Separation of church and state

Hopefully Theodoric took note of that, since it was him who brought it up and not me. It’s not that simple. All too often today, it means that any traditional, moral consideration of the Christian religion in general, held by almost all of the population at the time the US was founded, will be blocked by the courts so that only science/naturalism is the lone consultant for morally troublesome decisions. I agree that it is. Nothing in there about dogs, nothing in there about cats, nothing in there about separation. I have no beef with the first amendment, I have a beef with separation of church and state. Re-read my opening post. My beef is with history revisionists who claim that separation of church and state has always been part of US foundings. It has not been, it has evolved.

I agree, but naturalism and all its various sects (atheism, humanism, pantheism, wiccanism, agnosticism, others) can have faiths that are comparable with those of Christianity. There is clear evidence that science can, and has, been used by politicians and special interests to forward agendas that are perfectly comparable to any religious dogmatism. Global warming is an example, it’s obviously more than a disinterested search for truth when we see destruction of data and attempts to prevent facts (and the facts of the coverup) from being published in leading journals. When multiple governments have billions of dollars invested in the global warming crusade and facts get in their way, their actions can be just as dogmatic as a spiritual leader of one religious denomination who seeks to maintain his political power. Your two examples are very far apart. That homosexuals should not marry is basic to much of Christianity. Admittedly, it’s changing fast today, but only because so much of Christianity is compromising with the scientific community.From the US founding to today, the eighth amendment prevents anyone being stoned to death as punishment.As a representation of humanism, it’s equally unjust for the scientific community to claim that global warming can be controlled by certain elite humans, (requiring public sacrifice of liberty/money), or that a hospital or a bridge can’t be built where humans badly need it to be because of some danger to an endangered species of microscopic bugs. Or to teach children in public schools that life came from non-life by naturalistic means. These are naturalistic doctrines held only by a certain religious group, naturalism/humanism. Many naturalistic proclamations, in addition to the few I described above, are found to have no objective grounds for enforcement among many US citizens. I’ve been told here before that doesn’t matter — that science is not a democracy. Scientists know, scientists rule.. The founding fathers would call them tyrants. In the founders writings that are associated with their ideas on how the government should work, they seemed to use the word tyrant a lot more than they used the word separation. Defining ‘evidence’ is the hard part. Science claims to have an advantage with evidence, largely because they have an education. The US constitution doesn’t recognize education in any way, shape or form. The Christian religion claims to have evidence, in historical evidence of human nature. That kind of evidence can be just as complex and detailed as what scientists see when they look through microscopes and telescopes. When objective evidence of human behavior shows that special rights for homosexuals could very well be a burden on a society that is already trillions of dollars in debt, the core of the problem could very well be the religion of humanism, and those who choose it. Just like the religion of humanism is appearing to be behind global warming much more than scientific fact. It’s taught in schools, it’s publically established, it’s not separated from state. It needs balance.

You're just building straw men. Find the words "know too much" in any of my posts.The US foundings represent a fear of "domestic faction and insurrection". Federalist #10 Global warming and atheistic teachings in public schools fall into that category amazingly well. So you think these forums represent the population at large?

YES, I'M SERIOUS! IT WAS YOU WHO SAID, IN MESSGAE 191; I love this place!

Not really. The name of the game at these types of forums seems to be to discourage/stop a creationist from posting. ("oooh, that one lasted only three days before he fled", or "amazing, it took us two whole weeks to shake him down", etc) It's a science/atheist sport. I wouldn't be here if I minded - it's fun for me (in an admittedly unexplainable way) How do you keep track of it, do you have some methodological way of doing it, with....charts and graphs or something? As you know, worldviews can't be empirically kept track of. Each side has comparable gaps. Atheists can claim that they're closing theirs one by one, but in attempting that, it can cause the remaining big ones to loom larger than ever. (Origins of life, anyone?) I’m afraid it really is what we were talking about in that particular instance. We were talking about what states apply by law concerning traditional values and morals, as they are directed by their voters, either on issues, or, more commonly, the values of the representatives that they choose to elect. No, they're called foreign countries. The word state is sometimes a reference to a specific government structure, such as separation of church and state, or it can refer to a geographical division within a larger territory, such as a state within the US, or a single European country within all of the continent of Europe. But in a general conversation concerning any foreign country, it's simply not common in the US to refer to a foreign country as a "state". The CONTEXT SWITCH? Isn't it wonderful how the truth just sometimes has a tendency to just slip right out there all by its own self? Maybe the reason I was the only one who "had trouble" with it was because I was the only one it was directed to, the only one with any obligation to deal with it? Oh no, I wanna keep looking ridiculous. Please keep explaining the context switch to me, why the switch was done, and why those who it wasn’t directed to winked and nodded and didn’t say a thing about it. That isn’t what I asked. Political trends in some southern states could be secular, yet have a natural moral order that has significant religious influence, and be completely absent in several New England states. I didn't know that. But I don't think it's important to the topic of this thread. So I've learned something, but the main thing I've learned is about secularists - that is that they seem to know more about Jefferson than they do about all the other founders combined. Oh no, not at all. It's clear to me that most revisionists on this thread had no idea who Roger Sherman, James Wilson, Rufus King, Elbridge Gerry, and Edmund Randolph were before I started this thread. (Actually, they probably still don't.)

