Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 114 (8789 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 09-20-2017 10:32 AM
350 online now:
Coyote, DrJones*, dwise1, GDR, halibut, Phat (AdminPhat) (6 members, 344 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Porkncheese
Post Volume:
Total: 819,157 Year: 23,763/21,208 Month: 1,728/2,468 Week: 237/822 Day: 30/82 Hour: 0/5

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
91011
12
1314Next
Author Topic:   Is America a Christian Nation?
Evangelical Humanists
Junior Member (Idle past 1781 days)
Posts: 14
Joined: 05-27-2012


Message 166 of 206 (663976)
05-28-2012 6:42 AM
Reply to: Message 165 by Dr Adequate
05-27-2012 11:39 PM


Re: Madison And Jefferson
There seems to be an inconsistency in your narrative.

Your right that was a typo om my part sorry.

Edited by Evangelical Humanists, : No reason given.

Edited by Evangelical Humanists, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-27-2012 11:39 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 13622
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 167 of 206 (664005)
05-28-2012 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by Jzyehoshua
05-26-2012 9:32 PM


Re: Madison And Jefferson
Jzyehoshua writes:

By today's standards such a definition of religious freedom, omitting atheists, is inadequate, but at the time it was a huge step forward.


By my standards, freedom of religion doesn't mean the right to pracitce the religion of your choice (or no religion). It means freedom from domination by any religion.

In Canada, the dominant religion is Roman Catholicism. Those of us who are not Catholics don't want our government dominated by Catholics or Catholic ideas. (Of course, many Catholics don't want that either.) For that reason, fundamentalists in Canada seem quite happy with separation of church and state.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by Jzyehoshua, posted 05-26-2012 9:32 PM Jzyehoshua has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9912
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 3.3


(2)
Message 168 of 206 (664014)
05-28-2012 3:51 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by Jzyehoshua
05-26-2012 9:32 PM


Re: Madison And Jefferson
Well, as far as being a Christian nation, Penn's government:

We are discussing your claim that the US is a Christian nation. I agree that Penn included some Christian principles in Pennsylvania's government. But none of the Christian stuff made it into our Constitution.

And this lengthy post of yours does nothing to advance your claim. It's just a long list of things in Penn's government.

I find discussing things with you somewhat frustrating because you have a problem supporting your propositions with making on point, fact based arguments.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison


This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by Jzyehoshua, posted 05-26-2012 9:32 PM Jzyehoshua has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by RAZD, posted 05-28-2012 4:18 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply
 Message 171 by Jzyehoshua, posted 05-28-2012 7:47 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18961
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 169 of 206 (664017)
05-28-2012 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by NoNukes
05-28-2012 3:51 PM


Re: Madison And Jefferson
Hi NoNukes, I agree

I find discussing things with you somewhat frustrating because you have a problem supporting your propositions with making on point, fact based arguments ...

... and that are related to the topic issues. I've had the same problem on the age correlations thread.

Perhaps what we are dealing with is strong confirmation bias, a condition that leads one to the impression that some cherry-picked piece of evidence is all that is necessary while ignoring the rest of the picture that doesn't fit the beliefs.

quote:
Confirmation bias (also called confirmatory bias or myside bias) is a tendency of people to favor information that confirms their beliefs or hypotheses.[Note 1][1] People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way. The effect is stronger for emotionally charged issues and for deeply entrenched beliefs. For example, in reading about gun control, people usually prefer sources that affirm their existing attitudes. They also tend to interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing position. Biased search, interpretation and memory have been invoked to explain attitude polarization (when a disagreement becomes more extreme even though the different parties are exposed to the same evidence), belief perseverance (when beliefs persist after the evidence for them is shown to be false), the irrational primacy effect (a greater reliance on information encountered early in a series) and illusory correlation (when people falsely perceive an association between two events or situations).

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by NoNukes, posted 05-28-2012 3:51 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18961
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.7


(2)
Message 170 of 206 (664037)
05-28-2012 6:49 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by Jzyehoshua
05-26-2012 9:32 PM


and then there is Roger Williams ...
Hi Jzyehoshua,

Well, as far as being a Christian nation, Penn's government: ...

And yet this is just one of the colonies, so if you are going to look at the colonies you have to look at all of them, not just the one/s that meet your beliefs and opinions.

