Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2011 8:17:26 GMT -6
On evolution I highly recommend The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins. Idiot America - How Stupidity Became a Virtue in the Land of the Free, by Charles Pierce offers much more sarcasm. Excellent sections on the creationist museum and the Dover, PA "intelligent design" case. (Dinosaurs with saddles? Really?) I also recommend any works by Douglas Adams for anyone interested in humor (as in the laughable aspects of creationist "theory") I also once again appreciate viper's thoughts. I agree with your post, sir. (IMO) Freedom from religion means religious dogma should not be be taught in public schools. (not in science class anyway) It's "freedom of religion"...your Dawkin's brainwashing kicked in there for a moment. I highly recommend The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant by John Dominic Crossen.
|
|
|
Post by viper on Sept 25, 2011 8:47:49 GMT -6
It's "freedom of religion"...your Dawkin's brainwashing kicked in there for a moment. I think it's largely pointless to get embroiled in arguments over semantics and etymology. If we really want to get technical, the First Amendment contains an Establishment Clause and a Free Exercise Clause where sectarian religion is concerned; there is no mention of separation of church and state, freedom of religion or freedom from religion verbatim. Individuals, organizations and even legal scholars have each interpreted the intentions of the First Amendment to be coterminous with the idea of freedom of or from religion, so arguing over what it means to various people is a dead end. In other words, if someone thinks freedom from religion means that they are to be free from the state imposing a religious canon upon them, then their interpretation of "freedom from religion" is correct.
|
|
|
Post by freedom12 on Sept 25, 2011 9:21:21 GMT -6
coterminous.......Wow, haven't heard or seen that word used in awhile!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2011 10:18:10 GMT -6
We can look to the past for answers-or look to the future... I don't stand with the God,Guns,and Bullets crowd on this issue....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2011 10:35:35 GMT -6
I understand and agree with the additional issues you present. My post is only an attempt to address the question and issues of adding Creationism or Theology to the set of required courses within the curriculum of general education in our public schools. I'll simply state I hold the position that Creationism or Theology should not be included in the set of required courses within the curriculum of general education in our public schools, and it should be left as an option, as it is now. Okay, I just wanted to make sure that we're all mostly on the same page, and it sounds like Greek and octavarium also agree for the most part. I have several friends who are not devout believers; one is a secular humanist, one is an avowed atheist and the other is what I would probably describe as a content agnostic. However, among the three of them, they essentially take a far more extremist view of freedom from (or of) religion than I do. If it were up to them, private exercises or open displays of faith would not be allowed in government facilities or on public property (the privately funded, erected and maintained religious display in Streator's City Park at Christmastime is a sore subject despite High Court rulings where similar cases passed the litmus test). Students and teachers would not be permitted to wear religious garb to school or work, at least if they are government employees. Churches would lose tax exempt status if any remotely political topic is so much as even mentioned at an organized service. No private religious groups would be permitted to rent public facilities, such as schools, during non-operating hours, and so forth. This type of extremist viewpoint basically ignores the entire intentions of the Free Exercise Clause, but it does exist, just as there are those that almost prefer a theocracy. You're absolutely right, and I agree we have surrendered to the campaigns by extremists too often, and they have been allowed to go too far. As much as I consider incorporating Creationism/Theology in the set of required courses in our public school's general education curriculum a bad idea, on the other hand, I consider it to be a bad idea to alter the words this country was founded and remove the word "GOD" or any reference to it from all places it exists. Like it or not, take it or leave it, in this country, "one nation, under GOD", it's "in GOD we trust", and our "Pledge of Allegiance" does have a place in the classrooms. Instead of constantly appeasing and conforming ourselves and our country to the desires of extremists, I think it better the extremists find a more appropriate place to happily exist without feeling compromised. This country, "one nation under GOD" may not be the best suited place for them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2011 10:46:57 GMT -6