Calvinism was a prominent form of Christianity during the founding of the US. John Calvin, (born in 1509);

quote:

---

always believed that governments should be chosen by the people. He described the Hebrews as extremely foolish for jettisoning their free government and replacing it with a hereditary monarchy. He also came to believe that kings and princes were bound to their people by covenant, such as those that one sees in the Old Testament.

​

In Calvin’s view, which was based on Romans 13, the governmental duties of "inferior magistrates" (government officials, such as mayor or governors, in an intermediate level between the king and the people) required them to protect the people against oppression from above. Calvinism readily adopted the Lutheran theory of resistance by such magistrates.

---

http://www.davekopel.com/religion/calvinism.htmWhether one believes in God or not, it's clear that if he exists, he gives anyone and everyone the freedom to accept or reject him. It only makes sense that he would approve of a government that does the same. Quite, quite wrong. The humanist manifestos claim a new knowledge that trumps worldviews of the past. From Humanist manifesto 2;

quote:

---

The decades ahead call for dedicated, clear-minded men and women able to marshal the will, intelligence, and cooperative skills for shaping a desirable future.

---

There are no hints anywhere within humanism, scientism, evolutionism, atheism, liberalism that the population at large will have much, if any say in deciding just who the "clear minded men and women" will be.

It's this mantra, repeated over and over in spite of the fact that it has been completely demolished, that makes so many people not trust so much of what emanates from the scientific community. Public school biology textbooks go into speculation into naturalistic origins, something we can't perceive with our senses. Not only do they speculate on them, they declare them to be fact, only that we haven't yet discovered the details of them. I recently borrowed my friend's son's biology textbook, and saw it with my own eyes. I don't need to prove it to anyone. Atheism is publicly established, that this fact is not admitted by the scientific community is yet more evidence why people have good reason to not believe much of what they say. Each side is always going to accuse the other of being one-sided, I've seen no evidence that you're anymore open minded than anyone else. But I'm sure that's very accurate that you base your conclusion on what the courts have to say. There is plenty of evidence that the courts have become more powerful than the spirit of the constitution allows them to be. I base my conclusions on what the US founding documents actually say.

This covers messages 220, 223, 225, 227, 228, 229, 236, 239, and 241. 220
And, in knowing some history about the rest of the founders, I made the observation that that paragraph generally applies to most all of the founders. I know you’ll demand proof, but it’s just my observation. I don’t think you can prove it wrong. When he said vital religion could contribute importantly to the general welfare, he said plenty about separation of church and state. The world is against me? You think I’m the only one with the views I’ve forwarded in this thread? Your implication that my views are not common speaks volumes. 223
And no matter how much evidence I show you. For those who constantly demand evidence, it’s amazing how quickly they dismiss clear evidence once they see it. No, it’s because church and state have been separated, and science is somewhat dull and boring unless it’s providing intellectual fulfillment for atheism. 225
Climatic Research Unit email controversy - WikipediaIt’s a complicated situation, but to dismiss it as a lie by global warming deniers shows an obvious lack of interest in what the truth is. But there are individuals in the scientific community (with money invested in them) who want political control of it all. It will be the main consultant in all the liberty destroying rules and regulations to cool the planet back down again. Al Gores carbon credit trading will be an important part of it, making him millions. (I assume Al’s still interested — what’s he been up to recently that caused Tipper to throw dishes and lamps at him, I can’t remember) The words against homosexuality in the Bible are a lot stronger than that. And yet when I borrowed my friend’s son’s biology textbook a few months ago, I found that it had plenty to teach. It gushed all over Darwin, his thinking processes, why he searched for what he did, yet left off any references to his personal problems (the death of his young daughter) to inspire him to search for intellectual fulfillment in atheism.I made a note of the first paragraph of chapter 17;

quote:

---

The history of life on earth is filled with mystery, life and death struggles, and bizarre plants and animals as amazing as any mythological creatures. Studying life’s history is one of the most fascinating and challenging parts of biology, and researchers go about it in several different ways. One technique is to read the pieces of the story that are written in ancient rocks.

