WTH is wrong with a moment of silence or reflection?Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
If you don't want to reflect then STFU.
Printable View
WTH is wrong with a moment of silence or reflection?Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
If you don't want to reflect then STFU.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
They already have it :rolleyes:
It would take time out of the school day that should be used for teaching and learning. Do you think American students need less study time?
Quote:
Originally Posted by clocker
Katrina was not a terrorist act, last I heard, but leaving that for a moment, if not the (admittedly flawed) Patriot Act, what, alternatively?
That phrase means precisely this:Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
"Congress (acting as the agent of the government) shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" (by, or on behalf of, the government).
Our difference of opinion stems from your belief that words are made of elastic, not realizing that, especially when used in a document such as this, such elasticity is neither desired nor allowed.
Does " ... an establishment of religion ..." mean Church, or Temple that sort of thing.
Or does it mean a religion being formed.
If not, what does the phrase actually mean.
To avoid the Church of England thing happening here.Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
Is was viewed as slightly oppressive, enough to warrant this mention in the Constitution, at any rate.
On the contrary I find your view of the words to be elasticQuote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
So the 1st amendment was (included) that the Government would not establish a religion.
I have to say mate that this does seem to imply that, from the outset, your founding fathers wanted religion kept totally seperate from the State. Or at least from your government.
I have to then take the point that there should be no religious symbolism in places like courts or schools (save for private ones).
Also that there should be no mention of God in things like pledges.
It seems only sensible.
Then our debate is over.Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
Not merely that the government should not establish a religion, but that it adopt a hands-off stance with regard to the practice or choice of religion by it's citizens.Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
That the Founding Fathers wrote and abided this sentiment, then proceeded to salt their writings with religious reference should be considered the best indicator of their intent.
I don't recall off-hand, but as to the variety of religions represented among this gathering of men, I am sure were a variety of what are termed Christian religions as well as others.
The only proper conclusion would be that they agreed to adopt a passivity toward the religion/government relationship because the desire for an atmosphere of religious cohabitation was a founding premise, and also that they realized entertaining religious strictures while also attempting to formulate a new government incorporating religious freedom was a recipe for failure.
That they overlooked the eventuality the wider variety of immigration the future held would bring with it a selection of dieties not referred to as GOD should not preclude keeping the basic idea intact; indeed it should be expanded to make space for them, rather than constricted in any way, much less with any sort of selectivity.
Agree with this or not, that this is not clear to at least a few of you disheartens me beyond words.
Tell that to the Mormons in Missouri and Catholics through most of your history :snooty:Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
If this statement was true, then polygamy would be perfectly legal in the USA.
What you mean is that any Religion that will fit with the Christian majorities prejudice. :P
That's full of shit. It's a minute in the morning. :dry:Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
Both sides need to pick their battles. This nitpicking over a moment of silence that spouts no religion is why the other side may want to push harder 'cause you want to take even that tidbit away.
There are 1440 minutes in a day, why chose one of the 360 or so that school has the use of? (and thats including lunch and breaks, which no one objects to using as a time of reflection)
Surely the bus trip home is longer than a minute :rolleyes:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rat Faced
:dry:Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
Because it's throwing a bone to the other side. It doesn't spout religion so again atheists should fuck off. It's usually one kid's atheist parents that have a problem 'cause he might wonder why everyone's silent. The atheist parents need to STFU 'cause their ain't getting religion.
I saw the same thing coming up and used to just look around while everyone else bowed their heads. I STFU out of respect back then. The teacher said quiet. I never got the Holy Ghost while reflection was going on. :dry:
It did a good job of simmering folks down in the morning for study. Before the "moment" it was tons a noise. However, admittedly as the day went on, the level rose back up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Let me think out loud here. I assume that the majority of your founding Fathers would themselves have been Christian (of one flavour or another). They would therefore almost certainly be founding your new country on Christian values.
