In a comparative religion class it would be up to the teachers/school board with religions would be represented in there creation myths.
That would be up to the anthropologist teaching the class, not some school board.
Religious practitioners and other shamans have no business trying to teach such a class. They are not qualified.
Comparative religion can only be taught by someone who has some degree of separation from a particular religion. This is to avoid the preaching you would get otherwise.
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
you don't seem to understand what DNA is. It does not "insure that the child will be of the same species as the parents." In fact, given all our observations of DNA, it never remains stable but rather always mutates from generation to generation, guaranteeing the creation of new species. That's why we have seen speciation happen right in front of our eyes both in the lab and in the wild.
Some one has actually seen a cow deliver a bat, or a cat bear a dog, or something like that? As far as I know, cats have always delivered cats; cows have always borne cows, etc, etc, etc.
no. in fact, this would be as good a falsification of evolution as anything else a creationist could possible dream up. mutations are slight and incremental, not suddenly reproducing another distantly related species that already exists.
So after 230 years of using the Bible exclusively they decided they should use other religious texts.
Did you notice the last paragraph?
Before that time, the law was called "Administration of oath upon the Gospels" and stated that someone to be sworn was to lay a hand on "the Holy Evangelists of Almighty God." Legislators took out "the Gospels" in the title and changed the language to simply read "Holy Scriptures" in 1985.
Ya, Ive quoted the First Amendment (repeatedly). I know it by heart.
The first Amendment says nothing about forbidding an establishment of anything.
It is, however, a clear declaration that the Government is not to restrict religious expression. I.e. if we have a cross on our states seal the Federal Government can not force us to take it off.
So, I repeat my question
Where, in the Constitution of the United States of Americas, is establishment Forbidden?
no. in fact, this would be as good a falsification of evolution as anything else a creationist could possible dream up. mutations are slight and incremental, not suddenly reproducing another distantly related species that already exists.
Youre absolutely correct. In fact the point I bring out with this is that Dogs have always produced dogs, cat cats, and so on and so forth. The idea that man came from great apes, from lesser apes from some other life forms all the way back to sea creatures, and then to single celled life forms that somehow just popped on the seen is unproven.
Give me some evidence that your great, great, X x great ancestor was anything other that a human and I will consider it.
Or prove some direct link between fish and amphibians, or amphibians and land animals. Draw me a genealogy showing actual species from one major group to another.
Youre absolutely correct. In fact the point I bring out with this is that Dogs have always produced dogs, cat cats, and so on and so forth.
Yes, exactly as evolution predicts. The offspring of something will never be radically different from its parents.
The idea that man came from great apes, from lesser apes from some other life forms all the way back to sea creatures, and then to single celled life forms that somehow just popped on the seen is unproven.
No it isn't. You see, humans are still apes, are still mamals, are still vertebrates, and so on and so forth.
Give me some evidence that your great, great, X x great ancestor was anything other that a human and I will consider it.
No you won't, since this evidence has alteady been provided to you.
Or prove some direct link between fish and amphibians, or amphibians and land animals. Draw me a genealogy showing actual species from one major group to another.
This is the internet. I'm sure you can find the various phylogenetic trees out there.
quote:Religious practitioners and other shamans have no business trying to teach such a class. They are not qualified.
Says who? There are many teachers in the system that are religious. Are they qualified to teach? Should someone who accepts evolution be allowd to teach science class? Absolutely. This is because no matter what the beliefs of the teacher, if the course material is properly conveyed, then the course becomes successful. Telling us that someone with no religious background could only teach these courses would be like saying someone with no science education should teach science. It's illogical.
Anyone can read a science textbook, and anyone can read a religious text. But for any connection to be made, or understanding, the teacher needs to be fluent in the material.
I'm not saying lets bring in pastors and force everyones kids to memorize John 3:16. I'm saying just as it's important for a science teacher to understand science, it is equally important for a religious teacher to understand the religion. How does someone understand the religion, without accepting it as true?
How does someone understand the religion, without accepting it as true?
