Christian at Christmas Time

[IntheNet]

I enjoy Christmas, it is a wonderful holiday to me and the Christ Child... I celebrate it as a season for my family and friends.... past memories of the Baby Jesus and his Nativity.

Giving money to the poor to celebrate the birth of Our Lord. :thumbup:

Jesus Is The Reason For The Season!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Shop and patronize Wal-Mart exclusively; Best and Circuit City do not say MERRY CHRISTMAS.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

[PPKA]

here here, don't forget to attend midnight mass.

I do allot with the salvation army. giving food bags and gifts to less fortunate families.

teach your children well

[AmpleSound]

Sorry, I hate to stir the pot, but I think Catholics are a downfall to society! I believe in Jesus, and nothing more as far as religions go. Christ is my savior, and I will never deny Him my Faith!

[Heathen]

Sorry, I hate to stir the pot, but I think Catholics are a downfall to society! I believe in Jesus, and nothing more as far as religions go. Christ is my savior, and I will never deny Him my Faith!

So you're right and the Catholics are wrong.... don't you believe in the same God???

[wufpax]

Ok ample...open mouth, insert foot! I just praised you on another board to come here and see you doing what not is supposed to be done...


Outta here....:(

[IntheNet]

Sorry, I hate to stir the pot, but I think Catholics are a downfall to society!

How so AmpleSound? Elaborate please... explain....




Our Brigades are Armed to fight against the War on Christmas!
Our Cavalry blessed by God to fight against the War on Christmas!
Our Infantry carrying the Sword to fight against the War on Christmas!

[HibachiDG]

What exactly is the "War on Christmas" as you put it, InTheNet...the only time I ever hear it talked about is with stores saying Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas...which I can't imagine rises to a war on christmas.

[Ellis]

It is fair to keep Christmas off of public (government owned) property. Other than that, I see Christmas trees and stuff like that at most stores. Some stores just chose to say happy holidays, rather than Merry Christmas.

I have never really seen the "War On Christmas" either.

[IntheNet]

What exactly is the "War on Christmas" as you put it...

Others have described it better than I could...

"War" on Christmas part of "secular progressive agenda" that includes "legalization of narcotics, euthanasia, abortion at will, gay marriage," etc....
Fox News host Bill O'Reilly

Fox News host John Gibson has published a book defining the ongoing battle:
The War on Christmas: How the Liberal Plot to Ban the Sacred Christian Holiday Is Worse Than You Thought (Sentinel, October 2005).

There are various fronts in the war and the chief enemy is the ACLU.

[CKFresh]

Yeah, sorry that some of us want to include other holidays in the season. But Doug don't forget, these people want their religion and their holidays to be accepted by everyone. They get offended if you even mention other holidays. They forget that NO ONE is stopping them from celebrating any holiday they want in any way. But that's not good enough, they want all of US to celebrate the same way they do.

[CKFresh]

Inthenet, show me one instance when anyone has tried to BAN Christmas? Who is stopping you from celebrating in any way that you chose?

[BigBuddhaPup]

here here, don't forget to attend midnight mass.

I do allot with the salvation army. giving food bags and gifts to less fortunate families.

teach your children well

The last midnight mass I went to was with a girlfriend in college... everybody was "three sheets in the wind"... I don't remember much about it, just sitting and standing, and sitting and standing...

I agree it is good to give in this season, or any season for that matter... yep, do the food bags to the homeless shelter for x-mas and thanksgiving, give to my local animal shelter, pick three or four angels from the tree to give gifts to the kiddies, make a yearly donation to the hospice house...

:D

[BigBuddhaPup]

I enjoy Christmas, it is a wonderful holiday to me and the Christ Child... I celebrate it as a season for my family and friends.... past memories of the Baby Jesus and his Nativity.

Giving money to the poor to celebrate the birth of Our Lord. :thumbup:

Jesus Is The Reason For The Season!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Shop and patronize Wal-Mart exclusively; Best and Circuit City do not say MERRY CHRISTMAS.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Wal-Mart is wonderful...they buy over 90% of their goods from China... nothing better than some slave labor to say "Merry Christmas"...

[BigBuddhaPup]

Sorry, I hate to stir the pot, but I think Catholics are a downfall to society! I believe in Jesus, and nothing more as far as religions go. Christ is my savior, and I will never deny Him my Faith!

*LOL*... Bubble, bubble, toil and trouble....

The pot has been stirred...

I would suggest smoking it instead, much more enjoyable...;)

[BigBuddhaPup]

So you're right and the Catholics are wrong.... don't you believe in the same God???

Heathen, the way I hear it...Catholics think "other Christians"(Protestants) are worshipping all wrong, and if they are lucky, they might see limbo when they die... Protestants think Catholics are pagans that worship a false idol(Pope, see Papists)... *L*, same book, very different viewpoints....

I think we are, as Carl Sagan put it, "Stuff that stars are made of"... we will return to that a few billions years down the road... I can dig it... *stirs then smokes that pot*..:rolleyes:

[BigBuddhaPup]

Others have described it better than I could...

"War" on Christmas part of "secular progressive agenda" that includes "legalization of narcotics, euthanasia, abortion at will, gay marriage," etc....
Fox News host Bill O'Reilly

Fox News host John Gibson has published a book defining the ongoing battle:
The War on Christmas: How the Liberal Plot to Ban the Sacred Christian Holiday Is Worse Than You Thought (Sentinel, October 2005).

There are various fronts in the war and the chief enemy is the ACLU.

Wouldn't that be "The War on Christianity" instead?

I am for the legalization of soft drugs, I am for a humane death, I am for abortion until the 21st week, I am for gay marriage....I am against Bill Orally...I am against John Gibson...I am against Fox News...

I am also against stopping anyone from celebrating their religion, heritage, etc... just don't do it on tax funded property...

That ACLU also defends Christians btw...ironic, huh?:eek:

[CKFresh]

It is simply nuts to think there is a war on Christmas (X MAS!) hahaha. Tell me one time when ANYONE in this country tried to stop you from celebrating Christmas? It doesn't happen. You are just upset because NOT EVERYONE celebrates like you. :( I know you want to force your religion on others, but it just doesn't work like that in America. If you want to do that, go start of country that doesn't practice freedom of and from religion.

[BigBuddhaPup]

Yeah, sorry that some of us want to include other holidays in the season. But Doug don't forget, these people want their religion and their holidays to be accepted by everyone. They get offended if you even mention other holidays. They forget that NO ONE is stopping them from celebrating any holiday they want in any way. But that's not good enough, they want all of US to celebrate the same way they do.

How dare us think differently!

Okay, other 2/3rd of the planet, do it this way, or no way at all...Why? because Fox News' Bill Orally said so....

That ought to do it...

[IntheNet]

I am also against stopping anyone from celebrating their religion, heritage, etc... just don't do it on tax funded property...

So all those religious messages to God and our Judeo-Christian heritage that are carved into marble within and outside of the Supreme Court Building, the Jefferson Monument, the Lincoln Monument, the Washington Monument, and every hedgestone at Arlington Cemetery that carries a religious icon are a definite no no in your book?

Oh heavens....

It is simply nuts to think there is a war on Christmas...

Didn't you say the same thing about our War on Terrorism?

[CKFresh]

So all those religious messages to God and our Judeo-Christian heritage that are carved into marble within and outside of the Supreme Court Building, the Jefferson Monument, the Lincoln Monument, the Washington Monument, and every hedgestone at Arlington Cemetery that carries a religious icon are a definite no no in your book?

Oh heavens....



Didn't you say the same thing about our War on Terrorism?

I never said anything of the sort about the war on terrorism. Once again, please tell me one person, or one group that is trying to stop you from celebrating Christmas. I'd love to know who these crazy people are who really care about your Christmas celebration.

[IntheNet]

Once again, please tell me one person, or one group that is trying to stop you from celebrating Christmas...

My daughter's song she practiced this fall was cancelled last week from the elementary school holiday choral concert (which use to be called the Christmas Concert at the school by the way). The name of the song: "Oh Holy Night." Know what she had to sing instead? "Frosty The Snowman"!

The War on Christmas is all around us...

I don't have time now to post links to all the battles but will tomorrow...

[CKFresh]

Once again, tax dollars funded that place. Who is stopping you from celebrating Christmas on your own time on your own dime. SOrry, I don't want to pay for your religious concerts.

[BigBuddhaPup]

So all those religious messages to God and our Judeo-Christian heritage that are carved into marble within and outside of the Supreme Court Building, the Jefferson Monument, the Lincoln Monument, the Washington Monument, and every hedgestone at Arlington Cemetery that carries a religious icon are a definite no no in your book?

Oh heavens....



Didn't you say the same thing about our War on Terrorism?

They are historical monuments... big difference from promoting religion via tax dollars...

As for Arlington, that is an individual service members choice when they die, it is a priviledge bestowed upon them because of their service...they could choose whatever symbol they want..

The term "War on Terrorism" is coming back to bite the neo-cons on the arse... the idea of terrorism isn't tangible enough to ever declare victory over, it is open ended idea... too bad they were as good with the doublespeak as they are now.... a better phrase would have been "Al Queda War"... maybe we would have even fought the right people too... but, No, Virginia, there isn't a Santa Claus...:(

[BigBuddhaPup]

My daughter's song she practiced this fall was cancelled last week from the elementary school holiday choral concert (which use to be called the Christmas Concert at the school by the way). The name of the song: "Oh Holy Night." Know what she had to sing instead? "Frosty The Snowman"!

The War on Christmas is all around us...

I don't have time now to post links to all the battles but will tomorrow...

The elementary school was correct... public funded institutions like our schools shouldn't promote one religion over the other...singing a Christian song would do just that... Frosty the Snowman has no religious connotation, makes perfect sense.. if you want your child to do a religious concert for Christmas, plan it then...

[chiefsfan27]

Once again, tax dollars funded that place. Who is stopping you from celebrating Christmas on your own time on your own dime. SOrry, I don't want to pay for your religious concerts.

What if not singing Christmas songs (like "Holy Night") offends Christians as much as singing them offends you? Should'nt both be sung? It does offend me that a Holiday originaly celebrated as Christ's birth can no longer have anything to do with Christ. I don't want to pay to see that behaivor because I view it (no christ in christmas) as wrong. So why have we completley eliminated a certain set of beliefs and not just done both?

And why do tax dollars matter? I pay taxes and I want to hear Christ's name mentioned with Christmas.

