[Redeemed]

Originally Posted by "golfhobo

HOW can a government "declare" that there is a God, yet INSIST that Evolution be taught in schools? Simply because the government they instituted cannot "respect any organized religion."

Insisting that evolution be taught in schools is a relatively recent event starting in the latter half of the 20th century. For a short time during the middle 20th century both evolution and creation were taught and before that it was almost always creation.

[golfhobo]

[quote=Redeemed]

Originally Posted by "golfhobo

HOW can a government "declare" that there is a God, yet INSIST that Evolution be taught in schools? Simply because the government they instituted cannot "respect any organized religion."

Insisting that evolution be taught in schools is a relatively recent event starting in the latter half of the 20th century. For a short time during the middle 20th century both evolution and creation were taught and before that it was almost always creation.

Hmm... can't quite agree with you, Redeemed. The theory itself was first written circa 1860. I'm sure it took several decades for all the scientists to even get on board. Then, you'd have a generation (at least) of those who wouldn't accept it. Then came the turn of the Century and the "enlightened" generation.

The Scopes Monkey trial was in 1925. PRIOR to that, the discussion was RAGING only BECAUSE, the theory was being taught widely in the "tax supported" school system in this country.

Check out this link, from which the following quote comes:

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/proj...ighschool.html

Hell and the High Schools attacked evolution in words that sometimes jumped off the page: "The Germans who poisoned the wells and springs of northern France and Belgium and fed little children poisoned candy were angels compared to the teachers, paid by our taxes, who feed our children's minds with the deadly, soul-destroying poison of Evolution....Evolution and the teaching of Evolution in tax-supported schools is the greatest curse that ever fell upon this earth."

That was written in 1923. Two years BEFORE the Scopes trial.

Point is.... once the scientific community accepted the theory of Evolution, the government had NO CHOICE but to teach it in school, usually in place of any Creationist theory. In fact, other than making references to God as the creator, I'm not so sure there ever WAS any "classes" being taught in PUBLIC school about where we came from.

"Religion" was never one of the "three R's" that were taught in PUBLIC (tax supported) schools. Why? Because the constitution more or less forbade it.

[Redeemed]

Honestly golfhobo, you say you don't agree with me yet your entire explanation why you don't agree seems to mirror exactly what I said. Maybe I am missing something here so please help me out.

It seems that we are saying the same thing but yet in different words.

[golfhobo]

Originally Posted by Redeemed

Honestly golfhobo, you say you don't agree with me yet your entire explanation why you don't agree seems to mirror exactly what I said. Maybe I am missing something here so please help me out.

It seems that we are saying the same thing but yet in different words.

Redeemed: Perhaps the catch here is my poor choice of the word "insist" and YOUR capitalizing on it. (and the difference in our referenced timeframes.)

My point was that, very soon after the theory of Evolution was accepted by scientists, it began being taught in Public Schools. That was near the BEGINNING of the 20th century, if not before. I started PUBLIC school near the MIDDLE of the century... and don't EVER remember a class teaching creationism. Perhaps, the "insistence" came later in the century, after many religious folks started complaining, but my example shows that this "complaining" was in full force as early as 1923.

My original point was that, even tho our forefathers believed in God, and alluded to HIS "endowment" of our rights, they set up our government to be non-parochial, all inclusive, and separate from religious control. Therefore, in a PUBLIC school system, supported by the government through taxation of the citizenry, they really had no choice but to teach evolution "science" and avoid teaching "creationism" as truth.

This was all by way of saying to Useless that, "God given" rights was just a manner of speaking that indicated HUMAN rights. Not to be infringed upon by either a religious OR secular government. It was a way of stating that we were BORN with human rights, and no Monarch (even those influenced by the church) was going to DEPRIVE us of our FEEDOM and right to "self government." No indentured servitude, for example. Unfortunately.... it took these "God fearing" WHITE men, another 100 years or whatever, to realize that BLACKS and WOMEN were HUMANS, too.

The separation clause - IN the Constituion - is a very simple thing to understand. It says that you cannot use the "people's" money to subsidize the teaching of a religious belief, or make laws concerning the governance of the people based on such beliefs. Our forefathers, and anyone ELSE, is free to "recognize" a higher power all they want. But, our government cannot "recognize" in the legal meaning of "establishment" ANY such belief.... or govern the people accordingly.

Therefore, they cannot "require" the public education of our children, and then INSIST that they be indoctrinated in ANY form of religious belief.