---

You may call that precious little to teach, but there’s no shortage of inspiration for students to chuckle at mythological creatures (that they may have heard about in Sunday School) and to speculate on all the unguided naturalism that was going on during all those life and death struggles for millions of years. Something to be respected, not something to be forced on others. If society changes because of recently acquired expertise, it should change because of liberty in its acceptance, not mandates like limits on types and usages of certain fuels, outlawing some appliances, artificially promoting others, maintenance requirements on private vehicles, etc. This type of big government can't help but be loaded with corruption. You’re comparing landowners in a society to politically established bureaucrats? How is that different from scientists who assert the divine right of rule described by themselves to save the planet from global warming? Kings who asserted divine right of rule as described by the Bible didn’t care what the population thought, scientists who assert the divine right of rule as described by global warming assertions don’t care what the population thinks. If the population doesn’t agree with either of them, what’s the difference, in determining their detriment to liberty? Haha — everyone who owned land back then was educated and wealthy? Who assumes that? Besides you? Kings of the past claimed their interpretation of the Bible was fact. 227
Read Federalist paper 10 for the first time. Near the beginning, it refers to instability, injustice, and confusion — kind of reminds you of global warming fanaticism, doesn’t it?

quote:

---

.prevailing and increasing distrust of public engagements, and alarm for private rights, which are echoed from one end of the continent to the other. These must be chiefly, if not wholly, effects of the unsteadiness and injustice with which a factious spirit has tainted our public administrations.

---

Public engagements, not just religion.

quote:

---

A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good.

---

Global warming easily falls under many other points.

quote:

---

A landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a mercantile interest, a moneyed interest, with many lesser interests, grow up of necessity in civilized nations, and divide them into different classes, actuated by different sentiments and views. The regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern legislation, and involves the spirit of party and faction in the necessary and ordinary operations of the government.

---

An environmental interest? A scientific interest? An Al Gore interest in making millions by trading in carbon credits? Wow, major breakthrough here. The founders were talking about YOU. If the founders asked a king in their day if he thought his denomination represented the population at large, he would have answered just like you did, word for word. 228
The global warming controversy is news of the day. Why don’t you use a search engine and check it out for yourself, rather than ask me for sources so you can simply dismiss them as fundie sites? It’s difficult to have a discussion with a group who claims 100% ignorance of the subject and demands that I educate them on it.The Great Global Warming Swindle - Wikipedia 229
I’ve learned a lot in the past at other sites concerning the debating tactics of scientism — no real surprises for me here. Claims that I’m completely alone, or in a tiny minority in my position. Claims of complete lack of understanding of my position, even though it’s common in political debate all across the communication spectrum. Claims that science is no more atheistic than plumbing, except that plumbers aren’t near as united and passionate about separation of church and state as the scientific community is. Plumbers don’t seem to constantly refer to myths of the past, either. 236
No, not at all. Homosexuals already have exactly the same rights as single heterosexuals. 239
Shari’s law and the Halacha didn’t have anything to do with US foundings. I haven’t put fourth my own specific views on morality anywhere in this thread. My promotion of Christianity has been very general, just as general as what was put forth by the founders in their various quotes and writings about the virtues of religion. The shoe IS on the other foot, and I don’t like it one bit. I don’t like humanism being combined with state. I don’t like future generations being taught, with public money, that abiogenesis is a fact, that life all arose from one common ancestor millions of years ago, therefore life is purposeless and pointless. Powerful humans are the only ones with authority to decide rules and morals. 241
I can’t support you, because the founding principle of endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights was usurped in 1947, and by 1954 - 7 years later - it was recognized that the US could become an atheist nation controlled by science in no time at all. Also, 1954 was one year after the 40 year old scientific hoax, the Piltdown man, was finally exposed. (Piltdown man was accepted science in 1947) The pledge, the coins and currency, and the national motto were reactions by Republicans to the judicial activism of 1947 by Democrats. Then why do you want to take those religion destroying things away? Because you suspect that many, including myself, believe that they’ve been good for Christianity and morality and production in the US?

