Then my question to you is do you think it is showing state sponsorship of this religion, or any as the case may be?
I remember a history class in my school which studied the Koran. There was not one muslim in my school, but I am sure someone would have made a deal about having a course studying the bible. I am sure some would disagree but you would have to admit there are people out there who would fight the study of the bible even if it is a historic sence.
As for government buildings having symbols of mainly christian religion decorating their walls and doors. That is crossing the line, because it promotes one religion over another. Someone please inform me if there are some buildings with other religions being represented in their “decoration.”
I suppose there are “people out there” who would fight the study of algebra. You can almost always find one example of anything.
It depends on how the Bible, or the Koran, or the story of Zeus and Hera, or any other religious text, is used. If it’s done for the sake of inculcating the students in the beliefs of that religion, yes, it is objectionable. But a responsible atheist or agnostic would not object to the study of the Bible as a historical source, as literature, or as a cultural resource. It’s good for people to understand cultures other than their own, and it’s impossible to do that without learning about other religions. I myself have not read the Koran, but I’m sure it contains material of literary merit that would be worth studying, regardless of whether you agree with the Muslim religion or not.
When I taught high school we had a section in the required curriculum about oral literature. Included were excerpts from the Bible as well as other sources such as folk tales and Greek mythology. It was made very clear at the start of this section that I was not telling the students what to believe. There was never any problem about it.
Well I know it is about the aspect of the bible or koran, or any religious document being taught. I was trying to point out the “some” people would fight the teaching of the bible in a historical or literary way, especially if no other religious document were used in the same way, reguardless of the fact it is teaching the literary or historical aspect of it. Some people would argue against algebra as they would the world being round, or that we landed on the moon. And “some” of those people have the power to pick and choose what they think is germane to a government funded establishment. And those are the people who make “some” of the seperation of church and state rediculous.
If I were to take a class that used a religious document, I would prefer that person to have a different religion, or have none, not for thinking they would push the religion on the students but to protect his rights to teach it without fear of gument folks from trying to stop him/her.
The Declaration of Independence is not a “higher power” than the Constitution. It has no legal authority at all, in fact.
Prove that there is a “creative force” behind our existence. That’s a statement of faith, not fact.
Baloney. It endorses a specific belief in monotheism.
Are the Ten Commandments any more significant than Hammurabi’s Code? If not, why post them? Can we post other historical religious codes?
If we post the Commandments, can we also post the Bill of Rights for comparison? Can we show how seven of the Ten Commandments would violate the US Constitutition if we attempted to enforce them today?
Yes, whether the state (or federal government, if it’s operated by such) is aware or not. Somehow I don’t think they’d be overly concerned about a Christian cross. A pentagram, however, might get that person in trouble. That gets us into another issue, which is how a government decides a religion is okay to sponsor (even if only by allowing people to wear relevant symbols) but another is not.
Few questions about that class, if you don’t mind:
Did it approach the Koran/Qu’ran from the standpoint of “this is what followers of Islam believe” or “this is the truth of the world and of Allah”?
Was it a private or public school? I don’t recall you saying either way (could be my faulty memory, though)
Was it high school or post-high school?
Would it have been in the same context as the one studying the Qu’ran?
It would be difficult to pull out parts of the Bible that solely discuss history without referring to religiously-specific (i.e. present in one religion and not another) and either tossing them aside or supporting them, IMHO.
Not that I know of, though I could easily be wrong.
iam, it was a public H.S., the book was a text book so I am assuming it was studied from an academic stand point. I went to a small school(roughly 250 people) so I am assuming nobody locally would mind about the academic study of religion. But like I said I was pointing out some people would disagree with this. There are extremests everywhere, on the left, right and inbetween. If you need more clerification I’m sure you wont hesitate to ask.
There’s a joke, but it’s only on one person here and it isn’t what you think it is. To wit:
I am harmed by any government of this country (state, federal, local, what-have-you) sponsoring in any way, or indicating that a lack of sponsorship indicates a lack of merit, a religion. So there you have it.
Cite? Since the Bill of Rights elucidated rights, whereas the Declaration of Independence was the colonies’ formal manner of saying “Buh-Bye, England”?
Cite?
Unless and until a valid cite is presented for the premise, the conclusion is false on the basis that it relies upon an unproven premise.
Ditto what Diogenes said about Hammurabi’s Code. I suppose we should also put the Jewish dietary laws up in public buildings since they qualify under the “older than dirt, so it must be a root of our culture” argument, along with proscriptions about working on the weekend and other things. Right?
If we learn from various sources what the original intent was and we don’t like it, what are the “legal” means for our society to change the laws from their original intent?
I don’t thing original intent matters today, not just for this subject, but almost all subjects that are not recent. We can’t do anything unless we were in office and had the power to say the original intent is what we will use as the basis for all of the seperation claims today. My beef with how it is conducted now probably wouldn’t matter to one other person I know.
