Which religion's creation story should be taught?

Dear Theodoric, Would you please define ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ for me so I have a frame of reference to rebut your statement?P.S.I’ll try to remember to leave the coloring out for you; I use it to make it clearer whom or what I am quoting.If it does not offend you; mite I suggest you ‘copy’ and ‘past’ the text to your favorite word processor and change the text color to black.Thank you,
JRTjr

Dear Coragyps,Great to hear from you, hope you will enjoy our discussions. I believe that was the point that ‘Congress’ was making.That it was absurd that the ‘9th Circuit Court of Appeals in Newdow’ would contrive that the Constitution’s use of the express religious reference ‘Year of our Lord’ in Article VII is itself a violation of the First Amendment to the ConstitutionFindings

​

Pub. L. 107—293, 1, Nov. 13, 2002, 116 Stat. 2057, provided that: Congress finds the following: Yes, it is a way of telling time; however, it is also a direct reference to the ‘Christian Era’ that is it refers to the Year of our Lord ‘Jesus Christ’. That my be so, however, the phrase We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights in the ‘Declaration of Independence’ is nether an after though (like the Amendments to the ‘Constitution’) nor something added to warred of evil spirits.Hope to hear more from you soon,
JRTjr

Dear Dr. Adequate,You have hit on a vary good; and important point. Of course; you see, my argument is not whether or not the Supreme Court has the authority to be arbiters of what the U.S. Constitution means by what it says.That is a matter of legality. Yes, the Supreme Court is the final ‘Legal’ arbiter of what the U.S. Constitution means by what it says. However, that does not change what the U.S. Constitution actually says or what it actually means by what it says.In other words; if the constitution stated that ‘all dogs were dogs’; and the Supreme Court stated (in a ruling) that the constitution meant that ‘all dogs were cats’. We would all legally have to treat all dogs as if they were cats; however, that does not mean that ‘all dogs are actually cats’.This is the point I was making when I spoke of my mother. If what she said was wrong there was nothing I could do about it; but that did not change the fact that she was wrong; she was still the authority and we had to do it her way.At least with the Supreme Court we could elect presidents that would put people on the Supreme Court that would eventually override these rulings and get things back to the way the Founding Fathers intended. I was hoping you would use those references as a springboard to actually look at some of the Funding Documents, maybe read some of what our Founding Fathers had to say, etc.I close with this:No amount of evidence will sway a man, convinced that he is correct, if he is not willing to admit he could be wrongThank you once again for your correspondence,
JRTjr.

Dear Dwise1, Well, frankly, I do. I think that being the third President of the United States (1801—1809)A, the principal author of the Declaration of Independence (1776) B, and a horticulturist, political leader, architect, archaeologist, paleontologist, musician, inventor, and founder of the University of Virginia. C eminently qualifies Him to speak on behalf of our founding fathers.However, If you listen to what Madison is saying in his decoration (Yes, I read the whole thing) he was insisting that the government have no right what-so-ever to restrict the freedom of the people in their religious pursuits, and that he believed that if this ‘amendment’ where placed into the Constitution that the government would, at some time, in some way, pervert it and use it to infringe on religious freedoms. Quit prophetic, I would say.By the way, I found these quotes (At the same website you gave us) in reference to government and Religion: (emphasis mine) The part, were you believe that this somehow declares that there must be a wall of separation between the Church and the State (Keeping the state out of the Church and the Church out of the state.)I agree with Madison on the point that he is making here; which is that if you start allowing the government to make laws concerning religion (The Church) then the government can begin restricting the free exercise of religion. Which, by the way, is exactly what the First Amendment was placed into the Constitution to prevent: keeping the government from restricting the free exercise of religion. Not to keep religious expression out of the Government.I would like to respond to all that you have written but that would, inevitably, make both of our post far to long.Thank you for your time and effort,
JRTjr.

Dear Dr. Adequate, O.K., Please, explain to me in what way does ‘a Bible, sitting in a display case, in front of a court house’ violate the First Amendment? {I.e. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereofThank you for your time and interest,
JRTjr

Dear Hooah212002,First, thank you for your interest in our discussion. I hope you will become a regular participant. Religion, according to ‘Dictionary.Com’ is:2. A specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. The body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.