This covers messages 248, 249, 251, and 252. 248
The attempts are to overwhelm, to make a disengagement by a creationist look like a victory for the humanists. What does biology have to do with separation of church and state? I don’t think it has a thing in the world to do with it, unless biology has become so atheistic that it has become an opposition to the phrase in the Declaration endowed by their creator . If the scientific community thinks it has, it’s a clear indicator of the faction status that the scientific community has attained to. It’s not an attempt to completely prevent creationists from posting (I didn’t use the word prevent) it’s to allow them a start, then stop them before they get too far.I can completely understand a group of like minded thinkers desiring to have a discussion with one of a different view, and it could be as good of a discussion as any one-on-one. But that never happens — the group always gets emotional, and puts pressure on the lone poster in ways not related to the topic. Anytime the lone poster asks a question of one of the group, (of something he said, or something he referred to) it almost always gets answered by multiple posters. It shows a lack of confidence in the person at whom the question was directed. That can often relieve the original questionee of the responsibility of answering the question. When there is a group of posters against only one, no one member of the group has much, if any, obligation to the debate. By answering for him, his friend shows that he believes his own answer may be more complete, or forceful than his friend’s answer would be. Then, the person who was originally asked the question won’t answer it in a direct, basic way, he will expound on his friend’s answer from different angle, or a more complex angle, often demanding more proof or sidetracking the issue. As the debate goes on, the burden put on the single poster constantly multiplies. A lone poster often can’t help engaging in some avoidance. He has to sort out what is relevant to the debate, and avoid being side tracked, as can easily happen in a subjective discussion, with emotion involved. If it’s sidetracked he’ll get the blame from multiple angles. If he gets into complications in proving where the sidetracking originated, it will snowball and multiply even further. (we saw that here with all the fuss about state and foreign countries). The multiplication that constantly happens simply gets too big for any one person to keep up with. It's common sense that it wears one down to oppose 10 or more people - 10 different thought processes. These constant demands that I get for proof are obviously demands for links, which are immediately labeled as fundie sites, no matter what they say or who they are. The forum rules here seem to encourage an avoidance of links — they encourage a poster putting their position in their own words. And as we see often, if a discussion gets too far off topic, it gets closed, as this one did. In that case, the admin asked for objections to closing the thread. Didn’t get any from the group, did he? See above. If evolutionists aren’t trying to drive creationists away, they should know that it’s not honest to answer questions for each other, or demand proof for things that are common knowledge, either in recent news, or common in the controversy being discussed. One of the most common things I see here is a complete pretending of ignorance of the mere existence of my position. (Everson v Board of Education, what’s that? or Global warming is a controversial subject?) They want me to start at its beginning, to say as much as possible about it, so that they have more detail to use for sidetracking purposes.Also, (something we’ve seen in this thread multiple times) if I summarize something, I’m accused of not knowing detail about it. It’s beneficial to a lone poster to keep a new angle to the discussion simple, in case it’s responded to from multiple angles from multiple posters. If I go into detail at the beginning, then I can be drawn into endless demands for proof and research that no one person could keep up with, even if he never needed to sleep.As the lone poster here (the one being opposed by a group) I’m obviously responding to 10 or more posts in one evening, and after sorting out what’s relevant, it still requires putting together 5 or 6 posts that cover the general response to the 10 posters, using the reply button, so they all get proper notification that I’ve responded. Almost always, I can’t put them all in consecutively — I can’t get past two or three posts before someone cuts in and shouts about one little thing in one post, they just don’t have the patience to wait and see my complete position of that evening. The reason they do that is twofold, one is to try to distract me as I put together my responses. The other is to make the thread harder to read, to try to confound and confuse what I’m saying. That’s not a very effective way to convince me of anything pertaining to the subject, is it?So I’ve rethought the notion, and find it more convincing than ever. Now I wonder if admin will find these (admittedly long winded) responses to your questions to be off topic. They are, but I think they needed to be said. I’ll do my best to avoid this issue from here on, and get back to topic of the opening post.This thread is taking too much of my time now, though as I said, I wouldn’t be here if I didn’t enjoy it — if non-politically correct searches for truth weren’t important to me. In the next week or two, (depending on the substance I receive to these two posts) I’ll summarize the thread and then disengage. Do you think all my opponents here are doing a good job of recognizing and correcting their mistakes? Or haven’t they made a single one? Like the science of abiogenesis eliminiates the competition of Intelligent Design? If only the first amendment took care of that problem....but wait, IT DOES! Today's courts just won't allow it. That’s not the topic of this thread. Nowhere have I advocated an establishment of religion, only a promotion similar to what was actually promoted in the US before 1947. 249One denomination's general political application of Christianity, that doesn't clash with any specific rituals of other traditional Christian denominations makes the application of correctness irrelevant. It should only be subject to a secular application of common sense.

quote:

---

Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.

---

Did you read the link I provided you with? I don’t get any sense that you did. For someone who’s encouraging me to read thousands of books and travel the world to verity Darwinism, it seems that you would have spent 5 minutes of reading that link. Here’s a paragraph from it that sums it up;

quote:

---

St. Paul’s command in Romans 13 for Christians to be obedient to government applied only to those that are orderly and lawfully instituted by God. Tyrannical government came from Satan, not from God. To obey a tyrant was to rebel against Godto forsake the Laws of our God, and to continue in our wonted rebellion, by yielding to the ungodly commandments of wicked men.

