Expelled Exposed

[Loismustdie 0]

because that's what jesus would do?

Ouch.

[timwakefield 68]

Wrong... as usual.Good God...you truly are retarded.The US was founded by mostly Christians.Religious Affiliation # of signers % of signersEpiscopalian/Anglican 32 57.1%Congregationalist 13 23.2%Presbyterian 12 21.4%Quaker 2 3.6%Unitarian or Universalist 2 3.6%Catholic 1 1.8 %My point is that if I moved to a country that was founded and based on Muslim or Hinduism... I wouldn't expect the public schools to stop teaching a religious basis that the majority of the people believe in and teach my religious beliefs.Perhaps you should sit this one out. Let the adults handle this one.

Add those numbers up and we get 110.7%. Nice math, dingus.

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

Add those numbers up and we get 110.7%. Nice math, dingus.

hahahaha

[vbnautilus 48]

I agree it doesn't belong in science class, and Islam should be talked about/discussed/taught. It IS part of certain countries fabric/heritage/history. We teach our kids about Hitler, and I have no fear that they will join him en masse. This is all about fear, fear of ideas. How many times do I have to point out that this is not REALLY about science class, this is about school, period.

There's a big difference between teaching about religion and teaching religion. I agree kids should learn about all the beliefs and customs of the world. We agree there's no problem with that. The problem would be if one of these religious beliefs is taught as factual truth. It's like the difference between learning that people used to think the world was flat, and learning that world is flat.

[HollywoodAFD 0]

Add those numbers up and we get 110.7%. Nice math, dingus.

LMAO...I got that off a government site.... must be new math. lol

[KramitDaToad 0]

What bit don't you get? Nobody cares if it's taught or not. There is a place for it to be taught. The science classroom of a public school is not it. Can you understand that one simple point?

Maybe I should restate- I agree that it shouldn't be in Science,

I agree it doesn't belong in science class.

Your apology is accepted.

[KramitDaToad 0]

You sure about that? Or are you taking it on faith?

Epperson v. Arkansas (1968)McLean v. Arkansas case (1982)Edwards v. Aguillard (1987)Webster v. New Lenox School District (1990)Peloza v. Capistrano School District (1994)Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005)Faith is for pussies

[KramitDaToad 0]

I wouldn't expect the public schools to stop teaching a religious basis that the majority of the people believe in

I've heard that before.Taliban FTW.

[timwakefield 68]

LMAO...I got that off a government site.... must be new math. lol

LOLGOVERNMENT

[Balloon guy 158]

Epperson v. Arkansas (1968)McLean v. Arkansas case (1982)Edwards v. Aguillard (1987)Webster v. New Lenox School District (1990)Peloza v. Capistrano School District (1994)Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005)Faith is for

Those are court cases, not constitution quotes.Marbury v. Madison

[brvheart 1,751]

How would you feel if your local public school started teaching Islam to your kids?There's good reason for the separation of church & state, it's the basis for religious freedom. ID belongs in a private religious school, absolutely not in a public science class.

I think the history of God in the world is very important, and if schools weren't teaching students what islam was/is then they would be doing those kids a serious disservice. If I home-schooled my kids you can guarantee that they would know the in's and out's and history of every major and minor religion on Earth. It's an extremely important part of world history.

[brvheart 1,751]

There's a big difference between teaching about religion and teaching religion. I agree kids should learn about all the beliefs and customs of the world. We agree there's no problem with that. The problem would be if one of these religious beliefs is taught as factual truth. It's like the difference between learning that people used to think the world was flat, and learning that world is flat.

What part of this thread did any Christian (other than the retards like AFD) say that Christianity should be taught in schools as fact? I don't remember anyone ever saying this in any thread actually. (... or in real life... and I know a LOT of Christians)

[vbnautilus 48]

What part of this thread did any Christian (other than the retards like AFD) say that Christianity should be taught in schools as fact? I don't remember anyone ever saying this in any thread actually. (... or in real life... and I know a LOT of Christians)

I was explaining why religion masquerading as science is a problem. The thread is about Ben Stein's movie, which is part of the movement to legitimize a religious theory as science -- if successful this would allow religion to be taught in places where it does not belong.

[toll_man 0]

LMAO...I got that off a government site.... must be new math. lol

What site was that?

