In America, atheists are still in the closet

Apr 11, 2012 Full story: Spiked 47,724

So do many other interest and identity groups. Complaint is our political lingua franca: it's what Occupiers, Tea Partiers, Wall Street titans, religious and irreligious people share.

Full Story

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#31338 Jul 29, 2012
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't know or care what the original intent was. Today, we don't make any public policy respecting any establishment of religion. That's how we use what was written.
The authors could certainly have been more precise, but that would have meant an amendment would have been necessary to separate all matters of public policy from religion.
Originally, the states would have necessarily have been much more independent, but today, especially in matters regarding education, to stay competitive, there must be some national standards, and consistent policies.(I'm saying this to demonstrate how things change over time)
The year is now 2012. Did you know?
I will do you the favor of correcting your errors of thought.

There is no such thing as "any establishment of religion". It is simply a concept called "establishment of religion". It is a single concept. You are thinking of "establishment of religion" as something akin to a business establishment, where there are many.

An establishment of religion is an official government church. In the case in question, the U.S. Constitution, it is a NATIONAL or federal official church, and it has to be one denomination. They did not speak of "religion" generically, but were referring to individual denominations. That was the point of Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists - assurance that Unitarians would not receive favor.

Madison actually suggested, during debate of the establishment clause, insertion of "national", as in "Congress shall make no law respecting a NATIONAL establishment of religion..."

The convention decided, since they were only writing a NATIONAL constitution, that the inclusion was unnecessary. The did not figure on idiots like you or the Supreme Court distorting it and divorcing it from original intent.

Therefore, for a local school district, or a state, to violate the injunction of the establishment clause, they would have to be affecting a national church.

This is, of course, impossible.



Since: May 10

Location hidden

#31339 Jul 29, 2012
madscot wrote:
<quoted text>
So I take it that you would have no problem with a city making muslim prayer in schools mandatory? And teaching muslim creation along side of evolution and christian creation?
Irrelevant.

The issue in question is not what I would have a problem with.

It is what the Constitution allows or does not allow.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#31340 Jul 29, 2012
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope. Here you are not using the biological science definition of atheism. You are pulling another Buck-special, where you use a lay definition of a word so as to create a confused nonscientific straw man argument.
Evolution, in biological science, is allelic frequency change. Evolution, in biological science, is not "any kind of change." That's how evolution is used OUTSIDE of biological science.
Hey - I think we discovered the source of your great inability to understand biological science! You are - for desire or ignorance, I don't know - avoiding at all costs the starting point for evolutionary theory. Why? Why avoid it? Are you afraid your beliefs will come crashing down?
Now, if you want to make the argument that evolution has become like religion for some biologists and atheists, then you and I can discuss this. It would make for better discussion since you might not get so upset - you might actually have something interesting to say on this issue.
Gibberish.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#31341 Jul 29, 2012
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
Awwwww! You remembered!
Are you still leaking?
I'm sticking to the Separation of Insult and Debate.
Douche crate.
Great. Stick to it. It gets you compliments from the choir.

They are not blessed with my good memory.

You're on the shit list, Punk.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#31342 Jul 29, 2012
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
You have hit the nail on the head, and you said it so well.
As a child, I had to endure the very emotional-draining pain of feeling compelled, for social reasons, to participate in, or condone, "mainstream" religious observations (e.g., prayer to a Christian god).
It's just wrong.
Thanks

Children can feel ostracized enough for a myriad of social reasons growing up. For the school itself to be responsible for creating division is wrong IMO as well. The teachers are essentially surrogate parents from 7am to 3pm and they should be the last line of defense against peer pressure not the cause. I can only imagine the type of despair a child might feel when they feel left to fend for themselves at such a formative age.

People may say this is an over-reaction, that it is just a prayer. But nothing is "just" anything to a child when they feel they must choose between conformity and acceptance. And that isn't even getting into the problem of a school having more influence on a child's religious beliefs than his home because a child is much more concerned with what his classmates think than his parents.
If a parent is truly concerned then they will take the time to instill in their children what they feel they should know and hopefully give them the autonomy to ultimately choose for themselves.

And if they really want their child to grow up in a "Christian Nation" teach them to feed the hungry and cloth the naked. Don't waste all this time, resources, and energy fighting for what should be done in the home in the first place.

(T) Peace

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#31343 Jul 29, 2012
madscot wrote:
<quoted text>
I appreciate your input Skom. Thanks.
Anytime madscot

(T) Peace

“Don't be so dichotomous.”