Personally, I don't believe in the theory of Evolution. As soon as someone can scientifically DISPROVE it.... I hope they will remove any reference to it (other than as a "theory") from our PUBLIC school system!

[terrylamar]

Please point out the Separation Clause in the Constitution.

[golfhobo]

Originally Posted by terrylamar

Please point out the Separation Clause in the Constitution.

Constitution of these United States

Ammendment 1:

Congress shall make no law RESPECTING an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free expression thereof; .....

This is COMMONLY and LEGALLY referred to as the "separation clause." It is obvious to anyone with a 3rd grade education in English that it was INTENDED to SEPARATE the powers of the Government from the influences of the Church.

After ratification, the Bill of Rights became PART OF the Constitution.

Many have challenged it in a court of American LAW. ALL have failed. If you think YOU can prevail now.... go ahead and try!

[terrylamar]

Originally Posted by golfhobo

Constitution of these United States

Ammendment 1:

This is COMMONLY and LEGALLY referred to as the "separation clause." It is obvious to anyone with a 3rd grade education in English that it was INTENDED to SEPARATE the powers of the Government from the influences of the Church.

After ratification, the Bill of Rights became PART OF the Constitution.

Many have challenged it in a court of American LAW. ALL have failed. If you think YOU can prevail now.... go ahead and try!

I, obviously, have no more than a third grade education. Because, I can read and comprehend plain English. I don't have to make it up as I go along. This is much like the 2nd Amendment, which is in plain English and liberals try to obfuscate it with liberal prattling.

"The left's beloved "separation of church and state" mantra originated not in the Constitution, but in a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802 (11 years after the First Amendment was incorporated into the Constitution) regarding their concerns that the Congregationalists may abuse their power to attain a favored position.

The self-styled progressive elites have typically justified their anti-Christian bigotry by insinuating that religion must stay away from government, and any case in which it does not is an irrevocable step towards theocracy. Their interpretation of the language of the First Amendment demonstrates how little understanding they have of its actual implications.

By including the establishment clause in the Constitution, the framers were preventing the prospects of theocracy such as that which the Pilgrims purportedly fled from in England before settling on the North American shores. However, there is a reason why Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." What Jefferson was taking into account was the imperative necessity of our leaders and authorities to recognize their inferiority to the divine laws and their subordinance to a Higher Power, so as not to confuse themselves with that Higher Power and in due course assume a despotic, tyrannical precedence."

[terrylamar]

How is it that Marriage is a religious institution, yet the government insinuates itself into it with licensing fees and recognition of same sex marriage and eventually bestiality, juvenile, multi-partner and alien (not of Earth) marriage. It's because when liberals look between the lines their dope fogged minds see things that aren't there. Anything the Supreme Court rules on can be changed by another Supreme Court. The fact that a liberal Supreme Court makes a ruling is a small annoyance until a Right thinking majority is appointed. Pun of course was intended.

[Redeemed]

golfhobo,

I think I understand you now and the difference was probably due to our respective personal contact of the subject. See for me, as recently as the mid-1970's, I attended public schools in Alabama where the subjects were taught together in the classroom not to mention that we had a morning prayer and a daily Bible reading. Yes, that was in a state supported public school.

Also, even with centralized bureaucracy that we have with modern day education it is difficult to control what every school and every teacher is teaching. I grant you that somewhere right now the subject of creationism, or intelligent design, is being taught in a public school classroom right now. So would it have been harder to control teachers in agricultural/rural areas of the county during the earlier years of the the 20th century...absolutely.

That was generally my point that after evolution became an accepted scientific theory it took the better part of half the century (for multiple reasons) for it to filter down into the everyday curriculum of the primary and secondary schools. Obviously, it would have happened faster in the higher learning institutions. Once it did filter down the insistence would have come from both sides fighting over its implementation. But as far as the Scopes Monkey trial, the creationist won and the Butler Act was not overturned until the mid 1960's. After reading more about the trial on wikipedia it was clear it was more a farce than actual practice in law.

As far as the Separation Clause I will not get into that part of the discussion. In my opinion it has become an over-sensitized argument by those prone to hysterics on both sides. If both sides would calm down use some common-sense and quit trying to ram their respective view down the others throats then we would not be having this argument.

[golfhobo]

[quote="terrylamar"]

Originally Posted by golfhobo

Constitution of these United States / Ammendment 1:


This is COMMONLY and LEGALLY referred to as the "separation clause."

It is obvious to anyone with a 3rd grade education in English that it was INTENDED to SEPARATE the powers of the Government from the influences of the Church.