[rjkdb8 1]

Edit: double post

[rjkdb8 1]

Those are court cases, not constitution quotes.

My instincts tell me that you already know what I am about to type, but here it goes anyway:The doctrine of the separation of church and state is derived from the 1st Amendment, specifically from the following phrase: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ." The court cases provided for you represent occasions where the Supreme Court has interpreted the first amendment to mandate a separation of church and state. This interpretation has been reaffirmed by the Court numerous times. If you are suggesting that the founding fathers did not intend for such a separation to exist by virtue of the absence of an explicit directive mandating same in the Constitution, the Supreme Court disagrees with you. And the Supreme Court exists to be the ultimate interpreter of the constitution, so to the extent that you disagree with their interpretation, expect your disagreement to fall on deaf ears.

[Balloon guy 158]

My instincts tell me that you already know what I am about to type, but here it goes anyway:The doctrine of the separation of church and state is derived from the 1st Amendment, specifically from the following phrase: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ." The court cases provided for you represent occasions where the Supreme Court has interpreted the first amendment to mandate a separation of church and state. This interpretation has been reaffirmed by the Court numerous times. If you are suggesting that the founding fathers did not intend for such a separation to exist by virtue of the absence of an explicit directive mandating same in the Constitution, the Supreme Court disagrees with you. And the Supreme Court exists to be the ultimate interpreter of the constitution, so to the extent that you disagree with their interpretation, expect your disagreement to fall on deaf ears.

This is an old argument, I'm sure neither of us is going to change their view.But I would correct you in these points.Separation of church and state is a phrase from Jefferson's letters, not the constitution.After making the 1st amendment, they hired with government monies, a priest to pray over the congress and Supreme Court during every first session.Jefferson himself while President used to attend church that was held IN one of the government buildings, along with other members of the US government.The government also accepted many documents such as the constitution, the Declaration of Independance etc, which all use the words God and Creator, so the idea that the government would be completely seperate from all mentions and practises of religion is a recent interpretation which has no basis in history.Having said that, I am cool with the government not getting into the religion business. Just because it works so well in some Scandanavian countries where they have state sponsored religions and the pastors are on government payroll, it wouldn't work in our litigeous society.Just let's not act like any remote admission by any government agency of a religious observance is somehow going to lead to burning lawyers at the stake.No matter how good of an idea, the government would screw it up.

[brvheart 1,751]

This is an old argument, I'm sure neither of us is going to change their view.But I would correct you in these points.Separation of church and state is a phrase from Jefferson's letters, not the constitution.After making the 1st amendment, they hired with government monies, a priest to pray over the congress and Supreme Court during every first session.Jefferson himself while President used to attend church that was held IN one of the government buildings, along with other members of the US government.The government also accepted many documents such as the constitution, the Declaration of Independance etc, which all use the words God and Creator, so the idea that the government would be completely seperate from all mentions and practises of religion is a recent interpretation which has no basis in history.Having said that, I am cool with the government not getting into the religion business. Just because it works so well in some Scandanavian countries where they have state sponsored religions and the pastors are on government payroll, it wouldn't work in our litigeous society.Just let's not act like any remote admission by any government agency of a religious observance is somehow going to lead to burning lawyers at the stake.No matter how good of an idea, the government would screw it up.

This is a good post.

[rjkdb8 1]

This is an old argument, I'm sure neither of us is going to change their view.But I would correct you in these points.Separation of church and state is a phrase from Jefferson's letters, not the constitution.After making the 1st amendment, they hired with government monies, a priest to pray over the congress and Supreme Court during every first session.Jefferson himself while President used to attend church that was held IN one of the government buildings, along with other members of the US government.The government also accepted many documents such as the constitution, the Declaration of Independance etc, which all use the words God and Creator, so the idea that the government would be completely seperate from all mentions and practises of religion is a recent interpretation which has no basis in history.Having said that, I am cool with the government not getting into the religion business. Just because it works so well in some Scandanavian countries where they have state sponsored religions and the pastors are on government payroll, it wouldn't work in our litigeous society.Just let's not act like any remote admission by any government agency of a religious observance is somehow going to lead to burning lawyers at the stake.No matter how good of an idea, the government would screw it up.

