Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,583 Year: 2,840/9,624 Month: 685/1,588 Week: 91/229 Day: 2/61 Hour: 2/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Which religion's creation story should be taught?
PecosGeorge
Member (Idle past 6863 days)
Posts: 863
From: Texas
Joined: 04-09-2004


Message 91 of 331 (177791)
01-17-2005 10:01 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by mikehager
01-17-2005 1:22 AM


Re: Preach on!
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by mikehager, posted 01-17-2005 1:22 AM mikehager has not replied

  
LDSdude
Inactive Member


Message 92 of 331 (178264)
01-18-2005 4:58 PM


Just the basics!
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.

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by pink sasquatch, posted 01-18-2005 5:07 PM LDSdude has not replied
 Message 95 by crashfrog, posted 01-24-2005 5:04 PM LDSdude has not replied

  
pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6013 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 93 of 331 (178268)
01-18-2005 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by LDSdude
01-18-2005 4:58 PM


Re: Just the MONOTHEISTIC basics!
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by LDSdude, posted 01-18-2005 4:58 PM LDSdude has not replied

  
JRTjr
Member (Idle past 4295 days)
Posts: 178
From: Houston, Texas, USA
Joined: 07-19-2004


Message 94 of 331 (180280)
01-24-2005 4:45 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by Steen
01-16-2005 6:42 PM


Thank you for responding to my posting.
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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Steen, posted 01-16-2005 6:42 PM Steen has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 95 of 331 (180285)
01-24-2005 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by LDSdude
01-18-2005 4:58 PM


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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by LDSdude, posted 01-18-2005 4:58 PM LDSdude has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by robinrohan, posted 01-24-2005 6:50 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 96 of 331 (180310)
01-24-2005 6:50 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by crashfrog
01-24-2005 5:04 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by crashfrog, posted 01-24-2005 5:04 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
LDSdude
Inactive Member


Message 97 of 331 (180599)
01-25-2005 8:21 PM


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.

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Coragyps, posted 01-25-2005 8:27 PM LDSdude has not replied
 Message 99 by Jazzns, posted 01-25-2005 8:34 PM LDSdude has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 725 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 98 of 331 (180603)
01-25-2005 8:27 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by LDSdude
01-25-2005 8:21 PM


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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by LDSdude, posted 01-25-2005 8:21 PM LDSdude has not replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3901 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 99 of 331 (180604)
01-25-2005 8:34 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by LDSdude
01-25-2005 8:21 PM


Except it does violate the 1st ammendment.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by LDSdude, posted 01-25-2005 8:21 PM LDSdude has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by JRTjr, posted 10-06-2009 11:11 PM Jazzns has not replied

  
JRTjr
Member (Idle past 4295 days)
Posts: 178
From: Houston, Texas, USA
Joined: 07-19-2004


Message 100 of 331 (528776)
10-06-2009 11:11 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by Jazzns
01-25-2005 8:34 PM


Except it does violate the 1st amendment!?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Jazzns, posted 01-25-2005 8:34 PM Jazzns has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by jacortina, posted 10-06-2009 11:23 PM JRTjr has replied
 Message 107 by Rrhain, posted 10-10-2009 12:30 AM JRTjr has replied

  
jacortina
Member (Idle past 5074 days)
Posts: 64
Joined: 08-07-2009


Message 101 of 331 (528778)
10-06-2009 11:23 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by JRTjr
10-06-2009 11:11 PM


Re: Except it does violate the 1st amendment!?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by JRTjr, posted 10-06-2009 11:11 PM JRTjr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by JRTjr, posted 10-08-2009 12:24 AM jacortina has not replied

  
JRTjr
Member (Idle past 4295 days)
Posts: 178
From: Houston, Texas, USA
Joined: 07-19-2004


Message 102 of 331 (529054)
10-08-2009 12:24 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by jacortina
10-06-2009 11:23 PM


Re: Except it does violate the 1st amendment!?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by jacortina, posted 10-06-2009 11:23 PM jacortina has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Izanagi, posted 10-08-2009 1:27 AM JRTjr has replied
 Message 105 by Coragyps, posted 10-09-2009 4:57 PM JRTjr has seen this message but not replied
 Message 119 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-26-2010 9:33 PM JRTjr has seen this message but not replied
 Message 120 by dwise1, posted 06-27-2010 5:08 AM JRTjr has replied
 Message 141 by Bikerman, posted 08-01-2010 5:43 PM JRTjr has replied

  
Izanagi
Member (Idle past 5207 days)
Posts: 263
Joined: 09-15-2009


(3)
Message 103 of 331 (529056)
10-08-2009 1:27 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by JRTjr
10-08-2009 12:24 AM


Re: Except it does violate the 1st amendment!?
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:
Nothwithstanding the general progress made within the two last centuries in favour of this branch of liberty, & the full establishment of it, in some parts of our Country, there remains in others a strong bias towards the old error, that without some sort of alliance or coalition between Gov' & Religion neither can be duly supported: Such indeed is the tendency to such a coalition, and such its corrupting influence on both the parties, that the danger cannot be too carefully guarded agst.. And in a Gov' of opinion, like ours, the only effectual guard must be found in the soundness and stability of the general opinion on the subject. Every new & successful example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance. And I have no doubt that every new example, will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Gov will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together; [James Madison, Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822, The Writings of James Madison, Gaillard Hunt]
3) The full text of the 1st Amendment reads,
quote:
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.
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:
Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by JRTjr, posted 10-08-2009 12:24 AM JRTjr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by JRTjr, posted 10-09-2009 3:33 PM Izanagi has replied

  
JRTjr
Member (Idle past 4295 days)
Posts: 178
From: Houston, Texas, USA
Joined: 07-19-2004


Message 104 of 331 (529490)
10-09-2009 3:33 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by Izanagi
10-08-2009 1:27 AM


Re: Except it does violate the 1st amendment!?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Izanagi, posted 10-08-2009 1:27 AM Izanagi has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by Izanagi, posted 10-10-2009 12:03 AM JRTjr has seen this message but not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 725 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 105 of 331 (529508)
10-09-2009 4:57 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by JRTjr
10-08-2009 12:24 AM


Re: Except it does violate the 1st amendment!?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by JRTjr, posted 10-08-2009 12:24 AM JRTjr has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024