Looks like it's a done deal

[littlebillie]

wow, no need to shout - looks as tho a nerve was touched!

 

ok. first, many (not all, certainly and granted) of your quotes suggest Deism, rather than Christianity. Second, some of this would certainly seem to touch on the "avowal" issue, wouldn't you think? What's said in private versus what's said in public? Finally, finding MORE quotes - does that really matter? I think you may find more protestations of innocence than guilt upon death row, but (DNA notwithstanding), what does that really prove?

 

Private letters, public treaties - I don't think the whole founding fathers "agreed upons" stands on as firm legs as many would have us believe.

 

Which is great, from a religious freedom perspective. There were a number of views on religion, and rather than directing us down that road, the FF chose to leave that path open to the individual - ANY individual. Otherwise, why would they NOT have set up the Ten Commandmets, say, as the heart of all our laws?

 

 

Oh, and no shouting this time!

[OldGreyEagle]

I meant Zealot only in the terms of perverting a religion's tenet's. I did not mean to imclude those who passionately and complety embrace a faith and follow it with heart and soul. I apologize for my unclear message`

 

OGE

Matt 22:34-40

[Weekender]

Rooster7,

 

I enjoyed all the quotes but particularly liked Patrick Henry's

 

"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here."

 

I have a question for the rest...If my and my family's religeous beliefs hold that God created the world then doesn't forcing evolution down my kid's throats as if it were a fact violate my religeous freedom? When a teacher asks my child how old the earth is and my child answers based on our biblical belief how do you think the "teacher" is going to mark that answer? Evolution, in my opinion, is a religeous issue...not a scientific one. Many on this board seem to take the position they have accused me of, that the school should only teach what they agree with. Why don't we keep ALL issues with religeous impact out of the schools...including the THEORY of evolution. Science is measurable and repeatable. Where is the Holy Scientific Method in evolution?

 

[Rooster7]

Littlebillie,

 

You initially introduced quotes in this thread to infer a point about our founding fathers. It is rather obvious by the selection of your quotes that you feel the founding fathers were something other than Christian. One can further conclude that you feel Christian principles should not govern our laws. I offered the quotes that I did to show how you truly misrepresented our founding fathers. They were, overwhelmingly, strong and outspoken Christians. Our government had decidedly Christian origins. Whether or not any of these quotes were made publicly or privately is a meritless point. If George Washington said in private - "It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible" - What difference does it make? He was a Christian. He held the aforementioned belief in his heart. Do you think he risked his life and all his worldly possessions to hide his most passionately held beliefs? I don't. In fact, I'm confident that he felt that this new country and its government reflected the very same beliefs. Unfortunately, a lot of water and revisionists have since passed under that bridge.

 

OGE,

 

I hope I did not come off as obtuse. I realized what you meant. I merely wanted to clarify something for my own satisfaction. Too many people take advantage of and/or abuse the English language for their own politic gain (not that you were). I didn't want it to be lost on some folks that zealot doesn't have to be a "bad thing". In fact, the Bible calls us to be zealots.

 

Never be lacking in zeal, but keep your spiritual fervor, serving the Lord. Romans 12:11

 

[sctmom]

In the Bible Zealots are a particular group of people who were so caught up in the rituals of religion they forgot the real meaning behind their religion.

Merriam Webster says:

zealot(capitalized) : a member of a fanatical sect arising in Judea during the first century A.D. and militantly opposing the Roman domination of Palestine

 

Today zealot can be a good thing or a bad thing, depending how what is being talked about.

 

I have to agree with littlebillie "Finally, finding MORE quotes - does that really matter? "

Also, we can each read the same sentence and get a different meaning from it.

 

Read some of the laws that were written by our forefathers that no longer are in existence and you will be mighty glad they got changed. Many of the colonies had laws about who could teach religion in their home. This would keep you from running our own Bible study group in our home. Many of the forefathers were only wanting freedom for their type of Christianity, everyone else go away. The Christian forefathers had no tolerance for others.

 

I know personally of many "Christians" that have no tolerance for others outside of their church. I really mean NO tolerance! That is why I did not attend church for many years. Luckily I've now found a group who are tolerant.