---

Because some things never change. Humans still have two arms and two legs today, the same as they did 200 years ago. Tyrants lust for power hasn’t changed. The reasons for and severity of wars hasn’t changed. Human laziness and desire for association with factions hasn’t changed. A lot of things in this world don’t change. Because clear-mindedness is subjective. Some people think Barrack Obama has a clear mind. (believe it or not) Some people don’t believe that. I might stand up against the use of public money to make rich those who claim they might be able to find a cure for cancer someday. Claims of utopia on earth by science is never as simple as it sounds on the surface. 251
Give me a break, many militant atheist posters on these forums are teenagers or 20 somethings — they haven’t had near enough time to research and verify all the material that has built up over 150 years concerning all the detail of Darwinism. They’ve readily accepted what they were told was discovered by Darwin, by Dawkins, by Sagan, many others. It was a faithful acceptance, often accepted at puberty, just when parents get to be thought of as a little too old fashioned. "Evolution, the world is nothing but happenstance, there is no God, there are no rules. Forget those 10 commandments, funtime!"When the Tikaalik Rosea was discovered in the frozen tundra up north (wherever it was), few if any, in the scientific community had to make the journey there to verify it. They gladly accepted what they were told, because they wanted to.All throughout human nature (admittedly religions have it as well) there is the common practice of a conclusion being reached at the beginning, then making evidence fit that conclusion. It happens throughout science all the time. It happened with Darwin’s studies, it happened with Tikaalik Rosea, it happened with the big bang, it happened with global warming, and it happened with abiogenesis. The list goes on and on. 252
You’re forgiven. If you deny that it’s happening, we have little more to discuss. It’s like everyone telling me that the word separation is in the first amendment. Sometimes we just have to move on. Vast majority? There are a lot of well known people who have spent a lot of time studying and practicing law that basically agree with me. Former Supreme court justice William Rehnquist is one of them.Where have I "name called" anywhere in this thread? Edited by marc9000, : No reason given.

This is another thread, but the global warming controversy is far from over.http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php You're saying that politicians are the only ones with political control? So if Michael Behe wrote a few chapters in science textbooks about ID, it wouldn't have any political effect? It’s always ironic to see those who go ballistic over Intelligent Design to accuse others of a paranoia of conspiracy theories. And they probably pay the most in fines and lawsuits than any other business in human history. It only makes sense that they should go for all they can get to cover themselves, and if they do it with free markets, there’s not a thing wrong with it. If the oil and gas producers lose an enormous amount of money due to government mandated rules and regulations, citizens and businesses in the US - blocked by those rules and regulations from buying it - stand to lose an enormous amount of liberty. Your analyzation of it is kind of weird. Would it be wrong for one to take things that don’t belong to him, yet be okay for him to be a thief? That it happened some way in all the primordial soup, and there’s a lot to learn, and we’ll learn all of it someday. The word mythology is applied to the Bible by many in the scientific community, and on forums such as these. Noah’s ark from Genesis is often referred to as a myth. I have a copy of Victor Stenger’s How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist, and have a hard time distinguishing what it says from any statement of inquiry into the natural world. A knowledge of the US foundings shows that most founders were opposed to slavery. It was a way of life back then that wasn’t going to go away overnight. They knew that if they outlawed it, that almost no southern states would have ratified the Constitution. They made provisions for its abolition, and they worked. Here are some honeyed words by an Al Gore lover.

quote:

---

As a politician, Gore is aware of the difficulties of bringing about the necessary changes. However, he argues that it can be done through the creation of what he calls a Strategic Environment Initiative, roughly modeled on the post-World War II Marshall Plan. Through both public and private actions, he believes humanity can be persuaded to reverse short-term gratification in favor of long-term thinking and planning. In this earth-saving endeavor, Gore argues that the United States must take a leadership role.

---

Long term thinking and planning. How much of that will the public be permitted to do?Just a moment... They could imagine factions happening in the future, concerning things they didn’t yet know about. The way they debated and founded the US, it's obvious they were trying hard to do just that.