For instance Roger Williams and Providence Plantation (later Rhode Island)

quote:
Roger Williams (c. 1603 – between January and March 1683) was an English Protestant theologian who was an early proponent of religious freedom and the separation of church and state. In 1636, he began the colony of Providence Plantation, which provided a refuge for religious minorities. Williams started the first Baptist church in America, the First Baptist Church of Providence. He was a student of Native American languages and an advocate for fair dealings with Native Americans. Williams was arguably the very first abolitionist in North America, having organized the first attempt to ban slavery in any of the original thirteen colonies.

He knew first hand what happens when there is a state religion -- not from england, but from Massachusetts

quote:
Religion, 1599-1683

... His views on religion and government quickly embroiled him in disputes with the Massachusetts authorities in Salem and Boston. He upset the elders by denouncing the Massachusetts Bay charter, which allowed the confiscation of Native American lands without compensation and the punishment of purely religious transgressions by the civil officials. Both of those practices offended Williams’ sensibilities.

In 1635, he was expelled from the church and placed under an order of expulsion from the colony. He was granted time to tidy up his affairs, but continued his agitation. Exasperated officials decided to send him back to England, but Williams departed from Massachusetts on his own accord and spent three months living with local Indians. In 1636, he and a number of followers established the settlement of Providence on Narragansett Bay, a colony notable for the fact that the Indians were paid for the title to their lands. Williams founded the first Baptist Church in America, but soon withdrew and thereafter referred to himself as a "seeker," meaning basically a nondenominational Christian in search of spiritual truth.

One of Williams’ beliefs had caused particular grief among the authorities. He argued that an individual Christian would know when he was saved, but could not know about the salvation of others. Therefore, it was senseless to require a religious qualification for voting. In essence, Williams was calling for the complete separation of church and state, a position that undercut the authority of the church and civic leaders.

Williams obtained a royal charter for Rhode Island in 1644, an action that demonstrated a practical side to his character. He continued to believe that the king did not hold title to Indian lands, but realized that his colony would be more secure from English opponents if he held a charter.

Under Williams' influence, Rhode Island became a haven for those who suffered from religious persecution, including Jews and Quakers.


Note that he was lucky not to be stoned or burned at the stake as other people were in the Plymouth and Salem colonies.

Because of the religious freedom that he insisted on, the oldest synagogue in North America is located in Newport RI.

And we should also remember that not all the colonies were founded by religious groups looking for religious freedom in the new land, there were also merchant colonies.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by Jzyehoshua, posted 05-26-2012 9:32 PM Jzyehoshua has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by Jzyehoshua, posted 05-28-2012 7:48 PM RAZD has responded

  
Jzyehoshua
Inactive Member


Message 171 of 206 (664041)
05-28-2012 7:47 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by NoNukes
05-28-2012 3:51 PM


Re: Madison And Jefferson
quote:
We are discussing your claim that the US is a Christian nation. I agree that Penn included some Christian principles in Pennsylvania's government. But none of the Christian stuff made it into our Constitution.

And this lengthy post of yours does nothing to advance your claim. It's just a long list of things in Penn's government.


That lengthy post was in reply to NoNukes after they questioned whether Pennsylvania was a Christian government. It achieved its purpose of showing that Pennsylvania definitely was a Christian government.

As for anything Christian making it into the U.S. Constitution, it did make it into all the state constitutions, which all reference God.

http://www.usconstitution.net/states_god.html
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/g/god-constitutions.htm

It did make it into the Declaration of Independence. It did make it into Jefferson's Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom. Just because the U.S. Constitution isn't as explicit as the state constitutions or those other 2 major sources, doesn't negate the fact that American democracy as we know it began with William Penn and a very definitely Christian nation.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by NoNukes, posted 05-28-2012 3:51 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

  
Jzyehoshua
Inactive Member


Message 172 of 206 (664042)
05-28-2012 7:48 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by RAZD
05-28-2012 6:49 PM


Re: and then there is Roger Williams ...
And yet this is just one of the colonies, so if you are going to look at the colonies you have to look at all of them, not just the one/s that meet your beliefs and opinions.

Fair enough. Just show me what other colonies had Congressional governing systems with checks and balances, freedom of religion, fair elections, and trial by jury, and I'll be happy to take a look at them.

For instance Roger Williams and Providence Plantation (later Rhode Island)

But by your own acknowledgement wasn't Williams, another early proponent of religious freedom, a Baptist? I appreciate the info, I wasn't aware of Williams, but you didn't really point out how the government he set up was not Christian in nature. Because if it was - as might be expected of a Baptist minister - then wouldn't it just be an additional proof, along with Penn, that America's origins, along with the origins of religious freedom, were Christian in nature?

