|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Which religion's creation story should be taught? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PecosGeorge Member (Idle past 6901 days) Posts: 863 From: Texas Joined: |
You see what happens if you wait long enough, Mike?
Thanks. We are not all bad. Some of us actually know what the Bible actually teaches. And it does not teach to slam-dunk your neighbor, split his skull with a two-by-four, or beat him to death with words.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LDSdude Inactive Member |
After America's founding, Religion was to be taught in schools. The founding fathers knew that it was wrong to teach a certain religion, so Benjamin Franklin wrote as to what should be taught:
You desire to know something of my religion. It is the first time I have been questioned upon it. But I cannot take your curiosity amiss, and shall endeavor in a few words to gratify it. Here is my creed. I believe in one God, the creator of the universe.That he governs by his providence. That he ought to be worshipped. That the most acceptable service we render to him is doing good to his other children. That the soul of man is immortal, and will be treated with justice in another life respecting its conduct in this. These I take to be the fundamental points in all sound religion, and I regard them as you do in whatever sect I meet with them. As to Jesus of Nazareth, my opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think his system of morals and his religion, as he left them to us, the best the world ever saw or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupting changes,and I have, with most of the present dissenters in England, some doubts as to his divinity; though it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the truth with less trouble. I see no harm, however, in its being believed, if that belief has the good consequences, as probably it has, of making his doctrines more respected and more observed; especially as I do not perceive that the Supreme takes it amiss, by distinguishing the unbelievers in his government of the world with any peculiar marks of his displeasure. Benj. Franklin, Letter to Ezra Stiles, 9 March 1790, in John Bigelow, ed., The Works of Benjamin Franklin, at 12:185-86 (New York: Putnam’s, 1904) (paragraphing edited and bullets added for readability). This is the best method because it shows the views of all religions without breaking the first amendment.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pink sasquatch Member (Idle past 6051 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: |
The founding fathers knew that it was wrong to teach a certain religion, so Benjamin Franklin wrote as to what should be taught: I'm not familar with the full context of this passage, but I see no mention of teaching religion in state-funded schools. Will you please point out where Ben states that?
BF: I believe in one God, the creator of the universe. LDS: This is the best method because it shows the views of all religions without breaking the first amendment. How does studying only monotheistic deity-worship show the view of all religions, exactly? You do realize there are other spiritual frameworks out there, don't you? Not to mention atheism.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JRTjr Member (Idle past 4334 days) Posts: 178 From: Houston, Texas, USA Joined: |
Dear Steen,
Thank you for responding to my posting. I would, however, request that you take a second look at my posting. I am afraid that you have overlooked a few things. For one, I do not claim scientific evidence for the "S.C. I said there are only three ‘Creation Stories’ that people claim are scientific. On the subject of Long Creationism, I could probably write volumes about how science is constantly discovering more and more evidence that support this mode; however I don’t have to, there are already many books out there that show the scientific evidence for what I have termed Long Creationism. If you’re really interested in this evidence you could start with these two books. The Genesis Question by Hugh Ross Navpress 1998, and The Fingerprint of God also by Hugh Ross Promise Publishing Co. 1991. Both are available at Home - Reasons to Believe. Or you could just go to the website and poke around a bit.
For God so greatly loved and dearly prized the world, that He [even] gave up His only begotten (unique) Son, that whoever believes in (trusts in, clings to, relies on) Him should not perish (come to destruction, be lost), but have eternal (everlasting) life. For God did not sent the Son in to the world in order to judge (to reject, to condemn, to pass sentence on) the world, But that the world might find salvation and be made safe and sound through Him. John 3:16, 17 (Amplified Bible)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
This is the best method because it shows the views of all religions without breaking the first amendment. Except for the polytheists, the animists, and the positive (not agnostic) atheists. But nobody gives a fuck about them, right?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
CRashfrog writes: But nobody gives a fuck about them, right? Nobody gives a shit about them because there's not enough of them to count politically. This message has been edited by robinrohan, 01-24-2005 20:31 AM The dragon is by the side of the road, watching those who pass. Beware lest he devour you. We go to the Father of Souls but it is necessary to pass by the dragon.--Cyril of Jerusalem
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LDSdude Inactive Member |
Ben Franklins story can be found and explained at earlyamerica.com/lives/franklin/chapt9/
It is true that nowadays you can find all sorts of religions, but if we have to drop "one God" to acomadate certain peoples, fine. And as for atheists, I don't recall mentioning that Creationism is the ONLY thing that can be taught. I think Evolution is also something every student should be aquainted with. Only it should be taught as theory, not stated in the factual sense it is now. Creationism should also only be taught as theory. It is not impossible to teach creationism in school while keeping the first amendment.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 763 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
It is not impossible to teach creationism in school while keeping the first amendment.
