|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Separation of church and state | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1509 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4 |
You are now the arbiter of who is a chistian? Tell us why he is not a christian. A few years ago I read his book Finding Darwin’s God — A Scientist’s Search For Common Ground Between God And Evolution, and found it to be about 90% Darwin and 10% God. He showed practically no knowledge of BASIC Christianity, and any of it he did refer to was gap filling. But whenever he saw any kind of conflict, Darwin was king, God came in a distant second. Matthew 7: 15, 16 says Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. (The words of Christ himself) I know him by his fruits. I don’t judge him, and I’m not an arbiter of him. I know to avoid his teachings personally, and non forcibly point out what I consider to be his unacceptable compromises with atheism.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1509 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4 |
What is the point you are attempting to make here? Federal funding involves state. In separation of church and state issues, Message 272 suggested to me that private institutions, are exempt from separation of church and state issues. I don’t think the term private institution defines an entity well if it is funded in any way by tax dollars.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
A few years ago I read his book Finding Darwin’s God — A Scientist’s Search For Common Ground Between God And Evolution, and found it to be about 90% Darwin and 10% God. It has already been pointed out to you that there is no conflict between Evolution or the Theory of Evolution and Christianity. If YOUR chapter of Club Christian has a problem with either then YOUR chapter of Club Christian is free to continue to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to YOUR children. BUT...do not presume to speak for either GOD or Christianity. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1509 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4 |
You're trying really hard to get this thread closed by administration, aren't you? Just like you successfully did here, in messages 129 &130. Good luck with that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
You're trying really hard to get this thread closed by administration, aren't you? These are examples of the paranoid delusions you hold to which I have previously alluded. Please don't blame me for the inability to defend your claims that sends you spiraling out into new ones. We call it the "Gish Gallop", by the way. He wasn't the first but he's a lot better at it than you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1509 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4 |
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. I think it’s relevant because separation of church has been the cause of the inconsistency, not the actual wording of the first amendment. Separation of church and state has been an ADDITION, a confusing addition to US government that wasn’t there, wasn’t applied by the courts, before 1947. Though it’s been shown in this thread that Reynolds happened long before 1947, Reynolds wasn’t a prominent reference to it, to anywhere near the extent that Everson (1947) has been.
The real problem that you have is that you have yet to produce any evidence whatsoever for the things that you claim are happening. I have, but you'd claim that I haven't no matter what I do. Apparently it's the only alternative you have to any kind of actual open-mindedness, something I'm often accused of not having.
Science is not taught as atheism, no matter how many times you claim it is. No matter how clearly I show it, you’ll always automatically deny it. That much is clear.
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 But 10 Commandment displays on government property were seldom, if ever, questioned or taken to court before 1947.
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. Did you know that Thurgood Marshall once said, concerning his judicial philosophy; "You do what you think is right, and let the law catch up." That is a real good introduction to what the courts are doing, and have been doing since the mid 20th century.
Are you insane? You equate not telling everything in a grade school textbook on biology to atheism? You made up the grade school part. I’m actually talking about biology on a high school and college level here. Since I’ve gotten at least 10 posts worth of grief for not having the critical thinking skills to understand that a person who used the term states was actually referring to foreign countries, I’d have to ask you to have the critical thinking skills to understand that I wasn’t referring to a grade school textbook.
I think we've finally reached the root of your problem. Your brain doesn't work. The problem of the entire scientific community, it seems, (as well as the entire secular, humanistic worldview) is that it doesn’t understand that there are sources of truth other than those based on only the scientific method. I heard the other day that polls show that 59% of the US population believe that the US is on the wrong track. Much of today's high level political debates show that more than a few believe that scientism and separation of church and state are largely behind that wrong track.
Please explain how not telling everything is atheism. There is much the scientific community doesn’t know about the origin of life. But since it presupposes a conclusion of only naturalism (purposeless, blind, happenstance, random processes), it will avoid studying any troublesome complications that raise more questions than answers. Not telling everything is important when dealing with something that has unexplainable gaps.
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. Would you be on my side if teachers are permitted to say, When you put on your Jesus glasses, you can't see the truth. According to the following WorldNetDaily story, the courts have decided that’s alright. Teacher's rant on Christians draws court rebuke (That link is, ~evidence~) So here’s what separation of church and state have done for us; It’s religious — violates the law - to address details, pathways, information coding, and continuous (vs discontinuous) development of biological systems, because it could look problematic for the random happenstance of naturalistic development, yet when it’s said when you put your Jesus glasses on, you can’t see the truth , it’s not anti-religious, it doesn’t violate the law.
marc9000 writes: 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. I think it’s obvious that for every James Corbett that is caught, hundreds or thousands more just like him go scot-free.