[CKFresh]

What if not singing Christmas songs (like "Holy Night") offends Christians as much as singing them offends you? Should'nt both be sung? It does offend me that a Holiday originaly celebrated as Christ's birth can no longer have anything to do with Christ. I don't want to pay to see that behaivor because I view it (no christ in christmas) as wrong. So why have we completley eliminated a certain set of beliefs and not just done both?

And why do tax dollars matter? I pay taxes and I want to hear Christ's name mentioned with Christmas.

Why can't you just enjoy YOUR holiday on your own time. Why does it have to be on public funded areas. What's wrong with church, or your own home. Public schools are secular. It wouldn't matter if it was a jewish song, a muslim song or a christian song. Public school is secular in nature. Why do you insist on making YOUR religion part of the public life. Why not just enjoy YOUR holiday in places where everyone is Christian i.e. CHURCH!!!!!

[CKFresh]

I apologize if I come off as angry, but it is crazy how you Chirstians insist on pushing this stuff down everyone's throat. Do it on your own time.

[buckeyefan78]

Frosty the Snowman has no religious connotation

But he did flaunt the law and society. Remember when he crossed the street even after the cop told him to stop?

More like Frosty the Gangsta'

[BigBuddhaPup]

I apologize if I come off as angry, but it is crazy how you Chirstians insist on pushing this stuff down everyone's throat. Do it on your own time.

Down, down, down, go, go, go, !!! Mine, mine, mine!!! ...

:bash:

[BigBuddhaPup]

But he did flaunt the law and society. Remember when he crossed the street even after the cop told him to stop?

More like Frosty the Gangsta'


He got those kids to steal that stovetop hat too... Frosty was definite OG...

[chiefsfan27]

I apologize if I come off as angry, but it is crazy how you Chirstians insist on pushing this stuff down everyone's throat. Do it on your own time.

There's the problem. You assume that we don't feel like your secular version (just presents, booze, and friends) is being shoved down our throats. A religion is a set of beliefs that one subscribes to. So your beliefs are also a religion. Why not honor all religions that are represented in a caertain area? Considering that all of them pay taxes to fund the public school, and the majority of them will attend some type of church on any give Sunday morning, why should only one set of beliefs be honored?

No need to apologize, you were simply stating your opinion. This argument won't sound nice, simply because of it's nature. Let's all just aim to keep it civil.

[CKFresh]

It is really strange for someone to insist on things such as religion in public places. Are not content with practicing religion in the places intended for religion? Why must EVERYONE be subjected to you religion? The songs such as "Frosty" are universal songs that mean nothing in particular and are simply fun for children. Perfect for a school situation. There is nothing there that should offend you. You say the holiday is originally about Christ, but only for Christians. You fail to recognize that WE ARE NOT ALL CHRISTIANS. Would you be happy if we just decided not to acknowledge the holiday at all, because if you and your fellow Christian cult continue to force it upon people that is what will happen. Be happy that most of this country is Chirstian and celebrates the same holiday as you. Quit acting like Christians are the ones being persecuted. Everything on TV and in stores is about Christmas. You have plenty of areas and time to celebrate YOUR holiday. I think if we continue to allow schools to be secular Christians will survive.

[chiefsfan27]

It is really strange for someone to insist on things such as religion in public places. Are not content with practicing religion in the places intended for religion? Why must EVERYONE be subjected to you religion? The songs such as "Frosty" are universal songs that mean nothing in particular and are simply fun for children. Perfect for a school situation. There is nothing there that should offend you. You say the holiday is originally about Christ, but only for Christians. You fail to recognize that WE ARE NOT ALL CHRISTIANS. Would you be happy if we just decided not to acknowledge the holiday at all, because if you and your fellow Christian cult continue to force it upon people that is what will happen. Be happy that most of this country is Chirstian and celebrates the same holiday as you. Quit acting like Christians are the ones being persecuted. Everything on TV and in stores is about Christmas. You have plenty of areas and time to celebrate YOUR holiday. I think if we continue to allow schools to be secular Christians will survive.

It was originally about Christ. Christmas. You may not celebrate it that way, but that does'nt change it's original intent.

[CKFresh]

There's the problem. You assume that we don't feel like your secular version (just presents, booze, and friends) is being shoved down our throats. A religion is a set of beliefs that one subscribes to. So your beliefs are also a religion. Why not honor all religions that are represented in a caertain area? Considering that all of them pay taxes to fund the public school, and the majority of them will attend some type of church on any give Sunday morning, why should only one set of beliefs be honored?

No need to apologize, you were simply stating your opinion. This argument won't sound nice, simply because of it's nature. Let's all just aim to keep it civil.

No this is where you are wrong. Secular beliefs in schools mean NO BELIEFS allowed. And no one is shoving anything down Christians throats. I am not insisting we put on a holiday play about drinking and sing Irish drinking songs, am I? I am talking about something that everyone can agree on, aka Frosty. What is offensive about that. It doesn't mention any belief system at all, it only mentions the season and things that are fun for children. I didn't know that this was a belief system. But according to you it is.

Please tell me, why can't we just practice our own beliefs in the areas they belong, at home or in church.

I'll make a deal with you, when Churches start paying taxes, you can sing all the Christmas songs you want in schools, in court, or at the public library. Until then, keep your religion at home, and we will maintain the separation of church and state.

[chiefsfan27]

No this is where you are wrong. Secular beliefs in schools mean NO BELIEFS allowed. And no one is shoving anything down Christians throats. I am not insisting we put on a holiday play about drinking and sing Irish drinking songs, am I? I am talking about something that everyone can agree on, aka Frosty. What is offensive about that. It doesn't mention any belief system at all, it only mentions the season and things that are fun for children. I didn't know that this was a belief system. But according to you it is.

Please tell me, why can't we just practice our own beliefs in the areas they belong, at home or in church.

I'll make a deal with you, when Churches start paying taxes, you can sing all the Christmas songs you want in schools, in court, or at the public library. Until then, keep your religion at home, and we will maintain the separation of church and state.

No. That's where you're wrong. Secular beliefs means no beliefs? You believe that Christ has no place in this "Holiday Season". You said it yourself, secular beliefs. That means that beliefs are coming out through the school. I'm saying why teach only one belief?

The people in them pay taxes, so why should it matter?

[CKFresh]

I never said Christ has no business in th Holiday season, when did I say that? I said IN SCHOOLS. You can do everything in the world involving christ, on your time and your dime. Not the tax payer's dime and not my time. Please answer my fundamental question, why do you have to do this stuff in places where there are people that don't want to see it? You have plenty of outlets for religious thoughts and practices, why must it be in the one place where THIS SOCIETY HAS DECIDED that it is inappropriate? Please tell me... I think I know why, because Christians won't be happy until everyone else is Christian, or at least until everyone has to see and take part in Christian ceremonies. It is absolutely obvious.

[HibachiDG]

It was originally about Christ. Christmas. You may not celebrate it that way, but that does'nt change it's original intent.

I find this argument hilarious whenever I hear it. Do you really think that society would not have invented a holiday such as this without Christ? I have zero problem with people celebrating Christmas because of Christ, but just because Christ was out the foundation of Christmas does not mean that all these years later someone has to celebrate Christmas and recognize Christ at the same time.

The problem to me comes when you begin to dictate what something should be about to other people. Christ, Gods, religion is/can/has been a great thing to a great many people. It has been something recognized, influenced, and celebrated by a great many people. The problem is that just because the majority of the population to a public school celebrates Christmas, does not mean that Christ and certain religious ideals should be brought to everyone in a public school.

Towards InTheNet's problem, I don't see what the school did as a WAR or anything of that sort. Your kid has many other options for singing religious Christmas songs. Why should a public school be that forum?

[CKFresh]

No. That's where you're wrong. Secular beliefs means no beliefs? You believe that Christ has no place in this "Holiday Season". You said it yourself, secular beliefs. That means that beliefs are coming out through the school. I'm saying why teach only one belief?

Once again, I don't want any of my belifs taught in schools either. I want them to teach children things that don't involve RELIGION! Why can't you understand that. Once again, non of my beliefs are represneted by Frosty the snowman or 2+2 = 4. Those are things EVERYONE BELIEVES. What is wrong with teaching things that EVERYONE BELIEVES. What am I suggesting we do in schools that is something that you can't believe?

[chiefsfan27]

I never said Christ has no business in th Holiday season, when did I say that? I said IN SCHOOLS. You can do everything in the world involving christ, on your time and your dime. Not the tax payer's dime and not my time. Please answer my fundamental question, why do you have to do this stuff in places where there are people that don't want to see it? You have plenty of outlets for religious thoughts and practices, why must it be in the one place where THIS SOCIETY HAS DECIDED that it is inappropriate? Please tell me... I think I know why, because Christians won't be happy until everyone else is Christian, or at least until everyone has to see and take part in Christian ceremonies. It is absolutely obvious.

You don't want to see Christ, and I don't want to see evlution (a faith based account of creation). How is that different?

[chiefsfan27]

No. That's where you're wrong. Secular beliefs means no beliefs? You believe that Christ has no place in this "Holiday Season". You said it yourself, secular beliefs. That means that beliefs are coming out through the school. I'm saying why teach only one belief?

Once again, I don't want any of my belifs taught in schools either. I want them to teach children things that don't involve RELIGION! Why can't you understand that. Once again, non of my beliefs are represneted by Frosty the snowman or 2+2 = 4. Those are things EVERYONE BELIEVES. What is wrong with teaching things that EVERYONE BELIEVES. What am I suggesting we do in schools that is something that you can't believe?

Not everyone believes evolution. So you must be against it.

[CKFresh]

That's the difference between me and you. Am I suggesting we teach children that marijuana can be a mind-operning experience, because I believe that. NO. I don't want to teach anything in schools unless it is either fact or something that we can all agree on. You are the only one wanting things in schools that are controversial.

[CKFresh]

Not everyone believes evolution. So you must be against it.

They teach evolution AS THEORY, just like they teach about religion as THEORY. They do teach religion in schools. Do they make us watch plays and sing songs about evolution? No. they simply teach the THEORY!

[chiefsfan27]

That's the difference between me and you. Am I suggesting we teach children that marijuana can be a mind-operning experience, because I believe that. NO. I don't want to teach anything in schools unless it is either fact or something that we can all agree on. You are the only one wanting things in schools that are controversial.

Im not saying I want things that are controversial. I'm saying things like evolution are controversial and you don't seem to have a problem with it. I'm simply saying if we're going to educate children on controversial things like evolutiuon, they should have the same chance to learn about Christianity.