They then look at places like England, where the state is inextricably linked to one branch of Christianity, Anglicanism (the name's a giveaway) and decide that is wrong, that one branch should not have influence over governing everyone.
Could they, when speaking of religion, not actually be referring to Christianity, but to specific "branches" of it. In effect saying that the State would not adopt one particular religion (subset of Christianity) but instead would allow freedom of religion to all it's people. They would not allow one group to form part of the Government (Anglican Bishops in the Lords), but would seperate the State from it.
Thus making any reference to God OK, as it would be one area where all of the Christian religions agreed.
A lot of chaps, particularly at that time, would not define their religion as Christian, but as the particular form of Christianity that was their own faith. It would then make sense, when they were using the word "religion" that it was actually specific types of religion they were referring to.
Sorry if that's a bit rambled, but do you understand what I'm talking about.
many if not most of the influential founding fathers followed deistic philosophy or Freemasonry
founding fathers
Mr Morris doesn't appear to have an agenda
"The early presidents and patriots were generally Deists or Unitarians, believing in some form of impersonal Providence but rejecting the divinity of Jesus and the absurdities of the Old and New testaments."
EDIT - Sorry Professor Morris
His qualifications in astronomy and membership of "Atheists United" would obviously make him an expert on the subject of your constitution..Quote:
Steven Morris received his Bachelor's Degree in astronomy from the University of Toronto and his Ph.D from the University of Calgary. He held a research position at UCLA for two years working on a seismology project, which included spending one year at the South Pole running a seismometer. He has taught at the University of Puerto Rico and now teaches physics and physical science at Los Angeles Harbor College. He has published several astronomy research papers and is an active member of the Los Angeles-based Atheists United.
it's worth noting that the first federal congress considered & voted against quite a few variations of the establishment clause. very much worth noting, i think. they struck particular words out of proposals for the clause, too. at various points, the words "particular denomination," "national religion," and "articles of faith" were proposed... yet they were debated, rejected, and what the congress ultimately approved was relatively generic wording. it isn't uncommon to hear someone (since i don't have a specific who/where/when anecdote at hand, let's just call it a hypothetical straw man) profess to favor a strict reading of the u.s. constitution, who'll then go on to claim that the establishment clause means merely to prohibit the gov't from establishing a national denomination. does "strict" mean to revise history and to claim the official clause is synonymous with proposed clauses that were rejected? well, no. if the establishment clause were meant to say those words, then it would say those words, 'cause there were plenty of opportunities to approve those words instead of the more generic "respecting an establishment of religion."
going off on a tangent:
the use of the word "congress" in the establishment clause may lead one to believe that this allows the individual state gov'ts to establish official churches, and this concern was voiced in the first congress. but the proposal referring to states was rejected, in favor of a reference to congress. so, does this mean that each of the 50 states is free to establish an official church? that point might've been debatable early on but, if nothing else managed to settle it, the u.s. civil war settled the question. outcome: states have no more right to abuse their residents than the federal gov't has.
Granting the surety that the Founders could not have imagined that the U.S. would become the magnet for immigrants that it is, and the inescapable following conclusion they wouldn't have an idea of the sheer numbers of religious leanings, Christian or otherwise, accompanying them?Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
Yes... I'd say you've delivered a servicable summary, but would add a clarification:
If the Founders' imaginations were circumstantially truncated, their language still leaves us on the hook as tolerant of other religions, but subjects those religions to limited intrusions on the order of disallowing bigamy and human sacrifice, and no, I don't mean that last facetiously.
Yes, and yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by 3RA1N1AC
The language does not preclude individual states establishing official religions, but, as you note, if the impetus ever existed, government machinations coincident with the Civil War pointed up the impracticality of this.
Such leeway for individual states to tailor what these days would be termed "quality-of-life issues" was inherent and intended by the Founders.
Well spotted, 3RA1N1AC.