Edited by Jzyehoshua, : No reason given.

Edited by Jzyehoshua, : No reason given.

Edited by Jzyehoshua, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by RAZD, posted 05-28-2012 6:49 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by RAZD, posted 05-28-2012 8:40 PM Jzyehoshua has not yet responded
 Message 174 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-28-2012 8:49 PM Jzyehoshua has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18961
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 173 of 206 (664055)
05-28-2012 8:40 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by Jzyehoshua
05-28-2012 7:48 PM


Re: and then there is Roger Williams ... and the Iroquois
Jzyehoshua

Fair enough. Just show me what other colonies had Congressional governing systems with checks and balances, freedom of religion, fair elections, and trial by jury, and I'll be happy to take a look at them.

None of which are found in any bible as far as I know. Perhaps you can enlighten me.

Not coming from the bible means not from christian sources but other sources, even if then espoused by christian leaders.

quote:
... Williams founded the first Baptist Church in America, but soon withdrew and thereafter referred to himself as a "seeker," meaning basically a nondenominational Christian in search of spiritual truth. ...

... then wouldn't it just be an additional proof, along with Penn, that America's origins, along with the origins of religious freedom, were Christian in nature?

No, because his views were in conflict with the religious views regarding the running of government.

You just had a lot of Christians but they also had concepts from other sources than Christianity (a Christian doing math does not make math Christian in origin does it?), and they were mixed with other people, and in Roger Williams view, especially with the Native Indians. Benjamin Franklin also so profound value in Native Indian government and its procedures and processes.

The Iroquois in particular are known to have influenced many founding fathers on their way of governments.

http://www.ratical.com/many_worlds/6Nations/FF.html

quote:
... well-organized polities governed by a system that one contemporary of Franklin's, Cadwallader Colden, wrote had "outdone the Romans." Colden was writing of a social and political system so old that the immigrant Europeans knew nothing of its origins -- a federal union of five (and later six) Indian nations that had put into practice concepts of popular participation and natural rights that the European savants had thus far only theorized. The Iroquoian system, expressed through its constitution, "The Great Law of Peace," rested on assumptions foreign to the monarchies of Europe: it regarded leaders as servants of the people, rather than their masters, and made provisions for the leaders' impeachment for errant behavior. The Iroquois' law and custom upheld freedom of expression in political and religious matters, and it forbade the unauthorized entry of homes. It provided for political participation by women and the relatively equitable distribution of wealth. These distinctly democratic tendencies sound familiar in light of subsequent American political history -- yet few people today (other than American Indians and students of their heritage) know that a republic existed on our soil before anyone here had ever heard of John Locke, or Cato, the Magna Charta, Rousseau, Franklin, or Jefferson.

I suggest you read the whole thing if you are truly interested in the source of concepts used in the Constitution and the founding of America - the "great experiment" - in ways that differed from European Christians, kings, etc.

These concepts are basic to the fabric of America, and they did not come from any type of Christianity I know of, nor from any European source I know of.

Roger Williams lived with the local Native Americans here before founding his colony, and only got the colony charter for political reasons, not because he felt it gave him any additional authority. Interesting person (and not all a saint either, but none of the founding fathers were eh?).

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by Jzyehoshua, posted 05-28-2012 7:48 PM Jzyehoshua has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15950
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.6


(1)
Message 174 of 206 (664057)
05-28-2012 8:49 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by Jzyehoshua
05-28-2012 7:48 PM


Re: and then there is Roger Williams ...
I wasn't aware of Williams, but you didn't really point out how the government he set up was not Christian in nature.

When Williams and his associates applied for a Royal Charter, they asked the King to grant full freedom of conscience, which he did:

Have therefore thought fit, and do hereby publish, grant, ordain and declare, that our royal will and pleasure is, that no person within the said colony, at any time hereafter shall be any wise molested, punished, disquieted, or called in question, for any differences in opinion in matters of religion, and do not actually disturb the civil peace of our said colony; but that all and every person and persons may, from time to time, and at all times hereafter, freely and fully have and enjoy his and their own judgments and consciences, in matters of religious concernments, throughout the tract of land hereafter mentioned

(Oddly, the people of Rhode Island retained the charter as the legal foundation of their state until 1843, well after the War of Independence, and didn't establish an actual Constitution until that date.)

Rhode Island as a consequence became a haven not just for Christian minorities, but for Jews, and has the oldest synagogue in the United States.