[chiefsfan27]

They teach evolution AS THEORY, just like they teach about religion as THEORY. They do teach religion in schools. Do they make us watch plays and sing songs about evolution? No. they simply teach the THEORY!

They do not teach religion (besides evolution) in public schools. They may say that evolution is just a theory, but the delve deeply into evolution while failing to mention even the basics of God's creation.

[Heathen]

Why can't you just enjoy YOUR holiday on your own time. Why does it have to be on public funded areas. What's wrong with church, or your own home. Public schools are secular. It wouldn't matter if it was a jewish song, a muslim song or a christian song. Public school is secular in nature. Why do you insist on making YOUR religion part of the public life. Why not just enjoy YOUR holiday in places where everyone is Christian i.e. CHURCH!!!!!

AMEN!!! :thumbup:

Oh and the reason why Evolution can be proven is here. (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html)

[buckeyefan78]

AMEN!!! :thumbup:

I don't know if the irony was intended or not but good show Heathen. :thumbup:

[Montrovant]

Just a quick thought (I'd add more but I'm busy doing other stuff atm hehe)...religious beliefs about the creation of the world/man have little or no scientific basis that I've seen. Feel free to correct me if you feel that's wrong. Evolution, other the other hand, is a scientific theory. The difference is evolution is a theory based on scientific evidence. Scientific theory tends to be a different thing than general theory; it's less a guess and more an inference based on facts and accumulated data.

If your religious beliefs clash with evolution, you can teach your children that evolution is wrong. Unless you have some evidence other than whatever holy book you follow to back it up, it shouldn't be taught in schools as anything other than a religious belief.

[CKFresh]

Im not saying I want things that are controversial. I'm saying things like evolution are controversial and you don't seem to have a problem with it. I'm simply saying if we're going to educate children on controversial things like evolutiuon, they should have the same chance to learn about Christianity.

That's what Church is for. School is for academic things and theories AKA evolution. Church is the place for to learn about Christianity. That's why we have seperation of church and state, so you can decide if you want to learn about such things. Evolution is something that was decided to be the best theory by SCIENTISTS. If you don't want our children to learn science, then I don't know what to tell you. Once again, there is a place to learn about religion, it's called church. Likewise there is a place to learn about science, history, ect... it's called school.

[chiefsfan27]

That's what Church is for. School is for academic things and theories AKA evolution. Church is the place for to learn about Christianity. That's why we have seperation of church and state, so you can decide if you want to learn about such things. Evolution is something that was decided to be the best theory by SCIENTISTS. If you don't want our children to learn science, then I don't know what to tell you. Once again, there is a place to learn about religion, it's called church. Likewise there is a place to learn about science, history, ect... it's called school.

The problem with scientists proving evolution, is that we don't all view science as what seperates truth form fact. As long as Christians must use secular theory (science) to prove Biblical theory, would you please use Biblical theory to prove scientific theory?

We don't have seperation of Church and State. The idea come from a private letter of Thomas Jefferson. In that letter he proposed that the Church be protected from the State, not that the State be protected from the Church.

Again, because you were'nt there to witness the Big Bang or evolution, it takes as much faith for you to believe those as it does for me to believe in God. Does'nt that make them both religion?

[chiefsfan27]

Just a quick thought (I'd add more but I'm busy doing other stuff atm hehe)...religious beliefs about the creation of the world/man have little or no scientific basis that I've seen. Feel free to correct me if you feel that's wrong. Evolution, other the other hand, is a scientific theory. The difference is evolution is a theory based on scientific evidence. Scientific theory tends to be a different thing than general theory; it's less a guess and more an inference based on facts and accumulated data.

If your religious beliefs clash with evolution, you can teach your children that evolution is wrong. Unless you have some evidence other than whatever holy book you follow to back it up, it shouldn't be taught in schools as anything other than a religious belief.

As I said in my previuos post, if I must use scientific evidence to prove Biblical principles, you must use Biblical evidence to prove scientific principles.

[PPKA]

wrong.

I'll enjoy my religion and my holidays when and where I see fit.

if I want to dance down mainstreet singing joy to the world, try and stop me.

you don't like it, tough toenails jack!

freedom of religion is not a question.

[Montrovant]

You don't have to prove biblical principles. What I'm asking for is evidence that biblical belief about the creation of man is true. I'm not even saying evolution is true. Simply that evidence, garnered through experimentation and observation of biology, fossils, etc has been provided to show why it may be true. The only evidence I've seen of the bible's version of the creation of the world and life upon it comes from the bible. I assume the same is true of other holy book and religious beliefs, but I'd be happy to see anything to the contrary.

I have no problem teaching the tenets and history of religions in school. Only with teaching that any religion is truth.

As far as using biblical evidence to prove anything, that's a flawed argument. Any good science is not based solely on a single source, but rather an accumulation of data.

[chiefsfan27]

You don't have to prove biblical principles. What I'm asking for is evidence that biblical belief about the creation of man is true. I'm not even saying evolution is true. Simply that evidence, garnered through experimentation and observation of biology, fossils, etc has been provided to show why it may be true. The only evidence I've seen of the bible's version of the creation of the world and life upon it comes from the bible. I assume the same is true of other holy book and religious beliefs, but I'd be happy to see anything to the contrary.

I have no problem teaching the tenets and history of religions in school. Only with teaching that any religion is truth.

As far as using biblical evidence to prove anything, that's a flawed argument. Any good science is not based solely on a single source, but rather an accumulation of data.

The Biblical account of creation is a Biblical principle.

If the Bible can't be proved by itself, why can science?

As for the accumulation of data, the Bible was written by somewhere between 2 and 3 dozen men over 4000 years and in dozens of different countries. Yet they all told the same account of Jesus. The Bible has more original documents than any other book in history.

[Montrovant]

Loving this discussion! :)

chiefsfan.....the bible and science are completely different things. Science (at least when properly applied) does not 'prove itself', but rather attempts to find proof. Not sure what that statement was supposed to mean.

As for the accumulation of data, the Bible was written by somewhere between 2 and 3 dozen men over 4000 years and in dozens of different countries. Yet they all told the same account of Jesus. The Bible has more original documents than any other book in history.

Couple of things. First, it's my understanding that the old testament has nothing to do with Jesus....that would mean you're only talking about the new testament, which wasn't written over 4000 years that I know of. Considering Jesus was supposed to have lived about 2000 years ago, don't see how it could :) Second, just because more than 1 person writes about something in no way gives that thing credence. This is true in science as well. However many people contributed to the writing of the bible, I've seen no evidence to corroborate it's account of the creation of the world and life. It's not just a matter of multiple scientists being involved in the theory of evolution, it's the research, experimentation, mathematics, the accumulation of various data that gives it believability (at least to me). I understand that not having faith, I'm unlikely to ever believe as you do, and that's fine. I'm not here to insult your faith in any way. But faith is belief with an absence of evidence. It's the basic reason an argument like this never gets anywhere; there's little you can do to provide evidence of your views, because they are based on a lack thereof. You are meant to believe without evidence, that faith is supposed to be part of your strength. (and if I'm misinterpreting the basics of religious belief and Christianity, I apologize. Correct me if so :))

Anyway, I'm rambling now, time to cut this short :)

[CKFresh]

Here's the thing. School is the place for ACADEMICS. The things that scientists research and study are presented in science class. The things that historians study and research are taught in history class. The the things that mathmaticians study are taught in math class. And finally the things that CLERGYMEN study are taught in CHURCH.

You guys are acting like religion is being stopped or prevented in some way. This is not the case. Who is trying to stop you from praying or learning about christianity at church or at home? Is it really too much to ask that my children aren't taught your religious beliefs? You can say the same about evolution, but there is not church of evolution. Evolution is what THE EXPERTS have decided to teach. If scientists as a community decide that creationism is a valid SCIENTIFICAL theory, then they would teach in school. Until then, why can't you be happy with what you have, church. The church is one of the most powerful influences in this country. Why no embrace that and enjoy it, and leave school to be taught by the non-religious philosophy.

My elemental question remains the same: why do people who don't believe in YOUR religion have to be exposed to it in school? You can't say it is because you want your children to learn about it, because you go to church, and teach your children these things at home.

Please don't answer with a question. Answer the question. Why should my children be FORCED to learn religion?

You say that it is freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. But they are one in the same. If you are forced into one religion (christianity) you don't have freedom of religion.

Please answer the question.

[CKFresh]

wrong.

I'll enjoy my religion and my holidays when and where I see fit.

if I want to dance down mainstreet singing joy to the world, try and stop me.

you don't like it, tough toenails jack!

freedom of religion is not a question.

That's fine, just don't force me or anyone else to "enjoy" them with you. Go ahead and look like the village idiot singing in the street, I don't care. Just don't force us to have nativity plays at public schools, or force my child to learn about Jesus in public schools. I don't care what YOU do, all I care about is what you do to me and my children.

[chiefsfan27]

Loving this discussion! :)

chiefsfan.....the bible and science are completely different things. Science (at least when properly applied) does not 'prove itself', but rather attempts to find proof. Not sure what that statement was supposed to mean.



Couple of things. First, it's my understanding that the old testament has nothing to do with Jesus....that would mean you're only talking about the new testament, which wasn't written over 4000 years that I know of. Considering Jesus was supposed to have lived about 2000 years ago, don't see how it could :) Second, just because more than 1 person writes about something in no way gives that thing credence. This is true in science as well. However many people contributed to the writing of the bible, I've seen no evidence to corroborate it's account of the creation of the world and life. It's not just a matter of multiple scientists being involved in the theory of evolution, it's the research, experimentation, mathematics, the accumulation of various data that gives it believability (at least to me). I understand that not having faith, I'm unlikely to ever believe as you do, and that's fine. I'm not here to insult your faith in any way. But faith is belief with an absence of evidence. It's the basic reason an argument like this never gets anywhere; there's little you can do to provide evidence of your views, because they are based on a lack thereof. You are meant to believe without evidence, that faith is supposed to be part of your strength. (and if I'm misinterpreting the basics of religious belief and Christianity, I apologize. Correct me if so :))

Anyway, I'm rambling now, time to cut this short :)

That statement meant just what it said. That your "proof" of evolution (a scientific principle) is evidence obtained using sciencetific theory.

Your understanding of the Old Testament would be incorrect then. Much of it is prophecy of Jesus' life and the rest is about God, who is the same as Jesus according to Jesus himself.

You're right, more than 1 person writing something doesn't make it true. But what about dozens of people, over thousands of years, in different countries, with most of them never meeting each other.