​

6. Something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice. (Dictionary.com Unabridged. Based on the Random House Dictionary, Random House, Inc. 2010.)So, the fervently healed belief that this universe is ‘all that there is’ can be defined as a ‘Religion’ and, of course, the name of that ‘Religion’ is ‘Atheism’.I hope that clears it up for you.Hope to hear from you again; soon,
JRTjr

Dear Purpledawn,Great to hear from you again; I would love to respond to everything you’ve posted here but I am endeavoring to keep my post brief. True Christianity is not as much a ‘religiona’ in the belief system sense; as it is a relationship with the Creator of the Universes.OR, let me put it this way: I do not consider myself a ‘Christian’ because of ‘religiously held beliefs’ as much as because of Whom I believe in, Trust in, cling to, and rely onB; namely Yahushua Mashiach (Jesus the Christ).Some one once said: that The religions of the world are man’s attempt to find God; in ‘Christianity’ it is God that has searched out (is working toward a relationship with) man.Yahushua sums up the duties of a ‘Christian’ this way: You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind (intellect). This is the great (most important, principal) and first commandment.
And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as [you do] yourself.

​

These two commandments [a]sum up and upon them depend all the Law and the Prophets.Again, I would like to touch on some of the other things you mention here; I just do not have the space/time. As it is; at this moment I have 16 other replies to try to get to.God Bless,
JRTjr_______________________________________________________
A. religion /rɪˈlɪdʒ ən/ [ri-lij-uh n]
—noun
1.
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2.
a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3.
the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4.
the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5.
the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6.
something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
7.
religions, Archaic . religious rites.
8.
Archaic . strict faithfulness; devotion: a religion to one's vow.B. John 3:16, 17 (Amplified Bible)
16For God so greatly loved and dearly prized the world that He [even] gave up His only begotten ([a]unique) Son, so that whoever believes in (trusts in, clings to, relies on) Him shall not perish (come to destruction, be lost) but have eternal (everlasting) life.
17For God did not send the Son into 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.
C. Matthew 22: 37 - 40 (Amplified Bible)

Dear Theodoric,Thank you for your interest. I have actually given several examples in this string; however let’s just start with the Declaration of Independence which sited more then two dozen Biblical violations as the justification for their need for independence from England. (emphasis added)You may also want to check out this link: Legal Information InstituteThank you for your Time,
JRTjrEdited by JRTjr, : No reason given.

Dear Jar,Great to hear from you again; I apologize for taking so long to get to these postings. This is a nice statement; but that is all that it is {a statement}. You have given no evidence that what you say here is true (factual, accurate, correct, right, etc. )I have given evidence that our nation was founded by Christian for Christians; and the evidence I have given here is just the tip of the iceberg.So, if you want to ‘prove’ that The United States was most definitely NOT founded for religious reasons, certainly not Christian reasons. than you’re going to have to refute a good portion of the evidence to the contrary.Hope to hear from you soon,
JRTjr

Dear Theodoric,Nice to hear from you again. Sorry, I did not bring up 'right' and 'wrong' you did in post #116.However, if you would like me to give a definition of each I am more then happy to. Right: adjective, -er, -est, noun, adverb, verb
—adjective
1.
in accordance with what is good, proper, or just: right conduct.
2.
in conformity with fact, reason, truth, or some standard or principle; correct: the right solution; the right answer.
3.
correct in judgment, opinion, or action. {Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, Random House, Inc. 2010.}Wrong: —adjective
1.
not in accordance with what is morally right or good: a wrong deed.
2.
deviating from truth or fact; erroneous: a wrong answer.
3.
not correct in action, judgment, opinion, method, etc., as a person; in error: You are wrong to blame him. {Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, Random House, Inc. 2010.}Using these definitions for right/wrong I can safely say that your statement that The Constitution cannot be right or wrong. is definitely wrong. It either accords to fact or it does not.But that was even beside the point; I was making the point that If the Supreme Court says something, or does something, that is opposite of what the ‘Constitution of the United States of America’ says then the Supreme Court is wrong and the ‘Constitution of the United States of America’ is right.In other words if the judgments of the Supreme Court do not accord with what the ‘Constitution of the United States of America’ actually says then the Supreme Court is wrong.Or, let me put it this way: If the Supreme Court say something and the ‘Constitution of the United States of America’ says just the opposite then the Supreme Court is wrong.I don’t know too many other ways to put it.I hope this clarifies it for your.Hope to hear from you soon,
JRTjr {P.S. I did not color the Hyperlinks, that is done automatically.}

