"Monkey Trial"
- Thread starter Mare
- Start date
Thulsa Doom
New Member
chcr said:
Oh Id actually be disappointed if scientists actually did anything like that thus reducing themselves to the level of the creationists. Im just threw it out there for the obvious comparison value since the answer is obviously no. and nothing wrong with name calling you unbelieving heathen swine. may you burn for all eternity in a place that hasnt been proven to exist!
Re: "Monkey Trail"
The United States of America.
I thought it was common knowledge that it was unconstitutional. Here is the proof:
The United States Supreme Court has held that it is unconstitutional to require educators who teach evolution also to teach creationism. [Aguillard v. Edwards, 765 F. 2d 1251 (5th Cir.), aff'd, 482 U. S. 578 (1987)]
The teaching of creationism as a differing and alternative point of view may not be taught as a response to the theory of evolution. [McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, 529 F. Supp. 1255 (E. D. Ark. 1982) (cited favorably in Aguillard, 482 U. S. 578)]
Vocal denominational or nondenominational prayer, and ceremonial reading from the Bible, are unconstitutional practices in the public school classroom. [School Dist. of Abington Township, Pa. v. Schempp, 374 U. S. 203 (1963); Engel v. Vitale, 370 U. S. 421 (1962)]
There is nothing that says the government can not acknowledge God.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." This means that the federal government could not declare a National Church Denomination (like the King of England did with the Episcopal denomination).
It was only a superficial victory for the Creationist side. The Evolutionists won their objective. Bryan did not do a great job defending the faith.
I'm quite aware. But are you?
www.dictionary.com
i·ron·ic
Poignantly contrary to what was expected or intended: madness, an ironic fate for such a clear thinker.
The irony is that the constitution has been misinterpreted for what was intended on regards towards religion. Hence, what was once granted is now denied...
chcr said:
The United States of America.
I thought it was common knowledge that it was unconstitutional. Here is the proof:
The United States Supreme Court has held that it is unconstitutional to require educators who teach evolution also to teach creationism. [Aguillard v. Edwards, 765 F. 2d 1251 (5th Cir.), aff'd, 482 U. S. 578 (1987)]
The teaching of creationism as a differing and alternative point of view may not be taught as a response to the theory of evolution. [McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, 529 F. Supp. 1255 (E. D. Ark. 1982) (cited favorably in Aguillard, 482 U. S. 578)]
Vocal denominational or nondenominational prayer, and ceremonial reading from the Bible, are unconstitutional practices in the public school classroom. [School Dist. of Abington Township, Pa. v. Schempp, 374 U. S. 203 (1963); Engel v. Vitale, 370 U. S. 421 (1962)]
There is nothing that says the government can not acknowledge God.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." This means that the federal government could not declare a National Church Denomination (like the King of England did with the Episcopal denomination).
It was only a superficial victory for the Creationist side. The Evolutionists won their objective. Bryan did not do a great job defending the faith.
I'm quite aware. But are you?
www.dictionary.com
i·ron·ic
Poignantly contrary to what was expected or intended: madness, an ironic fate for such a clear thinker.
The irony is that the constitution has been misinterpreted for what was intended on regards towards religion. Hence, what was once granted is now denied...
It's not in B&W...in on parchment , long hand, from a quill pen. It exactly says
There really isn't much to debate. The issue of religion in America was made clear from day one. Nowhere in the Constitution, or the Bill of Rights or even the Declaration is there even a hint resembling a statement like "You have the right not to be offended". If you don't believe, fine, tune out the nonsense. If you believe, fine, listen to it. Why is that so hard to do?
There really isn't much to debate. The issue of religion in America was made clear from day one. Nowhere in the Constitution, or the Bill of Rights or even the Declaration is there even a hint resembling a statement like "You have the right not to be offended". If you don't believe, fine, tune out the nonsense. If you believe, fine, listen to it. Why is that so hard to do?
Winky
Well-Known Member
I always label those who attempt to inject ambiguity
into this part of our Constitution one of either two ways.
Dumbasses or communists
If we fall into peril of a Muslim Theocracy taking over,
the Federal government and instituting Sharia Law then
start yer whining, until then STFU aboot it.
into this part of our Constitution one of either two ways.