The very fundamentals of evolution and the Big Bang are flawed because scientific theory states that life cannot come from non-life. The Big-Bang says that a dot exploded and created the universe, which we all know contains living matter. So, either the dot was non-living and created living things (which they claim) or it was living, in which case a living being (God?) would have to have created it. Not to mention the fact that thinking we could be caple of cognative thought and be so unique without a creator is absurd.

Faith is not belief with the absence of evidence. The Bible says nature is evidence of God.

We do walk by faith, but do not walk blindly.

[chiefsfan27]

Here's the thing. School is the place for ACADEMICS. The things that scientists research and study are presented in science class. The things that historians study and research are taught in history class. The the things that mathmaticians study are taught in math class. And finally the things that CLERGYMEN study are taught in CHURCH.

You guys are acting like religion is being stopped or prevented in some way. This is not the case. Who is trying to stop you from praying or learning about christianity at church or at home? Is it really too much to ask that my children aren't taught your religious beliefs? You can say the same about evolution, but there is not church of evolution. Evolution is what THE EXPERTS have decided to teach. If scientists as a community decide that creationism is a valid SCIENTIFICAL theory, then they would teach in school. Until then, why can't you be happy with what you have, church. The church is one of the most powerful influences in this country. Why no embrace that and enjoy it, and leave school to be taught by the non-religious philosophy.

My elemental question remains the same: why do people who don't believe in YOUR religion have to be exposed to it in school? You can't say it is because you want your children to learn about it, because you go to church, and teach your children these things at home.

Please don't answer with a question. Answer the question. Why should my children be FORCED to learn religion?

You say that it is freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. But they are one in the same. If you are forced into one religion (christianity) you don't have freedom of religion.

Please answer the question.

Here's your answer, they should'nt.

Here's my question. If I don't subscribe to your set of scientific beliefs why should my children be forced to learn evolution?

[CKFresh]

Because that is what education is about. I could say I don't believe that George Washington was the first president of the US, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't teach it. Schools are there to put forth the BEST knowledge we have. Evolution is not religion, it is what the EXPERTS and scientists have decided is the best explaination for where people came from. Just because some people don't believe it because of religious misconceptions, doesn't mean it shouldn't be taught. There is no organization of evolution, there is no one that stands to gain from people learning evolution. It is simply the most scientifically grounded, well researched theory available. Like I said, we don't KNOW that George Washington was the first president of the US, because we weren't there. We trust the experts to give us the best information available. That's what evolution is. Religion has it's place, church. Scientific research has it's place, school.

[Ravana]

I'm almost tempted to just let CKFresh carry this one on alone: doing a fine job of it.

But I won't. (Heh.)

The problem with scientists proving evolution, is that we don't all view science as what seperates truth form fact.

"Separates truth from fact"? What??? Try again, please?

Science actually isn't even remotely interested in "the truth." It is interested in what can be proven... from factual evidence, through experimentation, with repeatable results. From these things are derived general principles—called in science "theories," which, unfortunately, makes people think that they aren't "proven," whereas science uses the term differently (and correctly; the weaker definition of "unproven idea" is a corruption of the original meaning).

Science also recognizes that it has limits, and that all of the things that it has demonstrated in the past are open to revision, expansion, clarification, or even, in rare cases, dismissal. All of these can occur when more evidence is collected or when new methods of experimentation and analysis are developed. New evidence is tested against existing theories, and, if it does not corroborate them, the theories are adjusted or new ones are proposed... which are then tested against both new and old evidence, until one is found that fits all the available evidence. New methods are applied to all existing evidence, in order to see if they corroborate existing theories or not, and if they expand or deepen our knowledge—revealing to us new details we were previously unaware of.

As long as Christians must use secular theory (science) to prove Biblical theory, would you please use Biblical theory to prove scientific theory?

This is illogical... and impossible, since the Bible doesn't even address most of the issues modern research is concerned with. Besides, there is no "Biblical theory" in the sense that logic or science uses the term—no consistent set of axioms that create a mechanism for testing other axioms, predicates, data, etc. I am not among those who call for Christians to "prove" the Bible, anyway, though I realize there are those who do. I see this as a mistaken approach, and indeed a pointless one, as I will expand upon a little later.

We don't have seperation of Church and State. The idea come from a private letter of Thomas Jefferson. In that letter he proposed that the Church be protected from the State, not that the State be protected from the Church.

A private letter... plus the Constitution, plus Jefferson's amendment to the Virginia state constitution, plus numerous other private and public letters throughout his career. Jefferson was, I believe, the person who actually originated the "inviolable wall" between the two (though I believe someone else was responsible for the term itself). The term does appear in a Supreme Court ruling from the middle of the last century, though, so whether Jefferson wanted it or not, the highest court in our land has confirmed it. A two-way separation, specifically: no church in state, no state in church.

Again, because you were'nt there to witness the Big Bang or evolution, it takes as much faith for you to believe those as it does for me to believe in God. Does'nt that make them both religion?

Absolutely not. Belief in the Big Bang is based upon knowing that the best scientific research and theorizing has produced this as the best explanation of the facts as we know them today. Same for evolution—which is actually the better established of the two, since we can witness it as an ongoing process... and have. If you want to claim that science itself is somehow a religion... you'll have to come up with a list of ways in which it fits the definition of religion.

Science is ultimately based on one, and only one, "belief": that we can trust the evidence of our senses, if they tell us the same thing in the same situation whenever that situation is repeated. If this is not a rational belief... then we cannot believe anything, for we have nothing reliable to base belief upon.

As I said in my previuos post, if I must use scientific evidence to prove Biblical principles, you must use Biblical evidence to prove scientific principles.

Now it's "must"? This argument is pure fallacy.
Underlying structure in symbolic logic: If A then B, therefore if B then A.
Logical equivalents:
• If it is raining then I shall get wet, therefore if I shall get wet then it is raining. [counterexample: I can get wet by diving in a pool.]
• If the Bible was written by God then God exists, therefore if God exists then the Bible was written by God. [counterexample: you said it yourself: the Bible was written by humans.]
• If cheese is purple then the sky is falling, therefore if the sky is falling then cheese is purple. [No one said the argument had to make any sense—the same logical principles still apply. Counterexample 1: Cheese could be painted, dyed, etc. purple without the sky falling. Counterexample 2: The sky could be falling even if cheese wasn't purple.]

The Biblical account of creation is a Biblical principle.
If the Bible can't be proved by itself, why can science?

Science is not "proved"; science is a process for obtaining proof. Science is nothing more than the reliance on our own senses, as assessed in a systematic manner... as mentioned before. Using the Bible—or anything else—to "prove itself" is circular. Scientific theories, knowledge obtained from experiment, and new data are all continually tested and evaluated against each other... as well as against basic logic and against external sources—specifically, data obtained through our senses. We do not use the theory of evolution to prove the theory of evolution: we use every other piece of available data and every other scientific theorem to prove—or disprove—the theory of evolution.

And how is the Biblical account of creation a "Biblical principle"? What is a "Biblical principle"? This use of "principle" is unfamiliar to me... and most certainly is not scientific, nor logical, in nature.

As for the accumulation of data, the Bible was written by somewhere between 2 and 3 dozen men over 4000 years and in dozens of different countries. Yet they all told the same account of Jesus.

This has already been addressed by others, so I'll just add a few points: (1) They didn't all tell an account of Jesus; only four of them did. (2) They most certainly did not all tell the same account of Jesus. All four books differ from one another. (3) Expanding on (1), not all writers told the same stories... in most cases, any given story was only told once, by a single writer. Such as the stories contained in Genesis. One writer... not "two or three dozen." (4) The Bible has undergone numerous emendations, deletions, redactions, translations and so forth; its contents, and they way they are presented, have changed continuously throughout history. (5) As pointed out, a great many more than "two or three dozen" people have written in support of contemporary scientific theories—any one of them. (6) The writers could very simply have been wrong—any or all of them.

The Bible has more original documents than any other book in history.

Even if true, this is only because somebody went to the trouble of collecting them and putting them under a single cover; the claim is meaningless in terms of supporting its veracity. I could do the same by collecting documents from Roman courts, or any other source of original documentation. A great many original documents were used to create the Egyptian Book of the Dead by Budge... and any complete translation of the Dead Sea Scrolls would contain more documents that the Bible, if I remember the number of documents found there. For that matter, any collection of a famous individual's letters would contain more original documents than the Bible.

Now for the other side.

What I'm asking for is evidence that biblical belief about the creation of man is true. I'm not even saying evolution is true. Simply that evidence, garnered through experimentation and observation of biology, fossils, etc has been provided to show why it may be true. The only evidence I've seen of the bible's version of the creation of the world and life upon it comes from the bible.

Precisely, Montrovant. All that is being requested is corroboration. We have corroborating evidence for evolution—indeed, it was such evidence that necessitated the theory in the first place; the data came first, not the theory, and so was external to it—not a circular proof. Further evidence has continued to corroborate the theory, expand upon it and refine it... and, most importantly, not contradict it. Where is such evidence for the Biblical account?

I have no problem teaching the tenets and history of religions in school. Only with teaching that any religion is truth.

I do:

Here's the thing. School is the place for ACADEMICS. The things that scientists research and study are presented in science class. The things that historians study and research are taught in history class. The the things that mathematicians study are taught in math class. And finally the things that CLERGYMEN study are taught in CHURCH.

That's why (and that's why I was tempted to let CKFresh carry this argument... good job, mate). Religion does not belong in schools, unless it is being taught as a subject in its own right... and, if it is, it better include all religions, not just one... and not show favoritism to any of them. Religion absolutely does not belong in science class, as it is unscientific.

Is it really too much to ask that my children aren't taught your religious beliefs? You can [try to] say the same about evolution, but there is not church of evolution.

Right. (Words in brackets have been inserted by me.) The important point, though, is that in teaching creationism, or even intelligent design, you are teaching the views of a single religion... and, again, if you are teaching them in a science class, you are teaching something that is not science: it is not subject to scientific investigation or proof.

My elemental question remains the same: why do people who don't believe in YOUR religion have to be exposed to it in school?

Please don't answer with a question. Answer the question. Why should my children be FORCED to learn religion?

You say that it is freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. But they are one [and] the same. If you are forced into one religion (christianity) you don't have freedom of religion.

I can't improve upon that.