This exchange of letters between the Jews of Newport and George Washington is rather touching.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by Jzyehoshua, posted 05-28-2012 7:48 PM Jzyehoshua has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by Jzyehoshua, posted 05-28-2012 9:49 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Jzyehoshua
Inactive Member


Message 175 of 206 (664078)
05-28-2012 9:49 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by Dr Adequate
05-28-2012 8:49 PM


Re: and then there is Roger Williams ...
I agree with you completely about Rhode Island being an ideal example of religious freedom, better even than William Penn's, since it granted freedom also to Jews.

I guess the reason I see this all being at issue is that it seems like social progressives (I'm personally progressive on economics) want to deny our founding fathers were Christian or guided by Christian ideals when proposing freedom of religion. The way social conservatives at least have been seeing it, they want to remove all mention of God from the Pledge of Allegiance, courtrooms, and state constitutions in the name of religious freedom and Constitutionality - even in cases where the founding fathers who wrote the Constitution put those mentions of God there in the first place. There was a huge controversy in recent years over whether the Ten Commandments could be displayed on courthouse grounds, for example - the ACLU fought vigorously and prevailed in removing the Ten Commandments.

You've got cases where Christian groups can't be led in public schools, or prayer allowed on sports teams, even when all members would support it. And any bill that can be accused of having a Christian motivation, even something as simple as a sticker on evolution textbooks saying that evolution is a theory, is accused of breaking the law on separation of church and state. Or those who say marriage should remain between a man and a woman unless solid evidence can be shown that homosexuality has a genetic basis, and that marriage shouldn't be expanded to where it becomes meaningless under the belief absolute morality doesn't exist and shouldn't be instituted in government, are likewise accused of violating separation of church and state.

Separation of church and state seems to have become about infringing on religious freedom of Christians so that, because of their moral, religious views, they can't have a voice on how government should be run, and only atheists should be able to direct our country. This is why I argue about what the founding fathers were like, and whether or not they were Christians; as well as what separation of church and state and religious freedom were really meant to accomplish.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-28-2012 8:49 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by jar, posted 05-28-2012 9:55 PM Jzyehoshua has responded
 Message 177 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-28-2012 10:13 PM Jzyehoshua has responded
 Message 191 by RAZD, posted 05-29-2012 7:54 AM Jzyehoshua has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 29363
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 176 of 206 (664081)
05-28-2012 9:55 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by Jzyehoshua
05-28-2012 9:49 PM


Re: and then there is Roger Williams ...
Any law must, let me repeat, must primarily have a secular purpose.

As a Christian I fully support keeping the Ten Commandments, references to God, prayers in schools restricted and removing "Under God" from the Pledge and "In God We Trust" from all currency.

This is not an atheist Christian issue, it is an issue of keeping Church and Government separated.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by Jzyehoshua, posted 05-28-2012 9:49 PM Jzyehoshua has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by Jzyehoshua, posted 05-28-2012 10:34 PM jar has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15950
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.6


(1)
Message 177 of 206 (664090)
05-28-2012 10:13 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by Jzyehoshua
05-28-2012 9:49 PM


Re: and then there is Roger Williams ...
I guess the reason I see this all being at issue is that it seems like social progressives (I'm personally progressive on economics) want to deny our founding fathers were Christian or guided by Christian ideals when proposing freedom of religion.

I don't see anyone denying that most of them were Christian (some, I believe, were more deist in their inclinations). As for "Christian ideals", Christians have no monopoly on the desire to separate church and state.

The way social conservatives at least have been seeing it, they want to remove all mention of God from the Pledge of Allegiance, courtrooms, and state constitutions in the name of religious freedom and Constitutionality - even in cases where the founding fathers who wrote the Constitution put those mentions of God there in the first place.

I am absolutely certain that the Founding Fathers didn't put any mention of God in the Pledge of Allegiance. Nor did the guy who actually wrote it.

Separation of church and state seems to have become about infringing on religious freedom of Christians so that, because of their moral, religious views, they can't have a voice on how government should be run, and only atheists should be able to direct our country.

Obviously they can have a voice. They can also vote according to what they think God wants them to do. What they can't do is institutionalize Christianity.

