Find me where it says "separation of church and state"

Sounds nice - nevertheless I don't think any phycicist in the world has any idea now what you are speaking about if you are speaking about "energy affixed in time".

http://youtu.be/v_DiAPYQOak

 

Separation of Church and State is found in the writings of Thomas Jefferson.

"Constructionism" thrives on the idea of "original intent", which means trying to determine (by Ouija board, I guess) what dead people originally thought on an issue and hold that as the standard for all time.
As such, their hatred of Separation of Church and State seems to be based on something else entirely, as at least some of the Founding Fathers clearly believed in it.

Constitutional Literalism is at odds with itself.
The Constitution notes that it is not an eternal and all-inclusive document (courtesy of Jefferson).

I'm starting to see why Texans want to erase Jefferson.

 

and i never said a thing about jesus's " looks" i questioned his validity as a real homo sapien who was alive at one point ...

 

What were the forefathers of this forefathers are living and dying for?

http://youtu.be/Zoh-5RnEbHA

 

The Constitution says that govt can't establish an official religion.

The libs use that to justify that religion should be prohibited in any way. Not what the founders had in mind.

Here's an example:

My sister made a full sized classroom door cover for Christmas door decorating that was school wide in her high school in Virginia Beach in 1970.
It was in pastels on burlap and it was beautiful.

It was Mary holding the baby Jesus. The school made her take it down, because it was a public high school.

That was cruel, abusive, and ridiculous.

That was in 1970. The abuse of Christians and Christianity is much worse now. It's wrong.

 

People. Of course your context is presented in the present tense and is therefore not relevant to what the 'forefathers' did in the past. There are no such 'forefathers' (those referenced in context to the Constitution) left alive today to do anything.

 

What you are describing is in my eyes an insane dominance of the religion atheism about all other religions. It remembers me to the Commies and Nazis in Germany - both ideologies tried to eliminate christian symbols in ouhblci - but speciualaly in classrooms. Teh chrtasun rleoign shdoiu dissapear out of the thouhjts of the children. Unfortunatelly such methods are very successfull.

Th quesrtion is: Why to change something as long as there's no protests from a concrete person? If there's no concrete problem - why to solve this not existing existing pronblme in a way that atheists who are living endless miles away from this point could be able to be satisfied?

I think if all religions are in the same way important for human beings then every pupil should have the right to bring a symbol of his/her own religion into his classroom and/or school. If from 10 pupils one should be an atheist then maybe every 10 days a "symbol-free-day" could demonstrate his/her belief. Wveryine has to leaen religious tolerance in such a system - what would be very worthful for all pupils.



http://youtu.be/54r8CLLfd94

 

Is "What the forefather of this forefathers were living and fighting for" a better understandable english sentence?

http://youtu.be/39oMESx0QcQ

 

There we have it folks... someone is declaring that Dawkins is that entity spoken of in the book of Revelation and other passages of scripture... the anti-Christ.. (using the innovated term of 'new Christ' to attempt to conceal the identity). That declaration should be posted on the front page of every news paper across the globe. Makes me wonder if Dawkins could stand up to the pressure.

 

LOL, what does that have to do with anything? What if "We the people" want religion in government? Your response is retarded.

That just says the state cannot adopt an official religion. It says nothing about forbidding religion in in general in government.

LOL, no. "we" are Americans specifically in this context. Not all of mankind.

The separation of church and state is a judicial construct. The Constitution itself does not have any such language.

 

It amazes me that the only people that actually argue against the separation of church and state are Christians. If Islam was the majority religion in this country and it was being pushed down Christians' throats in classroom, I'm sure we'd see the exact opposite reaction from them. Why is it so necessary to have your dogma taught to children in school? The thrill of indoctrination is too much that not only do you have to do it to your own kids, but now other kids have to deal with it as well?

 

LOL! You do know I am a gay atheist, right?

Why not let the people paying the taxes for the schools have a say in what is taught?

This is another reason that school vouchers are a great idea.

I began life as a catholic and am now an atheist. No, teaching religion in schools is not some kind of "I Win" button for religion.

 

Then this amazes me even more.

You're right, we should make time to teach kids EVERY single religion in the entire world then. Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Taoism, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, Hellenism, Wicca, Rastafarianism, etc. Oh wait, no, we don't have time to teach our kids all of this BS.

But it certainly isn't detrimental to the cause of spreading their ideas to the youth. While children who are taught religion from an early age may abandon it later in their life, it definitely is more likely that they remain religious and continue spreading their religion down the lineage.

 

Only if the tax payers want to. That was my point...the people footing the bill for the schools should have a say.

Why are you afraid of ideas?

So what? Why is it a bad thing for them to be biased in favor of their own beliefs? Are you not doing the exact same thing?

We have an open society with free speech. There is nothing at all stopping those kids from getting exposure to new ideas as adults if thats what they want.

I think parents have a right to raise their kids in the way THEY think is best when it comes to ideas. It is not my job to second guess their decisions.

 

The specific phrase is taken from Thomas Jefferson, but the policy itself comes from many Supreme Court rulings over the years. It's the only practical way to resolve the conflicting constitutional demands to neither promote religions nor hinder them.

There is no way for the government to neither promote nor hinder religious beliefs except to remain separate from the matter altogether.

 

It was founded as a secular country under the ideals of the enlightenment. The fact that many of the men who helped to found the country were Christian is irrelevant, as many, many Christians at the time understood the importance and necessity of keeping religion and government separate. Remember--these people mostly came out of the Protestant tradition with a fair number of deists in the mix. They well understood the dangers of mingling state and religious authorities.