Now, as for "proving the Bible":

This is a mistake as well—to call upon people to "prove the Bible." First of all, it exists; that does not require proof, so we can assume that this is not the question. Second: proving—or disproving—any one part of it has no effect on the whole. I can point to numerous contradictions in the Bible (but will not... unless forced to; fortunately, scanmode doesn't seem to be around... :lol: ); these do not in any way mean that anything else in the Bible is incorrect or even called into question. People who do this are generally trying to break the hold of literalists who persist in insisting that the Bible must—for some reason I cannot fathom—be taken literally as a whole. As I said, I cannot grasp this point of view: what is the problem with saying that some parts of the Bible are metaphorical... or just plain wrong? I don't see how this damages the balance of the book.

I also don't see why anybody would even want to retain most of the Old Testament; there's a lot of stuff in there that is just plain hideous, and which nobody would endorse today. And a lot more stuff that people just plain ignore today, like most of the "laws" set down in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. Do literalists want to go back to the days of removing the hands of thieves, or stoning "witches"? Why not just trash the whole thing and stick with the New Testament?

This is getting long... no surprise for those who know me. For those who don't, get used to it. At least further answers on this thread will not be to a large number of posts, so they ought to be shorter.... :D

As for whether or not you subscribe to someone else's set of scientific beliefs, chiefsfan27 (which you posted after I began this message)... that's what the schools are supposed to teach: the consensus belief of the scientific community. That's what gets taught in science classes. If you don't like it, you should move to eliminate science teaching altogether... not to have it revised to exclude any particular part of it you don't care for. There are certain things in contemporary scientific theory that I don't agree with... and they will be removed, or revised, if evidence ever comes in to support my own views. That's how science works. Come up with evidence that contradicts present views, and I'm sure the curriculum will be revised. But not until then. Nor should it be.

In particular, your children ought to be exposed to contemporary views, whether they are right or wrong... so that they can be fully informed. How are they to decide which is correct—and, perhaps more importantly, from your point of view, how are they to argue against contemporary views if they are not familiar with them? They ought, at the very least, to possess the same informational base as any other citizen, so that they can understand what is under discussion when such things arise. Would you disadvantage your children by denying them such an opportunity?

[Montrovant]

Not sure where the big bang came in here, but I do not believe in that theory as fact. There may be compelling arguments for it, but I think we don't have nearly enough information about the universe to know how it may have come to be. I argue scientific theory as well as religion; I like to argue :) I believe wholeheartedly in the pursuit of knowledge; I hate the fact that so often people seem unwilling to admit ignorance. Ignorance is not a sin, or a flaw, or something of which to be ashamed. It's merely a lack of knowledge. Try to find answers whenever you can, but don't assume you know all the answers; and question what you think you DO know if any contradictory information comes to light. My point being that I am not trying to claim any scientific theory as fact.

My argument is not about what is proven, but rather what evidence can be shown in favor of the two different beliefs being discussed. Evolution has been examined and studied by scientists in many fields from around the world for a number of years. At this point, it is the best theory available using empirical data. The biblical view of the creation of life does not, so far as I know, have that data. I cannot prove evolution to you, but I can show observable evidence as to why it may be true. Other than the bible, I know of no evidence supporting the biblical version of the creation of life.

Again, I have no problem with teaching ABOUT religions in school. I'm wholeheartedly opposed to teaching any religion as true in school. In teaching evolution, children are taught what the majority of scientists have found to be the most likely way life has grown on Earth. I believe it's called a theory in school (been a long time, I can't remember for certain). Anyone is free to teach their children their religious views at home. I'd be fine if children learned what different religious views about creation are in school. But evolution is a scientific theory, science is one of the things that schools teach, it belongs there.

My biblical knowledge is admittedly lacking; I've read some of it, but could not bring myself to read the whole book. It's not the most engrossing read ever. I tend to dislike anything but fiction novels. Anyway, as far as the bible is concerned, is the Earth not supposed to be very young? As in, it was created thousands of years ago, rather than millions or billions? If so, does that mean belief in the bible neccessitates a disbelief in carbon-dating, or any other method currently used to determine age? Does it also mean disbelief in the existance of dinosaurs? I've never gotten much of an answer to these questions :)

[CKFresh]

[APPLAUSE]

Ravana basically just gave everyone a lesson in logical thinking.

One final point, if you don't like evolution, or any scientific "theory," then just argue that we shouldn't teach science at all. If you want to have the benefits of science you have to accept it for what it is and allow the lessons we have learned from science to be taught in schools.

(and people wonder why the US is falling behind the rest of the world scientifically. Our own citizens don't even accept the findings of science.)

[Montrovant]

Ravana, you're going to make me stop posting, you say these things so much better than I do! /cry

Just wanted to clarify that when I say I'm ok with religion being taught in school, I certainly don't mean to imply being taught as a form of science. Rather, learning about the many various religions of the world is important as both an historical exercise and a sociological one.

[AmpleSound]

So you're right and the Catholics are wrong.... don't you believe in the same God???

Heathen, I am only a fool and I'm far from perfect. Am I not able to have my own opinion, or do believers in God not deserve that commodity?

Ok ample...open mouth, insert foot! I just praised you on another board to come here and see you doing what not is supposed to be done...


Outta here....:(

wufpax, what exactly is not supposed to be done? Am I perfect? No... Far from it actually! I am merely stating my own opinion...

How so AmpleSound? Elaborate please... explain....




Our Brigades are Armed to fight against the War on Christmas!
Our Cavalry blessed by God to fight against the War on Christmas!
Our Infantry carrying the Sword to fight against the War on Christmas!

IntheNet, I will elaborate for you. Though I say again, this is only my own opinion! Catholics deny their priests to have sexual relations with a woman, so hmmm they end up playing with alter boys (sorry you can't deny a man or a woman their sexual instincts!). We are not perfect hence why Jesus the Messiah died for our sins! They don't believe in forms of birth control, seems like someone wanted there to be only catholics? To me stem cell research would be a very helpful tool for curing diseases, though the pope says no so president Bush says no... Now for the main reason and point to my words!!! The pope calls himself a Vicar (so basically a messenger for God, in the way the Catholics use it)... Sorry but I talk to God with prayer, I don't need to tell some guy in a two person box that I've sinned!

Further elaboration upon request!

[AmpleSound]

*LOL*... Bubble, bubble, toil and trouble....

The pot has been stirred...

I would suggest smoking it instead, much more enjoyable...;)

Oh don't worry, I smoke the pot usually! Just had to stir it this time around :P, hahaha!

[Richard the Lionheart]

A private letter... plus the Constitution, plus Jefferson's amendment to the Virginia state constitution, plus numerous other private and public letters throughout his career. Jefferson was, I believe, the person who actually originated the "inviolable wall" between the two (though I believe someone else was responsible for the term itself). The term does appear in a Supreme Court ruling from the middle of the last century, though, so whether Jefferson wanted it or not, the highest court in our land has confirmed it. A two-way separation, specifically: no church in state, no state in church.


I have absolutely no desire to enter into this religious and philosophical dispute you're all having. I have my beliefs, you have yours. That's good enough for me. I would like to adress this point you made, however.

Jefferson and many of the Founders of the Constitution were very wary of having the church and government united. They didn't want the kind of oppresive state sponsored churches like those in Europe. They didn't want the oaths, and the bans of office for certain sects. That is why Congress "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free excercise thereof". But all this excitement over the word "God" on money, and chaplans in Congress is all outside of what they had in mind.

I consider myself a true blue Jeffersonian, and I do not like having religion used as a tool by the government, or vice versa any more than some of you. But this idea of "complete" separation, in every instance--I've heard people say before that George Bush shouldn't let his religion influence his thinking, or that you can't have any religious symbol on public ground--I think that's all excessive. The Constitution prohibits Congress from establishing a religion. It also guarantees anyone the free excercise of their religion. This prevents loyalty oaths, and bans of office, and taxes for churches. Farther than this I do not believe even Jefferson was willing to go.

The Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom is strong and powerful in its language--that men should not be coerced to follow a religion by the government, no one may have their civil rights infringed by the government because of their religious beliefs, and men should be free to practice and excercise their relgion as they see fit. This is the extent of the wall.

And most importantly, because the Supreme Court used the wording in a ruling does not mean it is the settled, established law. If you want to use Jefferson, use all of Jefferson. He has interesing thoughts on this subject. That decision by the court is merely a precedent to be weighed by the courts in future decisions--it does not carry the weight of law outside of the case itself that the wording was used in. The Supreme Court is not the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution for all the country--that is a modern folly of thinking that most people have fallen prey to. Every branch of the government has a right to interpret and execute their Constitutional duties as they themselves understand them. Supreme Court rulings only decide the SPECIFIC case before them, and serve as precedent to be used in later decisions. This means, to use a ridiculous example, if the Supreme Court ruled that a murderer should be set free because he has blue eyes, and its unconstitutional to imprison a man with blue eyes--this does not mean that the police have to open up their jail cells and let everyone with blue eyes walk out. Yes, the man referred to in the case would Constitutionally be freed, and the case would be used as precedent in future cases, but the Supreme Court's power ends there.

[AmpleSound]

No this is where you are wrong. Secular beliefs in schools mean NO BELIEFS allowed. And no one is shoving anything down Christians throats. I am not insisting we put on a holiday play about drinking and sing Irish drinking songs, am I? I am talking about something that everyone can agree on, aka Frosty. What is offensive about that. It doesn't mention any belief system at all, it only mentions the season and things that are fun for children. I didn't know that this was a belief system. But according to you it is.

Please tell me, why can't we just practice our own beliefs in the areas they belong, at home or in church.

I'll make a deal with you, when Churches start paying taxes, you can sing all the Christmas songs you want in schools, in court, or at the public library. Until then, keep your religion at home, and we will maintain the separation of church and state.

Wait wait wait, ck I like you man, but don't be a hypocrite!!!!!! Why in Gods green earth do they teach the "theory of evolution" in schools then!?!? In all reality, that's pretty much a form of religion for some!!! I believe it's called Darwinism! Since Charles Darwin was an atheist and all... Schools will teach that, but no way will anyone accept the fact that this country was founded in the belief of God!

The only reason church and state were separated was for the simple fact that some atheist couldn't have an open mind! I've never forced my beliefs on people, and Christians haven't done so since the dark ages... For Heavens sake man, is it so wrong for us to simply believe in something, and try to show nonbelievers something more to life than just this crappy place?
All we want is for everyone to join us in Heaven, whether anyone chooses to believe or not is on their own to decide... Really now if we "forced" our beliefs on you, it would be something against your will (i.e. murder, torcher, etc.)... So would just open your mind, see with your eyes, and feel with your heart!

