Prayer In schools

quote:

There will be problems any time schools are given the tasks or goals to teach unproven theories as if they were facts, teach religious beliefs, or propose education that attempts to shape a child’s sense of morality, when these things conflict with the basic beliefs and rights of the parents and their children, or overrides the sovereignty of the family institution.

What unproven theories are those? The Theory of God might be one. You probably have evolution in mind, but it's proven every day.

You would really have a problem with schools teaching religious beliefs? I think a Comparative Religion course would be great. In my own research for the various Geography classes I had in Sheffield public schools, I came upon, and reported, religious beliefs and practices of foreign peoples. Didn't you?

God forbid we teach morality to children. Honestly, man, what kind of misanthrope are you? You would not have children taught kindness to people and animals, respect for adults and authorities, fair play, honesty, discipline, peacefulness, or patriotism? What a ghastly idea!

quote:

So to speak positively as if God exists, I believe is a good thing. That should be possible without violating peoples personal beliefs or faiths.

How about the Constitution? It violates that.

quote:

By the way, if it were not for people like you and GoFish, there would probably be less concern for prayer in schools.

You're making my day. If it weren't for clear thinkers willing to challenge dogma, disease would still be treated by beating the evil spirits out of the sick.

You want your kids to pray? Tell them to, as often as you think is necessary. Leave your religion out of the public schools, though.

DF

Original Quote by What4:
There will be problems any time schools are given the tasks or goals to teach unproven theories as if they were facts, teach religious beliefs, or propose education that attempts to shape a child’s sense of morality, when these things conflict with the basic beliefs and rights of the parents and their children, or overrides the sovereignty of the family institution.
______________________________________________________________________
Reply by DeepFat:
What unproven theories are those? The Theory of God might be one. You probably have evolution in mind, but it's proven every day.
_______________________________________________________________________
Response by What4:
There is evidence of small variations in already existing life. You might see a new breed of dog, or a new strain of virus developing as it migrates from chickens to human beings. However, there is no proof that things progressed from raw chemicals to a one-celled amoeba to the worm to the ape that straightened its back and became a man. Evolution, as you claim it to be, is a theory and has yet to be proven. What is the formula for life? What mathematical function will explain life? Predict what animal will evolve next, or what new organ with brand new abilities will come into existence next. Create life from scratch and demonstrate how all complex creatures eventually can progress from it. Put a simple seed together from raw chemicals and let’s watch it grow. What we see proves nothing except things were created in simpler forms first. The word of God agrees with that. But we’ve fought this battle before and we will probably continue to disagree.
__________________________________________________________________________
DeepFat:
You would really have a problem with schools teaching religious beliefs? I think a Comparative Religion course would be great. In my own research for the various Geography classes I had in Sheffield public schools, I came upon, and reported, religious beliefs and practices of foreign peoples. Didn't you?
___________________________________________________________________________
What4
I’m not talking about generalizing an overview of religion of other countries. I’m talking about pressing a student to believe in one religion over another. I’m also talking about ridiculing or intimidating a student or trying to destroy his or her faith, or even mocking a child’s lack of faith. ____________________________________________________________________________
DeepFat:
God forbid we teach morality to children. Honestly, man, what kind of misanthrope are you? You would not have children taught kindness to people and animals, respect for adults and authorities, fair play, honesty, discipline, peacefulness, or patriotism? What a ghastly idea!
_____________________________________________________________________________
What4: Nice attempt. No, I’m talking about shaping a child’s sense of morality against the accepted norm of society. I’m talking about speaking on things such as sexual promiscuity, homosexuality, or possibly other things that when mentioned would not sit well with some. I wouldn’t want children to be taught that homosexuality is acceptable or that it’s OK for a boy to get in touch with his feminine side. Christians generally do not believe in sexual intercourse outside of marriage, but some parents will give their children birth control pills and condoms and say have fun but be careful. All the things you refer to are accepted norms and definitely should be taught and reinforced so that they are instilled deep into young people. Patriotism might be a hot issue with some. Some refuse to salute the flag or repeat the pledge of allegiance. You never know these days. The next president might have an issue with the pledge of allegiance.
_____________________________________________________________________________

