One wonders, has I.D. not met the university math professors that go to Christian churches?
Or does he choose to ignore them? Pretend they do not exist.
Has he never walked the halls, past the office of graduate students, to find at certain times of day, the Islamic graduate students exercise their faith, praying in the direction of Mecca?
Does he not know they do not exist? Or does he ignore them, because it goes against his point?
Moreover, the head scratcher is, for the most part, what do his posts have to do with the Head Scratcher thread?

I.D said:

...and started when they [the extreme left wing] removed God from our schools.

School is school. Religion is religion. The two need not be mixed in a public school system. There are private schools as has been mentioned. I support everyone's right to attend religious schools if they please (and if they can afford it unfortunately).

I support everyone's right to practice any faith, follow any belief, and search for god or believe in god in any way they choose, free from ridicule and intervention.

But to have religion in any public school is to force [a specific] religion upon someone. This is the same wrongful action as denying someone the right to religion.

What if ones religious view is atheistic? By forcing religion in a public school, you are denying one the right and freedom to practice and believe their own view.

I can't really simplify that subject any more than that. But that's what I'd respond to I.D.'s comment about the separation of religion from school.

I would never let you tell me what to believe, however I'd let you tell me what you believe. And I'd never tell you what to believe either. It is a common respect thing.

---

#resist

William Rothamel,

What needs to be constitutionaly clarified is not freedom of religion or a prohibition on a STATE (National) religion but whether or not the Public has a right to freedom from religion (all religion, not just christian). In this vein should a publically funded institution be allowed to display religious symbols which are obviously not shared by all ; Creshes, 10 commandments, head scarf, yarmulkes. Since we are predominately a christian nation I don't mind christmas trees or even a menorah but I suspect others are offended or at least feel left out. I myself cannot get over mild displeasure in seeing a head scarf in the supermarket--probably because I feel that it demeans women.

During the time of the Shah educated women in Teheran generally dressed in "modern garb"--just as we do in the West.

It is constitutionaly clarified. I just did. You need intent of law to have a 'clarified' point of law. To look for intent you look to the founders.

Jefferson give alot of money and time to the Jewish people of this country and helped out in the building of the first Jewish Synagogue. He also for sure knew of the Islamic Faith, he went to war with them, yet, they are allowed just like any other Faith in this Country.

How you feel about anothers Faith has no meaning to that person of that Faith. How they go about their Faith is up to them. I like the moderate Muslim....

Sarge,

One wonders, has I.D. not met the university math professors that go to Christian churches?
Or does he choose to ignore them? Pretend they do not exist.
Has he never walked the halls, past the office of graduate students, to find at certain times of day, the Islamic graduate students exercise their faith, praying in the direction of Mecca?
Does he not know they do not exist? Or does he ignore them, because it goes against his point?
Moreover, the head scratcher is, for the most part, what do his posts have to do with the Head Scratcher thread?

I work at a College in Central Illinois.

I seen it [thread] take a turn and I latched onto the wheel. My apologies if I have offended you. I see there is a rule against hijacking a thread, if this is what the moderators call an 'offence' my apologies to them as well. Are you objecting or mad at me personally?

New Dave,

I.D said:

...and started when they [the extreme left wing] removed God from our schools.

School is school. Religion is religion. The two need not be mixed in a public school system. There are private schools as has been mentioned. I support everyone's right to attend religious schools if they please (and if they can afford it unfortunately).

I support everyone's right to practice any faith, follow any belief, and search for god or believe in god in any way they choose, free from ridicule and intervention.

But to have religion in any public school is to force [a specific] religion upon someone. This is the same wrongful action as denying someone the right to religion.

What if ones religious view is atheistic? By forcing religion in a public school, you are denying one the right and freedom to practice and believe their own view.

I can't really simplify that subject any more than that. But that's what I'd respond to I.D.'s comment about the separation of religion from school.

I would never let you tell me what to believe, however I'd let you tell me what you believe. And I'd never tell you what to believe either. It is a common respect thing.

While Sarge makes up his mind........

Atheism can be classified as a faith, some math and logic it's bible. I just ask that Creation as well as Intelligent Design also be taught. Id call that fair and equal treatment.

New Dave,

While Sarge makes up his mind........

Atheism can be classified as a faith, some math and logic it's bible. I just ask that Creation as well as Intelligent Design also be taught. Id call that fair and equal treatment.