[AmpleSound]

Loving this discussion! :)

chiefsfan.....the bible and science are completely different things. Science (at least when properly applied) does not 'prove itself', but rather attempts to find proof. Not sure what that statement was supposed to mean.



Couple of things. First, it's my understanding that the old testament has nothing to do with Jesus....that would mean you're only talking about the new testament, which wasn't written over 4000 years that I know of. Considering Jesus was supposed to have lived about 2000 years ago, don't see how it could :) Second, just because more than 1 person writes about something in no way gives that thing credence. This is true in science as well. However many people contributed to the writing of the bible, I've seen no evidence to corroborate it's account of the creation of the world and life. It's not just a matter of multiple scientists being involved in the theory of evolution, it's the research, experimentation, mathematics, the accumulation of various data that gives it believability (at least to me). I understand that not having faith, I'm unlikely to ever believe as you do, and that's fine. I'm not here to insult your faith in any way. But faith is belief with an absence of evidence. It's the basic reason an argument like this never gets anywhere; there's little you can do to provide evidence of your views, because they are based on a lack thereof. You are meant to believe without evidence, that faith is supposed to be part of your strength. (and if I'm misinterpreting the basics of religious belief and Christianity, I apologize. Correct me if so :))

Anyway, I'm rambling now, time to cut this short :)

Montrovant, I must disagree with you about the Old Testament not talking about Jesus. I would agree it's not there in plain writing, but He is "Prophecized" throughout... The very first telling of Jesus is in Genisis 3:15 "And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." This was God telling the serpent "evil" of what was to come for our sins basically! :) Jesus Christ being the "seed" :D!

[Ellis]

Someone sat down one day, bored, and decided to write about some guy who they knew (named Jesus) and called it the Bible. Who knows, maybe one day people will think that Harry Potter was real and that he was a god too.

I know that Jesus was a real person, but previous religions are proven wrong (like Greek Mythology), but yet I have just as much reason to believe that than I do the Bible.

[AmpleSound]

Ok my last rant for the night! I just find it funny that people try to disprove the Bible as far as its factual evidence. For instance when Pharaoh let Moses, and His people go, they were chased by 500 horse drawn charriots. Amazingly enough, no one had ever believed that the Egyptians even had this many horses at one time... Until an archaeologist dug up a site that they believe were stables, similar to those found in other sites! Guess what that site was able to house I think they said, around 490 horses! Also it was close to where they believe Moses, and His people crossed the sea. This is just one thing of many that have turned the tides of the Bible, and its factual evidence!

One thing I'm curious about aswell, of all these great civilizations that we learn about, Egyptians, Romans, etc... Why is it that they seemed (in history) to have turned their backs on the Israelites, and then fallen? To me that's God saying don't mess with my people! YES I said it, Jews are Gods people, what a shocker. I tell you what, once America turns its back on Israel, I believe shiz is going to hit the fan!

[HibachiDG]

And most importantly, because the Supreme Court used the wording in a ruling does not mean it is the settled, established law. If you want to use Jefferson, use all of Jefferson. He has interesing thoughts on this subject. That decision by the court is merely a precedent to be weighed by the courts in future decisions--it does not carry the weight of law outside of the case itself that the wording was used in. The Supreme Court is not the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution for all the country--that is a modern folly of thinking that most people have fallen prey to. Every branch of the government has a right to interpret and execute their Constitutional duties as they themselves understand them. Supreme Court rulings only decide the SPECIFIC case before them, and serve as precedent to be used in later decisions. This means, to use a ridiculous example, if the Supreme Court ruled that a murderer should be set free because he has blue eyes, and its unconstitutional to imprison a man with blue eyes--this does not mean that the police have to open up their jail cells and let everyone with blue eyes walk out. Yes, the man referred to in the case would Constitutionally be freed, and the case would be used as precedent in future cases, but the Supreme Court's power ends there.

I don't really think the example fits the point. If the Supreme Court decided it would be unconstitutional to hold men with blue eyes in jail...the men in jail with blue eyes would be on the phone with a lawyer and quickly in court. Once there, that lower court is bound by the Supreme Court decision on that being constitutional or not, barring a state sovereignty issue. The point I think you're trying to make, on the other hand, is valid. Every word ever written by the Supreme Court is not going to be 100% followed, even if written in a majority opinion, but I think your example mixes this up a bit.

As for the Supreme Court being the ultimate interpretor of the Constitution...while other branches of Government have Constitutional duties to execute and legislate upon, the Supreme Court is the sole interpretor of the Constitution. The President or legislature can not declare a decision of the Supreme Court to be invalid and interpret the Constitution any way they want if the Supreme Court has already spoken.

[Ellis]

The thing about Christianity that is such a turn off is that god is watching us. Seriously , god would have killed himself by now. I am not saying that in a mean way, but just think of all the stuff he would have to watch all day. Murder... missed opportunities... starvation... poverty... people going to bathroom. He would be up there hitting himself for all of the stupid stuff that goes on down here. Also, if humans go to heaven, do animals go too?

To me life is just all about the spirit and memory of what went on before and the beauty of hope for better things, even though in the end it will always fall short. In the end we all die and so will the memories, but the spirit and emotion of what happened will always live on, not the people. Life is the beautiful struggle.

[Ravana]

And most importantly, because the Supreme Court used the wording in a ruling does not mean it is the settled, established law. ... The Supreme Court is not the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution for all the country.

Actually, Ricky, the Supreme Court is the "ultimate interpreter" of the law, most especially where it regards the Constitution. That is their sole legitimate function, in fact—the entire reason they exist. Beyond them, one can only change the law... by amending the Constitution, if necessary, if the change you want is otherwise in conflict with that document and will be ruled as such by the Supreme Court. Given that the Court has the power to completely overturn laws—up to and including federal ones—how can you maintain that "Supreme Court rulings only decide the SPECIFIC case before them, and serve as precedent to be used in later decisions"? A ruling that a law is unconstitutional is not a mere "precedent"—it is fatal to the very existence of that law.

The separation of powers in the Constitution places the interpretation of the law firmly in the hands of the Judiciary—where else would it be? that's what courts do—not in the hands of the Legislative or Executive branches. (Someone ought to remind our current Executive branch of this....) The Legislative branch can only propose and approve or disapprove laws (including Constitutional amendments); the Executive can only sign them into force or veto them. (Effectively, it can propose them, too, since it can always find some congressman willing to introduce its papers for it.) The Judicial branch not only "interprets" the law, it is the only branch licensed to do so—and, since the Supreme Court is at the top of the Judiciary, it most certainly is the "ultimate interpreter" of the Constitution... or any lower law. The other branches do indeed have the right to interpret their duties under the Constitution—but the interpretation of matters of law is not one of their duties... and, further, the Supreme Court, as the interpeter of the Constitution, can tell them they are wrong in their "interpretation of their duties," if a case regarding such is brought before them.

[In other words, what Doug Graham just said, only longer....]

I have not read as much Jefferson as you have, clearly. I know that he himself was Christian, or at least regarded as such (more likely he was deist, I understand), and that he strongly believed in God, even putting him (inappropriately and unnecessarily, in my mind) in the Declaration of Independence. That does not mean he'd want to see God in the schools. Personally, I doubt it—the equation is fairly easy: no religon imposed by the government, the government sponsors the schools, therefore any religious matter taught in the schools is a government imposition of religion. I have no evidence on this one way or another, though, so, barring further research, I must defer to your broader studies here. And thanks for providing the title on the Virginia Statute; couldn't remember it offhand and was too lazy to look it up. I do agree that it is in fact impossible to achieve complete separation: any individual officeholder will be influenced by his/her beliefs. This is not a problem, so long as that individual is aware of this prejudice, and specifically does not use it to motivate his/her actions (i.e. as opposed to believing that the action is one that is justified and called for in his/her capacity as a civil servant). Nor have I any great problem with Christmas trees on public lands... though not entirely for the same reasons most others might. (There are a few reservations I could express, but they have more to do with spending public money on frivolous decoration.)

[Richard the Lionheart]

I don't really think the example fits the point. If the Supreme Court decided it would be unconstitutional to hold men with blue eyes in jail...the men in jail with blue eyes would be on the phone with a lawyer and quickly in court. Once there, that lower court is bound by the Supreme Court decision on that being constitutional or not, barring a state sovereignty issue. The point I think you're trying to make, on the other hand, is valid. Every word ever written by the Supreme Court is not going to be 100% followed, even if written in a majority opinion, but I think your example mixes this up a bit.

As for the Supreme Court being the ultimate interpretor of the Constitution...while other branches of Government have Constitutional duties to execute and legislate upon, the Supreme Court is the sole interpretor of the Constitution. The President or legislature can not declare a decision of the Supreme Court to be invalid and interpret the Constitution any way they want if the Supreme Court has already spoken.

I was waiting for the law student to speak up on that. :)

I guess I would just say that both of those views you expressed are very, very modern understandings. In my opinion, they were not held by any of the Framers, Jefferson, or anyone really in that period--other than the justices in the Marbury v Madison case themselves, of course. Remember, this is why Hamilton and the Federalists argued against the fears of the Anti-Federalists that the Supreme Court would become an uncontrollable oligarchy. They argued that the Supreme Court only has the power to interpret the Constitution in individual cases, set precedents, and shape public opinion. But lower courts are not necessarily bound to follow the Supreme Court's reasons for deciding a specific case. They weigh many, many precedents, and then balance them out with their own interpretation of the Constitution to make a decision. Then their decisions are of course later subject to be overturned by the Supreme Court--but it is in that order, and not the other way around. Again, the Supreme Court only has power to decide the case before it. Anything else would be extremely contrary to any free principles.

