Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Funny I see no law in the Constitution that forbids any government employee from displaying or showing anything associated with religion. What's next, forcing teachers to yank off a cross necklace?
You're only mad because you want religion to be everywhere, involved in everything, and influencing every action. You want it in our bedrooms, in our uteruses, and in our pharmacies. You want it in the doctor's examining room, in our halls of political power, and in our public schools. You want it in our work places, in our insurance policies, and in our laws.
You won't rest until religion is this monolithic juggernaut worse than Orwell's Big Brother ever was, an inescapable doctrine that people can only avoid by literally locking themselves in a closet and turning off the light.
You want religion to be smothering, omnipresent, and seen everywhere we turn our eyes so that we are reminded of it all the time between blinks. Thus you want religion in our public schools with Christian teachers writing Bible verses on the board - because having a church on every other corner isn't enough. No, you have to go after a captive audience, kids in school where they -have- to be by law.
And there you have it, ladies and gentlemen - the biggest reason why religion in school is a big, fat no-no.
Because as long as education is compulsory and mandated by the government, the government cannot be seen as being complicit in sending children involuntarily to religious indoctrination camps. THAT is doing nothing less than supporting and endorsing religion which is expressly prohibited by the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment. To force kids to attend school where religion is being thrust upon them would be tantamount to making church attendance compulsory - though that's probably what you would like to see happen.
You're only mad because you want religion to be everywhere, involved in everything, and influencing every action. You want it in our bedrooms, in our uteruses, and in our pharmacies. You want it in the doctor's examining room, in our halls of political power, and in our public schools. You want it in our work places, in our insurance policies, and in our laws.
You won't rest until religion is this monolithic juggernaut worse than Orwell's Big Brother ever was, an inescapable doctrine that people can only avoid by literally locking themselves in a closet and turning off the light.
You want religion to be smothering, omnipresent, and seen everywhere we turn our eyes so that we are reminded of it all the time between blinks. Thus you want religion in our public schools with Christian teachers writing Bible verses on the board - because having a church on every other corner isn't enough. No, you have to go after a captive audience, kids in school where they -have- to be by law.
And there you have it, ladies and gentlemen - the biggest reason why religion in school is a big, fat no-no.
Because as long as education is compulsory and mandated by the government, the government cannot be seen as being complicit in sending children involuntarily to religious indoctrination camps. THAT is doing nothing less than supporting and endorsing religion which is expressly prohibited by the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment. To force kids to attend school where religion is being thrust upon them would be tantamount to making church attendance compulsory - though that's probably what you would like to see happen.
I was waiting for one of your famous nazi comparisons.
Good question. I only made a reference to George Orwell's "1984."
Maybe he was a Nazi? *shrugs apathetically*
Didn't get it? You constantly compare Christians to nazis. The way it was going I thought this would be one of them, but you only went as far as indoctrination camps.
I didn't think you and trout were that dense not to pick that up.
ugly people are coming out of the closet with their ugly no doubt about it. all the while demanding that christians turn the other cheek, something the ugly people never do. if you do not watch it your enemies will try to bury you with your own shovel.
It is usually some of our self proclaimed Christian leaders who are their own worst enemies. Here are some "gem" quotes from Pat Robertson and a few make a reasonable Christian like myself even question his sanity. I am curious if some others have the same view after reading these in the link below. He wishes for destruction from natural disaster on some of our cities for starters. I would never waste my time watching this guy's show. Stand up comedy would have been a better fit for him!
It amazes me how gullible some fellow Christians are and this irresponsible behavior by some of our mega preachers is one reason people are joining other religions or choosing not to believe. These are primarily self inflicted wounds. That famous Pogo quote is appropriate here: "We have met the enemy and he is us."
It is time for some of our "leaders" to raise their own game instead of lashing out at secular scapegoats or step aside and hand it over to more sensible people. FWIW, secular society/government should be thanked more often by religious leaders for providing churches with their tax exemptions which ease the financial burden considerably.
How ironic considering Lord of the Rings is well established fiction taking inspiration from Christianity.