I understand that SCOTUS and federal courts do not agree, they have found that religion has no place in a science classroom. Atheism has a much simpler definition than yours, the rejection of belief in supernatural beings. It seems we have another word with a definition that varies from person to person, "faith". Your definition of murder would lead to military personnel, farmers, etc being charged with that crime.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

New Dave,

While Sarge makes up his mind........

Atheism can be classified as a faith, some math and logic it's bible. I just ask that Creation as well as Intelligent Design also be taught. Id call that fair and equal treatment.

I understand that SCOTUS and federal courts do not agree, they have found that religion has no place in a science classroom. Atheism has a much simpler definition than yours, the rejection of belief in supernatural beings. It seems we have another word with a definition that varies from person to person, "faith". Your definition of murder would lead to military personnel, farmers, etc being charged with that crime.

No, the definition is agreeable to me.

[smile] Which Court system SCOTUS or federal system has found that religion may not be taught?

Intelligent Design does not tell a student what to believe other then a Designer must be the point. What or Who the Designer is, or is not, is up to the student. As you can tell by my capitalization; I think of a God.

As to military personnel, "Just War" doctrine covers this.

As to farmers, wellllll, you went over my head on this one. Please elaborate for me. Im talking about human life.

whether it agrees with you or not Intelligent Design has already been proven in court to be another ploy of the religious right to install religion in place of science. see here
more specifically here

Decision
Wikisource has original text related to this article:
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District et al.

On December 20, 2005, Judge Jones found for the plaintiffs and issued a 139 page decision, in which he wrote:

For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the religious nature of ID [intelligent design] would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child. (page 24)

A significant aspect of the IDM [intelligent design movement] is that despite Defendants' protestations to the contrary, it describes ID as a religious argument. In that vein, the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity. (page 26)

The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism. (page 31)

The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory. (page 43)

Throughout the trial and in various submissions to the Court, Defendants vigorously argue that the reading of the statement is not ‘teaching’ ID but instead is merely ‘making students aware of it.’ In fact, one consistency among the Dover School Board members' testimony, which was marked by selective memories and outright lies under oath, as will be discussed in more detail below, is that they did not think they needed to be knowledgeable about ID because it was not being taught to the students. We disagree. .... an educator reading the disclaimer is engaged in teaching, even if it is colossally bad teaching. .... Defendants’ argument is a red herring because the Establishment Clause forbids not just 'teaching' religion, but any governmental action that endorses or has the primary purpose or effect of advancing religion. (footnote 7 on page 46)

After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980s; and (3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. …It is additionally important to note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research. Expert testimony reveals that since the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, science has been limited to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena. (page 64)

[T]he one textbook [Pandas] to which the Dover ID Policy directs students contains outdated concepts and flawed science, as recognized by even the defense experts in this case. (pages 86–87)

ID's backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard. The goal of the IDM is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID. (page 89)

Accordingly, we find that the secular purposes claimed by the Board amount to a pretext for the Board's real purpose, which was to promote religion in the public school classroom, in violation of the Establishment Clause. (page 132)

What was interesting is the Judge was a solid Conservative Christian.

Or just watch the BBC documentary

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

Skildude,

I disagree with the court.

It was a Federal Court and it is not settled law. SCOTUS has not had it in it's hands yet.

I also object to how it was handled by the lawyers on the Kitzmiller side.

An ET who is 10,000 or a Million or more years Advanced, if they are Flesh and Blood, believes in GOD.

For all their Tech and Science, they, being Flesh and Blood, still Wonder Why. Why am I here?

Whether Galactic Travellers in Their Star Ships or Stay At Home ETs, They Believe.

Even after A Million Years of Ad Nauseam Discussions about GOD or NOT, a Million Years of Court Decisions, Wars, Civil Strife, They Believe.

Makes One Wonder. Why?

Because after Millions of Years of Science/Tech, there is Still The Unanswerables. And Unanswerables always Lead To GOD.

By The Way, I'm An Atheist, and An ET. Had to leave My GOD Damn Star System and find a place which has A Modicum Of Non-Believers.

Eh, What Can You Do? Join 'em, or Leave 'em.

DesignerClothersWearingDullNando

---

May we All have a METAMORPHOSIS. REASON. GOoD JUDGEMENT and LOVE and ORDER!!!!!

An ET who is 10,000 or a Million or more years Advanced, if they are Flesh and Blood, believes in GOD.

For all their Tech and Science, they, being Flesh and Blood, still Wonder Why. Why am I here?