As to your second point, I think you would be hard-pressed to find any writings from any of the signers of the Constitution that support that line of thought. Nothing written in the Constitution elevates the Supreme Court as the sole interpreter of that document. Every branch has the ability and right to interpret the Constituion as they understand it. The Supreme Court is not hte final interpreter, the people actually are. This is the greatest power the Supreme Court has--they have a tremendous amount of power in moulding public opinion. If the people hear that the court ruled one way, they should give that serious thought and consideration. But it is not binding in and of itself except in the particular case being ruled upon. Here are some quotes to clarify the matter:

Jefferson has a lot to say on the subject. Here is a page of quotes from him on the proper role of the Judiciary:

http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1030.htm

Here is a letter he wrote that goes into one of the above quotes in greater depth. The interesting stuff relevant to our conversation begins with the second paragraph:

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_10_1s13.html

******************
Andrew Jackson, from his veto of the Bank Bill (the Sup. Court found the bank to be Constitutional, he didn't):

"If the opinion of the Supreme Court covered the whole ground of this act, it ought not to control the coordinate authorities of this Government. The Congress, the Executive, and the Court must each for itself be guided by its own opinion of the Constitution. Each public officer who takes an oath to support the Constitution swears that he will support it as he understands it, and not as it is understood by others. It is as much the duty of the House of Representatives, of the Senate, and of the President to decide upon the constitutionality of any bill or resolution which may be presented to them for passage or approval as it is of the supreme judges when it may be brought before them for judicial decision. The opinion of the judges has no more authority over Congress than the opinion of Congress has over the judges, and on that point the President is independent of both. The authority of the Supreme Court must not, therefore, be permitted to control the Congress or the Executive when acting in their legislative capacities, but to have only such influence as the force of their reasoning may deserve."
*****************

Here is Lincoln's response to the Dred Scott decision. I'm going to post the whole link, because its all worth reading, but for our discussion the heart of the matter begins in the tenth paragrahp with "He denounces all who question the correctness..."

http://www.teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=52

Sorry that was so long. This is just such interesting stuff I can't help it. :)

[Ravana]

I was waiting for the law student to speak up on that.

But you aren't willing to take his word on it?

I guess I would just say that both of those views you expressed are very, very modern understandings.

Which makes them no less legal or binding.

The Supreme Court is not hte final interpreter, the people actually are.

Not even close. The people have no power whatsoever to "interpret" the Constitution, or any law. We might well have better laws if they did. Or not. The people have only indirect control over their laws at best, by voting for those persons they think will pass or rescind the laws they are concerned about.

Andrew Jackson, from his veto of the Bank Bill (the Sup. Court found the bank to be Constitutional, he didn't)

Not parallel. There is no obligation to accept something just because it is found not to conflict with the Constitution. All sorts of things that are constitutional are not part of our legal code. There is an obligation to comply with declarations of unconstitutionality.

The authority of the Supreme Court must not, therefore, be permitted to control the Congress or the Executive when acting in their legislative capacities...

That is not the issue under question. When the Legislative branch is legislating, the Supreme Court does not have any input in the matter. When the Executive branch is... executing? heh... in its legislative capacity—that is, passing laws—the Supreme Court has no input. Once that process is finished, however, the ball is in the Supreme Court's... court. And only theirs... until the legislative process is begun anew.

It is as much the duty of the House of Representatives, of the Senate, and of the President to decide upon the constitutionality of any bill or resolution which may be presented to them for passage or approval as it is of the supreme judges when it may be brought before them for judicial decision.

To qoute your own words back to you: in that order. The Supreme Court has the final say... after the legislature and executive have had theirs. Not during. And once it does go to the Supreme Court... the other two branches do not have a say in the matter, any more than the Court did at the earlier stages.

No, it may not match up with the founders' vision of what the Court should do. Probably doesn't, if the references you've cited are representative of their views as a whole. That doesn't change the way the system works today. And, given the way the system is working today—most of the founders would be appalled, I'm pretty sure, and would probably wish they'd given the Court more power still.

[Montrovant]

The founders would probably be appalled at a lot of our society today, and in no way do I mean all the things that would upset them are negative.

They lived in a far different time, with different societal and likely personal values than most people today.

That's part of the greatness of the system they set up. They provided a basis, but left it adaptable to change as the times demand. They came from a time of slavery, a time when women had little in the way of rights or power, when many ways of acting that are perfectly accepted today would probably have been frowned upon if not actually punished.

And of course, technology has changed so much in ways they probably could not have guessed. Our abilities to communicate rapidly over long distances, the incredible access to information the general public has, the sometimes intrusive media....any or all of these things (or a plethora of others) might change the way the founders would have wanted things to work.

Which is not to say things are in perfect condition as is, just that some of the intentions the founders may have had for our system of government probably are no longer applicable.

[IntheNet]

I.. it is crazy how you Chirstians insist on pushing this stuff down everyone's throat. Do it on your own time.

I feel the same exact way about the secular: forcing evolution on our children in public school. Do it on your own time...

The War on Christmas and on Christians is very real... skirmishes and battles occuring all over the United States by the secular progressives tearing this nation apart...

[chiefsfan27]

I'm almost tempted to just let CKFresh carry this one on alone: doing a fine job of it.

But I won't. (Heh.)



"Separates truth from fact"? What??? Try again, please?

Science actually isn't even remotely interested in "the truth." It is interested in what can be proven... from factual evidence, through experimentation, with repeatable results. From these things are derived general principles—called in science "theories," which, unfortunately, makes people think that they aren't "proven," whereas science uses the term differently (and correctly; the weaker definition of "unproven idea" is a corruption of the original meaning).

Science also recognizes that it has limits, and that all of the things that it has demonstrated in the past are open to revision, expansion, clarification, or even, in rare cases, dismissal. All of these can occur when more evidence is collected or when new methods of experimentation and analysis are developed. New evidence is tested against existing theories, and, if it does not corroborate them, the theories are adjusted or new ones are proposed... which are then tested against both new and old evidence, until one is found that fits all the available evidence. New methods are applied to all existing evidence, in order to see if they corroborate existing theories or not, and if they expand or deepen our knowledge—revealing to us new details we were previously unaware of.



This is illogical... and impossible, since the Bible doesn't even address most of the issues modern research is concerned with. Besides, there is no "Biblical theory" in the sense that logic or science uses the term—no consistent set of axioms that create a mechanism for testing other axioms, predicates, data, etc. I am not among those who call for Christians to "prove" the Bible, anyway, though I realize there are those who do. I see this as a mistaken approach, and indeed a pointless one, as I will expand upon a little later.



A private letter... plus the Constitution, plus Jefferson's amendment to the Virginia state constitution, plus numerous other private and public letters throughout his career. Jefferson was, I believe, the person who actually originated the "inviolable wall" between the two (though I believe someone else was responsible for the term itself). The term does appear in a Supreme Court ruling from the middle of the last century, though, so whether Jefferson wanted it or not, the highest court in our land has confirmed it. A two-way separation, specifically: no church in state, no state in church.



Absolutely not. Belief in the Big Bang is based upon knowing that the best scientific research and theorizing has produced this as the best explanation of the facts as we know them today. Same for evolution—which is actually the better established of the two, since we can witness it as an ongoing process... and have. If you want to claim that science itself is somehow a religion... you'll have to come up with a list of ways in which it fits the definition of religion.

Science is ultimately based on one, and only one, "belief": that we can trust the evidence of our senses, if they tell us the same thing in the same situation whenever that situation is repeated. If this is not a rational belief... then we cannot believe anything, for we have nothing reliable to base belief upon.



Now it's "must"? This argument is pure fallacy.
Underlying structure in symbolic logic: If A then B, therefore if B then A.
Logical equivalents:
• If it is raining then I shall get wet, therefore if I shall get wet then it is raining. [counterexample: I can get wet by diving in a pool.]
• If the Bible was written by God then God exists, therefore if God exists then the Bible was written by God. [counterexample: you said it yourself: the Bible was written by humans.]
• If cheese is purple then the sky is falling, therefore if the sky is falling then cheese is purple. [No one said the argument had to make any sense—the same logical principles still apply. Counterexample 1: Cheese could be painted, dyed, etc. purple without the sky falling. Counterexample 2: The sky could be falling even if cheese wasn't purple.]



Science is not "proved"; science is a process for obtaining proof. Science is nothing more than the reliance on our own senses, as assessed in a systematic manner... as mentioned before. Using the Bible—or anything else—to "prove itself" is circular. Scientific theories, knowledge obtained from experiment, and new data are all continually tested and evaluated against each other... as well as against basic logic and against external sources—specifically, data obtained through our senses. We do not use the theory of evolution to prove the theory of evolution: we use every other piece of available data and every other scientific theorem to prove—or disprove—the theory of evolution.

And how is the Biblical account of creation a "Biblical principle"? What is a "Biblical principle"? This use of "principle" is unfamiliar to me... and most certainly is not scientific, nor logical, in nature.



This has already been addressed by others, so I'll just add a few points: (1) They didn't all tell an account of Jesus; only four of them did. (2) They most certainly did not all tell the same account of Jesus. All four books differ from one another. (3) Expanding on (1), not all writers told the same stories... in most cases, any given story was only told once, by a single writer. Such as the stories contained in Genesis. One writer... not "two or three dozen." (4) The Bible has undergone numerous emendations, deletions, redactions, translations and so forth; its contents, and they way they are presented, have changed continuously throughout history. (5) As pointed out, a great many more than "two or three dozen" people have written in support of contemporary scientific theories—any one of them. (6) The writers could very simply have been wrong—any or all of them.



Even if true, this is only because somebody went to the trouble of collecting them and putting them under a single cover; the claim is meaningless in terms of supporting its veracity. I could do the same by collecting documents from Roman courts, or any other source of original documentation. A great many original documents were used to create the Egyptian Book of the Dead by Budge... and any complete translation of the Dead Sea Scrolls would contain more documents that the Bible, if I remember the number of documents found there. For that matter, any collection of a famous individual's letters would contain more original documents than the Bible.

Now for the other side.



Precisely, Montrovant. All that is being requested is corroboration. We have corroborating evidence for evolution—indeed, it was such evidence that necessitated the theory in the first place; the data came first, not the theory, and so was external to it—not a circular proof. Further evidence has continued to corroborate the theory, expand upon it and refine it... and, most importantly, not contradict it. Where is such evidence for the Biblical account?



I do:



That's why (and that's why I was tempted to let CKFresh carry this argument... good job, mate). Religion does not belong in schools, unless it is being taught as a subject in its own right... and, if it is, it better include all religions, not just one... and not show favoritism to any of them. Religion absolutely does not belong in science class, as it is unscientific.



Right. (Words in brackets have been inserted by me.) The important point, though, is that in teaching creationism, or even intelligent design, you are teaching the views of a single religion... and, again, if you are teaching them in a science class, you are teaching something that is not science: it is not subject to scientific investigation or proof.



I can't improve upon that.

Now, as for "proving the Bible":

This is a mistake as well—to call upon people to "prove the Bible." First of all, it exists; that does not require proof, so we can assume that this is not the question. Second: proving—or disproving—any one part of it has no effect on the whole. I can point to numerous contradictions in the Bible (but will not... unless forced to; fortunately, scanmode doesn't seem to be around... :lol: ); these do not in any way mean that anything else in the Bible is incorrect or even called into question. People who do this are generally trying to break the hold of literalists who persist in insisting that the Bible must—for some reason I cannot fathom—be taken literally as a whole. As I said, I cannot grasp this point of view: what is the problem with saying that some parts of the Bible are metaphorical... or just plain wrong? I don't see how this damages the balance of the book.