DeepFat:
So to speak positively as if God exists, I believe is a good thing. That should be possible without violating peoples personal beliefs or faiths.
How about the Constitution? It violates that.
____________________________________________________________________________
What4:
How does the constitution violate speaking of God positively? The only people I know of that would never want God mentioned in a positive way are atheists. The school system is watching out for you. Don’t worry.
____________________________________________________________________________
What4:
By the way, if it were not for people like you and GoFish, there would probably be less concern for prayer in schools.
____________________________________________________________________________
DeepFat:
You're making my day. If it weren't for clear thinkers willing to challenge dogma, disease would still be treated by beating the evil spirits out of the sick.
_____________________________________________________________________________
What4:. I have no idea what religion you have in mind that beats people with a stick to cure them. But your slant on religion and God has always taken this turn.
_____________________________________________________________________________
DeepFat:
You want your kids to pray? Tell them to, as often as you think is necessary. Leave your religion out of the public schools, though.
_____________________________________________________________________________
What4:
On this we agree. The public school is not a place for this. I don’t want the atheist viewpoint taught my children, and I wouldn’t want my belief forced on your children. God will not force Himself on anybody, and we should follow His lead on that.

quote:

Originally posted by what4:
By the way, if it were not for people like you and GoFish, there would probably be less concern for prayer in schools.

If it weren't for church/state seperationists -- atheists, agnostics and theists alike -- we would live in a Christian theocracy.

Our founding fathers were smart enough to envision people like you and wrote you into a little box.

quote:

There is evidence of small variations in already existing life. You might see a new breed of dog, or a new strain of virus developing as it migrates from chickens to human beings. However, there is no proof that things progressed from raw chemicals to a one-celled amoeba to the worm to the ape that straightened its back and became a man. Evolution, as you claim it to be, is a theory and has yet to be proven. What is the formula for life? What mathematical function will explain life? Predict what animal will evolve next, or what new organ with brand new abilities will come into existence next. Create life from scratch and demonstrate how all complex creatures eventually can progress from it. Put a simple seed together from raw chemicals and let’s watch it grow. What we see proves nothing except things were created in simpler forms first. The word of God agrees with that. But we’ve fought this battle before and we will probably continue to disagree.

There is every evidence of macro evolution. It exists in the fossil record, microbiology, genetics, and physiology. Read up on it. The Urey-Miller experiment created amino acids from raw chemicals. Amino acids developed into proteins and thus, life. The formula for life is DNA. Because mutations are random, we cannot predict how they will mutate, but we have demonstrated time and again that they DO mutate.

Where does "the word of god" imply that we were created from simpler forms? Good for you that you understand that we were, however.

Your disagreement with evolution is backwards thinking as the result of religion poisoning.

DF

quote:

Originally posted by GoFish:

quote:

Originally posted by Rolltideroll02:
Why cant their be more prayer in schools.

Because churches are ineffective in motivating kids to pray outside of Sunday school.

I would be in favor of the state appointing an official School Prayer Czar who will be in charge of "conversion" of all non Christians - especially those Jewish and Catholic heathens - and force all children in grades k-12 to pray three times a day.

I laughed for at least 5 minutes.

quote:

Originally posted by Rolltideroll02:
I find it very offensive that public schools dont offer some sort of club or class where children are allowed to pray and read their bibles at school with out being critized by peers and authorty figures.

I belonged to the Fellowship of Christian Athletes when I was in HS.

quote:

Originally posted by what4:
If God is not mentioned positively, then you have a good possibility of violence to increase, a degradation of the value of mankind,

What4,

You just failed debate class with that one. This is a logical fallacy known as a non sequitur.

This term translates to "doesn't follow" and refers to an argument in which the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises. In other words, a logical connection is implied where none exists.

In my religion, Pastafarianism, we believe that global warming is caused by the demise of pirates. Following is an actual chart that proves this conclusively. Arrrr.