Since: Jan 11

Embrace the grey.

#31344 Jul 29, 2012
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
The question discussed has not been whether it is "bad bad".
The question is whether it violates the establishment clause of the Constitution.
Your torturous attempt at saying it does is absurd.
You have to prove that a local school district allowing a voluntary corporate prayer is:
1. A legislative act of Congress.
2. An establishment of a particular religion on the national level.
If it is not, it does not violate the establishment clause, as this is the activity prohibited by the clause.
Since I know you can't do this, since you are not aware that this is even a necessary consequence of your claim, and since I understand the Constitutional question, explain your contention that your understanding of this issue is superior to mine.
You need to stick with Hiding and Catcher. They are not smart enough, nor inclined philosophically, to expose your thinking for the adolescent, uninformed babbling that it is.
You try this shit with me, it goes up your "gaping ass".
I was never arguing about school prayer. I was arguing about teaching Creationism as a valid alternative to evolutionary biology and other sciences that it contradicts.

Allowing voluntary prayer is not the same as impressing it. Nobody can stop anyone from praying, and a law or policy to disallow it could not be enforced.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

This prevents a national establishment of religion, but that isn't all it does. It prevents state congresses from creating state establishments of religion. "establishment" doesn't necessarily mean Official Religion of America. Any law/policy respecting one religion over another, establishes a preference to that religion, something very unAmerican. Would you disagree? No, I don't care what the Founding Fathers thought about it. Religious freedom is integral to this country. Separation of church and state, at every conceivable level, is necessary to provide religious freedom.

Should I not respect Catcher and Hiding? Should I not value their insight? I choose to, because their past performance has been exemplary. Yours...not so much.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#31345 Jul 29, 2012
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
1. You didn't produce an argument above or a rebuttal.
2. You just engaged in name-calling, as befitting of your intellect.
3. And you don't understand what allelic frequency change entails.
4. Or you are being pedantically dishonest - again - and redefining evolution to suit your theistic needs.
5. I never claimed that allelic frequency change spelled out each and every mechanism of evolution - but that the definition of evolution is allelic frequency change in gene pools over time. Many mechanisms for how this goes about have been identified.
6. Try being less dishonest - you might learn something.
7. Because you do not understand the most basic definition of evolution, and because you fail to understand natural selection, you believe in ID. Admittedly, your commitment to dualism drives your commitment to ID.
I found it quite funny you were trying to teach Responst/HTS about ID - he claims that ID nullifies evolution. He further claims that Adam and Eve were Created by God and that, through a process of deleterious mutation that led to modern humans (and he refuses to call evolution genetic change).
And you called him a scientist!
bwaahahahahahahhahaha, you are stupid.
Take 6 months, see if you can give a definition for evolution, or a statement of the theory.

For a person of such advanced science, 2013 would seem an adequate time frame for you to come up with a theory.

Especially since Darwinists claim it is a "fact".

“Don't be so dichotomous.”

Since: Jan 11

Embrace the grey.

#31346 Jul 29, 2012
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Great.
Now if you could just switch from being stupid.
I have a dial.

It goes all the way up.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#31347 Jul 29, 2012
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
At what point?
I mark above and below anything I copy, be my guest, check.
You posting something a year old as news goes to what I said about you not even reading what you copy and pasted.
Uh...right at the beginning where I stated that the NCSE had released a statement...which was then given separated by "Quote" and "End quote".

You aren't very observant are you?

Is there going to be an apology? Or are you going to play your usual games?

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#31348 Jul 29, 2012
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
The question discussed has not been whether it is "bad bad".
The question is whether it violates the establishment clause of the Constitution.
I agree with this. While people may agree or disagree as to whether our current court ruling are for the best, IMO the Constitution clearly dealt with only two things.

1) making no law favoring a religion

2) making no law restricting the practice of religion

Technically speaking if the issue is not about the legislature it is a non-starter as far as the Constitution goes.

