paullud
Veteran Expediter
"Or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" seems to be the forgotten part.
Sent from my SCH-I535 using EO Forums mobile app
People in TX are backwards
- Thread starter paullud
- Start date
"Or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" seems to be the forgotten part.
Sent from my SCH-I535 using EO Forums mobile app
Very true.
There seems to be the "belief" that I want "Christian" religions beliefs taught. Not so, ALL I said is that religion is a part of history, it cannot be removed from our history, and that history cannot be correctly taught without teaching about religion.
What I have been saying has NOTHING to do with anyone ONE religion, with any ONE group who have tried to destroy it. It is about ALL beliefs and their impact on Mankind.
Last edited:
WanderngFool
Active Expediter
But are you saying that a teacher should stand before the class and say in effect: "On the first day God created... And on the 2nd day God created..." And so on. Or are you saying that the teacher should offer her class a circumspective summation of what she considers the effects of religion on our history to be?
Teaching religion as if it's factual is entirely different from teaching about the effects of religion throughout the ages.
I THOUGHT I have said that history cannot be taught WITHOUT teaching it's effects throughout the ages. I THOUGHT I said that it was NOT do teach dogma.
ELECTIVE classes, that would go deeper into the dogmas of different religions would be wonderful. To gain understanding is valuable.
I DON'T understand the fixation with biblical teaching, IE the quote from Genesis. I NEVER suggested the teaching of Jude-Christian beliefs. Neither did I suggest that it HAD to be a woman teach it! (Last sentence a joke!)
Last edited:
WanderngFool
Active Expediter
I don't think I've ever tried to draw a hypothetical before and referred to someone like a teacher as a she when prehistoric guys like me remember HE is the word ya use. I gave it a try and it felt weird.
That "free exercise" is like free speech: it doesn't mean you can exercise it any time, any where, without limits.
What the founders wanted to avoid was the imposition of a state sanctioned religion, which is what a whole lot of Christians would like to see, though they'll deny it. The only way for the government to be strictly impartial is to stay out of the religion business altogether.
Which they're not, anyhow, giving tax breaks to religious organizations, and grants to religious speakers to promote 'abstinence only' programs in public schools [always a Christian group/speaker]. The Christian activists keep pushing the boundaries, trying to impose their beliefs in the classrooms, and the push back is inevitable.
The Christian bible is no more appropriate in a public school than the Koran, except for the purpose of teaching about all religions.That should be part of every student's knowledge base.
paullud
Veteran Expediter
The reason for free speech limitation is to stop people from doing something like yelling fire in a crowded theatre which could create a situation where someone could be hurt or killed. The local community deciding to have a nativity scene, Hanukkah decorations, or a Ramadan celebration presents no such issue. What the founders wanted to avoid was the federal government establishing a national religion and we know this because states had already set up theological governments.
Sent from my SCH-I535 using EO Forums mobile app
The fundamental problem with the Texas Board of Education (BoE), and many other Boards of Education, and most religious folks is, they have a fundamental misunderstanding of the difference between a "belief" and a "theory." Many of them think "theory = belief" no different from each other, synonymous with each other, interchangeable with each other.
A theory can be refuted, it allows for refutation. It even asks to be refuted. A belief, such as a religious belief, does not.
Example: if we started finding fossils that suddenly changed from one type of animal to another in a single generation, or fossils where the exact same collection of species are stagnant all the way back to the beginning of time, or even where identical complex features suddenly appeared in many species separated by a wide distance simultaneously... or if we weren't able to reproduce selective breeding or specification in the lab, or if no bacteria ever developed resistance to antibiotics, or if genetic tests on existing fossils hadn't shown genetic drift tempered by survivability in an environment...
These types of observations would start to refute, to falsify the Theory of Evolution. They would refute all or part of the theory. The theory would have to change to accommodate them. The Theory of Evolution has, in fact, been altered many times since its inception by Charles Darwin. The current Theory of Evolution is far different in the details than Charles Darwin's version of it.
There is no way to falsify or refute creationism. Any observation anyone makes can simply be explained as, "God made it that way." There is no way to refute it with evidence - it is a belief-based system that depends on supreme being instead of natural processes. Thus, it's not science.
"Creation science" is an oxymoron, because there is no science involved. None at all. They claim it's science, but it is not. It is pseudoscience, fake science. They don't even understand what constitutes real evidence as opposed to ideological zealotry. Real evidence proves something without any assumptions being made. Pseudo-scientific evidence of ideological zealotry, on the other hand, utterly depends on assumptions and preconceived conclusions to support the so-called evidence.