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. I linked some evidence in several messages, including numbers 118, 184, and 274. If what evidence I’ve presented isn’t enough for you, I’m sorry. These are discussion forums about opinions, largely about projections about how good something is for a society. Philosophical discussions go beyond evidence. Do you demand evidence after every line of the Humanist Manifestos?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Theodoric writes: Tell us why he is not a christian. marc9000 writes:
You failed to tell us why he (Kenneth Miller) is not a Christian. All you have there is assertions of opinion.A few years ago I read his book Finding Darwin’s God — A Scientist’s Search For Common Ground Between God And Evolution, and found it to be about 90% Darwin and 10% God. He showed practically no knowledge of BASIC Christianity, and any of it he did refer to was gap filling. But whenever he saw any kind of conflict, Darwin was king, God came in a distant second. Sure, we don't doubt that you disagree with Miller. But we don't know on what that disagreement is based.
marc9000 writes:
"Ravening wolves" seems to fit your own posting style.
Matthew 7: 15, 16 says Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1509 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4 |
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. The actual title God, The Failed Hypothesis, is similar to many other book titles by Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, etc. I just go directly to the subtitle because it’s a LIE. When pressed on it, most anyone in the scientific community will acknowledge that it’s a lie. But if not pressed, they’re happy to just wink and nod at it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1509 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4 |
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? MY thoughts are that if a church gets public funding for a drug rehab program or any similar program, THAT PROGRAM and all church administrators involved with it become public, (including taxing and reporting) and its funding and activities stay separate from the rest of that particular church’s activities. Any administrators involved in both that program and other church activities would be required to file reports that would make clear that the two activities are completely separate. It would be possible to do, and it wouldn’t be hard to do without the separation of church and state metaphor legally getting in the way.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1509 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4 |
You failed to tell us why he (Kenneth Miller) is not a Christian. All you have there is assertions of opinion. No different than assertions that ID violates separation of church and state. It's opinion, nothing more.
Sure, we don't doubt that you disagree with Miller. But we don't know on what that disagreement is based. See Message 274. As a textbook author, he speculates on origins of life in a purely naturalistic way, just like an atheist would. He leaves things out, things that are basic in Christianity. He wouldn't have to directly speculate on them, but he goes far enough with naturalism to disregard them.
"Ravening wolves" seems to fit your own posting style. And no one else's in this thread, only mine? Guess it depends on which side you're on. Have I asked anyone if they're "insane", or told them "their brain doesn't work"?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 837 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
As an advocate of teaching religion in the schools, I am curious as to which religion you would insist be taught?
And if the answer is Christianity, which one of the 30,000 denominations, and which one of the 30,000 versions of the Bible would you demand? If you refuse to answer, your position automatically becomes unrealistic for the simple fact the details have not been addressed. The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes. Salman Rushdie This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
marc9000 writes:
And just like a textbook writer would. I don't see that you have anything there.
As a textbook author, he speculates on origins of life in a purely naturalistic way, just like an atheist would. marc9000 writes:
Again, that seems entirely appropriate for a textbook writer. His book ought to be covering the curriculum, and avoiding the injection of any religious views.As a textbook author, he speculates on origins of life in a purely naturalistic way, just like an atheist would. He leaves things out, things that are basic in Christianity. He wouldn't have to directly speculate on them, but he goes far enough with naturalism to disregard them. That does not seem to provide a basis for your conclusion that he is not a Christian.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5930 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8 |
Dr. Miller is a practicing Catholic. And a self-described creationist, since, as a practicing Catholic, he does believe in a Divine Creator.
Now, there are those self-described "Christians", mainly of the fundamentalist or "conservative" persuasion, who absolutely deny that Catholics are Christians. I personally know one at my work place. With all due respect, those self-described "Christians" have their heads firmly embedded into their aft orifices.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9076 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.7 |
So, because you say so. This is a glaring fallacy. Like all your other assertions, no evidence.
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1255 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
(That link is, ~evidence~) I linked some evidence in several messages, including numbers 118, 184, and 274. None of that is evidence.
I have, but you'd claim that I haven't no matter what I do. Actually, what I and others here have done is explain to you, repeatedly, what would constitute evidence. All you have to do is comply with the clear requests we've repeatedly made. If you claim there is a court opinion that says something, show us the opinion. If you claim something is taught in a textbook, quote the textbook. If you claim a professor teaches something in class, quote the professor. If you claim Thurgood Marshall said something, link us to a source for the quote. Instead, again and again, you present claims. More often than not, you present what others claim, apparently not even having seen the original source yourself at all. All of this has been explained to you so many times by so many people that it's become very difficult to believe you are debating in good faith. Either you don't have the wit to understand the distinction between evidence and claims, or you're ignoring it. Either way, it's apparent that further debate of this topic with you is a waste of time, effort and bandwidth. I for one have lost interest; banging my head against a brick wall was never my favorite activity, and I feel confident that I've made my point clear enough that lurkers and anyone interested in truly learning about this topic will dismiss what you have to say as the paranoid ravings that they are. I'll likely continue to follow this thread in the unlikely event that you do get around to providing actual evidence. As far as the article that you linked from World Nut Daily, here is the actual opinion in the case. You can read to see what the Court approved what it did approve and why it rejected what it did reject. I'll leave with this point. The Court held as follows:
Corbett states an unequivocal belief that creationism is superstitious nonsense. The Court cannot discern a legitimate secular purpose in this statement, even when considered in context. The statement therefore constitutes improper disapproval of religion in violation of the Establishment Clause. 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
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024