Yes, that includes employees of the state telling children when to pray and how to pray and who to pray to and what to pray for. Yes, that includes using public money and public land to display icons of one sectarian group of one religion. Yes, that involves using any public funds to push the agenda of creationist sects. When Madison wrote "total separation" he didn't add "unless you really want to".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by Jzyehoshua, posted 05-28-2012 9:49 PM Jzyehoshua has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by Jzyehoshua, posted 05-28-2012 10:49 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Jzyehoshua
Inactive Member


Message 178 of 206 (664095)
05-28-2012 10:34 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by jar
05-28-2012 9:55 PM


Re: and then there is Roger Williams ...
Any law must, let me repeat, must primarily have a secular purpose.
As a Christian I fully support keeping the Ten Commandments, references to God, prayers in schools restricted and removing "Under God" from the Pledge and "In God We Trust" from all currency.

This is not an atheist Christian issue, it is an issue of keeping Church and Government separated.

But how can freedoms exist without acknowledging God? The Declaration of Independence states a Creator gives us our inalienable rights. Ultimately, how do we define what freedoms and laws are? Where does our concept of morality come from? And how is it determined?

Without respect of a Creator, what keeps one person from infringing on the rights of another person? Their rights to freedom of religion, speech, property, or life?

Furthermore, on what basis can we determine ultimate right and wrong? We take it as granted what the Ten Commandments state, that it is wrong to kill or steal. But how do we know this? For this wrong to exist absolutely it must be legislated as such by a higher power, and therefore, laws and morality are not devised by human beings, but implanted by a Creator on our universe, and within the hearts and souls of all creations.

If people do not acknowledge a Creator, they will become gradually more wicked in always seeking to condone their own wickedness, arguing their actions should not be considered wrong so that gradually nothing gets considered wrong - even when it infringes on the rights of their fellow human beings to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

We do need to keep church and government separated. We also need to keep science and government separated. And political parties and government separated. Any institution, whether religious, scientific, or political will seek to usurp the reins of government for its own selfish and prejudicial ends, harming those it disagrees with. Institutions and organizations must not be allowed to silence opposing points of view.

However, we cannot keep faith and government separated, as faith or religious belief is like any other belief that should be allowed free expression according to the 1st amendment, so long as it does not seek to silence the expression of other opposing views. Otherwise, this would be prejudice contrary to religious freedom.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by jar, posted 05-28-2012 9:55 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by jar, posted 05-28-2012 10:46 PM Jzyehoshua has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 29363
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 179 of 206 (664096)
05-28-2012 10:46 PM
Reply to: Message 178 by Jzyehoshua
05-28-2012 10:34 PM


Re: and then there is Roger Williams ...
Freedoms exist based on societal consensus. Notice that the Declaration of Independence starts "We hold..."

It is a matter of a group expressing a belief statement.

There is no such thing as ultimate right or wrong. Again, those things evolve through consensus.

No creator has EVER kept one person from infringing on the rights of another person.

Morality too evolves through building a consensus within a State, society or culture.

And we must keep faith and the Government separated.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by Jzyehoshua, posted 05-28-2012 10:34 PM Jzyehoshua has not yet responded

  
Jzyehoshua
Inactive Member


Message 180 of 206 (664097)
05-28-2012 10:49 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by Dr Adequate
05-28-2012 10:13 PM


Re: and then there is Roger Williams ...
Obviously they can have a voice. They can also vote according to what they think God wants them to do. What they can't do is institutionalize Christianity.

Yes, that includes employees of the state telling children when to pray and how to pray and who to pray to and what to pray for. Yes, that includes using public money and public land to display icons of one sectarian group of one religion. Yes, that involves using any public funds to push the agenda of creationist sects. When Madison wrote "total separation" he didn't add "unless you really want to".

I agree about not institutionalizing Christianity. But I guess the question is, what's the difference between what you mentioned, and having taught as undeniable fact to impressionable young minds the theory of Evolution or the Big Bang, both of which are frankly opinions, and using tax dollars to do so? What is the difference between teaching children about homosexual role models as the gay rights movement is having done in states across the U.S.? What is the difference between forcing millions of Pro-Life Americans to fund Planned Parenthood through the new healthcare law? What is the difference between having a Stimulus give millions of dollars in earmarks to Pro-Evolution organizations and scientists, and not to Creationist ones?

http://savecalifornia.com/...-models-for-schoolchildren.html

How are these opinions forced on Americans who don't support them a different case?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-28-2012 10:13 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by Jzyehoshua, posted 05-28-2012 10:53 PM Jzyehoshua has not yet responded
 Message 182 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-29-2012 12:00 AM Jzyehoshua has responded
 Message 199 by Taq, posted 05-29-2012 6:12 PM Jzyehoshua has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
91011
12
1314Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017