There could be several reasons, besides trying to do me a favor. They could feel that 4 or 5 others can get the job done without them, , or maybe they simply had a personal complication (a computer crash, death in the family, any number of things) that would prevent them from posting.Or, my posting could have been the first time they actually saw Federalist paper #10, and they’re having second thoughts about trying to defend the position that today’s scientific community isn’t really a faction that Madison defined. You don’t think so, right? Neither do I, there’s no less closed mindedness in humanism than there is in religion. "We" weren't speaking of creationists, it was YOU who brought up creationists, right there in your first line. This thread is about separation of church and state. Why is it that those who insist science has nothing to do with politics constantly bring up science during political discussions? Continue to embarrass themselves as they try to dance around more and more historical and logical points that they’ve never seen before. I may propose one sometime this winter, when I have more time. We didn’t offer it, only you did. There are probably several in this thread who wouldn’t want to take me on one on one. Not necessarily because they’re afraid of me, they may not have the time. They may only have time for a small participation as part of a group. Or, some may very well be afraid of a one on one. I believe I could make a good case that today’s scientific community is a faction exactly as described in Federalist #10. I’m fairly new here, it’s only natural that I would get a feel for the posters and subjects before I do that. Right now I’m focused on this subject — it wouldn’t make much sense to start a one on one on the same subject, and either cover the same ground twice, or start beyond what was covered here, which would make it a less-than-complete discussion from start to finish. And I never said it was completely vexing for me to field replies from multiple people, the tactics used against me (or any lone creationist) that I described show weakness/uncertainty in the group’s confidence in itself. I don’t see my opponents here citing more sources than I am. Since I have multiple opponents, it seems like they should supply multiple sources for each one of mine. It's not even close. Anything that goes against the atheist worldview is an error of fact? I’ve made 54 posts in this thread. If every one is riddled with errors of fact, why don’t you make a list of however many you want, and then we’ll all get together and analyze just how many of them are errors of fact, and how many of them are simply not of a radical liberal worldview? You wouldn’t have to care about me if what I say made you nervous. A desire to shout someone down doesn’t indicate a caring for them. They may be if they don’t like what I say. They may have seen Federalist #10 for the first time in this thread, or that Hugo Black was a KKK member appointed by FDR. They may not want to see these facts, or more like them. Do multiple accusations of tin-foil hat wearing fall into that category as well? It seems to me that those who fear global warming would need some type of non ferrous head gear more than myself. Again, it’s always ironic to see those who shout down Intelligent Design accuse others of having paranoid delusions. Because there are so many of you, each of you individually don’t have to put near the time and thought into it that I do. That the same might be true of you concerning enjoyment, of course I fully understand that you would. But I suppose there could be a different level of enjoyment in being part of a group, I wouldn’t know. I’ve heard that there are creationist forums where creationists gang up on one atheist, but I’ve never seen one or been linked to one. I’d never join a gang like that, it’s just something I personally wouldn’t enjoy. My position is common among millions of US citizens. Many prominent conservatives agree with most everything I say. It does seem to be about me when my opponents in these types of discussions pretend that I’m the only one with these positions — that MY mental state is what needs to be altered. Some of my religious peers have been deluded into believing that, or most likely, been informed that they’ll be financially ruined if they don’t toe the line and say they believe it. All the while the government opens its eyes to atheism. You’re oversimplifying. As the link said, Calvin’s book Institutes of the Christian religion goes into detail about legitimate governments and resistance to the tyranny of kings, and it takes all of the Bible into account, it doesn’t just consult a few words in the Bible and come to a hasty conclusion, as atheists often do. I haven’t read Calvin’s book, but I suspect Romans 13 could have been referring to existing governments of that time, not necessarily future ones.Freedom and the concept of freedom is mentioned multiple times in the Bible. Galations 5:1 says; Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. I don’t trust secularists to know the plain meaning of the Bible. Make up my own scripture, no wonder others are bailing from this thread. We can often judge the decisions they made by their historical results. Many people today, probably more than ever, believe the US is on the wrong track. Many people today consider humans of the past US citizenry to be less flawed since they didn’t allow the government to own auto companies, own banks, introduce government mandated health care, or elect a president that re-writes the Declaration of Independence.http://www.politicsdaily.com/...-declaration-of-independence Making somebody rich — with free markets, not government mandates. Sure, there are plenty of benefits of scientific research, too many to name. Computers and networks, even a lot of pain killing medication and medical procedures are all fine and worth some cost, but not all cost. Not worth it all being taken over by government. I do believe I’ll be smiling a little more brightly than you after the November elections this year.

Yes, as I described in Message 250. What do you want me to do, get your address and visit you personally and show you the book? There’s no shortage of proof all over the net that public science sometimes crosses the line concerning scientific philosophy. You’re going to say you don’t believe it no matter what I show you, so here’s one more. Go ahead and move the goalposts and claim victory if you need to, I won’t be showing you any more.

quote:

---

One example is William B. Provine, professor of biological science at Cornell. He notes that at the beginning of his class about 75% of his students "were either creationists or believed in purposive evolution" guided by God or a divine power. Research on his incisive, direct, hard-hitting teaching on origins (how students often describe his lectures) reveals that the number of creationists and those who "believed in purposive evolution" dropped to about 50% by the end of the course.[8] No one has hauled him into court for his openly indoctrinating students in atheism, and indeed, scientists in general have applauded him.