 

Concrete Question: How is or how could the american state be separated from atheism?

http://youtu.be/Bd1oA47Ti0I

 

And the people that foot the bill that don't want religion mingled with schools, they just have to deal with it?

Oh what a shoddy argument. Yeah, I'm afraid of ideas because I don't want children taught the majority religion of the country. Faith and religious views are a private matter. Children can learn about religion in their social studies and mythologies classes, but once you start demanding that children pray to God and pushing science out the window in to make room for a religious myth, you've gone too far.

No, not at all. What belief am I forcing on anybody? My non-belief? Come on.

First off, free speech comes with limitations and it always has. Secondly, no there is nothing stopping adults from learning new things. Oh wait, except for their dogma and faith that was forced upon them at an early age. Something that they were taught is absolute and unquestionable.

Then let them go to a private school or be home schooled. If I want my children to learn about Bigfoot that's fine, but then to demand that Bigfoot be learned by every single child in the school because of my beliefs is absolutely absurd.

 

Absolutely not true.

A) Many liberals are quite religious, and will fight vigorously to protect their religion. They're motivated to social consciousness by their religion. Lots of socialists are socialists because they're Christian.
B) We do not want to prohibit all religion, we want to keep religion out of the government. I don't know very many people at all who want to ban religion entirely; but I know plenty who see the importance of keeping their religious beliefs free of government corruption and regulation.

No it's not. Public schools are extensions of the state, and therefore should remain separate from religious matters. It was abusive (against her students' civil rights) and inappropriate for her to put it up in the first place.

How is it an 'abuse' to keep Christians from getting special treatment in the halls of government? It's not abusive when you hold one religion to the same standards you hold all the others, and when you give a blanket prohibition against religious intrusion into secular governance. This persecution complex is very common in Christians, where they fell it's 'abuse' to be denied special treatment by the government. Denial of special, unique privileges is not abuse and it isn't persecution.

 

Atheism is not a religion any more than baldness is a hair color or air is type of paper. Not believing in something is not a belief system. There is a world of difference between a belief about religions and a religious belief.

 

Atheism is not a religion. There are no atheist holy books, nor sets of atheist dogma, nor an atheist god. There isn't even a common set of beliefs among atheists, except the one sole claim that they do not believe in gods. Seriously, do you call trees a species of pig? Do you often confuse water for rocks? Because the idea that not believing in religions is a religion is pretty insane.

 

Theres no point in arguing this when each state has similar clauses in their own individual constitutions.

Alabama

Arizona

South Carolina

as a few examples

 

Vouchers would solve that problem. Your solution simply changes who gets preferential treatment.

You want to dictate what ideas can be taught in schools.

Non-belief is a belief. If being an atheist has taught me anything it is that the vast majority of atheists treat atheism like a religion. I get verbally attacked for my blasphemy against atheism all the time even now.

I was able to resist it just fine. Am I special or something?

Or is it that they are not really bound by their dogma at all unless they want to be?

Give them back their tax money so that they can spend it on these private schools and I will agree to your terms.

Most liberals would never agree to vouchers, because they want to use public schools for their OWN indoctrination programs.

 

My solution changes it so that nobody gets preferential treatment. And you didn't answer why people that think these things shouldn't be taught in school are simply discounted. What, people that believe these things need to be catered to because they are special?

You're right, I don't want kids to be taught one or hundreds of different creation myths as if they are facts. I also don't want my children to be taught how to knife fight in school, but that doesn't mean I'm afraid of ideas.

And you should be verbally confronted. Non-belief is not a belief, that doesn't even make sense. It is the absence of a belief. If I believe that God didn't exist, that would be an actual belief. But discounting a myth 2,000 years old because there is no evidence for it being actual fact does not make it a belief.

People are different than other people. Some people have a skeptical mind, many of them don't and I dare say that most don't.

States can do this. They just have to follow a five-part test established by the Supreme Court.

• the program must have a valid secular purpose,
• aid must go to parents and not to the schools,
• a broad class of beneficiaries must be covered,
• the program must be neutral with respect to religion, and
• there must be adequate nonreligious options.

Uh huh.

 

Vouchers cause other problems.

Personally, I do feel that society and the government do have a vested interest in making sure that some things are taught in schools to particular standards. I don't think it's unreasonable to have a standard for literacy and mathematic proficiency, for example. I also think that when it comes to teaching science, that the standards ought to be set by scientific consensus.

That's dumb on the order of "A is not A". By definition non-belief cannot be a belief.

Nonsense. There's nothing to blaspheme against. Disagreeing with you is not the same thing as calling you a blasphemer who's betraying atheism.

Yes. The people who participate on internet forums are unusual people. People who spend time discussing the nature of society are the extreme minority.

Not really practical unless we're treating it as the government outsourcing the provision of government services to a private contractor. Which means standards. Voucher systems basically have to exist within a milieu that includes government educational standards. I really wouldn't have much of a problem with vouchers, except I know that the vouchers will go towards indoctrination of children into regressive religious or conservative beliefs.

Correction; we're opposed to vouchers because we're generally opposed to indoctrination as a principle. It's not our fault that conservatives think that it's 'indoctrination' to teach children about uncomfortable aspects of history (like teaching them about labor movements or socialists) and scientific fact. Making children aware that gay people exist and aren't inherently evil is often called 'indoctrination' by conservative groups. That's not indoctrination by any sane meaning of the term.