That might be worth a thread of its own, LDSdude. I'd like to see a course outline on what you could say after "Once upon an uncertain time an unknown being/entity created all the stuff you see here by unknown means. No questions, please." Would you start such a thread, or should I?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jazzns Member (Idle past 3940 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined: |
It does violate the first ammendment by examination and and legal precedent.
Atheism and Agnosticism
In a 7-2 Court Decision in 1987 in the case of Edwards v. Aguillard, the Court invalidated Louisiana's "Creationism Act" because it violated the Establishment Clause. In his majority opinion, Justice Brennan wrote that the Lemon test had to be used to judge the constitutionality of the Creationism Act:
...the Creationism Act is designed either to promote the theory of creation science which embodies a particular religious tenet by requiring that creation science be taught whenever evolution is taught or to prohibit the teaching of a scientific theory disfavored by certain religious sects by forbidding the teaching of evolution when creation science is not also taught. The Establishment Clause, however, "forbids alike the preference of a religious doctrine or the prohibition of theory which is deemed antagonistic to a particular dogma." Because the primary purpose of the Creationism Act is to advance a particular religious belief, the Act endorses religion in violation of the First Amendment. Now is the winter of your discontent! -- Stewie Griffin
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JRTjr Member (Idle past 4334 days) Posts: 178 From: Houston, Texas, USA Joined: |
Dear Jazzns,
I was looking over some of the strings I posted to that never got a response and found your statement in response to:
LDSdude writes: It is not impossible to teach creationism in school while keeping the first amendment. (Message #97 01-25-2005) I also noted that no one ever responded to your post. If you do not mind, I would like to point something out. The case you referred to calms that:
the Act endorses religion in violation of the First Amendment. The First Amendment States, in part:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof Since the U.S. Congress is the only Federal body that can constitutionally create Federal Law in the United States of America the Supreme Court overstepped its bound by making up a Separation of Church and State rule.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jacortina Member (Idle past 5112 days) Posts: 64 Joined: |
Since the U.S. Congress is the only Federal body that can constitutionally create Federal Law in the United States of America the Supreme Court overstepped its bound by making up a Separation of Church and State rule. The Constitution itself names the Supreme Court as the ONLY body which can interpret the meaning of the Constitution. In that specific and fully supported role, the SC interpreted the First Amendment in light of writings of the founders as to its intent and decided that a 'wall of separation' was indeed that intent. In other words, they didn't make any law - the law was already in place.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JRTjr Member (Idle past 4334 days) Posts: 178 From: Houston, Texas, USA Joined: |
Dear Jacortina,
Thank you for joining in on our little discussion.
Jacortina writes: The Constitution itself names the Supreme Court as the ONLY body which can interpret the meaning of the Constitution. I agree with you 100%. What gets me, though, is how they came up with this Separation of Church and State rule. The key word here is Interpret. The Supreme Court is to ‘Interpret’ the U.S. Constitution not ‘redefine’ it. Have you read any of the founding documents? I would suggest you read what President Thomas Jefferson actually said about a ‘Separation of Church and State’. It was meant to keep the State out of religious affairs, not to keep religion out of the State’s affairs. Also, as explained below, the 1st Amendment restricts the Government not religion. As a mater of fact the 1st Amendment expressly states, in no uncertain terms, that religious expression may not be restricted by the Federal Government at all. No matter what was said or implied by our founding Fathers; The 1st Amendment is quite clear no law may be made respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof!; however, this is exactly what is being done under the guise of ‘Separation of Church and State’. Consider these:
Daniel L. Dreisbach writes: Jefferson’s trope emphasizes separation between church and state, unlike the First Amendment, which speaks in terms of the non-establishment and free exercise of religion. (Although these terms are often conflated today, in the lexicon of 1802, the expansive concept of ‘separation’ was distinct from the institutional concept of ‘non-establishment.’) the very nature of a wall further re-conceptualizes First Amendment principles. A wall is a bilateral barrier that inhibits the activities of both the civil state and religion, unlike the First Amendment, which imposes restrictions on civil government only. The First Amendment, with all its guarantees, was entirely a check or restraint on civil government, specifically Congress. The free press guarantee, for example, was not written to protect the civil state from the press; rather, it was designed to protect a free and independent press from control by the federal government. The Heritage Foundation | The Heritage Foundation David Barton — David Barton writes: the "separation" phrase so frequently invoked today was rarely mentioned by any of the Founders; and even Jefferson's explanation of his phrase is diametrically opposed to the manner in which courts apply it today. "Separation of church and state" currently means almost exactly the opposite of what it originally meant.The Separation of Church and State - WallBuilders So Congress, by redefining what Jefferson said, has made up a ‘rule’ and used it (or should I say misused it) to trump (if not to replace) established Constitutional Law.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Izanagi Member (Idle past 5245 days) Posts: 263 Joined:
|
Let's get some facts straight first about the Constitution and the Supreme Court:
1) The Supreme Court wasn't granted the power of Judicial Review by the Constitution. Prior to the landmark case of Marbury v. Madison (1803), the Supreme Court was considered a superfluous body and there were talks of getting rid of it. Chief Justice Marshall, however, saw an opportunity to delineate what the role of the Supreme Court would be in government. In keeping with the Constitutional framework of checks and balances, Marshall interpreted the role of the Supreme Court to be that of Judicial Review - that is, the Court would keep the other two Branches in line by reviewing whether actions of government before the Court is allowed within the Constitution or if the Constitution has been violated by the action. But understand that the Judicial Branch has no real power. The Supreme Court does not have a military to enforce its decisions, it cannot punish anyone for disregarding a Court decision. And even if there's a particular topic the Court wishes to address, it has to wait for a case to get to it. In short, neither of the other two Branches, the states, nor any part of the Federal Court system has to follow anything the Supreme Court decides and even if the Court wishes to clarify an issue, it has to wait for the right case to come along. The Court has less power than people imagine. 2) The Bill of Rights was Madison's brainchild. If you are going to quote anyone, quote Madison, who fervently believed in keeping the Church and the State separate. To quote Madison
quote: 3) The full text of the 1st Amendment reads,
quote:The specific part of the First Amendment people focus on is Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion commonly referred to as the Establishment Clause. Because language in the Constitution is rarely clear and open to interpretation, there have been many different doctrines of what this means, all of which try to draw upon the beliefs of the Founding Fathers. These doctrines are a. Wall of Separation - Interpreted Justice Black in Everson v. Board of Ed. (1947), Black wrote in the Court's opinion that quote:thus separating Church and State with a wall. The State can have nothing to do with the Church and the Church has nothing to do with the State. Oddly enough, the case dealt with using government funds to send children to a parochial school to which Black said was not unconstitutional. b. Religion Neutral - I'm not sure of the exact term, but the idea is that government can be friendly towards all religions, as long as government does not favor one over the other. A specific example is that all churches are tax-exempt. The test often used to test for this is the Lemon Test created Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) The Lemon Test has three prongs (sometimes a fourth prong introduced by Justice O'Connor is used) in which legislation must show it has a secular legislative purpose, does nothing to advance nor inhabit any religion, and does not result in excessive entanglement of government and religion. O'Connor's corollary is the endorsement test which tests whether the government action is intended to show endorsement or disapproval of a religion. c) Religion Friendly - Again, uncertain of the exact term, but basically Government can do any thing it wants with regards to religion EXCEPT establish a state religion. 4) Once again, judging solely on the wording of the Constitution, we are uncertain as to how to interpret it. The Founding Fathers were well-educated and well-read. Much of their ideas present in the Declaration and the Constitution were drawn from celebrated thinkers like Locke, Rousseau, and Hobbes. They were also well aware that many of the colonists were unwelcome in England because they were not members of the state church of England. And based upon their correspondence, writings, speeches, and actions, it is clear that many of the Founding Fathers were Deists, but may not necessarily have been Fundamental Christians. And even if they were fundamentally Christian, it would still be clear that they expected the Church and State to be separate entities. What does that mean for this argument? Well, the current test for the Establishment Clause suggests that public schools could teach creation stories as long as they were willing to teach all creation stories and as long as they don't teach those creation stories in science classrooms. Again, keeping in mind that the First Amendment only specifies that Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion and considering the history of the Founding Fathers and their spiritual nature, it is unclear whether many of the Founding Fathers would agree with this statement. However, it is clear that beyond traditional practices, the Founding Fathers would frown upon having only one specific creation story taught as that would begin to favor one religion over all others and while may not create a de jure state religion, such an action and other actions by government favoring one specific religion would constitute a de facto state religion which would be against the spirit of the Constitution. Edited by Izanagi, : No reason given. Edited by Izanagi, : No reason given. Edited by Izanagi, : No reason given. Edited by Izanagi, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JRTjr Member (Idle past 4334 days) Posts: 178 From: Houston, Texas, USA Joined: |
Dear Izanagi,
I am afraid that this is ‘off topic’. However, I would love to discus this with you; if you’re interested put your comments in to a new string and e-mail me and we can pick up where we left off.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 763 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
David Barton —
- is well-known to invent quotes from Jefferson and that founder bunch when it suits Barton's agenda. He's a political hack, not a Constitutional scholar. The current law of the United States, Texas included, despite our State Board of Education, prohibits teaching religion in public school science classrooms.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024