"Separation of Church and State..."

[Blackhawk2001]

I don't think you're implying court decisions are right only if they agree with you, but your statement could be interpreted as such. There are those on the left who would present the same argument form the opposite perspective. Many feel SCOTUS placed George W. Bush into office against the will of the people. The point is, we are a nation of laws made by and enforced by imperfect and diverse people. Most of us have heard the old joke about opinions and lawyers. The Constitution (and John Marshall) has given the Supreme Court the final interpretation. If they say the sky is plaid, Congress can revisit the issue and clarify the language.

Getting back to the separation issue, the gist is government isn't to interfere with religion and religion isn't to dictate to government. Rather than allow a manger on the courthouse square, we have chosen to disallow all religious stuff. Saves making decisions when the neighborhood iman or rabbi asks to have a display.

The Doctrine of the Separation of Church and State is legalistic hairsplitting at its best/worst. It should be no surprise to anyone that lawyers "lawyer" and will twist (as is obvious) a plainly-written, historically-verified bit of prose to mean what they want it to mean. That doesn't mean it's justified or right. If that were the case, Dred Scott would have "settled" the slavery question, wouldn't it? The Supreme Court was wrong in its decision because it strained legal opinion to get to the conclusion it wanted, not because it properly interpreted the Constitution.

As to government having "chosen to disallow all religious stuff . . .(because) . . . saves making decision when the neighborhood iman(sic) or rabbi asks to have a display", it's not government's job to have ANY say in whether religious displays are placed in the public square or not. Traditionally, the menora has been displayed during Hannukah(sp?) right alongside the manger scene in public. Buddhas get displayed in Chinatowns. The muslims (and other religions) don't believe in having religious images; that's their faith and they're welcome to it. What no one has, is the right to be offended and go to court to force OTHER believers to take down their religious displays. That courts have chosen to rule against the First Amendment is more an indicator of political correctness and the encroachment of government on our civil liberties than an indication of the rightness of their judgment.

And, if Christians, in due course, become a minority religion in the United States and the muslims become the majority religion, Christians STILL will have the Constitutional right to worship freely, as the muslims have the Constitutional right to worship freely now.

 

[Pocketman]

Yes, perhaps a little research is in order.

Jefferson - founder and President at the time.
Marshall - appointed supreme court judge nominated by Adams

"In his letter to Judge Spencer Roane, Thomas Jefferson argues against exclusive judiciary construction of the Constitution; such exclusive power of constitutional interpretation would, according to Jefferson, undermine the principle of checks and balances-since it would allow the judiciary department to prescribe rules for the government of the others.

If the judiciary has sole power of constitutional interpretation, then the Constitution “is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please.”

Jefferson instead recommends that each department be truly independent of the others and have the right to decide for itself the Constitution’s meaning in cases submitted to its action-especially in those cases where it is to act ultimately and without appeal."

------------

Seems to me Jefferson had it right when he said: "“is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please.”

I do not disagree. The point I've been trying to make, apparently not very well, is that since John Marshall was Chief Justice, the court (established by the framers) has exercised judicial review. That may or may not be the originally intended role, but it's what we've got. We all have opinions and can research the founders' writings, but it's SCOTUS' interpretation that we must adhere to. Congress then has the opportunity to act or not act upon the court's decision.

 

[edporch]

Quote:
Originally Posted by edporch
I don't see that anybody's saying they want religion "intertwined" with government.

Only that a person shouldn't be excluded from government BECAUSE they are religious.

Thats the reason Herman Cain said he wouldn't hire muslims in his administration. Is that what we are trying to prevent?

So do I infer you're saying that only atheists need apply?
Kind of ironic in a country founded on the unalienable rights endowed by our creator.

I can understand Herman Cain's concern about hiring members of a religion that believe religious leaders should be the government.

But that doesn't mean ALL religions believe this.

 

[Bummer]

theory |ˈTHēərē, ˈTHi(ə)rē|
noun ( pl. theories )
a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, esp. one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.

There are two sciences and it is you that have the two confused. The two are operational science and historical (origins) science.

• Operational science deals with testing and verifying ideas (theories) in the present.
• Historical (origins) science involves interpreting evidence from the past and includes the models of evolution and creation.

Recognizing that everyone has presuppositions that shape the way they interpret the evidence is an important step in realizing that historical science is not equal to operational science.

That's the casual definition of theory, not the scientific definition. Within science, as would be appropriate in a Science class, a theory must be falsifiable and it must make predictions.

How does one falsify Creationism? What predictions does it make? It would also be helpful if someone could actually state the Theory of Creationism. Nobody has yet, and many have asked.

The same points stand relative to Intelligent Design.

Both Creationism and Intelligent Design are religion, and perfectly suitable for discussion within a Comparative Religions class. Neither are Science, and as such do not belong in Science class. This is not an issue of "Separation of Church and State", but rather an issue of the separation of religion and science.