Whether Galactic Travellers in Their Star Ships or Stay At Home ETs, They Believe.

Even after A Million Years of Ad Nauseam Discussions about GOD or NOT, a Million Years of Court Decisions, Wars, Civil Strife, They Believe.

Makes One Wonder. Why?

Because after Millions of Years of Science/Tech, there is Still The Unanswerables. And Unanswerables always Lead To GOD.

By The Way, I'm An Atheist, and An ET. Had to leave My GOD Damn Star System and find a place which has A Modicum Of Non-Believers.

Eh, What Can You Do? Join 'em, or Leave 'em.

DesignerClothersWearingDullNando

Interesting! I have so many questions for you.............

I my own defence about being off way off topic. Rick Santorum [topic in this thread] is a backer of Intelligent Design.

I await judgement. I'll stop till I hear from Sarge and a moderator.

heh you disagree. well then its settled. As mentioned in the BBC piece. It was a decision between ignorance of science and science. Ignorance is never a valid excuse. Science is based on reproduceable facts. Creationism and its renamed version called intelligent design are faith based. Notice the difference. Faith relies on belief in something that is not evident by fact. Science is evidence based facts. Or at least the best representation of facts as we understand them.

Evolution whether it is slow and progressive or a rapid progression does not change the fact that animals and their DNA change to adapt to their environment. Bacteria are probably the greatest example of adaptation to environment.
The science of astronomy and Geology easily demonstrate the existence of the world long before 6000 years ago.

We've discussed this years ago and we can do it again. I suggest you buy the NPR documentary of the Dover case. It gets very specific in how the Creationist/ID folks manipulated documents to convince the court that the 2 agendas we separate.

Sadly, they made a mistake when copying Creationist documents where they put "creationism" in a spot they had intended to say ID. It's pretty special to see the actual evolution from creationism to ID. Needless to say, whether you want to believe science is real is irrelevant. It works in the real world. From sending probes to the far side of the solar system or drilling for oil science that you refute actually works. Sorry, your faith has overruled your logic.

I prefer a melding of logic and faith, much like Rush singing Cygnus X-1 part II I see man needing more than faith alone and logic alone. We have to have a balance. Otherwise, what they describe in the song happens or has it already happened

most important part of the song

We can walk our road together
If our goals are all the same
We can run alone and free
If we pursue a different aim
Let the truth of love be lighted
Let the love of truth shine clear
Sensibility
Armed with sense and liberty
With the heart and mind united in a single
Perfect
Sphere

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

My sense is that your view is that until a court agrees with your views, they are simply wrong and eventually, your view -- the only right view -- will prevail.

As I noted earlier, discussions of faith with those who hold with an absolute certainty that their faith is the only correct faith and thus their views (political, social, moral, scientific or otherwise) are the only correct view, are essentially a useless exercise.

In your case, since you were born with this faith and knowledge progression and process are essentially denied.

The deal here is that others may hold to their faith, thus efforts by them to get you 'to see the light' or by you, 'to see the light' are simply ships passing in the night.

Skildude,

I disagree with the court.

It was a Federal Court and it is not settled law. SCOTUS has not had it in it's hands yet.

I also object to how it was handled by the lawyers on the Kitzmiller side.

New Dave,

While Sarge makes up his mind........

Atheism can be classified as a faith, some math and logic it's bible. I just ask that Creation as well as Intelligent Design also be taught. Id call that fair and equal treatment.

I understand that SCOTUS and federal courts do not agree, they have found that religion has no place in a science classroom. Atheism has a much simpler definition than yours, the rejection of belief in supernatural beings. It seems we have another word with a definition that varies from person to person, "faith". Your definition of murder would lead to military personnel, farmers, etc being charged with that crime.

No, the definition is agreeable to me.

[smile] Which Court system SCOTUS or federal system has found that religion may not be taught?

Intelligent Design does not tell a student what to believe other then a Designer must be the point. What or Who the Designer is, or is not, is up to the student. As you can tell by my capitalization; I think of a God.

As to military personnel, "Just War" doctrine covers this.

As to farmers, wellllll, you went over my head on this one. Please elaborate for me. Im talking about human life.

Now you say human life, you didn't before:

If someones takes another life then it is murder. There is no gray line. There might be degree of guilt.

Some say "meat is murder" it seems you are not of their number. You also left no room for a "Just War" doctrine. Are there shades of gray after all when it comes to taking another life?