I also don't see why anybody would even want to retain most of the Old Testament; there's a lot of stuff in there that is just plain hideous, and which nobody would endorse today. And a lot more stuff that people just plain ignore today, like most of the "laws" set down in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. Do literalists want to go back to the days of removing the hands of thieves, or stoning "witches"? Why not just trash the whole thing and stick with the New Testament?

This is getting long... no surprise for those who know me. For those who don't, get used to it. At least further answers on this thread will not be to a large number of posts, so they ought to be shorter.... :D

As for whether or not you subscribe to someone else's set of scientific beliefs, chiefsfan27 (which you posted after I began this message)... that's what the schools are supposed to teach: the consensus belief of the scientific community. That's what gets taught in science classes. If you don't like it, you should move to eliminate science teaching altogether... not to have it revised to exclude any particular part of it you don't care for. There are certain things in contemporary scientific theory that I don't agree with... and they will be removed, or revised, if evidence ever comes in to support my own views. That's how science works. Come up with evidence that contradicts present views, and I'm sure the curriculum will be revised. But not until then. Nor should it be.

In particular, your children ought to be exposed to contemporary views, whether they are right or wrong... so that they can be fully informed. How are they to decide which is correct—and, perhaps more importantly, from your point of view, how are they to argue against contemporary views if they are not familiar with them? They ought, at the very least, to possess the same informational base as any other citizen, so that they can understand what is under discussion when such things arise. Would you disadvantage your children by denying them such an opportunity?

Again, youre saying that evolution and the Big Bang are proven through science. But you won't let me use the Bible to prove it's principles. That's a double standard. As to what I said being illogical, it is, and that's my point. Science does't adress most of the contents of the Bible, so asking for scientific evidence of it is illogical.

Seperation of Church and State is not in the Constitution. And as Jefferson wanted it, the Church was to be protected from the State, not the other way around.

Yet again on the Big Bang, you view scientific findings as "evidence", while I view God's word, and the complexity of nature as "evidence".

All of the Bible adresses Jesus. Anyone who thinks anything else is mis-informed. They do tell the same account, even though minor things are different, like numbers of people and the order of events, the story is the same.

Until I view science experiamentation as the ultimate way of obtaining proof and/or you view the Bible as the ultiamte way of obtaining proof, this argument is basically pointless. I could argue my side until the Cubs win the World Series, snd so could you, but until we both use the same method of proving our arguments no one will ever convince anyone. This arguments has been going on ever since science became prominent, and will always continue.
I only joined the argument because I felt a need to at least let make my opinion known, but now it's pointless. If you all want to continue arguing, that's fine, I'll join you. But if you all are as tired of this as I am, lets just stop going in circles and debate something that we could even possibly change someone's mind on.

[BigBuddhaPup]

Please read "Misquoting Jesus" ... it is by a professor(who is Christian) about the how reliable the Bible is... just one of many reads from individuals that know much more about the subject than any of us ever will...

As for evolution... it is a scientific theory and belong in a science class...

Creationism, Bible, Religion belong in a theology class...

[eman484]

Religion has no place in public schools. It should not be taught there and no religion should be forced upon anybody. Evolution is not a religion, it is a theory and therefore has a proper place in a science class room. Parent's that concerned have the option's of sending their children to private schools, catholic schools and always after-school bible studies. That is where religion belongs. The only thing I don't agree with is changing the Pledge of Alliegence. That is more about paying respect to the nation that we are all a part of than it is about religious beliefs.

My other thing, is that people need to stop acting like Christmas is about religion. What Christmas has become has nothing to do with religious beliefs anyways. Santa Claus is not a religious character. The whole holiday has turned into propoganda. Another way in this media-driven culture that stores can bump up their sales. The true meaning of Christmas is lost in all that. So if places don't put Christmas trees or Santa decorations up that is not in anyway fighting our religion. Because that isn't religious stuff. If you want that stuff fine. Put up 50 Santas in your front yard and by a 10-foot Christmas tree. Nobody is stopping you. As long as nobody is stopping you from going to church on Christmas Eve than they are not stopping you from celebrating Christmas. Because that's what Christmas is --- celebrating the birth of Jesus.

Not everyone has to celebrate it and they shouldn't have to feel oppressed by it when they are out in public areas. Some people, like the guy here who is claiming there is a war on Christmas, just feel the need to complain when eveything is the way they like it. Get out of here with that supremicist bull*****. You need to realize what age we are in and the sensitivties religion bring in such a multi-cultural nation. Like CK said, keep your religion in your home or in your church.

This was a heartfelt message from someone who battles religious differences within his own home. I am from a Christian background and my wife is from a Jewish background. Plus, we have a son who is celebrating his first holidays. Anyone ever seen the O.C. --- Chrismakah anyone? :lol:

[HibachiDG]

I guess I would just say that both of those views you expressed are very, very modern understandings. In my opinion, they were not held by any of the Framers, Jefferson, or anyone really in that period--other than the justices in the Marbury v Madison case themselves, of course. Remember, this is why Hamilton and the Federalists argued against the fears of the Anti-Federalists that the Supreme Court would become an uncontrollable oligarchy. They argued that the Supreme Court only has the power to interpret the Constitution in individual cases, set precedents, and shape public opinion. But lower courts are not necessarily bound to follow the Supreme Court's reasons for deciding a specific case. They weigh many, many precedents, and then balance them out with their own interpretation of the Constitution to make a decision. Then their decisions are of course later subject to be overturned by the Supreme Court--but it is in that order, and not the other way around. Again, the Supreme Court only has power to decide the case before it. Anything else would be extremely contrary to any free principles.

Sorry for not responding to any of this and just responding with a question first, but I'm heading out to the airport in a little bit, so will respond later. But, I'm curious as to how you see the three branches meshing if all of the branches can interpret with finality. It seems to me that if you strip that interpretation from the judiciary alone, the rest falls. While Madison may not have said words specific to only the judiciary can interpret, he has written of the judiciary as defensive armor.

[Richard the Lionheart]

But you aren't willing to take his word on it?

Absolutely not. :lol: And Doug knows that's no disrespect to him. Its just that I like to try and think for myself. I'm pesky like that.



Not even close. The people have no power whatsoever to "interpret" the Constitution, or any law. We might well have better laws if they did. Or not. The people have only indirect control over their laws at best, by voting for those persons they think will pass or rescind the laws they are concerned about.

Really? I'm sure the President would be happy to hear about that. In the next elections make sure to make no judgement on what party will better secure you're Constitutional rights as well, since you have no power to interpret the Constitution. (Sarcasm) This is what I'm talking about--the long-term public will of the people will bend government over time. As Lincoln said, with public opinion on its side, the government can do anything--with public opinion against it, it can do nothing. This isn't the latest poll number I'm talking about mind you, but rather the long term collective will of the people. It is deafening, and extremely powerful.



Not parallel. There is no obligation to accept something just because it is found not to conflict with the Constitution. All sorts of things that are constitutional are not part of our legal code. There is an obligation to comply with declarations of unconstitutionality.

Absolutely true...until the last sentence. I posted the Jackson quote because it shows a proper mindset (what the people who created it believed they were creating) of the role of the judiciary). He never argues that he isn't bound to accept it because they just said it was Constitutional. He talks about the matter in a larger way. He is talking about the roles for each of the branches. If you want to read an example of it going the other way, I suggest the Lincoln response to the Dred Scott case that I posted, or just the Jefferson quotes--particularly the second paragraph of the second link.



That is not the issue under question. When the Legislative branch is legislating, the Supreme Court does not have any input in the matter. When the Executive branch is... executing? heh... in its legislative capacity—that is, passing laws—the Supreme Court has no input. Once that process is finished, however, the ball is in the Supreme Court's... court. And only theirs... until the legislative process is begun anew.

This idea is not in the Constitution, however. And none of the people who made the Constitution ever said they they believed this was the role of the Judiciary. It is an extra-Constitutional, modern, false understanding that is almost completely unsupportable by evidence. If you don't believe me, try to find a quote from the period that supports that understanding of the Judiciary. You'll get nothing but a headache.


No, it may not match up with the founders' vision of what the Court should do. Probably doesn't, if the references you've cited are representative of their views as a whole. That doesn't change the way the system works today. And, given the way the system is working today—most of the founders would be appalled, I'm pretty sure, and would probably wish they'd given the Court more power still.

Very true again....until, IMO, the last sentence. :) But, I'm not arguing how the system works today. I know how it works. It works just as you described it. I'm not arguing what it is, but what is should be. The current role of the Judiciary is extra-Constitutional. If you're going to demand strict adherence to the document in one instance, you have to follow all of it in every instance. A document that is completely ignored because of the way a system works today can only be--or quickly become--useless and ceremonial.

Anyway, this is a good conversation, thanks Ravana and Doug. These debates are so much more fun than all that liberal/conservative crap. :)

[CKFresh]

I feel the same exact way about the secular: forcing evolution on our children in public school. Do it on your own time...

The War on Christmas and on Christians is very real... skirmishes and battles occuring all over the United States by the secular progressives tearing this nation apart...

Inthenet and chiefsfan,

If you don't want our children to learn SCIENCE then go back in time about 500 years. Science is responsible for nearly every technilogical advancement in huma society. Evolution is SCIENCE! Religion is not science. Why don't you just argue that we shouldn't teach math or history in schools either. Listen, you can't deny evolution on any basis other than religion. Science has decided that evolution is the best explaination for the orgin of human beings. If you don't like it, then argue that we should stop science. no more medicine, no more technilogical advancement. We can go back to caveman times when everything was a lot simpler and you can tell everyone that God is the only answer.

Unfortunately for you people have advanced, and we now understand that God is not responsible for EVERYTHING. Don't blame schools because you are behind the times. Science is a valuable asset and you are trying to kill it. No one is stopping you from going to church. So stop trying to stop us from learning science. ONCE AGAIN: RELIGION - CHURCH, SCIENCE - SCHOOL.

If you don't like science, then home school your children and let them be behind the rest of the world intellectually. But don't force my child to be stupid because you are behind society.

[chiefsfan27]

Inthenet and chiefsfan,

If you don't want our children to learn SCIENCE then go back in time about 500 years. Science is responsible for nearly every technilogica