Creationists launch their own peer reviewed 'science' journal

[Ben Niehoff]

Wow, no clue what your talking about. Amazing.

I'd have to agree; you definitely have no clue what I'm talking about. Read it again. All I'm doing is explaining the point of view of a typical Christian. I myself, however, am not religious at all (and I think the pervasive amount of religion in our public politics is disgusting).

Reading comprehension, folks...come on, now.

 

[arunma]

Interesting? I find it disgusting! For over 2 centuries, taxpayers have paid the salary of a Christian chaplain who begins every session of Congress with prayer!

Actually this practice precedes the writing of the Constitution. I remember reading that the legislature of the Confederation government also opened their sessions with a prayer. I think this has something to do with why the practice is legal. But if it makes you feel better, the Congress has also opened with prayers by Jews, Muslims, and even Hindus, a practice which equally offends conservative Christians (such as myself). In any case, you can relax. The prayers are simply part of American civic religion, which has little spiritual value at all.

When will these people grow up?

It would appear that maturity is an ill-defined concept. The thought rarely occurs to us religious types that prayer is childish. Though in the caseof the PC prayers uttered in Congress, I'd agree that they are rather futile.

 

[Ben Niehoff]

The courts do not agree that this is a debateable issue, never have, and never will. The establishment clause is an iron-clad separation of church and state. Jefferson ought to know what the first amendment means - he wrote it. The fact that the words don't appear in the Constitution itself is a non sequitur smokescreen religious people like to use in an attempt to weaken it. Don't fall for the trick. Separation of church and state is explicitly included in the Constitution.

I agree that the courts do not consider it debatable anymore, and as an atheist, I'm glad for that. But it is naive to think that our basic rights are literally spelled out in a 230-year-old document. They are, and always have been, subject to interpretation. The end effect is that we, the present-day citizens, own and design our rights, and it is our responsibility to defend them against tyranny. Surely the PATRIOT Act (and numerous acts of Congress in the prior 200 years) are sufficient evidence that our national government cannot be expected to defend them for us.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The key difficulties with the Establishment Clause are the precise, intended meanings of "respecting" and "establishment". A very loose interpretation might take "respecting" to merely mean "about", or "regarding", which would effect a prohibition on Congress making any laws that mention specific religions whatsoever. I'm fairly sure that is not the intent.

As far as I can tell, an "establishment of religion" is meant to mean a particular sect of religion. For example, Lutheranism, Hinduism, Mormonism, and Zoroastrianism are all establishments of religion. Then the interpretation rests on the meaning of "respecting". Lacking any other context (I'm no historian, and I haven't spent time to read all of the various Founders' letters), I would take "respecting" to mean, literally, "giving respect to", in an official capacity. That is, the Establishment Clause, on this interpretation, merely means:

"Congress shall make no law which gives any particular religion a higher official status than others, nor shall Congress make any law prohibiting the practice of any particular religion."

That is, that all religions should be treated equally by law, neither made into official religions, nor prohibited from being practiced.

A reasonable interpretation of this should indeed include a protection for atheists. But as evidenced by our current administration, we do not always have reasonable people in office. A common tactic by fundamentalist activists is to proclaim that atheism, not being a religion, per se, should not be granted protections.

My main objection to the wording of the First Amendment is that I do not feel it is quite specific enough to absolutely preclude such an interpretation. The right to follow no religion at all should be made specifically clear, so that it is protected even if fundamentalists find their way into our higher courts.

 

[Cyrus]

I'd have to agree; you definitely have no clue what I'm talking about. Read it again. All I'm doing is explaining the point of view of a typical Christian. I myself, however, am not religious at all (and I think the pervasive amount of religion in our public politics is disgusting).

Reading comprehension, folks...come on, now.

No, you're not getting off that easy.

Personally, I think freedom from religion is an important fundamental freedom that the Founders did not fully recognize or take into account; if I were able to re-write the Constitution today, I'd make sure to explicitly include it.

That is wrong. Totally, and utterly wrong. Dont pawn it off by saying you were just explaining the point of view of the christian chruch when you say "Personally, I..."