I wasn't pointing to his expertise in the constitution, I was pointing to the religious beliefs of some of the founding fathers. :rolleyes: He being a non believer doesn't alter the beliefs of the founders does it ? Some were christians some were not.Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
No, but it affects which particular evidence he uses, when he uses ellipsis and how he interprets what the evidence means.
The mere fact that you said some of them were not Freemasons is itself mentalist. Freemasons are normally Christian and at the very least must believe in God.
Not true, there is no such stipulation, in fact, many Christians have left Masonry when they have found out what it is really about.Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
right. there's some controversy, prolly even among the various masonic organizations, regarding what it actually IS about. is it a christian belief? is it in fact a different religious belief that takes up the public appearance of christianity for discretion's sake? is it a serious social/political movement, or a frivolous social club, which is so layered in complicated symbolism and formalities that the religious component is essentially garbled and useless? one of the above? all of the above?
Whichever it is, the one thing they do insist on is a belief in God (or at least the person joining must profess to having such a belief). It is also, because of the demographics, predominantly Christians who join, at least in my experience.Quote:
Originally Posted by 3RA1N1AC
I would certainly have thought that it would have been mostly Christians (or at least people who believed in God) who formed it's membership at the relevant time.
It would be correct to imagine the soul of Masonry was, at that point in time, a bit more prevalent than it is now, given the infernal pull of modernity; that is to say, it's strictures would have been stricter.Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
Big stars are born near Milky Way's black holeQuote:
Originally Posted by spinningfreemanny
You cannot rise above 33rd Degree in Freemasonry if you are a practising Christian or admit to a belief in "One God".Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
The Oaths refer to the "Old Religion" and the Maunday service states:
"We meet this day to commemorate the death of our 'Most Wise and Perfect Master,' not as inspired or divine, for this is not for us to decide, but as at least the greatest of the apostles of mankind."
ie: He is not the son of God but an Apostle until proven otherwise.
None of the prayers in the Masons ever refer to Jesus Christ as the son of God or "Lord", indeed most avoid mentoning the name at all...
The Grand Temple in Washington is decorated with Ancient Egyption sybols, not Christian.. the closest to anything Christian in the Temple is the Anke symbol.
So tell me JP... are the real players in the Lodges real Christians?
Im sure that that some are, and dont realise what they're doing.. I mean, its such an honour to be in a Lodge for most, that they dont look and listen...
Besides, like in society most people arent really "Christian"; they merely describe themselves as such because they were baptised into the religion. They dont actually actively practise it.. :P
has it been mentioned that the so-called "boffins" have found some more of those "hobbits"? not that it conclusively proves evolution. but. you know. the bones are startin' to pile up in favor of possibly adding another species to the human genus. a species that seems to have been intelligently designed to go extinct, possibly due to having rather small craniums.
Update
All Eight Intelligent Design Proponents On Dover, Pa. School Board Swept Out Of Office
sourceQuote:
All eight members up for re-election to the Pennsylvania school board that had been sued for introducing the teaching of intelligent design as an alternative to evolution in biology class were swept out of office yesterday by a slate of challengers who campaigned against the intelligent design policy.
Among the losing incumbents on the Dover, Pa., board were two members who testified in favor of the intelligent design policy at a recently concluded federal trial on the Dover policy: the chairwoman, Sheila Harkins, and Alan Bonsell.
The election results were a repudiation of the first school district in the nation to order the introduction of intelligent design in a science class curriculum. The policy was the subject of a trial in Federal District Court that ended last Friday. A verdict by Judge John E. Jones III is expected by early January.
"I think voters were tired of the trial, they were tired of intelligent design, they were tired of everything that this school board brought about," said Bernadette Reinking, who was among the winners.
The election will not alter the facts on which the judge must decide the case. But if the intelligent design policy is defeated in court, the new school board could refuse to pursue an appeal. It could also withdraw the policy, a step that many challengers said they intended to take.
"We are all for it being discussed, but we do not want to see it in biology class," said Judy McIlvaine, a member of the winning slate. "It is not a science."