Dumbasses or communists
If we fall into peril of a Muslim Theocracy taking over,
the Federal government and instituting Sharia Law then
start yer whining, until then STFU aboot it.
chcr
Too cute for words
Okay, now let's see. First it is in no way unconstitutional to teach creation or to have prayer in public schools. It never has been. I think it should be, but that's an opinion. I understand that they don't change the constitution for one person's opinion (although I'm not sure some people don't want to change that). Second, Scopes was found guilty of breaking a state law prohibiting the teaching of evolution. He was duly fined and went on about his business. I'll remind you that the Supreme Court also found in their favor. The debate over the teaching of evolution vs. creation (or even both) clearly predates the trial (they'd already made a state law about it, you understand) and has continued unabated since. While it was and evidently is good press, said debate was unaffected. Nothing ironic anywhere to be found. I therefore must conclude that while you have read the definition of irony, you have clearly not understood it. The subsequent popularization of evolution is a natural progression of the improvement of the public school system from that time through the mid-eighties, just as the current plague of inability of young people to think clearly and rationally is a result of the degradation of that same system in the intervening years.
Edit: Illustration that I heard once (on television, of all places) : It's not even ironic that you don't understand irony, it's just unfortunate.
chcr
Too cute for words
chcr said:
Oops. Allow me to clarify. I think it should be unconstitutional to teach creation as a valid scientific theory in publicly run schools. I think it should be (and by my interpretation it is) to have either "required" prayer or prayer led by school staff. Sorry, I misspoke.
chcr said:
I'm not sure why you just don't get it. The United States Supreme Court has the power to interpret the Constitution. Therefore, it has been found that it is unconstitutional to teach Creationism and have prayers in public schools. I have already given the court cases that support this.
The U.S. Constitution never intended to block religious activity within the schools, hence, the irony. Get it?
I know that. I did not contend this.
The Tennessee Supreme Court overturned the decision on appeal due to a technical issue: The jury should have decided the fine, not the judge...
chcr
Too cute for words
*sigh* Read those court cases (and the subsequent ones) again. I don't have the time, patience or inclination to help you unlearn all the history you so blithely misunderstand.
Ask yourself this: If it's unconstitutional to teach creation in public schools (which I am sad to have to point out our controlled by the state and not the federal government), how can so many of them do it?
You even misinterpret your own posts, but I'll admit you're not the only one.
Ask yourself this: If it's unconstitutional to teach creation in public schools (which I am sad to have to point out our controlled by the state and not the federal government), how can so many of them do it?
You even misinterpret your own posts, but I'll admit you're not the only one.
chcr said:
What a nice way to dismiss those court cases! I suggest you read them again.
Because religious theories of creation may be included in classes on comparative religion as an example of how some religious groups believe human life began. However, creationism may never be taught as scientific fact in public schools.
But don't get me wrong. Teaching Creation has been repressed by the school system anyways.
I have not misinterpreted anything, so let me clarify: Educators may not teach, either as scientific fact or even as an alternative or competing theory, the theory that humankind was created by a divine being. In science classes, educators must present only scientific explanations for life on earth and scientific critiques of evolution...
BTW: I do not appreciate your condescending attitude...
RDX
Member
chcr said:
Ah yes. This is the dilemma that our founders had when they set up this country. They realized that the country needed leaders with morals to be a successful and long lasting. On the other hand, they also realized that if a nation endorsed a certain religion, it often led to the repression of others (including atheism). Subsequently they set up the government in such a way as to encourage religion (in chiefly a Christian context, as that was the predominant religion of the day), but not to go so far as to establish a national religion (or of more concern at the time, a national denomination). Thus, we have a seemingly mixed message in early documents that often use words like God, creator, or even directly quote from the Bible, but then clearly state that there should not be an establishment of a national religion or denomination by the state.
chcr
Too cute for words
RDX said:
See, now I don't find the message mixed at all. Of course the founders of our country would use predominantly christian values, with the exception of Jefferson they were all christians. The only thing they were trying to prevent is religious oppression, which was in fact why many of the early settlers came to America in the first place. The constitution does not prohibit religion in government, it simply prohibits government from discriminating against any religion. IMO, this works better with some people in office than others, but that is a separate argument (and after all, nothing is perfect). The actual document is quite clear, the lawyers muddy it up. Of course, they have a vested interest in it being muddy.
chcr
Too cute for words
Separate issue:
No, what it says is that educators who teach evolution may not be compelled to teach creation as a competing theory. If they want to do so they are free to do so. If not, any other educator is free to do so. Words say what they say, regardless of anyone's attempts to twist the meaning.
But you know what? I've only been having this debate for 30 years or so. Whatever you say must be right.
No, what it says is that educators who teach evolution may not be compelled to teach creation as a competing theory. If they want to do so they are free to do so. If not, any other educator is free to do so. Words say what they say, regardless of anyone's attempts to twist the meaning.
But you know what? I've only been having this debate for 30 years or so. Whatever you say must be right.