To Messrs. Nehemiah Dodge and Others, a Committee of the Danbury Baptist Association, in the State of Connecticut
Gentleman,

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association, give me the highest satisfaction. My duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect and esteem.


T.W. Jefferson



January 1, 1802

Jefferson and others knew damm well what he was doing. There was no debateable issue from day 1.

Here, have fun: http://www.nobeliefs.com/jefferson.htm

http://www.nobeliefs.com/Tripoli.htm

As a fellow athiest, I would expect you of all people to know this already.

 

[Hurkyl]

As a fellow athiest, I would expect you of all people to know this already.

Because, of course, atheists all adopt a shared system of core beliefs with no dissent, and each have exactly the same knowledge.

 

[Cyrus]

Because, of course, atheists all adopt a shared system of core beliefs with no dissent, and each have exactly the same knowledge.

Im glad we agree, fellow atheist!

 

[Evo]

Personally, I think freedom from religion is an important fundamental freedom that the Founders did not fully recognize or take into account; if I were able to re-write the Constitution today, I'd make sure to explicitly include it.

That is wrong. Totally, and utterly wrong. Dont pawn it off by saying you were just explaining the point of view of the christian chruch when you say "Personally, I..."

Uhm Cyrus, he said "freedom from religion", not "freedom of religion".

 

[Cyrus]

I know, its exactly what Jefferson said by 'wall of separation' in his letter to Danbury.

"Mr. Jefferson, build up that wall!" -Hitchens

 

[Danger]

Did you know that fisherman even have their own pier reviewed journals?

Bah, stop trolling!

If you two are finished carping about it, can we get on with the discussion?

 

[mheslep]

The protection from religion comes from the fact that there can be no laws respecting the establishment of religion.

No federal laws. Maryland used to have its own state sanctioned religion.

 

[mheslep]

The courts do not agree that this is a debateable issue, never have, and never will. The establishment clause is an iron-clad separation of church and state. Jefferson ought to know what the first amendment means - he wrote it. The fact that the words don't appear in the Constitution itself is a non sequitur smokescreen religious people like to use in an attempt to weaken it. Don't fall for the trick. Separation of church and state is explicitly included in the Constitution.

No, you're not getting off that easy.



That is wrong. Totally, and utterly wrong. Dont pawn it off by saying you were just explaining the point of view of the christian chruch when you say "Personally, I..."



Jefferson and others knew damm well what he was doing. There was no debatable issue from day 1. ...

Wrong. If Jefferson had tried to use his Danbury letter separation language in the 1st amendment it never would have been approved and he knew it. A few like Paine had views that went beyond opposition to an federally sanctioned religion (a popular view) to outright opposition to even the idea of any religion. Paine's views were known and rejected by the majority, and there's know chance it ever would have been included the 1st amendment.
The constitution is that which was ratified at the time by all the founders and states; its simply fallacious to say that since what Jefferson really wanted was the Danbury language and therefore that's what it means. If you don't like the language, amend it. Don't try a spin it w/ nine guys in robes as someday I might do the same to you.

 

[sas3]

I agree. The problem is, it doesn't stop at the creationist museum. There's a teacher at my daughter's school who always refers to evolution as "just a theory," whenever the subject comes up. Since she teaches Biology I imagine it would come up rather frequently.

As you might guess, the teacher is VERY religious.

Wow! That’s scary

If I had a child in school and I heard that the teacher referred to evolution as “just a theory” I would talk with the school board and have that teacher keep her opinions to herself and maybe suggest that the teacher go back to school and learn what a “theory” is.


What grade is your daughter in?

 

[OmCheeto]

I'm starting to feel sorry for the ID'ers. I noticed that they haven't pointed out any weird creatures lately, so today when I saw two creatures designed specifically for mankind by god, I just had to share them:

Hungarian Canis Komondor Floormopus
http://www.i-love-dogs.com/dog-breeds/images/Komondor.jpg

Paleocene era* Planetetherium Doormatus
http://www.paleocene-mammals.de/primates.htm

*The Paleocene era being a week from last Tuesday