 

[level.eleven]

Why can't the display occur on State property? If Buddhists want to put up a display on state property, have at it! You are incorrect sir. I have no problem with that at all, and neither do most Christians. What law prohibits such?

theory |ˈTHēərē, ˈTHi(ə)rē|
noun ( pl. theories )
a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, esp. one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.

There are two sciences and it is you that have the two confused. The two are operational science and historical (origins) science.

• Operational science deals with testing and verifying ideas (theories) in the present.
• Historical (origins) science involves interpreting evidence from the past and includes the models of evolution and creation.

Recognizing that everyone has presuppositions that shape the way they interpret the evidence is an important step in realizing that historical science is not equal to operational science.

Finally, if there is a time of prayer with no specific prayer or religion advocated, what is the harm in that?

You do know that creationists invented the terms operational/historical science in an attempt to validate their claims in lieu of observation, correct? They only appear in creationist publications. Honestly, they appear nowhere else in the scientific realm.

Bummer has handled your issue with the definition of theory.

 

[Carmelbythecorn]

That's the casual definition of theory, not the scientific definition. Within science, as would be appropriate in a Science class, a theory must be falsifiable and it must make predictions.

How does one falsify Creationism? What predictions does it make? It would also be helpful if someone could actually state the Theory of Creationism. Nobody has yet, and many have asked.

The same points stand relative to Intelligent Design.

Both Creationism and Intelligent Design are religion, and perfectly suitable for discussion within a Comparative Religions class. Neither are Science, and as such do not belong in Science class. This is not an issue of "Separation of Church and State", but rather an issue of the separation of religion and science.

By your same standard, evolution is a religious belief. In over 150 years of fossil discovery there has yet to be one transitional specie located. New species are discovered already fully formed. If evolution were scientific, those fossils would be prevalent, but they are not.

Both creationism and intelligent design actually look at evidence, such as irreducible complexity, and theorize that there exists evidence of an intelligent designer, not random chance.

Micro evolution, or natural selection I might buy. Macro evolution is and has been a stretch, and one theory I cannot intellectually accept.

I respectfully disagree with your assertion.

 

[J_Wales]

"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here."
-Patrick Henry

 

[level.eleven]

By your same standard, evolution is a religious belief. In over 150 years of fossil discovery there has yet to be one transitional specie located. New species are discovered already fully formed. If evolution were scientific, those fossils would be prevalent, but they are not.

Both creationism and intelligent design actually look at evidence, such as irreducible complexity, and theorize that there exists evidence of an intelligent designer, not random chance.

Micro evolution, or natural selection I might buy. Macro evolution is and has been a stretch, and one theory I cannot intellectually accept.

I respectfully disagree with your assertion.

Before you disagree with his assertion, you will need to re-examine your first two paragraphs as they are incredibly inaccurate.

 

[Carmelbythecorn]

You do know that creationists invented the terms operational/historical science in an attempt to validate their claims in lieu of observation, correct? They only appear in creationist publications. Honestly, they appear nowhere else in the scientific realm.

Bummer has handled your issue with the definition of theory.

And I'll bet you won't find Biblical references in scientific journals. I'll bet Republicans and Democrats disagree on the definition of terms as well. No surprise here.

I'm not trying to hijack the OP about the separation of church and state, I was defending an 'ignorant' slur directed at me in an earlier post...

We may have to agree to disagree.

 

[Carmelbythecorn]

Before you disagree with his assertion, you will need to re-examine your first two paragraphs as they are incredibly inaccurate.

I disagree

 

[level.eleven]

And I'll bet you won't find Biblical references in scientific journals. I'll bet Republicans and Democrats disagree on the definition of terms as well. No surprise here.

I'm not trying to hijack the OP about the separation of church and state, I was defending an 'ignorant' slur directed at me in an earlier post...

We may have to agree to disagree.

Ignorant isn't a slur. It was an accurate observation. Since you are fond of definitions, give that word the ol' google try.

It isn't a disagreement on terms, it the wholesale manufacturing of deceptive language in an attempt to trick the listener and the ignorant.

 

[Carmelbythecorn]

Ignorant isn't a slur. It was an accurate observation. Since you are fond of definitions, give that word the ol' google try.

It isn't a disagreement on terms, it the wholesale manufacturing of deceptive language in an attempt to trick the listener and the ignorant.

Don't be an asshat... You understand my position, I understand yours. We can agree to disagree. You're not willing to change your position, nor am I. Any further discussion on this is folly.

 

[level.eleven]

I disagree

The fact that you stated evolutionary biology is based on "random chance" is a mighty indicator that you haven't digested even the most basic concepts of the theory. No "transitional fossils" exist? Where are you hearing this information?

