walmart says "merry christmas"

[Diamond Cross]

Originally Posted by Thomas Crown

The fact that groups sued cities to make them remove Nativity scenes or references to "Christmas" from public holiday schedules means nothing? Come on.

Christians never went out in any concerted effort to say "Don't let those dirty Jews say chanukkah, and don't let those dirty Afrikans say Kwanza, and don't let those dirty athiests say happy holidays!". It happened the OTHER way round. Primarily athiest/agnostic groups called upon municipalities, school districts, state and county governments to remove any reference to Christmas because it offended them.

Please do not pretend this didn't happen. And to call this a Republican scam is just laughable (though FNC does know how to spin it in to ratings).

Except these days they're trying to put prayer into schools, and are constantly attacking evolution trying to force it out of schools in favore of Intelligent Design as science when Intelligent Design is not science, it is a teleological argument. And a few years back they wouldn't let Wiccans hold their rituals on an army base. Theyh've boycotted Disney because of Disneyt's non discrimination policy for homosexuals. They tried to get rid of HArry Potter because according to them he was encouraging children to engage in Satanism. So on and so forth.

[Thomas Crown]

Tollerance and allowed practices is not tantamount to endorsement. Allowing a Nativity on public property isn't an endorsement. Forcing Jews to be Christians is endorsement.

Regardless, this is not constitutionally protected.

[Thomas Crown]

So you are saying that Judges basing opinions on personal ideals rather than the law is ok?

[Thomas Crown]

The BS-o-meter just went off.

1. Politics has nothing to do with the state. The state just happens to be run by politicians.

2. The purpose of the concept of a seperation between church and state was not to remove any references to religion, faith or God from the State, but rather to remove the ability of the State to IMPOSE a faith. (ie HEY JEW, NO MENORAH FOR YOU!)

[Thomas Crown]

How is allowing a Nativity or a Menorah or a public building a regulation or even endorsement of any one religion?

[Thomas Crown]

You should, perhaps, read the constitution.

This isn't a matter of interpretation

[Thomas Crown]

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

Except these days they're trying to put prayer into schools, and are constantly attacking evolution trying to force it out of schools in favore of Intelligent Design as science when Intelligent Design is not science, it is a teleological argument. And a few years back they wouldn't let Wiccans hold their rituals on an army base. Theyh've boycotted Disney because of Disneyt's non discrimination policy for homosexuals. They tried to get rid of HArry Potter because according to them he was encouraging children to engage in Satanism. So on and so forth.

Slow down.
Define "they". You cannot group ALL Christians together on this. Small Christian groups do make equally retarded attacks, but that is not the whole.

No one is FORCING prayer in school. The idea is that if you WANT to pray, you should be allowed.

No one is saying evolution should be replaced with ID or Creationism, but rather that it be taught as well.

[Diamond Cross]

it is the baptists who're boycotting Disney. It is conservative Christians who want prayer in school and to replace evolution, but prayer in school is already allowed but it must be a personal silent prayer. School sponsored prayer is not allowed.

I'm not opposed to Intelligent Design being taught in school, but it should be taught as a philosphy rather than hard science.

[Thomas Crown]

Evolution should be taught as theory, not fact as well.

And it is some baptist groups, and some conservative christian groups. Not the group as a whole.

Conversely, it is the group as a whole that gets attacked.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

lol you can interpret the constitution however you want. The people in charge of doing that will say differently.

I'm not interpreting it, I'm reading it. Those who disguise their anti-religious antics under the concept of 'separation of church and state' are the ones that have somehow 'interpreted' the constitution to fit their needs.

Please, show me where it says that the government is to be completely separated from anything religious.

[Diamond Cross]

There is far more evidence to support evolution than Intelligent Design.

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: the Scientific Case for Common Descent

[Thomas Crown]

Far more evidence does not make it fact.

If we want to be academically accurate (and not just anti-God), we have to acknowledge that Evolution is just a theory. A theory that has empirical support, but not enough to make it fact. Right now, it is taught as the ONLY possibility and as fact. That is not academically honest.

[SpicyMcVoodoo]

The fact that the Establishment Clause has become muddled with a discussion about Walmart (nothing to do with separation of church and state) is exactly what Republicans want. No one ever tried to force private businesses to do anything. They do this themselves for profit.

[Diamond Cross]

So how much more evidence is needed before you'll accept it a fact? According to this website I linked to:

<H3>Are There Other Scientifically Valid Explanations?

The worldwide scientific research community from over the past 140 years has discovered that no known hypothesis other than universal common descent can account scientifically for the unity, diversity, and patterns of terrestrial life. This hypothesis has been verified and corroborated so extensively that it is currently accepted as fact by the overwhelming majority of professional researchers in the biological and geological sciences (AAAS 1990; NAS 2003; NCSE 2003; Working Group 2001). No alternate explanations compete scientifically with common descent, primarily for four main reasons: (1) so many of the predictions of common descent have been confirmed from independent areas of science, (2) no significant contradictory evidence has yet been found, (3) competing possibilities have been contradicted by enormous amounts of scientific data, and (4) many other explanations are untestable, though they may be trivially consistent with biological data.

</H3>
But he does also go on to say:

When evaluating the scientific evidence provided in the following pages, please consider alternate explanations. Most importantly, for each piece of evidence, critically consider what potential observations, if found, would be incompatible with a given alternate explanation. If none exist, that alternate explanation is not scientific. As explained above, a hypothesis that is simply compatible with certain empirical observations cannot use those observations as supporting scientific evidence.

And again I reiterate:

How much evidence is needed before you'll accept it as fact? How much evidence is needed before it should be accepted as fact? To the scientific community it is fact and well supported by the evidence there is. Remember, in the world of science a theory is a hypothesis that has been thoroughly tested and accepted by the scientific community.

[Thomas Crown]

The scientific community doesn't even accept it as fact. That is why it is called the "Theory of Evolution".

And there is a difference between the FACT of natural beings evolving to suit their evironments and saying that evolution is how everything began.

[Thomas Crown]

Of course, yet another right wing conspiracy. I forgot.

[Diamond Cross]

Ahem:

The worldwide scientific research community from over the past 140 years has discovered that no known hypothesis other than universal common descent can account scientifically for the unity, diversity, and patterns of terrestrial life. This hypothesis has been verified and corroborated so extensively that it is currently accepted as fact by the overwhelming majority of professional researchers in the biological and geological sciences (AAAS 1990; NAS 2003; NCSE 2003; Working Group 2001). No alternate explanations compete scientifically with common descent, primarily for four main reasons: (1) so many of the predictions of common descent have been confirmed from independent areas of science, (2) no significant contradictory evidence has yet been found, (3) competing possibilities have been contradicted by enormous amounts of scientific data, and (4) many other explanations are untestable, though they may be trivially consistent with biological data.

[SpicyMcVoodoo]

Originally Posted by Thomas Crown

The scientific community doesn't even accept it as fact. That is why it is called the "Theory of Evolution".

And there is a difference between the FACT of natural beings evolving to suit their evironments and saying that evolution is how everything began.

Jeez, why do some Christians make such a big deal over evolution? who cares? why don't you just go the way of the catholics and accept evolution, saying it's the "how" of the way god works, and religion is the "why"?

Having been raised Catholic, it's pretty strange to see some Christians act as if their entire belief system is staked on evolution not being true.

[Thomas Crown]

I do believe in evolution. I just don't believe it to be the begining.

[Diamond Cross]

So are you trying to say that you believe that life is something of a mix of evolution and creation? I'm not trying to put words into your mouth, so please don't take it as such.