SCOTUS has ruled on creationism:

Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987) was a legal case about the teaching of creationism that was heard by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1987. The Court ruled that a Louisiana law requiring that creation science be taught in public schools, along with evolution, was unconstitutional because the law was specifically intended to advance a particular religion. It also held that "teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to school children might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction."

I did not say religion could not be taught, I said it had no place in a science classroom. ID is clearly a religious, God based hypothesis; if God was not our designer, then who designed that designer, and so on until you reach the grand designer. The sophism required to argue it is not God is so transparent I'm surprised there are still some that make the case that ID is not a thinly veiled version of creationism. It's also ignorant of the wonders of evolution, why does an octopus have a better "designed" eye than a human?

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

I my own defence about being off way off topic. Rick Santorum [topic in this thread] is a backer of Intelligent Design.

I await judgement. I'll stop till I hear from Sarge and a moderator.

I've been working. The joys of a 5 day a week job that you really work all 7, or at least 6, days a week.

Regarding Santorum, I'm curious about how you'd respond, or anyone else, regarding my post about abortion.
And while I have not formulated my post yet, I found the response to the questions about murder, in general, and in relation to current events, to be dodgy.

ID said at one point that he could believe evolution was the intelligent design, but now says it can't be random chance. A little self contradiction.

Einstein said God doesn't play dice with he universe. As we now know the universe and all in it is a probability function, then there is no God, or he is wrong and God does play dice with the universe. Dice being random chance.

Better the causality principle can not be proved. Without it, you can not state there is reality. And the computer science proof that a program can not know if it is being simulated or on real hardware backs this up. Instead of: I think therefor I am; you get: I think, therefore there is thinking. Not satisfying nor something you can get a flock of sheep to hand cash over for.

One can go farther and ask if God is all knowing and all powerful. He can't be both or it is a contradiction. If he knows everything he can't forget, but is he has all power, forgetting is one of those powers. I think we disprove God, or at least the mythical God of organized religion.

For now go with all powerful. If a puny human mind can describe it, then to all powerful thing it is child's play! Simulate the universe in the all powerful thinking and allow it to be random chance, further at all decision points take all paths. When something comes up from that random chance that is alive, place a thread of your own consciousnesses into it. Collect the tread when the thing dies.

As you can not prove reality, the above is just as valid as anything else. Perhaps this makes more sense than the gobbledygook spewed by most organized religions. Grok?

---

IIRC, simply put, Darwin's goal was to explain the similarity and the diversity amongst Earth's life forms.
Why is a whale skeleton so much like ours?
I seemed, about 20 years ago, to score some points with a fan of Star Trek but conservative, fundamentalist Christian friend of mine that I'd grown up with (even went to the same church, so how he became fundamentalist, I am still not sure of), when I said something along the following: so, God's omnipotent, right? Why do most lifeforms on Earth have eyes, then? He could have created a different sense, and a different sensory organ, to do a different job, or a better job, right? I'm sure He's imaginative enough, right? So, if God exists, if he wanted to let evolution do some work for him, and that led to most lifeforms having eyes, that's Hio way and His business.
Sadly, I think I was only awarded temporary points. He remains staunchly fundamentalist, and I ... .

I have argued against abortion with the words you have posted. How can we ensure liberty and the pursuit of happiness if we take the life before the child has even drawn it's first breath?

I cannot ever recall hearing someone say he or she is "pro-abortion". It is pro-life versus pro-choice.
And I am willing to bet most/all here would not want to be involved in such a hard personal decision. My apologies to anyone who has had to be partof such a decision.
But here's the head scratcher ... .

Why are the adamantly pro-lifers so concerned with the choices others make?
Do you think God is going to rain down His wrath on us because we have not prevented others from making these decisions?
Is he going to d@mn us? D%mn America?

Well, no, that can't be, because there sure was an uproar when Reverend Wright suggested that's what God would do, rather than bless this country.

Scratch ...
scratch ...
scratch?

Because it's murder and the state does not sanction murder, well except in all the other cases where it does sanction the taking of another's life, but those ones are acceptable, this one is different.

;-)

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

I am pro life. Unlike most Pro life folks I won't stand in anyone's way that wants or needs an abortion.
It's not my life or my body. Much like prohibition it is a matter of choice. God allows us to make choices. It wouldn't be free will if he didn't.

I would also chose not to be with someone that will abort a child conceived with me. I am also not opposed to birth control although I think BC is screwing up wildlife because of the excessive amounts of female hormones being dumped into waste treatment and not being removed before waste water is allowed back into waterways.

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope