Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Separation of church and state
subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 271 of 313 (583386)
09-26-2010 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by marc9000
09-26-2010 3:44 PM


Evidence, please
subbie writes:
You've provided evidence?
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?
No. I want you to tell me what the book said, in its words, not yours. In this discussion, it's important to be specific with accurate details. I suspect that you are giving us what you think you remember the book said. There are problems with this. One, you may not remember correctly. Two, you might have mis-understood what the book said and thus are summarizing it inaccurately. Three, you may be purposely twisting what the book said to suit your agenda.
Tell us what the book actually said.
{AbE}
You quoted the ICR as follows:
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.
This proves nothing. The facts presented are equally consistent with the idea that Professor Provine's students changed their minds during the courses because of the scientific evidence that the Professor taught them during the class. As I told you upthread, the mere fact that science teaches facts that are inconsistent with certain religious beliefs doesn't make science anti-religion, much less atheistic.
Give us evidence of what the Professor actually taught and we'll have something to discuss. As hesitant as I am to accept your interpretation of something, I'm even less inclined to accept the ICR's.
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.
Maybe I should just cut and paste my repeated requests for evidence.
Don't tell me what you thought the BSCS was, give me evidence of what it was. Tell me what part of it you think was political, and explain why.
subbie writes:
I'm sure others will point this out to you (actually, I'm sure it's already been pointed out to you and you refuse or are unable to understand the point), but let me add my input anyway. Darwin didn't study origin of life.
marc9000 writes:
But that doesn’t stop textbook authors from speculating outside of Darwinism, and combining that speculation with Darwinism.
Since you've yet to provide evidence that they've done any of that, I can only conclude that it does stop them.
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.
Well, as we've explained to you countless times, science is limited to studying nature. So I suppose you are correct that they both have in common that science describes them in naturalistic terms. But that's true of everything science studies.
As far as the rest of your attempted indictment, since you've yet to provide any evidence of any of those charges, I shan't waste any time on them.
Edited by subbie, : As noted

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by marc9000, posted 09-26-2010 3:44 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 274 by marc9000, posted 09-27-2010 7:48 PM subbie has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 272 of 313 (583430)
09-27-2010 5:56 AM
Reply to: Message 266 by marc9000
09-26-2010 3:44 PM


Re: Combined response
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.
A fine example of creationist dishonesty.
The evidence presented shows that a teacher of biology by teaching biology made people less ignorant of biology.
But not one shred of evidence that:
(a) He said one single word in favor of atheism.
(b) One single one of his students became an atheist as a result of his teaching.
But besides all that, Cornell University is a private institution. It can't violate the separation of Church and State any more than Bob Jones University can. Their teachers do not get "dragged into court" for really teaching their religious views. (Nor has anyone suggested that they should be.) And yet creationists whine that Provine hasn't been "dragged into court" for allegedly teaching his.
So even if the unevidenced creationist fantasies about him "openly indoctrinating students in atheism" were by some bizarre fluke true (rather then being an example of the usual dishonest creationist gibberish that equates biological knowledge with atheism) this would still have damn-all to do with the separation doctrine.
So how about you get back on topic and post something that does?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by marc9000, posted 09-26-2010 3:44 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by marc9000, posted 09-27-2010 7:54 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 273 of 313 (583512)
09-27-2010 7:32 PM
Reply to: Message 269 by subbie
09-26-2010 6:03 PM


Re: Justices who disagree with you
I recognize that there is some overlap in the various collections. Taking that into account, there are the names of 27 Justices. You provided one. Even considering the four or five more that I provided for you, 27 still amounts to a "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 neutrality
Invaded, 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.
Also, I don't claim that this list is exhaustive. I stopped when I figured I had a long enough list to make my point. However, it took me no small amount of time to put this list together. If you intend to continue to dispute my position, I would hope your response will be well-considered and similarly supported.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by subbie, posted 09-26-2010 6:03 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 279 by subbie, posted 09-27-2010 8:38 PM marc9000 has replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 274 of 313 (583514)
09-27-2010 7:48 PM
Reply to: Message 271 by subbie
09-26-2010 6:14 PM


Re: Evidence, please
marc9000 writes:
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?
No. I want you to tell me what the book said, in its words, not yours. In this discussion, it's important to be specific with accurate details. I suspect that you are giving us what you think you remember the book said. There are problems with this. One, you may not remember correctly. Two, you might have mis-understood what the book said and thus are summarizing it inaccurately. Three, you may be purposely twisting what the book said to suit your agenda.
Tell us what the book actually said.
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 Textbooks
A 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)
This proves nothing. The facts presented are equally consistent with the idea that Professor Provine's students changed their minds during the courses because of the scientific evidence that the Professor taught them during the class. As I told you upthread, the mere fact that science teaches facts that are inconsistent with certain religious beliefs doesn't make science anti-religion, much less atheistic.
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.
Give us evidence of what the Professor actually taught and we'll have something to discuss. As hesitant as I am to accept your interpretation of something, I'm even less inclined to accept the ICR's.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by subbie, posted 09-26-2010 6:14 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by Theodoric, posted 09-27-2010 8:22 PM marc9000 has replied
 Message 281 by subbie, posted 09-27-2010 8:46 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 275 of 313 (583516)
09-27-2010 7:54 PM
Reply to: Message 272 by Dr Adequate
09-27-2010 5:56 AM


Re: Combined response
But besides all that, Cornell University is a private institution.
quote:
Cornell's 2005—06 research expenditures totaled $605.3 million ($419.1 million of this funding was from federal sources;
University Facts | Cornell University
419.1 million, FEDERAL funding? The slipperyness of the term "private institution is another thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-27-2010 5:56 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by Theodoric, posted 09-27-2010 8:24 PM marc9000 has replied
 Message 280 by crashfrog, posted 09-27-2010 8:39 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 285 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-27-2010 9:32 PM marc9000 has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 276 of 313 (583521)
09-27-2010 8:22 PM
Reply to: Message 274 by marc9000
09-27-2010 7:48 PM


No True Scotsmen fallacy again?
Kenneth Miller is a CINO. (Christian In Name Only)
You are now the arbiter of who is a chistian? Tell us why he is not a christian.
Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by marc9000, posted 09-27-2010 7:48 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 286 by marc9000, posted 10-02-2010 10:10 PM Theodoric has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 277 of 313 (583523)
09-27-2010 8:24 PM
Reply to: Message 275 by marc9000
09-27-2010 7:54 PM


Federal funding = ????
419.1 million, FEDERAL funding? The slipperyness of the term "private institution is another thread.
What is the point you are attempting to make here?

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by marc9000, posted 09-27-2010 7:54 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 287 by marc9000, posted 10-02-2010 10:14 PM Theodoric has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 278 of 313 (583529)
09-27-2010 8:36 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by marc9000
09-26-2010 2:51 PM


Re: Combined response
This is another thread, but the global warming controversy is far from over.
It is another thread. We have a thread on the Hadley-CRU accusations in particular, maybe in that thread you could explain what your link is supposed to prove? I don't see anything that refutes any of the investigations; in fact, I don't even see any indication on that page that they even took place.
Clearly, global warming denialism is simply another cult where disconfirming evidence is completely ignored. Well, I knew that already.
You're saying that politicians are the only ones with political control?
By definition, yes, that's true.
It’s always ironic to see those who go ballistic over Intelligent Design to accuse others of a paranoia of conspiracy theories.
You say this a couple of times throughout, and I'm not sure I understand it. Is this perhaps "Morissettian" irony, that is, ironic because it's been mistaken as an example of irony, but really isn't? (You know, like "raaaaiiiiinn, on your wedding day"?)
Would it be wrong for one to take things that don’t belong to him, yet be okay for him to be a thief?
Wasn't Jesus crucified next to 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.
That's generally what it said. Did you miss that I asked specifically what it said?
You do understand the difference between those two words, right? "General" and "specific"?
The word mythology is applied to the Bible by many in the scientific community, and on forums such as these.
But nobody on this forum wrote your biology textbook, so why would our use of the term matter?
Again - given that the context is "fantastic creatures", and that there are no fantastic creatures in the Bible, why do you immediately interpret a mention of fantastic creatures from mythology as a veiled slight against the Bible?
Isn't that just a little paranoid? Again - aren't you just taking any mention of science's program of discovery about the natural world to be some kind of attack on Christianity? Surely Christianity isn't completely opposed to learning about the natural world? How do scientists who are Christians make that work, if any intellectual endeavor whatsoever is of the devil, in your view?
I have a copy of Victor Stenger’s How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist
Who is "Victor Stenger"?
It was a way of life back then that wasn’t going to go away overnight.
It was a way of life that many of the Founding Fathers were a part of. They were slaveowners! Don't they have that in your revisionist history?
"We" weren't speaking of creationists, it was YOU who brought up creationists, right there in your first line.
Well, that's simply not true at all. You brought up creationists in message 246, where you made the deluded claim that "the name of the game at these types of forums seems to be to discourage/stop a creationist from posting." You have a bit of an honesty problem, Marc, and in a really ridiculous way, too, since we can always go back and see exactly who said what.
Marc writes:
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.
crash writes:
Get too far and... what, exactly?
Marc writes:
Continue to embarrass themselves as they try to dance around more and more historical and logical points that they’ve never seen before.
What? Why would we try to stop creationists before they embarrass themselves? If we're so nefarious isn't that exactly what we want them to do?
We didn’t offer it, only you did.
No, Marc, I didn't create the "Great Debate" format. It's been offered here long before I ever showed up at EvC, I can assure you.
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 have to say, I'm pretty good at detecting "damned if you do, damned if you don't" kind of things. My suspicion is that if there were only one or two of us instead of the rotating six, you'd use that as evidence that we had so little confidence in ourselves that most of us wouldn't go "on the record", or something.
I think it's a lot more fruitful for you to concentrate on the strength of your own arguments and on making a lot less elementary errors of fact than to wonder about who has confidence in whom. For what it's worth every person on this thread who isn't you has the utmost confidence that you're completely wrong, mostly because you're so frequently wrong about really simple little things, how could you possibly be right about anything else?
I don’t see my opponents here citing more sources than I am.
Well, so which is it, Marc? Are you going to not cite sources because you think that's against the forum rules (quite the opposite is true), or are you going to not cite sources because you don't think we cite enough of our own? Please pick a story and stick with it.
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?
Your errors have already been corrected, many in this message. It's not really making an impression on you, so why on Earth would I go back and repeat the process? I mean, come on. If you were someone who was capable of admitting error, that would be one thing, but I'm still chasing you about how "states" means "countries" and you've still not admitted that you got that wrong.
Sorry, but no. It would really just be more effective if you stopped making mistakes and then blaming others when you get caught.
It seems to me that those who fear global warming would need some type of non ferrous head gear more than myself.
Just a good thermometer.
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.
Informed by who? Be specific.
This is where the accusations of paranoia are coming from, by the way; first it was your suggestion that there's a conspiracy of scientists that murders prominent creationists, even though you couldn't point to a single prominent creationist who had actually been murdered or even died under mysterious circumstances; now, an assertion of a wide-ranging conspiracy that "financially ruins" (how?) individual Christians who don't... say that there's a separation between church and state. Wait, what? That's an awful big gun to bear on nothing more than a civil ideology. And if that's true why are Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter so rich? Why aren't they "financially ruined"? Financially they seem to be doing pretty well for themselves.
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
So are we talking about the Word of God or the words of Calvin? And if you don't trust Calvin on other doctrinal matters - after all, you're no Calvinist - then why do you trust him to get this right? Especially when the plain reading of the Bible stands in stark contradiction? There's just no way to square the circle - Romans 13 says obey your government, it gives no support to rebellion. In fact it says rebellion is a sin against God.
Freedom and the concept of freedom is mentioned multiple times in the Bible.
But only as a spiritual freedom from spiritual bondage. The Bible isn't opposed to actual bondage, in fact it details the circumstances under which one is permitted to enslave others, and it certainly says that rebellion against the government is a sin against the God who ordains all governments. Romans 13, specifically, is one of the places where it says that.
I don’t trust secularists to know the plain meaning of the Bible.
You're simply proving the old canard that it's only secularists who ever actually read their Bibles.
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.
This is an incredible litany of things that are completely false: the US doesn't own any car companies, just stock in a few; Alexander Hamilton created the first government bank, the Federal Reserve Bank, which operates to this day; government-run health care has been a feature of the US since 1778; and nobody's "re-written the Declaration of Independence", how could they and why, given that the declaration is a document with only historical interest within the United States, and no force of law whatsoever?
I do believe I’ll be smiling a little more brightly than you after the November elections this year.
Republicans are likely to take the smallest possible majority in the Senate, but not the House; that wouldn't be any different than any other mid-term election. Smile if you like but I'm not sure what agenda your side plants to advance given control of only one-half of one branch of government, which they'll lose in 2012.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by marc9000, posted 09-26-2010 2:51 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 289 by marc9000, posted 10-02-2010 10:18 PM crashfrog has replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 279 of 313 (583531)
09-27-2010 8:38 PM
Reply to: Message 273 by marc9000
09-27-2010 7:32 PM


Focusing on the real issue
Justice Rehnquist's summary of apparently conflicting opinions does indeed highlight the undeniable fact that the Court has not been entirely consistent in its application of First Amendment principles. However, this is largely irrelevant for purposes of this thread.
The real problem that you have is that you have yet to produce any evidence whatsoever for the things that you claim are happening.
Invaded, 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.
Science is not taught as atheism, no matter how many times you claim it is. Ten Commandment displays are unconstitutional on government property because no government has a constitutional right to express religion. The Court has never, despite your various claims to the contrary, ever ruled that private, voluntary expressions of religion are unconstitutional
While I won't deny the possibility that you might, as an academic position, disagree with the Court's First Amendment jurisprudence, I'm fairly confident that at this point, you don't understand it well enough to express an informed opinion. Nevertheless, the real issue you have is what you think courts are doing. Since I know that they aren't doing what you think they are doing, and you have yet to present any credible evidence in support of your claims, I really see little point to continue this discussion. If you can see your way to presenting actual evidence (as opposed to the unsupported claims you've made to this point) of things you think courts are doing that they shouldn't, I'll happily address that evidence.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by marc9000, posted 09-27-2010 7:32 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 291 by marc9000, posted 10-02-2010 10:48 PM subbie has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 280 of 313 (583532)
09-27-2010 8:39 PM
Reply to: Message 275 by marc9000
09-27-2010 7:54 PM


Re: Combined response
419.1 million, FEDERAL funding?
Yeah, they're buying research.
You realize that the Federal government buys things, right?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by marc9000, posted 09-27-2010 7:54 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 281 of 313 (583533)
09-27-2010 8:46 PM
Reply to: Message 274 by marc9000
09-27-2010 7:48 PM


Re: Evidence, please
Not told? This is an establishment of atheism, my friends.
Are you insane? You equate not telling everything in a grade school textbook on biology to atheism? I think we've finally reached the root of your problem. Your brain doesn't work.
Please explain how not telling everything is atheism.
Now, if the textbook said something like, "The biological evidence proves that there's no god," I'd be on your side. Teaching that in schools would be an unconstitutional attack on religion. Since you haven't claimed that it does, I'm going to assume it doesn't.
I saw William Provine's arrogance in the movie "Expelled".
Wonderful. Did you see what he taught in his classes? If not, we have nothing to discuss.
In the future, something may happen to bolster one of our positions. I think it will be mine.
You can bolster your position right now. Present evidence. I really can't understand why this simple request is so difficult for you to understand.
And I accept the ICR's interpretation far more than Provine's, Dawkin's or Stenger's.
For purposes of this discussion, I'm not willing to accept anyone's "interpretation." I want to see what the book says. You can't tell me, so we have no evidence to consider.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by marc9000, posted 09-27-2010 7:48 PM marc9000 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 282 by jar, posted 09-27-2010 8:50 PM subbie has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 282 of 313 (583535)
09-27-2010 8:50 PM
Reply to: Message 281 by subbie
09-27-2010 8:46 PM


Re: Evidence, please
Subbie writes:
marc9000 writes:
And I accept the ICR's interpretation far more than Provine's, Dawkin's or Stenger's.
For purposes of this discussion, I'm not willing to accept anyone's "interpretation." I want to see what the book says.
And that is the heart of the discussion. Marc seems to be part of the crowd that accept SOURCE over CONTENT.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by subbie, posted 09-27-2010 8:46 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 283 by subbie, posted 09-27-2010 8:59 PM jar has not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 283 of 313 (583536)
09-27-2010 8:59 PM
Reply to: Message 282 by jar
09-27-2010 8:50 PM


Re: Evidence, please
Quite. In essence, it's what I said in Message 217. As long as someone is saying something he agrees with, he takes what they say as gospel.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by jar, posted 09-27-2010 8:50 PM jar has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 284 of 313 (583538)
09-27-2010 9:15 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by marc9000
09-26-2010 2:51 PM


Your track record forces me to question
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.
I am not calling you a liar but I question the truthfulness of this statement. If you actually had the book you would have called it by its title not its subtitle.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by marc9000, posted 09-26-2010 2:51 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 293 by marc9000, posted 10-02-2010 10:51 PM Theodoric has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 285 of 313 (583543)
09-27-2010 9:32 PM
Reply to: Message 275 by marc9000
09-27-2010 7:54 PM


Private
419.1 million, FEDERAL funding?
Yes, the government can pay a private institution to do research, development, or indeed practically anything else. That doesn't magically make it into a federal agency.
Incidentally, what are your thoughts on Faith-Based Initiatives? If a church gets money from the government to (e.g.) run a drug rehabilitation program, does it thereby become a public institution, or does it continue to be an independent organization ... a church, as it were, separate from the state?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by marc9000, posted 09-27-2010 7:54 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 294 by marc9000, posted 10-02-2010 10:54 PM Dr Adequate has 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