OK, so the crisis at hand in Texas is not with how they are teaching history or other courses, but a problem with a single biology textbook and how they are teaching science.
The Texas Board of Education had for 4 years at its head a person named Don McLeroy, appointed by Texas Governor Rick Perry in 2007. McLeroy is a young-Earth creationist who believes evolution is a fantasy. The current 28-member BoE is chock full of such similar appointments. Six of the members open reject Evolution in any form, and accept Creationism and Intelligent Design as the only viable options.
Earlier this year, the BoE sent out letters to “experts” asking to help them evaluate the high school biology textbooks being considered for use. Several of the “experts” were creationists, naturally, and they met recently to give their opinions. Most of their opinions have been made public. Including this one:
But of course, evolutionary biologists don’t have all the answers nor does evolution provide all the answers. It's an ongoing process of observation and experiment. And the textbook in question makes that very clear.
Another reviewer made this comment:
Teaching alternative theories in school is great, necessary even, as long as they are evidence-based and backed by solid observations and rigorous scientific methodology. Creationism doesn't even come close to fitting into that category. Creationism isn't even a theory, much less a science.
The other bone of contention in Texas is the way the textbooks are teaching Global Warming and Climate Change. It's a political bone. They're teaching that Climate Change is real (it is) but that it is one hundred percent caused by human activity (not nearly enough scientific evidence to support that position, is a political conclusion, not a scientific conclusion). The Texas BoE wants to not only remove the human-induced basis of Climate Change, but the fact that Climate Change is happening at all. That's gonna be hard to do since geology, cosmology, biology and astrophysics all show that climate change is a continual, ongoing process. But, as McLeroy says, the whole notion of Climate Change is "a load of hooey."
You don’t need faith to believe what the evidence suggests. You need faith to believe what the evidence doesn’t suggest.
A theory can be refuted, it allows for refutation. It even asks to be refuted. A belief, such as a religious belief, does not.
Example: if we started finding fossils that suddenly changed from one type of animal to another in a single generation, or fossils where the exact same collection of species are stagnant all the way back to the beginning of time, or even where identical complex features suddenly appeared in many species separated by a wide distance simultaneously... or if we weren't able to reproduce selective breeding or specification in the lab, or if no bacteria ever developed resistance to antibiotics, or if genetic tests on existing fossils hadn't shown genetic drift tempered by survivability in an environment...
These types of observations would start to refute, to falsify the Theory of Evolution. They would refute all or part of the theory. The theory would have to change to accommodate them. The Theory of Evolution has, in fact, been altered many times since its inception by Charles Darwin. The current Theory of Evolution is far different in the details than Charles Darwin's version of it.
There is no way to falsify or refute creationism. Any observation anyone makes can simply be explained as, "God made it that way." There is no way to refute it with evidence - it is a belief-based system that depends on supreme being instead of natural processes. Thus, it's not science.
"Creation science" is an oxymoron, because there is no science involved. None at all. They claim it's science, but it is not. It is pseudoscience, fake science. They don't even understand what constitutes real evidence as opposed to ideological zealotry. Real evidence proves something without any assumptions being made. Pseudo-scientific evidence of ideological zealotry, on the other hand, utterly depends on assumptions and preconceived conclusions to support the so-called evidence.
OK, so the crisis at hand in Texas is not with how they are teaching history or other courses, but a problem with a single biology textbook and how they are teaching science.
The Texas Board of Education had for 4 years at its head a person named Don McLeroy, appointed by Texas Governor Rick Perry in 2007. McLeroy is a young-Earth creationist who believes evolution is a fantasy. The current 28-member BoE is chock full of such similar appointments. Six of the members open reject Evolution in any form, and accept Creationism and Intelligent Design as the only viable options.
Earlier this year, the BoE sent out letters to “experts” asking to help them evaluate the high school biology textbooks being considered for use. Several of the “experts” were creationists, naturally, and they met recently to give their opinions. Most of their opinions have been made public. Including this one:
There we go. The "it's only a theory" gambit. The eternal shortcut to show you how ignorant of science the person is who utters it. Evolution isn’t just a guess, a belief with no basis in scientific fact. It really and truly is the basis of understanding for nearly all modern biology. We can't understand the basics of biology without understanding Evolution. If you apply creationism "science" to biology, all understanding of biology evaporates instantly. All learning stops.