Since this is about a comparative religion class, I can't see how such a person exists. I mean, he would litterally have to accept every religion that comes up as true. How would that work? Or do you propse that members of each respective religion should teach about it in the class? It would get quite crowded in there.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
This is of course written in the english of the times.
quote:Main Entry: respecting Part of Speech: adjective Definition: regarding Synonyms: about, as to, concerning, in connection with, in respect to, referring to, relating to, with reference to, with regard to
Ergo the first phrase of the first Amendment to the constitution can be rendered as meaning:
Congress shall make no law regarding an establishment of religion, ... or Congress shall make no law concerning an establishment of religion, ... or Congress shall make no law in connection with an establishment of religion, ... or Congress shall make no law referring to an establishment of religion, ... or Congress shall make no law relating to an establishment of religion, ... or Congress shall make no law with reference to an establishment of religion, ...
That answers your question, whether you like the answer or not is irrelevant.
Just because you would like the American history to be richly guided by Christian beliefs, it just is not so. Even the Christianity that was practiced by some people (in addition to many other religions) is not like the modern Christianity and pretending otherwise will not make it so.
Americans at the time the Constitution was written were very well aware of the evils that come from the establishment of state religions, with the persecutions and murders of others, and most particularly when the oppressed moved to the colonies and then became the oppressors.
For these reasons they allowed for the free practice of ANY religion or related belief but specifically ruled out the possibility of the establishment of a state religion.
Re: No Creation story/myth / several Creation stories/myths?
JRTjr writes:
Dear Jar,
Great to hear from you again.
Jar writes:
If you read carefully you will see that I do not "say two mutually exclusive things." I say that there is no Christian Creation story. Note, that is singular. That is also a fact. Christianity, Islam and Judaism have several creation myths, the newer myth found in Genesis 1 and the much earlier primitive story found in Genesis 2&3. Two Creation myths. And they are mutually exclusive, if one is true then the other is false. Of course we know that neither one is factually correct, and both are refuted by the evidence of the universe itself.
Jar, please, listen to your self; first you say there is no Christian Creation story. Note, that is singular. That is also a fact.
So, according to you, there is no Christian Creation story
Then you say Christianity, Islam and Judaism have several creation myths (Stories)
So which is it: No Creation story/myth or several Creation stories/myths?
Lastly, can you give me an example where Geneses Chapter 1 directly contradicts Chapters 2 or 3?
Great fun sparring with you, JRTjr
Learn to read. There is no single Christian/Muslim/Jewish Creation story (although the Qur'an does a much better job of smoothing out the inconsistencies and contradictions); there are at least two mutually exclusive creation myths.
As to the contradictions between the newer fable found in Genesis 1 and the earlier fable found in Genesis 2&3, they differ in the order of creation, the method of creation and the very gods themselves.
As the Rt. Rev. Bennett J. Sims, Episcopal Bishop of Atlanta in a Pastoral Statement on Creation and Evolution said:
quote:In Genesis there is not one creation statement but two. They agree as to why and who, but are quite different as to how and when. The statements are set forth in tandem, chapter one of Genesis using one description of method and chapter two another. According to the first, humanity was created, male and female, after the creation of plants and animals. According to the second, man was created first, then the trees, the animals and finally the woman and not from the earth as in the first account, but from the rib of the man.
While both of the fable attribute creation to God, the descriptions of the two Gods are also mutually exclusive. The God found in Genesis one is competent, creates simply by an act of will, never hesitates, is never unsure, but is also separate, not interacting with the creations, aloof and apart. The much older God found in Genesis 2&3 though is entirely different, a hands on tinkerer, learning on the job, unsure, afraid but also intimate, personable, interacting directly and continuously with the creation.
If the Christian Creation fables are taught it should be pointed out that they are simply myths, that they are mutually exclusive and that they were never meant as science and were both included in the bible because they were not factual but rather poetic and metaphorical.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
I'm saying just as it's important for a science teacher to understand science, it is equally important for a religious teacher to understand the religion. How does someone understand the religion, without accepting it as true?
Comparative religion is best taught by someone who is a dispassionate observer, not someone who favors one religion over another.
And it is best taught by someone with a background in Anthropology, rather than a background in one particular religion.
Otherwise you are liable to end up with inherent biases.
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
™ Version 4.0 Beta