---

The New State Religion: Atheism | The Institute for Creation Research I wasn’t applying dull and boring only to myself, it’s a historical fact that most in the 1950’s US found biology dull and boring, largely because it wasn’t getting near the funding and attention that other branches of science were at that time. The forming of the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study in 1958 was largely a political act to combine biology with politics — the beginning of something that is well underway today. Check Message 248 of this thread where I was accused of daring to challenge biologists to a discussion of separation of church and state. But that doesn’t stop textbook authors from speculating outside of Darwinism, and combining that speculation with Darwinism. Yes yes, that Darwinism doesn’t have one single thing to do with naturalistic abiogenesis. Well, except one, that they both involve change over long periods of time, Well wait, maybe two, that they’re both unguided and happen solely by naturalistic processes. When science textbooks devote one or two chapters referring to both, speculating about both, combining them both, it’s clear that the closer one looks, the more closely related the two subjects really are.

How about some names from your "vast majority"?

I don’t see how, since there have been 112 of them in U.S. history. Probably more than half of that 112 have never even addressed separation of church and state. More importantly, I don’t think many of your 27 would disagree with me at all, because they focused only on the original Danville Baptist specified separation, that is, protecting the church from interference by the state, not an elimination of religion from the state, that has been so common only recently. As this shows;

quote:

---

School Dist. of Abington Tp. v. Schempp
Justices: Warren Black Goldberg Brennan Douglas Clark White Harlan

​

The place of religion in our society is an exalted one, achieved through a long tradition of reliance on the home, the church and the inviolable citadel of the individual heart and mind. We have come to recognize through bitter experience that it is not within the power of government to invade that citadel, whether its purpose or effect be to aid or oppose, to advance or retard. In the relationship between man and religion, the State is firmly committed to a position of neutrality. Though the application of that rule requires interpretation of a delicate sort, the rule itself is clearly and concisely stated in the words of the First Amendment. Applying that rule to the facts of these cases, we affirm the judgment in No. 142.

---

.invade, oppose retard, position of neutralityInvaded, when science is taught as atheism, opposed, retarded, when 10 commandment displays are declared unconstitutional - it goes on and on, and has been only since 1947. A head count of Supreme court justices who support separation of church and state in certain court cases with little more detail than that isn’t an effective way to determine if it’s good for society, or more importantly in this discussion, if it hasn’t been changing in its application to court decisions as this thread’s opening post asserts. In a 1985 dissent opinion that he wrote, William Rehnquist made a detailed examination of the results of separation of the separation of church and state metaphor for 40 years.Rehnquist's Dissent in Wallace v Jaffree (1985)Here are a few highlights;

quote:

---

The secular purpose prong has proven mercurial in application because it has never been fully defined, and we have never fully stated how the test is to operate. If the purpose prong is intended to void those aids to sectarian institutions accompanied by a stated legislative purpose to aid religion, the prong will condemn nothing so long as the legislature utters a secular purpose and says nothing about aiding religion. Thus the constitutionality of a statute may depend upon what the legislators put into the legislative history and, more importantly, what they leave out. The purpose prong means little if it only requires the legislature to express any secular purpose and omit all sectarian references, because legislators might do just that. Faced with a valid legislative secular purpose, we could not properly ignore that purpose without a factual basis for doing so. Larson v. Valente, 456 U.S. 228, 262-263, 102 S.Ct. 1673, 1692-1693, 72 L.Ed.2d 33 (1982) (WHITE, J., dissenting).

​

However, if the purpose prong is aimed to void all statutes enacted with the intent to aid sectarian institutions, whether stated or not, then most statutes providing any aid, such as textbooks or bus rides for sectarian school children, will fail because one of the purposes behind every statute, whether stated or not, is to aid the target of its largesse. In other words, if the purpose prong requires an absence of any intent to aid sectarian institutions, whether or not expressed, few state laws in this area could pass the test, and we would be required to void some state aids to religion which we have already upheld. E.g., Allen, supra.