Courts used to rule blacks were a fraction of a person for the purpose of the census and slavery was legal and women couldn't vote. Courts are simply what 9 guys did enough to get the political backing of the party that seats them and then who has the majority. While courts do interpret the Constitution, technically speaking, there is nothing in the actual process that should make anyone believe that is the main concern. The party that puts them there knows how they are voting before certain cases ever come before them. It is hardly a model for ensuring the integrity of the Constitution is upheld

IMO anyway

(T) Peace

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#31349 Jul 29, 2012
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
I was never arguing about school prayer. I was arguing about teaching Creationism as a valid alternative to evolutionary biology and other sciences that it contradicts.
Allowing voluntary prayer is not the same as impressing it. Nobody can stop anyone from praying, and a law or policy to disallow it could not be enforced.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."
This prevents a national establishment of religion, but that isn't all it does. It prevents state congresses from creating state establishments of religion. "establishment" doesn't necessarily mean Official Religion of America. Any law/policy respecting one religion over another, establishes a preference to that religion, something very unAmerican. Would you disagree? No, I don't care what the Founding Fathers thought about it. Religious freedom is integral to this country. Separation of church and state, at every conceivable level, is necessary to provide religious freedom.
Should I not respect Catcher and Hiding? Should I not value their insight? I choose to, because their past performance has been exemplary. Yours...not so much.
You are factually wrong, and you are an idiot.

It doesn't matter if we use creationism or prayer.

There is no such thing as "state congresses". There is one Congress in our system. It is federal.

That was the purpose of the clause - allowing freedom to states, non-infringement by the federal Congress. You are now implying that the founders did not know what "Congress" is.

Did you know that states had established religions after the establishment clause was passed? What does that do to your argument?

Any law respecting one religion over another is not "an establishment of religion".

We have laws that respect one religion over another, we had such laws before, during, and after the establishment clause.

What does that do to your argument? Did you realize that the state of Utah was denied statehood by the Federal Government until it passed a state constitution eliminating polygamy?

Would you say that favors one religion over another?

Have you tried to use federal services on the Christian sabbath? You can use them on the Jewish sabbath.

What does that do to your argument?

Saying you don't care what the founders meant is pure dumbassery, if you are going to try and discuss the meaning of the Constiution they wrote.

Truth is, you don't give a shit about the Constitution. Why don't you just say so?

It could get you a seat on the Supreme Court!

“Don't be so dichotomous.”

Since: Jan 11

Embrace the grey.

#31350 Jul 29, 2012
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
I will do you the favor of correcting your errors of thought.
There is no such thing as "any establishment of religion". It is simply a concept called "establishment of religion". It is a single concept. You are thinking of "establishment of religion" as something akin to a business establishment, where there are many.
An establishment of religion is an official government church. In the case in question, the U.S. Constitution, it is a NATIONAL or federal official church, and it has to be one denomination. They did not speak of "religion" generically, but were referring to individual denominations. That was the point of Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists - assurance that Unitarians would not receive favor.
Madison actually suggested, during debate of the establishment clause, insertion of "national", as in "Congress shall make no law respecting a NATIONAL establishment of religion..."
The convention decided, since they were only writing a NATIONAL constitution, that the inclusion was unnecessary. The did not figure on idiots like you or the Supreme Court distorting it and divorcing it from original intent.
Therefore, for a local school district, or a state, to violate the injunction of the establishment clause, they would have to be affecting a national church.
This is, of course, impossible.
How would one go about creating a national church? Where would you start?

I'd imagine that you'd have to start small, in a community where you have a vast majority, in a state where you have a vast majority. You change policy to reflect your religious beliefs, and those policies inflict greater prejudice on the people, and that prejudice spreads to nearby places, allowing more leverage for change in the direction you are going. Like a plague, your ideals are made into policy, and with enough momentum and no barrier, you would eventually arrive at a national establishment of one particular religion.

I don't know what to tell you, Buck. We do not allow religious entanglement with government at any level, because it's slippery slope. I'd say it's gone too far already, with "God" on our money and elsewhere.

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#31351 Jul 29, 2012
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I offered no argument.
Finally, some honesty from you!

Unreal.

You're correct. You offered no argument.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#31352 Jul 29, 2012
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree with this. While people may agree or disagree as to whether our current court ruling are for the best, IMO the Constitution clearly dealt with only two things.
1) making no law favoring a religion
2) making no law restricting the practice of religion
Technically speaking if the issue is not about the legislature it is a non-starter as far as the Constitution goes.
Courts used to rule blacks were a fraction of a person for the purpose of the census and slavery was legal and women couldn't vote. Courts are simply what 9 guys did enough to get the political backing of the party that seats them and then who has the majority. While courts do interpret the Constitution, technically speaking, there is nothing in the actual process that should make anyone believe that is the main concern. The party that puts them there knows how they are voting before certain cases ever come before them. It is hardly a model for ensuring the integrity of the Constitution is upheld
IMO anyway
(T) Peace
Number 1 is incorrect.

