You don't seem to be trying very hard to make a good post, but instead have concentrated on answering everybody. I think I can speak for everyone when I say we'd prefer the opposite. You're repeating a lot over many posts to different people, but we can all reply to one really good post that explains yourself better.
Ya, I’ve quoted the First Amendment (repeatedly). I know it by heart.
The first Amendment says nothing about forbidding an ‘establishment’ of anything.
It is, however, a clear declaration that the Government is not to restrict religious expression. I.e. if we have a cross on our states seal the Federal Government can not force us to take it off.
This is totally incorrect.
I explained this in Message 222, that you replied to, but didn't acknowledge this part:
quote:No, you're mistaken. Legallly requiring Bibles in court would be the establishment of a religion, not the exercise of it.
And removing the Bible is not preventing anyone from exercising thier religion.
The law is that religion shall not be established, nor prevented from being exercised.
Removing a cross from a seal does not prevent anyone from exercising their religion. If you wanted to legally require the cross on there, then that would be the establishment of religion and unconstitutional.
everybody know's that "Nature's God" is not a reference to the Christian God but instead to a Deistic god.
Everybody knows Santa Claus lives at the North Pole to; that does not make it so. ;-}
That does not make your argument any more convincing.
Your Deistic god theory would hold water if most or all of the signers were modern day Deists;
How so? That doesn't even make sense.
However, as I pointed out in post #231 at least 75% of the signers were Christians. So, unless you can provide substantial evidence to the contrary I stand on the evidence that says it is the Christian God being spoken of.
But you're wrong. Unless, its impossible for a Christian to write about a god that is not the Christian God.
If a Christian writes about "Nature's God", then he is most likely writing about a deistic god regardless of his personal religious beliefs.
But all in all, it doesn't really matter. We have the establishment clause and it says what it says. You're just plain wrong.
It’s great that you have decided to join our little discussion; I hope you enjoy it.
I am only going to respond to one or two of your points because our posts get longer and longer as each new point is made or rebutted.
Sorry!
Huntard writes:
Yes, exactly as evolution predicts. The offspring of something will never be radically different from its parents.
So, if I understand what you’re saying here {I have been accused of misrepresenting people} is that evolution predicts that once you have a fish it will always produce fish; never anything other than a fish? Correct?
Huntard writes:
No you won't, since this evidence has already been provided to you.
Actually, in fact, no one has given me any evidence that mankind has ever been less then mankind.
Lets just simplify the question. Can you give me any evidence that you are ancestrally related to any ape?
Thank you for your interest, JRTjr
P.S. Please, if I have over looked some piece of evidence that has been given to me e-mail me a copy of the post. You can do that through E v Cs own internal mail system.
Lets just simplify the question. Can you give me any evidence that you are ancestrally related to any ape?
That's easy, my parents are apes, as are every other human.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds soon I discovered that this rock thing was true Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world And so there was only one thing I could do Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On *not an actual doctor
Ergo the first phrase of the first Amendment to the constitution can be rendered as meaning:
Congress shall make no law regarding an establishment of religion, ... or
Congress shall make no law concerning an establishment of religion, ... or
Congress shall make no law in connection with an establishment of religion, ... or
Congress shall make no law referring to an establishment of religion, ... or
Congress shall make no law relating to an establishment of religion, ... or
Congress shall make no law with reference to an establishment of religion, ...
Great; so why, IF Congress {The only branch of the Federal government charged will making law} may not make a law with reference to, relating to, referring to, in connection with, concerning, or regarding an establishment of religion is the Supreme court restricting the established Christian heritage of the United States of America?
Let’s not forget the second Half Or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
And, again I ask; Where, in the Constitution of the United States of America is establishment Forbidden?
What you just correctly quoted states implicitly that the Government is not allowed to restrict an establishment of religion.
There are no restrictions placed on an establishment of religion in the U.S. Constitution. This was the whole purpose of the First Amendment. To keep Government from interfering in religion; There is no such restriction on religion interfering in government.
Thank you for your time and effort, JRTjr
P.S. What you or I believe or like/dislike is irrelevant in this discussion. I.e. Whether or not I like something does not automatically make it true or faults. A statement is it true or faults based on the accuracy of its claims.
Whether you like it or not the Moon is not made of cheese. Telling me that ‘Just because I would like the Moon to not be made of cheese, do’ sent make it so. ’; and it does not make it ‘not so’ either.