 

[thebishopp]

"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here."
-Patrick Henry

While there were some diehard "christians" the fact remains that more than a few of the founders disagreed with this statement and actually said so.

In particular the guys who actually wrote or were the primary authors of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the added Amendments that makeup the Bill of Rights.

 

[Carmelbythecorn]

The fact that you stated evolutionary biology is based on "random chance" is a mighty indicator that you haven't digested even the most basic concepts of the theory. No "transitional fossils" exist? Where are you hearing this information?

One last try. I didn't say evolutionary biology occurs by random chance, evolutionists state evolutionary biology occurs randomly. I stated that it is my contention that irreducible complexity indicates a creative, Intelligent Designer.

I stated that there are no transitional species in the fossil record.
A quote from Colin Patterson a senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History in response to a letter written to him inquiring of transitional species:

‘I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic licence, would that not mislead the reader?’

He went on to say:

‘Yet Gould [Stephen J. Gould -- the now deceased professor of paleontology from Harvard University] and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. … You say that I should at least “show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.” I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.’

 

[J_Wales]

While there were some diehard "christians" the fact remains that more than a few of the founders disagreed with this statement and actually said so.

In particular the guys who actually wrote or were the primary authors of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the added Amendments that makeup the Bill of Rights.

Ah, but many did indeed agree. Further, when one looks at the founders' position on Providence one will find widespread agreement amongst the founding fathers.

The founders did not march lock step in agreement? I'm shocked! Shocked I tell you!

 

[level.eleven]

One last try. I didn't say evolutionary biology occurs by random chance, evolutionists state evolutionary biology occurs randomly. I stated that it is my contention that irreducible complexity indicates a creative, Intelligent Designer.

I stated that there are no transitional species in the fossil record.
A quote from Colin Patterson a senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History in response to a letter written to him inquiring of transitional species:

‘I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic licence, would that not mislead the reader?’

He went on to say:

‘Yet Gould [Stephen J. Gould -- the now deceased professor of paleontology from Harvard University] and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. … You say that I should at least “show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.” I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.’

Another classic creationist attempt at misinformation. Let's go right to the source!

Patterson Misquoted: A Tale of Two 'Cites'

We can dive into the "irreducible complexity" fallacy if you wish. It is the opinion of a single man and wholly rejected by the scientific community at large. It is nothing more than the rehashing of the old watchmaker argument. I am not sure if that would be at all productive based on your previous comments and reliance on misinformation. We seem to have extreme differences on base knowledge necessary to discuss the subject.

 

[Carmelbythecorn]

carmelbythecorn

Another classic creationist attempt at misinformation. Let's go right to the source!

Patterson Misquoted: A Tale of Two 'Cites'

We can dive into the "irreducible complexity" fallacy if you wish. It is the opinion of a single man and wholly rejected by the scientific community at large. It is nothing more than the rehashing of the old watchmaker argument. I am not sure if that would be at all productive based on your previous comments and reliance on misinformation. We seem to have extreme differences on base knowledge necessary to discuss the subject.

One man's 'misinformation' is another man's information. We all choose to believe what we wish to believe... The totality of your posts actually illustrates my point quite well. Given the fact that neither one of us can factually state that evolution or design unequivocally IS how the universe originated, my claim that both evolution and intelligent design (including creationism) are faith-based in their nature rings true.

You will never admit that because it's fairly obvious we disagree on what is 'faith' and what is 'science' (and you feel you are much more intelligent than I) and that's your right; but the fact remains that each viewpoint requires faith to believe and both result from are free choice we have the ability to make.

We can (but won't) debate irreducible complexity, which is no longer just one man's viewpoint, but one that is actually gaining in popularity. Wasn't Darwin's evolutional theory the viewpoint of one man at some point in time? If irreducible complexity was 'rejected by the scientific community at large' (as you claim) that would do nothing but indicate to me that possibly the "scientific community" might have another agenda. My observation is that scientists don't step out of line often, for fear of losing government funding. I also don't believe that there are many theories in the "scientific community" that would garner near universal acceptance and when that happens, I get suspicious...(I.e, anthropomorphic global warming).

An open and honest viewing of the irreducible complexity theory would lend that it have some level of credence. You may not choose to believe it, but the idea that "theres' something there" is an honest appraisal. I have done the same for evolution. I see where it may be enticing to believe...I just don't.

I keep coming back to this...but reasonable people may still disagree on topics such as this....and it's okay.

 

[CountryBoy1981]

You will never admit that because it's fairly obvious we disagree on what is 'faith' and what is 'science' (and you feel you are much more intelligent than I) and that's your right; but the fact remains that each viewpoint requires faith to believe and both result from are free choice we have the ability to make.

To some people, science is their faith. see Richard Dawkins.

 

[J_Wales]

To some people, science is their faith. see Richard Dawkins.

Well said.