But of course, evolutionary biologists don’t have all the answers nor does evolution provide all the answers. It's an ongoing process of observation and experiment. And the textbook in question makes that very clear.
Another reviewer made this comment:
There we go. Eternal Shortcut - Part Deux to just how ignorant of science someone is. Actually, transitional fossils have been found. Lots of them. All of them, in fact. Since evolution is a continuous process, all fossils are transition fossils. There is no “equal justification” to describe fossils in other interpretations. Not any based in science, that is. The only way you can interpret them in other ways is to discard science and introduce religious interpretations. But you can't teach that in public schools, for good reason. The First Amendment of the United States Constitution makes it clear that you cannot teach "creation science” in public schools, because that's religious doctrine, and would therefore be an establishment of religion. There have been many, many court cases about that, and they tend to fall on the side of reality. Teaching religion as fact in public schools is a big no-no, reinforced time and time again by the courts.
Teaching alternative theories in school is great, necessary even, as long as they are evidence-based and backed by solid observations and rigorous scientific methodology. Creationism doesn't even come close to fitting into that category. Creationism isn't even a theory, much less a science.
The other bone of contention in Texas is the way the textbooks are teaching Global Warming and Climate Change. It's a political bone. They're teaching that Climate Change is real (it is) but that it is one hundred percent caused by human activity (not nearly enough scientific evidence to support that position, is a political conclusion, not a scientific conclusion). The Texas BoE wants to not only remove the human-induced basis of Climate Change, but the fact that Climate Change is happening at all. That's gonna be hard to do since geology, cosmology, biology and astrophysics all show that climate change is a continual, ongoing process. But, as McLeroy says, the whole notion of Climate Change is "a load of hooey."
You don’t need faith to believe what the evidence suggests. You need faith to believe what the evidence doesn’t suggest.
The reason for free speech limitation is to stop people from doing something like yelling fire in a crowded theatre which could create a situation where someone could be hurt or killed.
It's a little more than that shopworn example used to illustrate it to 2nd graders. "Free" speech is restricted in many ways, to prevent fraud, slander, entrapment, inciting violence or sedition or treason, to name a few. The point of free speech is that citizens are free to criticize the government openly, without fear of imprisonment. It wasn't meant to allow anyone to say anything without repercussions.
The local community deciding to have a nativity scene, Hanukkah decorations, or a Ramadan celebration presents no such issue. What the founders wanted to avoid was the federal government establishing a national religion and we know this because states had already set up theological governments.
It can be a very short step between endorsing and establishing - as in "slippery slope". The only way the government can avoid any hint of establishing [or endorsing or showing preference for] a particular religion is to remain 100% neutral.
If a community decides to have a religious display on public property, that is an implicit endorsement of that religion, and that is precisely what the founders wanted to prevent. Not the practice of worship, but the public endorsement of one kind over another.
Even though many had strong religious beliefs, they knew that their beliefs were not identical, and that seemingly small differences in ideology can lead to major schisms & splinter groups within a single 'religion' [ ie:Calvinist, Methodists, Baptists] so they wanted to avoid any potential interference with the government by religious dissidents. People have a strange way of becoming an inflamed mob at times, you know?
And I bet the idea of the Puritans becoming popular again scared them silly too, lol.
How is it that I said exactly that in post #14, and you ask "how is it that no one seems to understand"?
The person who doesn't understand seems to be you.
"No one seems to understand" was a general statement not aimed at anyone individual here.
paullud
Veteran Expediter
Yes, I know your free speech ends when it could hurt someone. I already said that.
No, it is not a short step at all. In fact there is a considerable difference in saying this is your new religion and the tax payers deciding that they want to represent their community.
It is not an endorsement but it is a representation of the community. That is not at all what the founders were trying to prevent, they were trying to prevent the federal government from establishing a national religion. We have very clear undeniable proof of this because the states had already started using religion in their government.
No they just didn't want someone like the King of England taking over their religion.
Sent from my SCH-I535 using EO Forums mobile app
paullud
Veteran Expediter
They could all agree that they want each religion in their community represented once or twice a year. That's called mutual respect for other humans and is not a cult.
You seem to be eliminating the fact that I mentioned multiple religions celebrating their holidays so you can lecture me.