Stolen from www.venganza.org.

quote:

Originally posted by Rolltideroll02:
You know something else that Teachers are not acknowledging is that they teach history but they always seem to leave out the part about "IN GOD WE TRUST" and how this country was founded. The governemnt wants to separte CHURCH and STATE. Now look at where that has gotten us.

I gotta' believe you must have spent more time praying in History class than in studying. Check out the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.

quote:

Originally posted by GoFish:


In my religion, Pastafarianism ....

So, do you pray to the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

GarrrrrrrrrhhhhhhhhFish,

Tis me love for humankind that compels me to swash me buckles and become a pirate now!

Looting and pillaging I shall go, all to end global warrrrrrrrrrrrrrhhhhhhhhhhming. I shall seek booty in ports farrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrhh and wide, as well as upon the high seas, above Davy Jones' locker, for the cause.

Your science is farrrrrrrrrrhhhhhhhh too compelling for a compassionate pirate like me to ignarrrrrrrrrrrrhhhhhhhhhhh.

Ahoy, wenches, prepare to be boarded and surrender your booty!

DF

aka "Deep Beard"

quote:

Originally posted by CrustyMac:

So, do you pray to the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

I would not call it "prayer" but I gain a great deal of satisfaction - and the occasional hearty chuckle - from meditating upon the wisdom His Noodliness. Seriously.

Pastafarianism is, after all, every bit as legitimate as any other religion. Even more so since we have charts and stuff.

Arrr.

quote:

Originally posted by GoFish:

quote:

Originally posted by ms. wonka:
Students are allowed to have their Bibles in school for their own reading, and while they are not allowed to read it publicly

Completely wrong. A student may exercise his Constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech and religion any time and anywhere as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others. My son could stand on the front steps of any Florence City School and hold a bible devotional in front of the principal if he so chose.

quote:

Also every school I know observes a full minute of silence each morning,

Not true.

Go Fish, I had just stated that they cannot publicly read their Bible in school. However, if child A is reading his Bible and child B has questions about it, then child A can answer those questions and share what he is reading with child B.

Ahh, that has been true at every school my kids have attended including L.E. Willson and Sheffield High.

The point here is that religious training and education is not the business of the state or federal government. I was a member or the "Koninea" club in my highschool. We had devotions after school, before school and met on school property with no obstructions. Children can most certainly discuss religion in schools, they can pray, they can carry a Bible. Once again - the religious education of children is the responsibility of parents, ministers and churches. It is not the responsibility of public schools.

my last statement was regarding the moment of silence.

Also let me point out I taught in Orange County Public Schools in Fl. before moving to Alabama. One of the first things the employees are taught before stepping into a classroom is the childs religious freedoms.

These are FEDERAL guidelines,not state, they apply in all 50 states. The reason it is denied to kids in some states is because the general public is not completely aware of their rights.

quote:

Originally posted by meanasasnake:
The point here is that religious training and education is not the business of the state or federal government. I was a member or the "Koninea" club in my highschool. We had devotions after school, before school and met on school property with no obstructions. Children can most certainly discuss religion in schools, they can pray, they can carry a Bible. Once again - the religious education of children is the responsibility of parents, ministers and churches. It is not the responsibility of public schools.

Meanasasnake... I agree with you 100%.

quote:

Originally posted by ms. wonka:
Go Fish, I had just stated that they cannot publicly read their Bible in school.

They most certainly can. Where in the word are you getting this silly notion?

This is wrong that a christian can not read their bible and pray at school.

quote:

Originally posted by Rolltideroll02:
This is wrong that a christian can not read their bible and pray at school.

Jesus! How is it possible for someone to write but still be unable to read?

NO ONE IS PROHIBITED FROM READING THE BIBLE OR PRAYING IN PUBLIC SCHOOL!

quote:

Originally posted by Rolltideroll02:
This is wrong that a christian can not read their bible and pray at school.

There is no legal prohibition from reading OR carrying a Bible into a school. If you feel otherwise provide proof that we can read to substanciate your statement.