 

[littlebillie]

Rooster7, you disappoint me - instead of asking questions, you jump to conclusions. " It is rather obvious by the selection of your quotes that you feel the founding fathers were something other than Christian. One can further conclude that you feel Christian principles should not govern our laws."

 

Something other than Christian - well, yes, Deism falls into that category, I suppose, as does the Old Testament w/out the New, but it's still religious and devout, and how Jefferson, Franklin and others are seen today - as Deists, I mean. Why is that troubling? As far as "One... further conclud[ing] that feel Christian principles should not govern our laws", rather, I would say that those principles that Christianity shares with all or the majority of world religions (don't murder, don't rob, don't adulter, etc) and ethical systems should indeed become law; the rest (diet? fibers? say of the week to reflect?) should be left to the individual, and to the family and their chosen religious community. The rendering unto Caesar, after all.

 

Our founding fathers saw the wisdom in this and deliberately refrained from the codification of those principles you say they held, leaving the doors open to all comers. I say, BRAVO!

 

 

 

 

 

[RobK]

If only the government were run the way the Founders intended, we wouldn't have this debate. The Founding Fathers certainly never intended for the federal government to be involved in education. If the government didn't run schools, there would be no debate over what religous beliefs were taught in the government's schools. There would be no debate over teaching creation v. evolution. If a government school is teaching as fact anything that directly contradicts what a church teaches as part of their religion, then they are violating the First Amendment. Teaching either Creationism or Evolution as fact violates the First Amendment.

 

The government, state and federal, has no Constitutional authority for almost everything it does today.

[SR540Beaver]

Wait, wait, wait!!! Weekender and Robk, you guys are dealing straight from your emotions and not from reason. The study of evolution is a scientific endeavor while the belief in the Creation account in Genesis is a religious one. Scientists who study the theory of evolution are doing so strictly for scientific reasons and are not trying to discredit Creationism. If anything, they are indifferent to it and don't even consider it. Evolution is science and students study science. It is not religion. Because you see them in direct conflict with each other, YOU percieve it to be a religious issue. For you it is, for scientist it isn't. That is like saying that since God created light, man's attempt to harness electricity and create a light bulb is man playing God and is a religious issue and electricity should not be studied in school. God gave man an inquisitive mind and science sprang from it. Science attempts to answer why and how about everything.....including how the stars and planets came about. As new evidence is discovered, it adds to the body of knowledge of science and theories are revised based on the added evidence. Evolution is a theory and not fact. It is taught as such. Until a better alternative is presented with compelling scientific evidence, it will be the prevailing theory. Because the Bible says so holds no sway with a scientist. They do not work based on faith, they have to be able to hold it, feel it and test it. Evolution is science, not religion.

[acco40]

kwc57, students study science?

 

No, not necessarily. Religious education students study religion. Mathematics students study math. Science students study science. When I took a science class in college, the first paragraph of page one mentioned creation as a theory (one or two sentences) and stated that the science book would concentrate on evolution. Enough said. If my son or daughter signed up to take a science class, I would be appalled if biblical creationism was taught in depth.

 

Robk, your statement, "The government, state and federal, has no Constitutional authority for almost everything it does today." confuses me. Unless the government (at any level) conflicts with the constitution, it has the authority to do anything it wants!

 

Rooster, saying what someone says in private or public doesn't matter is comical. "I did not have sex with that woman!" Does that ring a bell? Especially for politicians, which the founding fathers were, what is said in public is for public consumption and I would put much more emphasis on private communication.(This message has been edited by acco40)

[SR540Beaver]

Acco40,

 

We are discussing tax funded compulsory public school education where a variety of subjects are studied each year....including science. And evolution is taught as a theory (because it is) not a fact. Any scientist who claims evolution is fact would be laughed at by the majority of scientist. If any of you ever watch the Discovery Channel, Discovery Science or The Learning Channel you will not in practically every program discussing, planets, stars, evolution, dinosuars, etc. they always say scientists "believe" blah blah blah. Based on the evidence to date, they form their theories. They never claim them as fact because there is always more evidence to discover that will add another piece to the puzzle. Creationist who are somehow feel threatened by science tend to gloss over this.