The Ideals of the Declaration of Independence are a “Self-Evident Truth”. They have Moral Authority and they have the legal authority given to them by the Ninth Ammendment. If we pass an Ammendment that nullifies the First Ammendment and calls for the immediate execution of all athiests, is that a valid law? Its Constitutional. I’m sure there is Bible verse that could be used to justify that law.
I don’t want to argue the semantics of legal, I want to discuss what touchstone we use decide which laws (regarding separation of church and state) we allow.
def.: Touchstone: 2) An…example that is used to test…genuineness. (Slightly modified to fit my use.)
Origin: A hard black stone…used to test the quality of gold.
What’s to prove? We exist. Its a fact.
def.: Create: 1) To cause to exist; bring into being.
We did not exist, we do now exist. Something caused us to exist. If you don’t believe that you exist, please forward your “non-existing” bank account to me. You must prove either that we don’t exist now or that we have always existed. Science says otherwise. Some force, something, brought about the Universe as we know it. Even now, scientists are looking for the Grand Unified Theory.
Omigosh! You’re right! That does almost sound monotheistic!
Words have many definitions. These definitions change and evolve over time. “def.: God: The creative force behind existance.” is a valid definition. It does not necessarily to imply monotheism. Now, when someone talks about “God”, you now may knowling smile because you know the “real” definition of God.
Bigger Baloney on you! You are reading your own predjudices into this.
Exactly. My humor can be quite subtle. Trust me, a true fundie has a bigger problem with Evolved and * Enlightenment* than you have with the Ten Commandments. I’m guessing that they would not push for posting the Ten Commandments if they had to post that disclaimer next to them.
I wish we could all lighten up and be more tolerant.
Cite? What harm? Can you prove it? Unless and until a valid cite is presented for the premise, the conclusion is false on the basis that it relies upon an unproven premise.
What exactly are you trying to say? You are harmed by a government sponsoring a religion in terms of a cross in school, but a law based on a certain religion’s “morality” harms only one person?
“We hold these Truths to be self-evident”. Unfortunately, these Truths are not self-evident to you if you need a cite.
I only regret that Jefferson was wrong, The Laws in the Declaration of Independence are not Self-evident to everybody, especially the fundies. And that harms all of us.
I am not that smart, so monotheism is a belief in only one God, correct? Of course I am I looked it up to make sure I was. But am I wrong in thinking that most all popular religions believe in “A” god or a “God-Like” person? If we were to use God in a general sence then how could it be monotheism? And for that matter how could we say using God in anything relating to the government(currency and pledge of allegance). And based on the def. ronbo gave, god “could” be used as a scientific “place holder” for the unknown creative force for humans and all things. Then again I just have a high school education and don’t study anything on this subject, so can someone point out where I am wrong, or right?
well its common sence, look up def. and if you use them then you will be safe, well can’t say that because someone will debate “Your” defenition, but I’m sure you get my meaning.
The ninth amendment just states that individual rights are not limired to the bill of Rights. It does not give the DoA any legaln authority.
If we pass an Ammendment that nullifies the First Ammendment and calls for the immediate execution of all athiests, is that a valid law? Its Constitutional. **
[/quote]
It would be strictly constitutional (though obviously abhorent) to abridge or repeal the first amendment. (The flag burning amendment represents such an attempt). Repealing the first amendment would not allow executions, though, because the right to due process would not have been repealed.
So what?
It’s easy. “Congress shall pass no law…” The separation is absolute. There’s nothing to debate.
Existence does not prove “creation.” It doesn’t even prove a beginning. Your premise is flawed from the outset.
That’s because it is monotheistic.
That’s debateable as a definition (there are gods who are not "creators) but it’s irrelevant anyway since your definition still carries an implied statement of faith.
Yes it does. “God” = a single deity = montheism.
Your personal definition of God has no bearing on the argument. The word is religious. Period.
While I may agree that our laws have become more evolved and enlightened, that is still an opinion, and moreover, it’s a state sanctioned opinion on a religious statement, so even your disclaimer would be unconstitutional.
]quote]**I wish we could all lighten up and be more tolerant. **
[/QUOTE]
Why don’t we start by ceasing to inject theism into the government.
Not all religions believe in a single God. There is, after all, such a thing as polytheism. There are also non-theistic religions that don’t believe in any gods at all. There is no “God” in Buddhism, for instance.
Just as importantly are people who are simply atheist or agnostic. They don’t “trust” in God. They’re not “under” God. The government has no right to include them in a statement of religious faith.
There is no proof that any “creative force” exists. That is a pure statement of faith. It can’t be used as a “scientific place holder” because there is nothing scientific about it. Science has not discovered such a force and has no need to name it.
Grand Unified Theory is not a “cause” for existence. If it is found, it will be (just like all other scientific theories) a predictive model of existence.
Also, you cannot use God as a scientific placeholder for the thing which created us, because according to Big Bang theory, it is irrelevant to take about what happens before the Big Bang, since time begins at the moment of the Big Bang. If something did “cause” us to exist, then this thing is outside the physical universe. Science is only concerned with the physical universe.
God is a religious concept. You cannot pretend that God does not involve religion through wordplay.