There may not be legal prohibition from reading your bible at school or praying but there have been several cases where students have tried reading their bibles at school and tried praying before lunch and they have been told not to because it was forcing their religion on others. The next generation will have more challenges to face then any generations before them.

quote:

Originally posted by Rolltideroll02:
There may not be legal prohibition from reading your bible at school or praying but there have been several cases where students have tried reading their bibles at school and tried praying before lunch and they have been told not to because it was forcing their religion on others.

Please cite a reference for this outlandish statement.

Go talk to teens in public schools today. It happened to me personally one day at school. I have been out eight years. I talked to teens at church and they all say the same thing as long as we read our bibles before school or after school just not at school.

quote:

Originally posted by Rolltideroll02:
Go talk to teens in public schools today. It happened to me personally one day at school.

I call BS. Provide details.

quote:

Originally posted by DeepFat:
The Urey-Miller experiment created amino acids from raw chemicals. Amino acids developed into proteins and thus, life. The formula for life is DNA. Because mutations are random, we cannot predict how they will mutate, but we have demonstrated time and again that they DO mutate.

Where does "the word of god" imply that we were created from simpler forms? Good for you that you understand that we were, however.

Your disagreement with evolution is backwards thinking as the result of religion poisoning.

DF

I have yet to understand that simply because someone is able to make a component found in the makeup of a living creature, that they can deduce that a living creature can be created by accident. Water makes up much of a living creature. Bones are made of calcium. Having every compound needed, along with amino acids, we would not be able to make one cell or build on that and make one organ that a complex creature requires to live. A living creature is far too complex to come into existence by accident. We can’t even do it intentionally.

DNA is like a program in a computer. Without the computer to use that program, the program would be useless. I could give you directions, but they would be no good unless we speak the same language, you had ears to hear me, and you were capable of following directions. DNA is not a component that produces life, but is useless without life already exists. It is a pattern that holds the future course of a living creature to the boundaries that God intended. DNA should be a clear sign that God must exist, because it is so complex in itself that it could not come into existence by accident.

Man did not evolve from simpler forms of life as you imply. Yet God’s word reveals a pattern of life from simpler to more complex. Life began first with plant life. Then the bodies of water brought forth the abundance of creatures found in them, and also the fowls of the air. Then the earth brought forth the living creatures after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind. Finally, God said, Let us make man in our image and after our likeness. My statement in no way implies that mankind evolved from simpler creatures. Only that simpler creatures were created first.

Again, I would not condone a public school system that presses a religious preference on a child. I stand by my original remark, that prayer should be taught at home and practiced at home, if parents expect their children to pray outside of the home. Public Schools should stay with the basics of English, math, physics, chemistry, etc. Even if Christianity were the only religion in the United States, as soon as it became a State Sponsored Religion it would probably not resemble Christianity for very long.

I have prayed and I continue to hope that you would learn that God does exist, and that He is not out to destroy you or condemn you, but rather desires your fellowship and your trust. There is mercy and the gift of salvation for all those who put their trust in Jesus.

quote:

Originally posted by GoFish:

quote:

Originally posted by what4:
By the way, if it were not for people like you and GoFish, there would probably be less concern for prayer in schools.

If it weren't for church/state seperationists -- atheists, agnostics and theists alike -- we would live in a Christian theocracy.

Our founding fathers were smart enough to envision people like you and wrote you into a little box.

That implies that there was not one Christian involved in the founding of our Consitution. However, I'm not arguing with you here. States need to stay out of religion, while respecting the rights of the family institution, and the freedom of religion.

quote:

Originally posted by GoFish:

quote:

Originally posted by what4:
If God is not mentioned positively, then you have a good possibility of violence to increase, a degradation of the value of mankind,

What4,

You just failed debate class with that one. This is a logical fallacy known as a non sequitur.

This term translates to "doesn't follow" and refers to an argument in which the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises. In other words, a logical connection is implied where none exists.

In my religion, Pastafarianism, we believe that global warming is caused by the demise of pirates. Following is an actual chart that proves this conclusively. Arrrr.