The vote counts were close, but of the 16 candidates the one with the fewest votes was Mr. Bonsell, the driving force behind the intelligent design policy. Testimony at the trial revealed that Mr. Bonsell had initially insisted that creationism get equal time in the classroom with evolution.
One incumbent, James Cashman, said he would contest the vote because a voting machine in one precinct recorded no votes for him, while others recorded hundreds.
He said that school spending and a new teacher contract, not intelligent design, were the determining issues. "We ran a very conservative school board, and obviously there are people who want to see more money spent," he said.
One board member, Heather Geesey, was not up for re-election.
The school board voted in October 2004 to require ninth grade biology students to hear a brief statement at the start of the semester saying that there were "gaps" in the theory of evolution, that intelligent design was an alternative and that students could learn more about it by reading a textbook "Of Pandas and People," available in the high school library.
The board was sued by 11 Dover parents who contended that intelligent design was religious creationism in new packaging, and that the board was trying to impose its religion on students. The parents were represented by lawyers from the American Civil Liberties Union, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and a private law firm, Pepper Hamilton LLP.
Just need to get some competent minded people to run for the school boards in Kansas now ;)
Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
That is no shit.
http://pitch.com/issues/2004-10-21/news/janovy.html
Thanks for that link Evey.;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Everose
I share some illegal immigrant sentiment but she's a bitch.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Everose
And evolutionist are accused of not having an "open mind"Quote:
"It is our goal to write the standards in such a way that clearly gives educators the right AND responsibility to present the criticism of Darwinism alongside the age-old fairy tale of evolution"
“In short, Darwin’s theory of evolution is biologically, genetically, mathematically, chemically, metaphysically and etc. ‘wildly’ and ‘utterly impossible.’”
“I absolutely am getting more than enough information to be armed, to respond when I get the question, ‘Are you getting evidence to refute Darwinian evolution?’”
“I’ve read stacks of stuff . . . which refutes evolution.”
"Primarily, I sought this office because I felt it was required of me by God."
Connie Morris
she reminds me of jesus2004 :dabs:
Former mayor to challenge Morris
By KURSTEN PHELPS
[email protected]
Posted on Saturday, August 20, 2005 9:05:00 AM
Former Garden City Mayor Tim Cruz announced Friday his plans to run for the 5th District seat on the Kansas State Board of Education in 2006, a seat currently held by Connie Morris, R-St. Francis.
"I don't think our voice is being heard very well on the state board. My intention is to get around to the schools in the district, especially in Garden City, in our own community, and be able to represent our community, southwest Kansas. I just don't feel like we're being represented that well at this point," Cruz, a Democrat, said.
Cruz isn't an official candidate for next November's election yet, but Friday he mailed off a form declaring his intent to file as a candidate.
That would set up a potential face-off between Cruz and Morris, who said she plans to run for re-election in 2006.
Morris' campaign issues when she was elected in 2002 included criticizing using tax dollars to finance public education for the children of illegal immigrants. In 2003, she falsely accused Cruz, then Garden City's mayor, of being an illegal immigrant.
Morris subsequently apologized to Cruz, who is a third-generation Garden Citian.
"Unfortunately, that's the seat she's representing. I'm going to focus on what's best for kids in the community, for teachers in the community and for schools in the community," Cruz, an assistant manager at Sears said. "... Hopefully that incident won't be played on. I would really hate to get back into that. It was a tough time for me, and I tried to put that incident behind me, and hopefully we can keep it behind us."
Morris said she has "nothing more to say" about her comments about Cruz, who said her opponent will make for a good race.
"The apology has been made, and Mr. Cruz and I have visited, and I'm sure he's accepted my apology, and that's the end of that, as far as I'm considered," Morris said.
Cruz said he's not running "against" Morris. Rather, he's running for the school board and he and Morris share the same district.