I wasnt going to respond to this until Braveheart characterized it as "good" You have clearly given this some thought and have a great understanding of history. But your 4th paragraph is really nothing more than reasons why you think the Supreme Court's interpretation of the constitution is incorrect. Presumably the various members of the Court who presided over the numerous cases where the doctrine was established and reaffirmed had the facts you recite above at their disposal. But, and I know that what I am about to say is intellectually unsatisfying, the constitution means what the Court says it means. When Braveheart or Lois gets elected to the Supreme Court, they will be at liberty to advocate for the initiation of a fundamental shift in constitutional jurisprudence, should that issue come before the Court again. But the doctrine exists because the Court says it does.

[Balloon guy 158]

I wasnt going to respond to this until Braveheart characterized it as "good" You have clearly given this some thought and have a great understanding of history. But your 4th paragraph is really nothing more than reasons why you think the Supreme Court's interpretation of the constitution is incorrect. Presumably the various members of the Court who presided over the numerous cases where the doctrine was established and reaffirmed had the facts you recite above at their disposal. But, and I know that what I am about to say is intellectually unsatisfying, the constitution means what the Court says it means. When Braveheart or Lois gets elected to the Supreme Court, they will be at liberty to advocate for the initiation of a fundamental shift in constitutional jurisprudence, should that issue come before the Court again. But the doctrine exists because the Court says it does.

Alas but you speak truth here.

[KramitDaToad 0]

My instincts tell me that you already know what I am about to type, but here it goes anyway:The doctrine of the separation of church and state is derived from the 1st Amendment, specifically from the following phrase: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ." The court cases provided for you represent occasions where the Supreme Court has interpreted the first amendment to mandate a separation of church and state. This interpretation has been reaffirmed by the Court numerous times. If you are suggesting that the founding fathers did not intend for such a separation to exist by virtue of the absence of an explicit directive mandating same in the Constitution, the Supreme Court disagrees with you. And the Supreme Court exists to be the ultimate interpreter of the constitution, so to the extent that you disagree with their interpretation, expect your disagreement to fall on deaf ears.

Oh, you're good.

You have clearly given this some thought and have a great understanding of history. But your 4th paragraph is really nothing more than reasons why you think the Supreme Court's interpretation of the constitution is incorrect. Presumably the various members of the Court who presided over the numerous cases where the doctrine was established and reaffirmed had the facts you recite above at their disposal. But, and I know that what I am about to say is intellectually unsatisfying, the constitution means what the Court says it means. When Braveheart or Lois gets elected to the Supreme Court, they will be at liberty to advocate for the initiation of a fundamental shift in constitutional jurisprudence, should that issue come before the Court again. But the doctrine exists because the Court says it does.

You're very good.Hats off sir!

[speedz99 145]

History shows that we shouldn't feel secure, period. Once again it shows the paranoia that is on your side, and the insane need to control that which is uncontrollable, and in this case it's actually thought, which is sick at best but still a perfect example of how paranoid your side really is. It's awesome.

lol

Sure. ID is being taught in roughly 95% of US households. If it's taught in schools, whats the difference? Nothing.

lol

Good God...you truly are retarded.Perhaps you should sit this one out. Let the adults handle this one.

lol

Faith is for pussies

lol

I wasnt going to respond to this until Braveheart characterized it as "good" You have clearly given this some thought and have a great understanding of history. But your 4th paragraph is really nothing more than reasons why you think the Supreme Court's interpretation of the constitution is incorrect. Presumably the various members of the Court who presided over the numerous cases where the doctrine was established and reaffirmed had the facts you recite above at their disposal. But, and I know that what I am about to say is intellectually unsatisfying, the constitution means what the Court says it means. When Braveheart or Lois gets elected to the Supreme Court, they will be at liberty to advocate for the initiation of a fundamental shift in constitutional jurisprudence, should that issue come before the Court again. But the doctrine exists because the Court says it does.

You really are quite good.So, after reading the past few pages I'm amused at the fact that everyone pretty much agrees that religious concepts such as ID shouldn't be taught as part of the science curriculum, and yet the fight raged on. Good stuff.

[antistuff 0]

lollollollolYou really are quite good.So, after reading the past few pages I'm amused at the fact that everyone pretty much agrees that religious concepts such as ID shouldn't be taught as part of the science curriculum, and yet the fight raged on. Good stuff.

so you see my point then?

[speedz99 145]

so you see my point then?

I finally get it.