Stolen from www.venganza.org.

I have to admit that those statements wandered from the train of thought I might have presented as a whole. And it is true that I might have put this conclusion forward without a foundation. And after thinking about this statement, I have concluded that the only people who express God in a positive manner are those who already believe and trust Him. So this is not something you can institute into policy, because unless it comes from the heart it’s worthless. So I hate to say it, but you are right. You do have me on this one.

quote:

Originally posted by what4:
That implies that there was not one Christian involved in the founding of our Consitution.

Oh? How so? I had no intention of implying that. I am certain that all the founding fathers were at least deists if not Christian. That does not change the fact hat the Constitution is secular and our government should be - for the protection of the church and of the state.

GoFish...
You are correct...some were deists including B.Franklin and George Washington...

quote:

Originally posted by GoFish:
If it weren't for church/state seperationists -- atheists, agnostics and theists alike -- we would live in a Christian theocracy.

Our founding fathers were smart enough to envision people like you and wrote you into a little box.

quote:

posted by What4:
That implies that there was not one Christian involved in the founding of our Constitution. However, I'm not arguing with you here. States need to stay out of religion, while respecting the rights of the family institution, and the freedom of religion.

quote:

Originally posted by GoFish:
Oh? How so? I had no intention of implying that. I am certain that all the founding fathers were at least deists if not Christian. That does not change the fact hat the Constitution is secular and our government should be - for the protection of the church and of the state.

I understand that theists would broadly include Christians. Yet if you meant to imply Christians as well as everybody else were in this group, then what was the purpose of breaking down the group to identify who were in it, since nobody is excluded from it? It would place no specific value on atheists, or anybody else, as long as they were separationists. I have made it clear that I wouldn’t want the public school system teaching religion, and I wouldn’t want a State Sponsored Christian Religion. So that would make me a part of this group as well as you. Yet you say this group envisioned people like me and wrote me into a little box. You could have just as well said they envisioned people like you and wrote you into a little box? I don’t quite follow your intent here. It seems a bit non sequitur, don’t you think? Possibly you and I need to find something else to debate on, since it appears we are searching too hard to identify a difference of opinion here.

quote:

Originally posted by what4:
I have made it clear that I wouldn’t want the public school system teaching religion, and I wouldn’t want a State Sponsored Christian Religion. So that would make me a part of this group as well as you. Yet you say this group envisioned people like me and wrote me into a little box. You could have just as well said they envisioned people like you and wrote you into a little box?

Exactly. My atheism HAS been written into a little box. I have no right to press for atheistic disbelief in a public policy. To my knowledge, no organized atheistic group is vying for such a policy change aand are instead pressing for SECULAR policy.

(just an FYI for those that don't know: Despite what you may hear form the pulpit, "secular" means "neutrality" with regards to a supreme being and is not the same as atheism.)

All that said, What4, I am nearly certain that you are on record here deriding the government for "taking prayer our of the public school." Thus my confusion when you argue for secularism in this regard.

Your insistence on the teaching of Intelligent Design -- a purely religious vehicle for sneaking introducing prayer back into public school -- further muddies the water.

quote:

Originally posted by GoFish:
...
All that said, What4, I am nearly certain that you are on record here deriding the government for "taking prayer our of the public school." Thus my confusion when you argue for secularism in this regard.

Your insistence on the teaching of Intelligent Design -- a purely religious vehicle for sneaking introducing prayer back into public school -- further muddies the water.

No, you have misunderstood me. I have not derided the government for taking prayer out of schools, because I can understand the dilemma of needing to provide an atmosphere contusive for learning where none feel offended or uneasy. As long as children are not forced to give up or compromise their basic values, and are free to pray, read, or express their faith in an appropriate and respectful way, then I and most other Christians accept this. I agree that our schools should not be the source of spiritual leadership or guidance to our children. But they should not be a hindrance to it either.