I, obviously, have no more than a third grade education. Because, I can read and comprehend plain English.

See.... there you go again NOT understanding English Composition. Your response is what's known as a "non sequitor." I won't bother to explain that to you. But, how can I continue to debate with someone who doesn't even understand what I'm saying?

Terry, I can TELL, by your writing, that you are intelligent. But, your comprehension level does SEEM to be limited to middle school. And, I assume you made good grades in English.

The key word here is PLAIN. If you had MORE than a 3rd grade education in English, you might understand the meaning and nuances of legal English, and therefore the INTENTIONS of our forefathers.

I don't have to make it up as I go along. This is much like the 2nd Amendment, which is in plain English and liberals try to obfuscate it with liberal prattling.

Prattling?? :roll: Nice word, but ineffective and inconsequential. But, at least you spelled obfuscate correctly. Most don't.

"

The left's beloved "separation of church and state" mantra originated not in the Constitution, but in a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802 (11 years after the First Amendment was incorporated into the Constitution) regarding their concerns that the Congregationalists may abuse their power to attain a favored position.

I don't care WHEN the "mantra" started. The FACT remains. And even Jefferson was aware that the CHURCH had designs on controlling the politics of our new nation. Again I remind you that this is why the "tax exempt" status of our churches is under fire. They are becoming Politically "active."

The self-styled progressive elites have typically justified their anti-Christian bigotry by insinuating that religion must stay away from government, and any case in which it does not is an irrevocable step towards theocracy.

The so called "progressive elites" are NOT anti-Christian! Many of them ARE Christians! But, they realize that this is a FREE country for ALL to abide in, regardless of their beliefs or lack thereof! Your claim to some kind of RIGHT because you're a Christian is AGAINST the Constitutional protection afforded to ALL citizens! You have a RIGHT to worship your God, and follow his dictates. You do NOT have a RIGHT to make ME follow them!

Their interpretation of the language of the First Amendment demonstrates how little understanding they have of its actual implications.

They "understand" that you have a RIGHT to free speech, even on government land, or against the government. You do NOT have a RIGHT to use taxpayer's money to INSTRUCT the citizenry's children in matters of RELIGION! You cannot teach that there IS or IS NOT a God. Our forefathers intended that SUCH instruction should be confined to family and Parochial institutions. NOT GOVERNMENT supported ones.

By including the establishment clause in the Constitution, the framers were preventing the prospects of theocracy such as that which the Pilgrims purportedly fled from in England before settling on the North American shores.

Well, at least you are recognizing the "clause" and it's intentions.

However, there is a reason why Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."

Yes, there IS a reason. Unlike the 2nd Ammendment, which includes a dependant clause, EACH of these clauses could stand alone as a sentence/statement. But.... take out the word "CREATOR" (and replace it with HUMANITY) as you cannot prove his existence, and the phrases still stand alone IN PLAIN ENGLISH. If the "truths" are "self-evident"..... then why must a GOD declare them? Or protect or divine them? Are they "self-evident" or not?

Are ALL men created equal? Even the ones who DON'T beleive in YOUR God?? What about the Blacks at that time? Women??? How about GAYS??? Are THEY somehow NOT equal?? Or is the truth really that you only consider God fearing WHITE Christian MEN as EQUALS???

What Jefferson was taking into account was the imperative necessity of our leaders and authorities to recognize their inferiority to the divine laws and their subordinance to a Higher Power, so as not to confuse themselves with that Higher Power and in due course assume a despotic, tyrannical precedence."

Man... you guys are out in left field! Jefferson was declaring that we, as humans and citizens of this country, are SUPERIOR to ANY government that would consider that we are INFERIOR to ANY power that came only from religious dicatates. He was doing the "shameful" thing of raising us up to the level of the GOD's themselves, in saying that WE will discern what our belief in God is... and how it will direct our lives. But, our Government will NOT tell us how to live our lives! It was precisely BECAUSE he rebelled against a government that ASSUMED the claim to DIVINE guidance that he didn't want us to be governed by some "confused" despot who ruled by the secret and "privileged" "dictates" of the Divine!

As I said before, our forefathers believed in God. But, they believed in one that would let us govern ourselves. They made EVERY provision for the free expression of religion.... but stood STRONGLY against letting religion dictate our CIVIL laws!

YOUR rebellion against such, is an indication of your STRONG attachment to the King of England, and his CONTROL over what he believed to be his SUBJECTS! I am NOT your subject! You have NO right to impose YOUR God on ME! YOU live in MY country by the graces of a civil Constitution!