---

This leads to all this kind of zigzagging, as the following shows (all since 1947)

quote:

---

For example, a State may lend to parochial school children geography textbooks(7)that contain maps of the United States, but the State may not lend maps of the United States for use in geography class.(8) A State may lend textbooks on American colonial history, but it may not lend a film on George Washington, or a film projector to show it in history class. A State may lend classroom workbooks, but may not lend workbooks in which the parochial school children write, thus rendering them nonreusable.(9) A State may pay for bus transportation to religious schools(10)but may not pay for bus transportation from the parochial school to the public zoo or natural history museum for a field trip.(11) A State may pay for diagnostic services conducted in the parochial school but therapeutic services must be given in a different building; speech and hearing "services" conducted by the State inside the sectarian school are forbidden, Meek v. Pittenger, 421 U.S. 349, 367, 371, 95 S.Ct. 1753, 1764, 1766, 49 L.Ed.2d 179 (1975), but the State may conduct speech and hearing diagnostic testing inside the sectarian school. Wolman, 433 U.S., at 241, 97 S.Ct., at 2602. Exceptional parochial school students may receive counseling, but it must take place outside of the parochial school,(12)such as in a trailer parked down the street. Id., at 245, 97 S.Ct., at 2604. A State may give cash to a parochial school to pay for the administration of state-written tests and state-ordered reporting services,(13)but it may not provide funds for teacher-prepared tests on secular subjects.(14) Religious instruction may not be given in public school,(15)but the public school may release students during the day for religion classes elsewhere, and may enforce attendance at those classes with its truancy laws.(16)

​

These results violate the historically sound principle "that the Establishment Clause does not forbid governments . . . to [provide] general welfare under which benefits are distributed to private individuals, even though many of those individuals may elect to use those benefits in ways that 'aid' religious instruction or worship." Committee for Public Education & Religious Liberty v. Nyquist, 413 U.S. 756, 799, 93 S.Ct. 2955, 2989, 37 L.Ed.2d 948 (1973) (BURGER, C.J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). It is not surprising in the light of this record that our most recent opinions have expressed doubt on the usefulness of the Lemon test.

---

I would hope that you could find some detail from any one of your 27 justices (or anyone for that matter) who can logically, with detail, dispute these assertions from my one source.

It was last years book, my friend’s son has advanced a grade, and I can’t get it again. It was a Pearson / Prentice Hall textbook (I didn’t note its date of publication) and its authors were Kenneth Miller and Joseph S Levine.Here’s a webpage that backs up my summary of it perfectly.Origin of Life in Biology TextbooksA few highlights;

quote:

---

Despite the abundant use of leading questions and tentative terminology in their origin of life discussions, the majority of textbooks exude confidence that confirmation of a naturalistic model of life's origin is inevitable. The treatment in these textbooks stands in marked contrast to a recent review article by Klaus Dose summarizing origin of life research. In this thorough review, a strikingly different picture emerges of the current state of affairs regarding the origin of life. Dose, one of the best known origin of life researchers for the past 20 years, in The Origin of Life: More Questions than Answers (Dose 1988, p. 348) provides the following summary:

​

More than 30 years of experimentation on the origin of life in the fields of chemical and molecular evolution have led to a better perception of the immensity of the problem of the origin of life on Earth rather than to its solution. At present all discussions on principal theories and experiments in the field either end in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance.

---

And

quote:

---

In several of the textbooks, inconsistencies and overstatements regarding the nature of compounds produced in simulation experiments pose a second problem. In some cases false impressions are given because of what students are not told.

---

Not told? This is an establishment of atheism, my friends. It continues, quoting a biology textbook from, big surprise, Miller & Levine;

quote:

---

Thus, over the course of millions of years, at least some of the basic building blocks of life could have been produced in great quantities on early Earth" (Miller &: Levine 1991, p. 344). The texts fail to note that most of the compounds produced in Miller and Urey's original simulation experiment have no relevance to compounds found in living cells; that amino adds produced are always racemic (that is, D-, L-) mixtures; that carbohydrates and amino acids are never produced in the same experiment (they require different starting materials and different conditions); or that no one has produced any ATP or true nucleic acids using reasonable starting materials.

---

I realize that there are biologists here that will immediately tell me that’s all wrong, that animo acids aren’t always racemic, that carbohydrates and amino acids could possibly be produced etc etc etc, - it’s because, like they accuse religious people, they start with a conclusion and make evidence fit that conclusion.Kenneth Miller is a CINO. (Christian In Name Only) I saw William Provine's arrogance in the movie "Expelled". And the arrogance of many others like him. If someone like Dose, "one of the best known origin of life researchers for the past 20 years" tells me that Provine and others like him are omitting things to support their own atheist worldview, I find it convincing. If you don't, then we have to agree to disagree and move on. In the future, something may happen to bolster one of our positions. I think it will be mine. And I accept the ICR's interpretation far more than Provine's, Dawkin's or Stenger's. Again, maybe something will come to light in the future that will dismay one of us.