However, I believe we have gone to an extreme that our founding fathers never intended. It’s troubling when a teacher can’t speak the name of Jesus, or we can’t have a Christmas play where children sing traditional Christmas carols, because of fear that they might offend an atheist or someone of another religion and be sued by the ACLU. This is a hard thing to accept in a society with a majority Christian heritage. It seems like we stepped aside to allow someone to walk through, and now they demand the entire hallway. Removal of school led prayer is a small matter in today’s troubled society. But it marked the beginning of a spiral that has brought us to where we are today, which is a nation that is allowed to personally walk the walk as long as we don’t publicly talk the talk.

You say I have insisted on the teaching of Intelligent Design. I say that neither evolution nor ID should be taught in our public school system. Neither of these should be taught in our public schools, because neither have anything to do with preparing a student to be a productive and successful citizen. Both are offensive, and both are unnecessary. Concentrate on English, Math, Practical Science, Physics, History, Chemistry, and basic academics. Why, in a society that is so concerned about avoiding offense, would there be a need to teach an unproven and unnecessary theory that causes strife and uneasiness. The Christian can read to his children from the bible at home, and the atheist can read to his children from Darwin’s Theory of Evolution. Both evolution and religion require faith, and both create divisiveness and ill will in the public school system. Keep them both out.

So now here’s the reason you believe I insist on ID. As long as there is an insistence on evolution being taught in the public schools, then as far as I’m concerned, ID or most anything taught that is in opposition to it would certainly help to keep things rational, and stimulate more mature thought processes. I haven't considered myself a proponent of ID, but I can understand how you might label me that. I'm really a sympathizer of ID, or anything that might make people stop and notice the holes in evolution. I have not really looked at ID. What’s really strange to me is how the Christian and religious community is supposed to take whatever is put in its face, but atheists are not willing to take what might be put in their face. Hey, if it’s acceptable for one, then it should go both ways. If the majority must be offended, then let’s go all the way and offend the minority also.

But I say get evolution out and end this battle. The Theory of Evolution leads nowhere. Its central message is the fittest or strongest survive, and places all focus on the present, with no future hope, reward, or accountability. Such a message can only give a sense of peace to those who don’t understand the grace, peace, and the hope that is offered in Christ. Salvation is free if you just believe. God wants our trust, and all He asks is for us to use the faith we have and call on Jesus from a sincere heart. If you have enough faith to call on Christ, then you have enough faith to be saved. He will turn none away.

quote:

Originally posted by what4:

quote:

Originally posted by GoFish:
...
All that said, What4, I am nearly certain that you are on record here deriding the government for "taking prayer our of the public school." Thus my confusion when you argue for secularism in this regard.

No, you have misunderstood me. I have not derided the government for taking prayer out of schools, because I can understand the dilemma of needing to provide an atmosphere contusive for learning where none feel offended or uneasy. ( . . .) However, I believe we have gone to an extreme that our founding fathers never intended. It’s troubling when a teacher can’t speak the name of Jesus, or we can’t have a Christmas play where children sing traditional Christmas carols, because of fear that they might offend an atheist or someone of another religion

No, I didn't misunderstand at all. you cleared it up nicely. You speak out of both sides of your mouth, What4.

You can't have it both ways. Human nature is such that if you give religious teachers an inch, they will take 10,000 miles. How can someone be so short sighted not to see that if you allow a teacher to talk about Jesus, another one will feel free to talk about Satan. If one wishes to proselytise, about Christianity, another will feel free to press for Wicca and witchcraft. Our public school will become a battlefield over doctrine instead of a institute for learning.

As for evolution, it is the basis for all of modern biology, What4. Every single medical doctor alive today must take advanced courses in evolution so that they can be prepared for the rest of their studies. Yes, the entire medical profession has evolution as its cornerstone. Remember that next time you go under the scalpel.

quote:

Originally posted by GoFish:

quote:

Originally posted by what4:

quote:

Originally posted by GoFish:
...
All that said, What4, I am nearly certain that you are on record here deriding the government for "taking prayer our of the public school." Thus my confusion when you argue for secularism in this regard.