Great; so why, IF Congress {The only branch of the Federal government charged will making law} may not make a law with reference to, relating to, referring to, in connection with, concerning, or regarding an establishment of religion is the Supreme court restricting the established Christian heritage of the United States of America?
Let’s not forget the second Half Or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
And, again I ask; Where, in the Constitution of the United States of America is establishment Forbidden?
What you just correctly quoted states implicitly that the Government is not allowed to restrict an establishment of religion.
err, no. it means that congress is not allowed to formally establish a religion. this is, as you say, to prevent the restriction of religion by government: if one religion is mandated, any other group suffers. this issue is usually clouded in the minds of most christians, because they imagine that their particular sect would be the favoured religion.
JRTjr writes:
There are no restrictions placed on an establishment of religion in the U.S. Constitution. This was the whole purpose of the First Amendment. To keep Government from interfering in religion; There is no such restriction on religion interfering in government.
only in government from interfering with religion. and that includes the government establishing one (or, more loosely, favouring one over another). the best way to keep government out of religion, as it turns out, is to keep government neutral with regards to religion. and that means keeping religion out of government.
Great; so why, IF Congress {The only branch of the Federal government charged will making law} may not make a law with reference to, relating to, referring to, in connection with, concerning, or regarding an establishment of religion is the Supreme court restricting the established Christian heritage of the United States of America?
It is NOT restricting it. People are free to teach such nonsense in their churches, in there private homes, in their private schools.
You just can't teach such nonsense in the Public Schools.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
As to the contradictions between the newer fable found in Genesis 1 and the earlier fable found in Genesis 2&3, they differ in the order of creation, the method of creation and the very gods themselves.
You and others keep claiming that there are ‘contradictions’ between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2&3 but you still have failed to give any evidence for these supposed contradictions.
Crashfrog and I went round and round on this and the best he could come up with was saying that a word should have been added to the text {in Chapter 2} which would have made the text say what he wanted it to say.
Jar writes:
If the Christian Creation fables are taught it should be pointed out that they are simply myths, that they are mutually exclusive and that they were never meant as science and were both included in the bible because they were not factual but rather poetic and metaphorical.
You prove that they are mutually exclusive and that the Genesis account(no ‘s’) {As Crashfrog pointed out in one of his posts: this is one document; broken up it to Chapters and Verses much later} is not factual then I will agree with you. Until that time I will consider it one, on going, missive not a collection of mismatched fables that do not hold up under honest scrutiny.
Thank you again for your input, JRTjr
P.S.
Jar writes:
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
Yes, I have to agree; Sticking to the facts is extremely handicapping. However, I can live with that handicap.
It’s great that you have decided to join our little discussion; I hope you enjoy it.
I'm sure I will.
So, if I understand what you’re saying here {I have been accused of misrepresenting people} is that evolution predicts that once you have a fish it will always produce fish; never anything other than a fish? Correct?
Quite correct. Anything a fish will produce, will be a fish. Of course, you have to realize that with evolution involved, there might come a time when we no longer would refer to it's offspring as a fish, but then, neither would the parents be. There is no line one can draw and say "this is definitely a fish", and on the other side of the line "this is definitely an amphibian" (as an example). There will be many intermediary stages not quite fish and not quite amphibian, and only on either end can we call the creature a fish or an amphibian. Classifications are arbitrary, after all.
Actually, in fact, no one has given me any evidence that mankind has ever been less then mankind.
Mankind never was anything less than mankind. But if you go back far enough, our ancestors weren't mankind, they were something different.
Lets just simplify the question. Can you give me any evidence that you are ancestrally related to any ape?
My parents, come to mind. Also, my little brother, he's quite the ape, as am I, of course.
You and others keep claiming that there are ‘contradictions’ between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2&3 but you still have failed to give any evidence for these supposed contradictions.
I'm sorry but that is simply not true, it is a falsehood and it is time you stopped repeating it.
It is also totally irrelevant to the topic and simply the typical Christian Cult of Ignorance attempting to misdirect the audiences attention so you can palm the pea.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
Lets just simplify the question. Can you give me any evidence that you are ancestrally related to any ape?
Well considering Humans are apes that would mean that all of my ancestors are/were apes. They were also Hominids, Primates, Mammals, Tetrapods, Amniotics, Vertabrates, Chorates, Deuterostomes, Animals, Eukaryotes, Life.