[RobK]

kwc57, you completely missed my overarching point that the government has no buisness educating anyone about anything. Government sponsored education is unconditionally, fundamentally unconstitutional. The evolution v. creation debate simply highlights this.

 

[Y]ou guys are dealing straight from your emotions and not from reason.

 

No, it would seem to be you who are dealing in emotion. I took a premise, and using logic, followed it to its rational conclusion.

 

You assert that evolution is not a religous belief. I will demonstrate that you are incorrect. Evolution is a religous belief, just as the belief that there is no god is a religous belief.

 

Evolution is expressly contradictory of and mutually exclusive to the teachings of many religions. We'll express this as:

 

IF evolution THEN NOT (6 day creation OR Hindu creation).

IF (6 day creation OR Hindu creation) THEN NOT evolution.

 

To believe in evolution, you must not believe in a literal 6 day creation, or in the Hindu creation story. Evolution, therefore, is a religous belief.

 

Evolution, your assertions not withstanding, is often taught as fact. If the government teaches evolution as fact, the government is implictly teaching that these other religous beliefs are not fact. Hence, the government is promoting a religous belief. Trust me, children put two and two together, even on this issue. I did when I was a child. And even if the government does truly teach evolution as theory only, if they do not accompany that teaching with a wide variety of other beliefs, they are promoting one belief above others.

 

But again, I want to reiterate, the government has no constitutional authority to educate anyone.

 

 

[littlebillie]

acco40 "Rooster, saying what someone says in private or public doesn't matter is comical." D'accord!

 

Rooster7 " Whether or not any of these quotes were made publicly or privately is a meritless point" Well, that whole public/private thing really seems to go to the heart of the matter religion matter, in my view - public versus private seems to be at the heart of avowal, and Lambert, had he kept things private, would not have come to our public attention.

 

 

 

Robk, "Government sponsored education is unconditionally, fundamentally unconstitutional." While the Government has no Constitutionally-specific authority, where is it written, therein, that Congress is PRECLUDED from the creation of law addressing this, or that the President must veto any such law should it be placed before him?

 

Indeed "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and

Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States" ok. let's trim that a bit to get to what I see in it: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and... collect Taxes...to....provide for the ... general

Welfare of the United States". Education is part of the general Welfare, I would argue (and by 'general', I will further posit we can mean 'national'), and so the making of Law addressing that education is not outside the scope of Congressional powers.

 

Add to that the power "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof", and I really can't see how our tax-funded Public Education System is 'unconstitutional'.

 

Is your objection to the federal allocation of moneys, or to the compulsory nature of the current system?

 

 

 

[sctmom]

"Government sponsored education is unconditionally, fundamentally unconstitutional.

But again, I want to reiterate, the government has no constitutional authority to educate anyone. "

 

The Federal Government DOES NOT educate people, the state governments do. The state has the right (and I believe obligation) to provide education for its citizens.

 

Article X of the Bill of Rights

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

 

The founding fathers DID believe in public education. Go to your library and look for a set of books called "The Annals of America" published by Britannica. It has many original documents and letters from the beginning of this country until now.

 

 

 

[Weekender]

Scoutmom you make a good point. The state does have a right and perhaps an obligation to PROVIDE an education system to their citizens. They do not have the right to require that anyone use their system nor do they have the right to put forth one belief system (evolution) over another. I'm just suggesting equal time...If you say the two are of equal value they should have equal time. Based on the time alotted I would have to say the public school system favors evolutionary theory.

[sctmom]

Maybe it's because my son just hasn't gotten that far in school yet, but I haven't seen what the teach about evolution.

 

What I have seen is that every year there is a Christmas wreath on the outside of the school building, a tree in the foyer and the kids make Christmas tree ornaments.

 

Also, my son's Social Studies book this year has a chapter about the beginning of Christianity. It also talks about some other religions that began about the same time. It does not say one is right or wrong, just here are the basic facts of what that group believes. Then some discussion questions about finding out more about the beliefs.

Isn't that the equal to the evolution theories?