No, you have misunderstood me. I have not derided the government for taking prayer out of schools, because I can understand the dilemma of needing to provide an atmosphere contusive for learning where none feel offended or uneasy. ( . . .) However, I believe we have gone to an extreme that our founding fathers never intended. It’s troubling when a teacher can’t speak the name of Jesus, or we can’t have a Christmas play where children sing traditional Christmas carols, because of fear that they might offend an atheist or someone of another religion

No, I didn't misunderstand at all. you cleared it up nicely. You speak out of both sides of your mouth, What4.

You can't have it both ways. Human nature is such that if you give religious teachers an inch, they will take 10,000 miles. How can someone be so short sighted not to see that if you allow a teacher to talk about Jesus, another one will feel free to talk about Satan. If one wishes to proselytise, about Christianity, another will feel free to press for Wicca and witchcraft. Our public school will become a battlefield over doctrine instead of a institute for learning.

As for evolution, it is the basis for all of modern biology, What4. Every single medical doctor alive today must take advanced courses in evolution so that they can be prepared for the rest of their studies. Yes, the entire medical profession has evolution as its cornerstone. Remember that next time you go under the scalpel.

Again, call me ever what you want to call me. But I do not imply that I want religion taught in schools. My insistence is that evolution be removed. As far as I understand it, ID is not a religious approach, but rather a means of making people stop and think about the wonders of the living organisms, and how impossible it would be for them to come into existence by accident. If you want to believe in a lie, that is your business, but to tell a parent that their children must hear the lie simply becuase you believe in it, then you have crossed the bounds and are now treading on the long accepted sacred ground of the family institution. If evolution had proof, there would be no issue.

The only reason evolution survives as a theory is because science has no choice but to have a logical explanation for everything, and since they have no way of explaining God, evolution is all they have left. There is no intelligent thought process in this line of logic. If something is impossible when all the odds and evidence is examined, then it should not become possible simply because there are no other logical or explainable alternatives. If schools want to teach the facts, then fine. If they are intent on preaching beliefs and speculations, then let’s get opposing beliefs and speculations. If they are not willing to do that, then get them all out of our public school system. Theories that are taken on faith, and that have no proof, should be considered just as taboo as religious faith. The public school system should teach facts and not fables of science or religious faith.

And the entire medical industry is not based on evolution. It is based on biology and the study of medicine. There are many doctors that have strong faith in God and do not believe they are decendants of an ape. Keep things honest GoFish. But then again if you believe in one lie, what is one more or one more.

quote:

Originally posted by what4:
Again, call me ever what you want to call me. But I do not imply that I want religion taught in schools.

Okay, you've stated that there is no amount of evidence that could ever sway your opinion of the fact of evolution. There is no amount of coercion that will force you to admit that you are lying about Intelligent Design. I accept that from you. I'll let that slide.

However:

You don't want religion taught in public school but you do want teachers to feel free to talk to students about Jesus. You will have to explain that one a little more, What4. I sincerely don't get it.

quote:

Originally posted by GoFish:

quote:

Originally posted by what4:
Again, call me ever what you want to call me. But I do not imply that I want religion taught in schools.

Okay, you've stated that there is no amount of evidence that could ever sway your opinion of the fact of evolution. There is no amount of coercion that will force you to admit that you are lying about Intelligent Design. I accept that from you. I'll let that slide.

However:

You don't want religion taught in public school but you do want teachers to feel free to talk to students about Jesus. You will have to explain that one a little more, What4. I sincerely don't get it.

When I mentioned a school teacher mentioning the name of Jesus, I did not mean that she would be speaking to the class. If she were sitting with a student that she knew went to her church, then she would have every right to mention the name of Jesus with her, as long as she did it in a respectful way and not with an intention of being overheard by another who would be made uncomfortable about it. If whe were talking to another teacher about how God healed her of cancer, then she would have every right to speak the name of Jesus. She just does not have the right to offend another student by stessing any viewpoint of her faith while teaching or by beginning the conversation with a child, especially with one who is not a believer. She should not take it upon herself to proselyte a student or talk to them about religion or her religious conviction. I still hold true to the fact that no person should have the right to try and convert your children or undermine another child's faith. These things are matters between the child and the parents.

