I’m gonna call the ACLU.” Thank God for lawyers, legislators, and judges willing to stand up for real freedom of religion, rather than caving in to people who want freedom from religion.
K
Kristina_P
Guest
Wildgraywolf said:
Exactly. People on both sides of the argument have charged the term “separation of church and state” with so much emotion and connotation that it’s hardly recognizable.
As for teaching ethical behavior in the schools, it is so incredibly far from teaching religion that anyone who objects to it on the grounds of the first amendment should be made a laughingstock. Indeed, I wasn’t even aware that anyone had made such objections.
B
buffalo
Guest
Kristina P.:
Do you want to live in a country that is taken over by atheists? Muslims? Modernists? Or do you want to protect the roots of this country?
BTW - where is total separation laid out in the Constitution?
You are faced with a choice. The country that was founded on Judeo-Christian morals or the “new” homogenized government where religious debate is removed from the public square.
Do you want to live in a country that is taken over by atheists? Muslims? Modernists? Or do you want to protect the roots of this country?
BTW - where is total separation laid out in the Constitution?
B
BioCatholic
Guest
as for the roots of this country, the SPECIFIC religion or GOD as defined by “Creator” is not mentioned. “Creator” could be daffy duck or bugs bunny for all we know. we may have judeao-christian roots, however, all religions are viewed with equal validity in the eyes of the government.
that means, a court or legislative body CANNOT hear or give credit to an argument that uses:
“the bible says…”
“pope XXX says…”
“mohammad said…”
if you create a law that states:
“contraception shall be illegal because it violates xxx church teaching, and God’s design for natural human sexual intercourse.”
you just cant do it. instead, there must be a COMPELLING INTEREST for the state/gov’t that seeks to protect constitutional rights (like “equal protections”), or establishment of systems and agencies to “promote the general welfare”.
that means, a court or legislative body CANNOT hear or give credit to an argument that uses:
“the bible says…”
“pope XXX says…”
“mohammad said…”
if you create a law that states:
“contraception shall be illegal because it violates xxx church teaching, and God’s design for natural human sexual intercourse.”
you just cant do it. instead, there must be a COMPELLING INTEREST for the state/gov’t that seeks to protect constitutional rights (like “equal protections”), or establishment of systems and agencies to “promote the general welfare”.
B
buffalo
Guest
Not originally.
- Status