Which tells us nothing more than people writing fiction like to engage in the recycling of the ideas of others. The Jesus Myth for example has many parallels to Myths that came before it. The Lion, Witch and Wardrobe series for example also make poorly concealed attempts to validate Christian Mythology in the minds of our youth and the parallels are Blatant in the extreme.
The point you continue to dodge however is just because we can validate the fictional origin of some books today.... does not guarantee we will be able to do so 2000 years from now. And 2000 years from now much of the fiction we have today will match many of the findings of archaeology and other human inquiry.
And if this is true of 2000 years from now then it is MORE true of 2000-6000 years in the past given the paltry capability of our species to record anything at all back then. Yet you find a few cherry picked incidents of overlap between Archaeology and biblical events and you jump around like you think this verifies anything.
It does not.
At all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
No in the real world, the vast majority of the world's population, past and present have believed in a God.
So what? This does not for one moment validate that there actually is one. Or that biblical events are true. Or any other of the nonsense preposterous claims you trot out as fact on this forum.
All you are doing really is demonstrating that you do not understand the fallacies and do not care to. Look up "Argumentum Ad Populum". Learn it. Ditch it. Stop using it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
Since you are the challenger, maybe the onus should be on you to back up your bold claims instead of just sitting back, demanding evidence that will never satisfy you anyways.
You are getting even more shrill and desperate now. Your misuse of "Argumentum Ad Populum" does not shift the onus of evidence. It never has before. It will not do it now.
The claim there is a god is the positive claim. Therefore the claim there is a god is yours to substantiate. Not mine. I have claimed nothing except to point out that the idea there is a god is entirely unsubstantiated in any way. Much less by you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
So you have lived in the Philippines and know the culture?
Not what I said at all. You are just dodging what I did say by attacking something I did not. Your usual MO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
I fail to see how Christianity which is a faith of seeking righteous, loving and helping your neighbor has anything in common with North Korea.
Funny you can not see it given I just explained it twice. Perhaps it is not that you are not seeing it but are engaging in your usual MO of ignoring what you do not like to read.
I was drawing parallels with the idea that there is an eternal father figure ruler who rules vicariously through his equally eternal perfect son. If you can not see the parallels between THAT and Christianity then you simply do not know your own religion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
Do you believe the Bible is a work of fiction?
I believe that the events described in the Bible are unsubstantiated and uncorroborated by any other source external to it. That is my claim.
So the failure is not with me failing to understand the difference between "evolution and proof" as you so crassly attempted to assert. The failing is with you not addressing the points I make and instead attacking ones you have invented on my behalf. Your usual MO of choice as I keep pointing out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
Do you honestly think if you were on trial, you could tell the judge to throw out a witness testimony against you because it doesn't have an additional evidence attached to it?
Yes actually. Your knowledge of law is clearly as low as your knowledge of science and once again you present your own ignorance on a topic as evidence for your claims about that topic.
If the case against you is solely uncorroborated personal testimony then the case IS thrown out of course. That is why, for example, we do not convict people of rape based solely on the testimony of the "victim".
But by all means please cite for me actual statistics on how many people have been convicted of a crime solely based on unverified and uncorroborated testimony. I am agog to see your stats! Go for it!
Failing that maybe you might deign to actually learn something about the legal system before you wade in commenting on something you know nothing about.
Didn't get it? You constantly compare Christians to nazis. The way it was going I thought this would be one of them, but you only went as far as indoctrination camps.
I didn't think you and trout were that dense not to pick that up.
Uh, there's a difference between indoctrination camps and concentration camps - especially where the Nazis are concerned. The Nazis just wanted to kill the prisoners, not indoctrinate them.
You're on a fishing expedition with your meaningless strawman so this is the last I'm going to say about it. If you don't have an actual rebuttal argument to what I -actually- said (instead of whatever fantasy post you think I wrote), why do you even bother posting? Don't you realize the amount of credibility you lose when you accuse someone of something that is easily and thoroughly disproven?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