Edited by bluescat48, : stuck key
There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008
Let me ask you a question please? If one creation theory is taught, why not all or other theories? Is there some reason any other religions is more or less correct? Is there a line drawn somewhere that says if you don't have but x number of followers then your "creation theory" is wrong? As far as I know, anyone can start a church/religion in the USA....Koresh....Jim Jones...Manson. A good lawyer could argue for any of them...if we let any form of creation to be taught in school. How do we determine whose theory's of creation are worthy of being taught?
You and others keep claiming that there are ‘contradictions’ between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2&3 but you still have failed to give any evidence for these supposed contradictions.
Crashfrog and I went round and round on this and the best he could come up with was saying that a word should have been added to the text {in Chapter 2} which would have made the text say what he wanted it to say.
there have been numerous threads on this in the past. i suggest you look for one. suffice it to say, the two present not only entirely different orders of creation, but different logic as well. in genesis 1, god creates everything mankind needs well in advance, to prepare the way for mankind. in genesis 2, god creates mankind first, and then creates everything else according to his needs. in both, mankind is the paramount creation, but they go about that point in two entirely different ways.
You prove that they are mutually exclusive and that the Genesis account(no ‘s’) {As Crashfrog pointed out in one of his posts: this is one document; broken up it to Chapters and Verses much later} is not factual then I will agree with you. Until that time I will consider it one, on going, missive not a collection of mismatched fables that do not hold up under honest scrutiny.
the two are stylistically quite different. aside from the above theological point, look at the writing styles. here is the openning verse of each section:
both begin roughly the same way: temporal dependent clauses, that reference god's creative act. one verse chooses ברא for the (infinitive) verb, the other עשה. as you may know, we've had many threads debating the different senses these verbs imply. one verse chooses definite objects, the other indefinite. and, more importantly, only one actually uses the name of god.
Quite correct. Anything a fish will produce, will be a fish. Of course, you have to realize that with evolution involved, there might come a time when we no longer would refer to it's offspring as a fish, but then, neither would the parents be. There is no line one can draw and say "this is definitely a fish", and on the other side of the line "this is definitely an amphibian" (as an example). There will be many intermediary stages not quite fish and not quite amphibian, and only on either end can we call the creature a fish or an amphibian. Classifications are arbitrary, after all.
this is why we should use cladistics instead of linnaean taxonomy. "fish" are a paraphyletic group: all chordates excluding tetrapods. of course, if we just said "chordate", it would be true that every descendant of a chordate is also a chordate.
My parents, come to mind. Also, my little brother, he's quite the ape, as am I, of course.
yes. humans are apes the same way that we're mammals. and tetrapods. and chordates.
"fish" are a paraphyletic group: all chordates excluding tetrapods.
For a more humorous treatment of this concept...
Mutate and Survive
On two occasions I have been asked, — "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage
Great; so why, IF Congress ... may not make a law ... is the Supreme court restricting ....
The Supreme Court is the final say on interpreting the constitution, that is how the checks and balances work out. They have consistently ruled that public funded operations cannot be for the benefit of any one religion, whether Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, etc nor for the benefit of non-religion (atheism).
Suits get brought before the courts where states etc have tried to pass a law that contravenes the constitution, and the Supreme Court has consistently struck those inappropriate unconstitutional laws down.
... the established Christian heritage of the United States of America?
Sorry, there is no "established Christian heritage" in the USA and there never was. In the USA ALL beliefs are equally represented regardless of faith.
Let’s not forget the second Half Or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
Which is why you can go to the church of your choice. Which is why you can pray to the god/s of your personal choice.
Those rights are curiously not infringed in any way by having laws that prevent people like you trying to establish a federal state religion that would infringe on those rights for people that do not believe as you do, whether they are Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Deist, etc., agnostic, ignostic or atheist.
There are no restrictions placed on an establishment of religion in the U.S. Constitution.
As long as it does not involve public funding or government support (such as public schools etc), all beliefs -- whether they are Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Deist, etc., agnostic, ignostic or atheist -- are equally able to set up churches and meeting places for the practice of those faiths ... as long as it does not involve public funding or government support (such as public schools etc).
This was the whole purpose of the First Amendment. To keep Government from interfering in religion;
AND vice versa.
There is no such restriction on religion interfering in government.
However, once you do that, you then cause government to interfere in religion. That is why there needs to be a "wall of separation" between church and state, as the founding fathers decreed, and why the US Supreme Court has consistently ruled for separation.
™ Version 4.2