Evidence for Evolution

[Curubethion]

Righto. All it says is that the State can't have authority over the Church and establish a state religion. This was added in order to protect the Church from being dominated by the government, as the Church of England had been.

[Lotesse]

Ohhhhh. I see. But it is acceptable to mandate that students in public schools be mandatorily taught a religion-based, faith-based scientific theory in school?

[Lotesse]

Originally Posted by rohirrim TR

have a sense of humor people, pretty soon i'll start posting cartoons and i hope the "uber evolutionist" have a sense of humor

Lotesse- have you been brain washed? no where in the constitution of the united states of america is there a "separation of church and state" clause, if you want i can link you to a copy of the constitution and you can see what it actually says

What is the matter with you? No where in my post did I say that the Constitution of the United States contains a "separation of church and state" clause. But thanks for your snobbish offer to provide me with an education, l'il buddy! lol!

[Curubethion]

Originally Posted by Lotesse

More likely, it is clear evidence that most reasonable people realise that the idea of mandating creationism to be taught in schools, in a country that is supposed to separate church and state, is so laughable it is quite often difficult to take seriously. By the way, exactly what is an "uber-evolutionist?" Now, THAT's funny!

Then how is this "seperation of church and state" authorized?

[Lotesse]

Children are impossible to debate with. Do you have a problem with the idea of separating church from state, Curubethion? Do you feel that it is wrong to separate church from state?

[Count Comfect]

Curubethion - you've got it the wrong way around. The clause is not so that the Church isn't dominated by the State... it's so the State isn't dominated by the Church. Or rather, it is both:
" Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

This has consistently been interpreted as mandating a separation of church and state (the separatist view) as originated by Thomas Jefferson.

[Curubethion]

Originally Posted by Lotesse

Children are impossible to debate with. Do you have a problem with the idea of separating church from state, Curubethion? Do you feel that it is wrong to separate church from state?

I was merely pointing out that you did say "seperation of church and state", but then you said that wasn't in the Constitution. So where does it come from?

[Spock]

from reading comprehension impaired liberal thinkers

[Spock]

[Count Comfect]

There are conservative thinkers as well who think that, Spock.

And you really like that cartoon, no?

[Lotesse]

Originally Posted by Curubethion

I was merely pointing out that you did say "seperation of church and state", but then you said that wasn't in the Constitution. So where does it come from?

I neither said such a statement was, or was not, in the Costitution. I never once mentioned the Constitution. YOU mentioned the Constitution, not moi.

Demons of stupidity, out indeed.

[Rían]

(duplicate post)

[Rían]

(triplicate post! Sheesh!)

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Lotesse

More likely, it is clear evidence that most reasonable people realise that the idea of mandating creationism to be taught in schools, in a country that is supposed to separate church and state, is so laughable it is quite often difficult to take seriously.

In my book of definitions, "reasonable people" don't use insults to make their points. They don't need to, nor do they desire to.

Part of why I started the thread in the first place (which unfortunately got merged and swallowed up in another thread ) was that it fascinated me to see and analyze the TYPE of words flying around from both sides. From what I saw, the people against the Kansas City changes in the curriculum were the ones that resorted to playground insults. I didn't see the childish insults, like "pinheads" (!), coming from the other side. I found that fascinating, and very illuminating, because in my experience, the side that has to retort to insults first is the one with less substance on their side.

By the way, exactly what is an "uber-evolutionist?" Now, THAT's funny!

What I"m trying to do here is to be polite to the people that hold views opposite to mine here on Entmoot. As considerate and intelligent people like Gaffer have pointed out, using generalizations is impolite, as well as typically WRONG, and I know from personal experience that it is painful to be automatically lumped into a group and insulted, regardless of what you've actually SAID on the subject. I am a creationist, for example, but I don't quote-mine, and I am open to evolution being true, which sets me apart from many creationists. But when creationists are wholesale insulted, like in that cartoon, it naturally hurts me. So I try to modify my statements about evolutionists by either "most evolutionists", or "some evolutionists" or "uber-evolutionists", because I know not ALL evolutionists are obnoxious and insulting and close-minded, and not ALL of them resort to bullying, playground tactics (thank goodness, the vast majority of them here do NOT do those things!!) And frankly, I"d appreciate if others would do that, too, when talking about groups (especially ones I"m in! ).

I think we're a pretty cool community here. Some of my best friends here are atheist evolutionists And I try to be considerate to them by not making wholesale assumptions and statements about atheists or evolutionists when I post. I think we should all do that - it would make things a lot nicer, IMO.

So, to answer your question, IMO an uber-evolutionist is someone who is obnoxious, close-minded, and insulting, among other unpleasant things, when it comes to discussing evolution/creation/ID. Not all evolutionists are like that, thank goodness.

I don't know - I guess I just don't care for humor that tears people down, especially your friends. This kind of thing can just go on and on, and get worse and worse. There's all sorts of cartoons out there making fun of liberals, etc., that are very insulting. And I think they have MORE than a grain of truth in them! But I just don't think it does any good to post them. But that's just me.

(ps - and did you see where I asked someone on "my side" to not make wholesale statements about liberals?)

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

There are conservative thinkers as well who think that, Spock.

And you really like that cartoon, no?

It's fitting for every occasion .

[Spock]

I'm more than a liker, I'm a member of DRC.

[rohirrim TR]

Originally Posted by Lotesse

What is the matter with you? No where in my post did I say that the Constitution of the United States contains a "separation of church and state" clause. But thanks for your snobbish offer to provide me with an education, l'il buddy! lol!

hey, don't get mad, a lot of people don't know what the constitution says, and some people don't care ; but my offer was sincere, and not meant to be taken as snobbish or condescending,

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Curubethion

I was merely pointing out that you did say "seperation of church and state", but then you said that wasn't in the Constitution. So where does it come from?

many of the founding fathers talked of seperation of church and state, but it was decided that it would be best to leave out the issue entirely... i.e. by not supporting any specific religion in the constitution it would be assumed to not be a matter the government would concern itself with

in the words of james madison:

Notwithstanding the general progress made within the two last centuries in favour of this branch of liberty, and the full establishment of it in some parts of our country, there remains in others a strong bias towards the old error, that without some sort of alliance or coalition between Government and Religion neither can be duly supported. Such, indeed, is the tendency to such a coalition, and such its corrupting influence on both the parties, that the danger cannot be too carefully guarded against. And in a Government of opinion like ours, the only effectual guard must be found in the soundness and stability of the general opinion on the subject. Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together. It was the belief of all sects at one time that the establishment of Religion by law was right and necessary; that the true religion ought to be established in exclusion of every other; and that the only question to be decided was, which was the true religion. The example of Holland proved that a toleration of sects dissenting from the established sect was safe, and even useful. The example of the colonies, now States, which rejected religious establishments altogether, proved that all sects might be safely and even advantageously put on a footing of equal and entire freedom; and a continuance of their example since the Declaration of Independence has shown that its success in Colonies was not to be ascribed to their connection with the parent country. if a further confirmation of the truth could be wanted, it is to be found in the examples furnished by the States which had abolished their religious establishments. I cannot speak particularly of any of the cases excepting that of Virginia, where it is impossible to deny that religion prevails with more zeal and a more exemplary priesthood than it ever did when established and patronized by public authority. We are teaching the world the great truth, that Governments do better without kings and nobles than with them. The merit will be doubled by the other lesson: the Religion flourishes in greater purity without, than with the aid of Government

[rohirrim TR]

hey, shouldn't this stuff be in the constitution thread i made a while back? it seems like were off topic

[Spock]

Yes we are. PLEASE STAY ON TOPIC FOLKS.........