The Constitution says nothing to prohibit "favoring" a religion.

“Don't be so dichotomous.”

Since: Jan 11

Embrace the grey.

#31353 Jul 29, 2012
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Great. Stick to it. It gets you compliments from the choir.
They are not blessed with my good memory.
You're on the shit list, Punk.
I'll insult you when, how, and to the extent that I feel like.

When I feel like you deserve a considerate response, I'll give you one, but that doesn't mean I won't poke fun at you when I do it.

Separation of Insult and Debate was a joke, though I would be willing to enter into such a pact with someone I could trust to stick to it. Besides that, I think it would prove to be a distraction with someone like you, who would argue what constitutes "insult" instead of debating whatever subject was in play.

I don't think you're going to change your style, and I have no problem with mine. If I start to tick you off, just remember, I will become disinterested quickly, like I am now. I'm waaaay sleepy.

Later dick.

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#31354 Jul 29, 2012
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I offered no argument.
I simply stated fact. Allelic frequency change is not the definition of evolution.
As I wrote, it is the beginning of understanding evolution - you don't like it because you have political agenda with regards to biological science and misrepresent it to support your dualism.

This author has a nice discussion about the various perspectives scientists have on evolution. He notes that "At bottom, evolution is a function of alleles gradually replacing one another. Evolution is nothing but changes in gene frequencies."

from:

http://catdir.loc.gov/catdir/samples/cam031/0...

After you understand that point, we can move on from there. But you - and our Adam and Eve "scientist" friend of yours, HTS (response)- won't understand evolution if you cannot understand allelic frequency change in gene pools over time.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#31355 Jul 29, 2012
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Number 1 is incorrect.
The Constitution says nothing to prohibit "favoring" a religion.
Seems kind of a semantic argument.

I agree it says respecting not favoring, I personally feel the words are synonymous in this context.

"make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

What do you consider to be different between respecting and favoring?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#31356 Jul 29, 2012
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
How would one go about creating a national church? Where would you start?
I'd imagine that you'd have to start small, in a community where you have a vast majority, in a state where you have a vast majority. You change policy to reflect your religious beliefs, and those policies inflict greater prejudice on the people, and that prejudice spreads to nearby places, allowing more leverage for change in the direction you are going. Like a plague, your ideals are made into policy, and with enough momentum and no barrier, you would eventually arrive at a national establishment of one particular religion.
I don't know what to tell you, Buck. We do not allow religious entanglement with government at any level, because it's slippery slope. I'd say it's gone too far already, with "God" on our money and elsewhere.
No.

The way to establishment of a national religion is the way of the country the founders had just fled - make a federal law.

Hence, "Congress shall make no law..."

"We do not allow religious entanglement with government..."

Is that so? On what basis did the founders place the source of the human citizens' rights?

"Endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights..."

When you fuck up, you fuck up big, Punk. "We", as in "we the people" place all of government in sync with a religious concept - the special creation of man.

You might not like it. But that's the history. You know less than nothing about the history of your country.

You are serenely ignorant. This would be a good time for you to tuck tail.

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#31357 Jul 29, 2012
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
The papers you cited did not even address my challenge.
They went waaaaay beyond your "challenge" and demonstrated mechanisms of evolution in the lab. The estimate that mutation happened in the lab? 100%- objectively observed mechanism of evolution.

So you are proved wrong. Of course you cannot deal with it - their research crushed your unscientific opinion.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

US Politics Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Boehner: Immigration Reform Will Help Economy 2 min Lawrence Wolf 8
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 2 min Neanderthal 1,110,857
The President has failed us (Jun '12) 5 min woodtick57 262,741
Fence jumper at White House sparks evacuation 8 min spud 2
Gay marriage (Mar '13) 10 min OO0 RIGHTEOUS 1 55,934
Black guest stuns CNN anchor: Racism is - not a... 13 min Anonymous of Indy 478
Ferguson Police Are Being Relieved Of Their Dut... 15 min grave digger 2,797
Hillary Clinton Faces Skeptical Iowa Voters 15 min spud 296
'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 15 min Limbertwig 153,745
Obama thanks Congress for vote to aid Syrian re... 40 min spud 67
•••

US Politics People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••