Dear Bikerman,Your point would be valid if not for things like the following excerpts from ‘Thomas Jefferson First inaugural address, Washington D.C., Wednesday, March 4, 1801: As I have been trying to point out ‘your idea of what President Jefferson called ‘separation of Church and State’’ is not what even he meant by it.Thank you for your interest and participation,
JRTjr

Dear Jar, If you really believe that I have ocean front property in Arizona I can sale you real cheap.The three branches of government (President, Congress, and the Supreme Court) were to be an even distribution of power (Executive power in the President {Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution of the United States Of America}, Legislative power in Congress {Article I, Section 1}, and Judicial power in the Supreme Court {Article III, Section 1}); so no one person or group had total control.Also note that the making of changes to the Constitution of the United States of America requires that two thirds of both houses of Congress must aggress to any proposed changes (or two thirds of the several states); and then, for it to be ratified, it must have three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress {Article V}Note here that neither the ‘President’ nor the ‘Supreme Court’ has any say in this procedure.So changing the ‘Constitution’ was not supposed to be easy, and the ‘Supreme Court’ is not the branch of our government that is charged with making changes to our ‘Constitution’.Thank you for your time and interest,
JRTjr

Dear Bikerman, ‘AcceptingA’ and ‘BelievingB’ are two sides of the same coining. You must accept something to believe in it; and you must believe in something to accept it.‘Evidence’ must be believed; if you do not ‘believe’ the ‘evidence’ it dose you no good.I’ll use your own logic against you. My point here is ‘just because someone says something does not make it so’.Just because you believe/accept something as trueC does not make it true. The problem is not that what he said is not explicit, completely clear and entirely unambiguous.; the problem is that what our Founding Fathers have said and did has been twisted to mean things that thy themselves never intended.I’ll give you an example from the document you yourself quoted.This is a portion of the first paragraph of the same document you pulled your quote from. If you’ll note here there was no question, or argument, over whether or not clergy should be offering prayers at the opening of the Congressional preceding (a tradition, may I add, that started with the first Congress, and continues to this day); the contention was whether or not the clergy should be paid from the public coffers (the treasury) or contributions made to the clergy from the pockets of members of Congress themselves.May I add here that I agree with Madison on this issue.I’ll close with this quote I gave Dr. Adequate:No amount of evidence will sway a man, convinced that he is correct, if he is not willing to admit he could be wrongThank you for your posts,
JRtjr

Dear Theodoric,Where to start; O’ where to start. Never said it was. However, It is a Federal Government document that was written and signed {at peril for their lives, may I add} by the Founders of our Nation to give their reasons for declaring independence from England; so, in that respect, I would say that ‘yes’ it is a legal document. Give me a minute, I have to stop laughing. ;-}O.K., I’m better now.Let’s see; the Term ‘"creator"’ is, as you say not a reference to the christian god However, the term {capital ‘C’} ‘Creator’ {used in ‘The Declaration of Independence’} most defiantly is referring to the ‘Creator God’ of the Bible. That fact is so well documented that it is literally laughable that you would suggest otherwise.Also, ‘ the deism that was common among many of the founding fathers’ is the ‘Christian Faith’. Check out Signers of The Declaration of IndependenceNote here that there were 2 x Anglicans, 11 x Congregationalists, 2 x Deists, 14 x Episcopalians, 11 x Presbyterians, 1 x Quaker, 1 x Roman Catholic, 1 x Unitarian, and only 13 signers whose religious affiliation is un-known; and wouldn’t you know it, all of the ones mentioned are Christian denominations.That means that at least (at bear minimum) a full 75% of the signers of ‘The Declaration of Independence’ were of the Christian persuasion; so I think, on that fact alone, you could safely conclude that the ‘Creator’ ‘God’ ‘Divine Providence’ that they were referring to was the God of the Bible.Thank you for your response,
JRTjrEdited by JRTjr, : Corrected a misquote.

Dear Dr Adequate,Thank you for your responses, and your interest in this topic. Since the entire paragraph you quoted was directly relating to the 1st Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, and it is often miss labels as ‘the Establishment Clause’ of our Constitution, I am forced to conclude that you are speaking of some other Clause in some other document that I am ignoring.I do not want to ignore any facts so, if you would, what Establishment Clause are you speaking of?Thank you for your time and effort,
JRTjr