There is a Christian majority so we are a Christian nation but there isn't a majority or anything close to it trying to establish it as a national religion. Where do you come up with this?
ABSOLUTELY incorrect. Why do you keep ignoring my statement about the fact that the states already had established theological governments? You keep trying to parrot someone else instead of dealing with the truth.
Sent from my SCH-I535 using EO Forums mobile app
The same can be said of every other issue known to man, whether it be a stop sign at this intersection or how often to mow the grass at the city park. With the exception of extremely small communities, and even those are iffy, you will never have everyone agree 100% of the time on everything.
It's not because "theirs don't count." It's because "theirs" isn't representative of the community as a whole. There are Jewish communities in Pittsburgh, one rather large one, in fact (Squirrel Hill), that has Jewish displays all round the community during the Jewish holidays. It is far from 100 percent Jewish. They don't have a lot of Christmas displays, not because Christianity doesn't count, but because it doesn't represent the community as a whole.
Read this page from the Library of Congress about the Founding Fathers and their genius regarding religion. That's Page 1. Page 2 is equally informative.
Don't worry, we won't. The Constitution, far too many legal precedents, and even more people, make it impossible for us to have a national religion. We can't even have a national language. No way they could ever get a national religion through there.
As the information at the above link makes clear, it wasn't so much that government shouldn't be involved as it was the federal government should be involved. They believed it was up to the states to do as they please, including establishing a state religion. Washington and Adams were both very religious and incorporated it into their personal and political lives. Few speeches were given that didn't reference God in some manner. But while both of them, and many, many others of the Founding Father ilk endorsed religion, they didn't try to establish one, and there is, in fact, a large jump between the two. You can acknowledge and endorse (declare an approval or support of) religion, even a particular one, without trying to force that religion onto others. The concept of the separation of church and state was never meant to disavow or ignore religion, or prevent it from being uttered or practiced by those within the government.
Paullud said: "There is a Christian majority, so we are a Christian nation."
That's what I'm talking about: the Christians feel they represent the entire populace - or should. If the majority were to shift, so that Muslims or Hindus became the majority, would that principle still hold?
Yes, you can find the odd community of people who share the same religion, from the Jews to the Serbian Orthodox enclaves, but that's not a typical American community at all.
And if it's 'divisive' for the Feds to pick a religion, it would be every bit as much for the states to do it.
That's what I'm talking about: the Christians feel they represent the entire populace - or should. If the majority were to shift, so that Muslims or Hindus became the majority, would that principle still hold?
Yes, you can find the odd community of people who share the same religion, from the Jews to the Serbian Orthodox enclaves, but that's not a typical American community at all.
And if it's 'divisive' for the Feds to pick a religion, it would be every bit as much for the states to do it.
"And if it's 'divisive' for the Feds to pick a religion, it would be every bit as much for the states to do it."
Nope, it's called "States Right's". The People, within a state, have the right, if they so chose, to have a "state religion". It would not have the same affect as a "National Religion" because those who did not agree could move to another state. Each state is a "mini experiment" in democracy.
The 10th Amendment enumerates that right rather clearly. If it is not assigned to the Federal Government in the Constitution, it is reserved for the States and ultimately the People. The idea of a state religion is not mentioned in the Constitution so it is absolutely reserved to the States and the People. The Federal government, and courts, have no legal standing in this argument.
The 10th Amendment is very clear.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
Nope, it's called "States Right's". The People, within a state, have the right, if they so chose, to have a "state religion". It would not have the same affect as a "National Religion" because those who did not agree could move to another state. Each state is a "mini experiment" in democracy.
The 10th Amendment enumerates that right rather clearly. If it is not assigned to the Federal Government in the Constitution, it is reserved for the States and ultimately the People. The idea of a state religion is not mentioned in the Constitution so it is absolutely reserved to the States and the People. The Federal government, and courts, have no legal standing in this argument.
The 10th Amendment is very clear.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
Isn't that like Obamacare. One side (the majority) wants the other to pay for it?
Where did I say the states have no right to do it? I said it would be even more divisive than if the Feds do it, but you have to tell us [as always] about 'States rights'. That's not the question.
It would be divisive, and that's why it's never been done. Not because the states have no right, but because it's a very bad idea.
Um - which side is "the majority"? Because it looks like we're ALL going to pay for it. But since when is that any different? I mean, don't we always want "the other guy" to pay for everything?
We're all guilty of the NIMBY thing, aren't we?