Still, Morris has been no stranger to controversy since her first run for the state board in 2002. Beside her arguments that children of illegal immigrants shouldn't be entitled to public education in the United States, she's played a key role in the heated debate over whether criticism of evolution should be included in the state's science curriculum standards.
The most recent controversy surrounds her $4,000 taxpayer-funded trip to Miami for a conference in April, where she stayed at a luxury resort hotel. Morris has since repaid $2,890 to the state.
But Cruz said he's focused on what he can bring to the board.
"... I run into people all the time in my business and on the different boards I'm on. I'll be able to ask those types of questions and get feedback from the community," he said. "I definitely will need to do my homework. ... I think just being a voice for the community is a big thing, and the way you do that is by asking questions and listening to people. I have the willingness to listen and bring those issues forward to the board."
Cruz and his wife, Penny, a first-grade teacher at Alta Brown Elementary School, have two children, Zach, a Garden City High School senior, and Jocelyn, a GCHS sophomore.
George Hopkins, a former city commissioner and current USD 457 Board of Education member, said he's known Cruz since being classmates in the third grade at Jones Elementary, now Buffalo Jones Elementary School.
"In working with Tim on numerous projects and numerous committees and on the City Commission, I've found Tim to be one of the most selfless community servants I've met," Hopkins said. "He volunteers himself almost to a fault. He rarely says no to anyone and he works harder at community projects than anyone I've met. ... I consider myself a pretty good volunteer, and he puts me to shame."
The state school board's massive fifth district covers the western half of the state. Getting to know people and schools in such a huge area is a tough task, said Republican Sonny Rundell, who held the 5th District seat for 13 years until Morris defeated him in the 2002 state school board primary election.
But covering western Kansas won't be Cruz's only difficulty, Rundell said.
"The biggest thing he'll have to overcome is that he is a Democrat. It can be done,es running against Morris.
"We certainly need something more than what we've got," he said. but it's going to be really tough. The only way to do that is to do it so everybody can understand what kind of person he is," Rundell said. "We don't need a politician on the the board, we need someone's who is interested in what's best for all kids."
Rundell said he's pleased Cruz will run, but is not officially endorsing any candidates or possible candidate
Interesting, and more regarding the first link I posted. Cruz would have my vote. (Note that he is a Democratic, just like the Governor of Kansas.) I am registered Republican, remember. ;-)
Now refresh my memory....intelligent design has NOTHING to do with religion?
Not creationism huh :dry:Quote:
Conservative Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson told citizens of a Pennsylvania town that they had rejected God by voting their school board out of office for supporting "intelligent design" and warned them Thursday not to be surprised if disaster struck.
Robertson, a former Republican presidential candidate and founder of the influential Christian Broadcasting Network and Christian Coalition, has made similar apocalyptic warnings and provocative statements before.
"I'd like to say to the good citizens of Dover: if there is a disaster in your area, don't turn to God, you just rejected Him from your city," Robertson said on his daily television show broadcast from Virginia, "The 700 Club."
"And don't wonder why He hasn't helped you when problems begin, if they begin. I'm not saying they will, but if they do, just remember, you just voted God out of your city. And if that's the case, don't ask for His help because he might not be there," he said.
source
Not any organized religion. However, the folks pushing for it to be in school have made it so.Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
I have no problem with it as long as it's in a theology or philosophy class.
Otherwise it's like putting math in English class. It's fucking stupid.
Yeah but vidcc can take the opinion of one person, from one religion and then make that the position for all religious people, of every religion.
Didn't you know that.
He really is a devout atheist, almost missionary in his zeal. I think some holy book must have fallen on his head when he was younger. A koran to the cranium as it were.
I'm not the one that denied ID is a religious theory. All along I have said it is creationism in disguise and not science.Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
Please show me where I suggested all religions spout ID or even all religious people support it.
Devout and proud. I state my view as you can see in my sig.Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
I point out the silliness of religion when RELIGIOUS people make their views public. I counter their views when they make them public. I don't care what religion they are.