And for the matter of Christmas, it is a crying shame that Christmas which is a National Holiday can't be observed without offending someone. It seems like a little breathing room should be given. You know? Even then, there should be respect shown for those of other faiths, and if there is a real issue then they should reexamine and try to make all students feel at ease.

quote:

Originally posted by what4:
I still hold true to the fact that no person should have the right to try and convert your children or undermine another child's faith. These things are matters between the child and the parents.

Okay, I can't let it go: In that case, if you are to be consistent, you must drop the notion of indoctrinating kids with the purely religious "theory" of Intelligent Design. Again, you can't have it both ways.

quote:

And for the matter of Christmas, it is a crying shame that Christmas which is a National Holiday can't be observed without offending someone.

I agree to a certain extent. I think the secular community has taken it too far. Christmas is a holiday celebrated by 85 to 90% of the US population. However, fundamentalists have ruined Christmas for the schools by insisting on using it as an excuse to prosethltise.

If you wish to pick a battle, fight against those fundamentalists who wish to impose their beliefs on others, not the secularists who support freedom for all beliefs.

quote:

The Theory of Evolution leads nowhere.

It leads to the truth. Is that so scary to you? Evolution is a fact. It happened, and continues to happen.

Think what your faith has done to you. It has blinded you from accepting physical truths that are laid out in front of you. This is not a good thing.

We will progress more successfully if we understand from where we came, and that is where evolution comes in.

DF

quote:

Originally posted by DeepFat:

quote:

The Theory of Evolution leads nowhere.

It leads to the truth. Is that so scary to you? Evolution is a fact. It happened, and continues to happen.

Think what your faith has done to you. It has blinded you from accepting physical truths that are laid out in front of you. This is not a good thing.

We will progress more successfully if we understand from where we came, and that is where evolution comes in.

DF

There is not one fact that you have that I don't accept as a fact. I only dissagree with you interpretation of the facts. To say that God doesn't exist or that Jesus is not His Son and Savior, simply by digging up fossils and noticing tht they are different is proposterous.
Just as I have said several times, when you pray in the name of Jesus and get a response from Him that defies all coincidence and logical explanation, and then have it happen several times, then you know for a fact that God and Jesus exists. I can gurantee you have no such proof. You believe as you choose. To call your faith a fact without proof is only kidding yourself. I will not stick my head into a hole and pretend that what I have seen and heard did not happen. I will not jumpt to the conclusions you jump to without proof either. Everyone must make up their own mind.

quote:

Originally posted by GoFish:

quote:

Originally posted by what4:
I still hold true to the fact that no person should have the right to try and convert your children or undermine another child's faith. These things are matters between the child and the parents.

Okay, I can't let it go: In that case, if you are to be consistent, you must drop the notion of indoctrinating kids with the purely religious "theory" of Intelligent Design. Again, you can't have it both ways.

quote:

And for the matter of Christmas, it is a crying shame that Christmas which is a National Holiday can't be observed without offending someone.

I agree to a certain extent. I think the secular community has taken it too far. Christmas is a holiday celebrated by 85 to 90% of the US population. However, fundamentalists have ruined Christmas for the schools by insisting on using it as an excuse to prosethltise.

If you wish to pick a battle, fight against those fundamentalists who wish to impose their beliefs on others, not the secularists who support freedom for all beliefs.

You desire that I not indoctrinate your children with my faith. I accept that and would not do such a thing. However, you have yet to accept to do the same with other people's children. If you get evolution out, then I certainly have no problem keeping anything partaining to religion out. You are the one that wants to have it both ways. I'm trying to do what is right all the way around.

quote:

There is not one fact that you have that I don't accept as a fact. I only dissagree with you interpretation of the facts. To say that God doesn't exist or that Jesus is not His Son and Savior, simply by digging up fossils and noticing tht they are different is proposterous.

Non sequitur. What does one have to do with the other?


DF