It's "freedom of religion"...your Dawkin's brainwashing kicked in there for a moment. I think it's largely pointless to get embroiled in arguments over semantics and etymology. If we really want to get technical, the First Amendment contains an Establishment Clause and a Free Exercise Clause where sectarian religion is concerned; there is no mention of separation of church and state, freedom of religion or freedom from religion verbatim. Individuals, organizations and even legal scholars have each interpreted the intentions of the First Amendment to be coterminous with the idea of freedom of or from religion, so arguing over what it means to various people is a dead end. In other words, if someone thinks freedom from religion means that they are to be free from the state imposing a religious canon upon them, then their interpretation of "freedom from religion" is correct. What do you think the word thereof is referring to? I and many others interpret the document to mean freedom of based on the the ideals and stated beliefs of the Founding Fathers concerning religion. "Freedom from" has a wholly different meaning and is more conducive to modern attitudes about religion, rather than those held back then. One phrase denotes an embracing of all faiths...freedom of, while the other indicates a dislike or fear of religion... to be free from. The difference in expression and meaning is very real, even if the result is "coterminous."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2011 11:11:30 GMT -6
I think it's largely pointless to get embroiled in arguments over semantics and etymology. If we really want to get technical, the First Amendment contains an Establishment Clause and a Free Exercise Clause where sectarian religion is concerned; there is no mention of separation of church and state, freedom of religion or freedom from religion verbatim. Individuals, organizations and even legal scholars have each interpreted the intentions of the First Amendment to be coterminous with the idea of freedom of or from religion, so arguing over what it means to various people is a dead end. In other words, if someone thinks freedom from religion means that they are to be free from the state imposing a religious canon upon them, then their interpretation of "freedom from religion" is correct. What do you think the word thereof is referring to? I and many others interpret the document to mean freedom of based on the the ideals and stated beliefs of the Founding Fathers concerning religion. "Freedom from" has a wholly different meaning and is more conducive to modern attitudes about religion, rather than those held back then. One phrase denotes an embracing of all faiths...freedom of, while the other indicates a dislike or fear of religion... to be free from. The difference in expression and meaning is very real, even if the result is "coterminous." Read his post again. He directly addressed the issue of my words "freedom from", and he was very clear in his post.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2011 11:12:49 GMT -6
I think it's largely pointless to get embroiled in arguments over semantics and etymology. If we really want to get technical, the First Amendment contains an Establishment Clause and a Free Exercise Clause where sectarian religion is concerned; there is no mention of separation of church and state, freedom of religion or freedom from religion verbatim. Individuals, organizations and even legal scholars have each interpreted the intentions of the First Amendment to be coterminous with the idea of freedom of or from religion, so arguing over what it means to various people is a dead end. In other words, if someone thinks freedom from religion means that they are to be free from the state imposing a religious canon upon them, then their interpretation of "freedom from religion" is correct. What do you think the word thereof is referring to? I and many others interpret the document to mean freedom of based on the the ideals and stated beliefs of the Founding Fathers concerning religion. "Freedom from" has a wholly different meaning and is more conducive to modern attitudes about religion, rather than those held back then. One phrase denotes an embracing of all faiths...freedom of, while the other indicates a dislike or fear of religion... to be free from. The difference in expression and meaning is very real, even if the result is "coterminous." Read his post again. He directly addressed the issue of my words "freedom from", and he was very clear in his posts.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2011 11:13:06 GMT -6
I think it's largely pointless to get embroiled in arguments over semantics and etymology. If we really want to get technical, the First Amendment contains an Establishment Clause and a Free Exercise Clause where sectarian religion is concerned; there is no mention of separation of church and state, freedom of religion or freedom from religion verbatim. Individuals, organizations and even legal scholars have each interpreted the intentions of the First Amendment to be coterminous with the idea of freedom of or from religion, so arguing over what it means to various people is a dead end. In other words, if someone thinks freedom from religion means that they are to be free from the state imposing a religious canon upon them, then their interpretation of "freedom from religion" is correct. What do you think the word thereof is referring to? I and many others interpret the document to mean freedom of based on the the ideals and stated beliefs of the Founding Fathers concerning religion. "Freedom from" has a wholly different meaning and is more conducive to modern attitudes about religion, rather than those held back then. One phrase denotes an embracing of all faiths...freedom of, while the other indicates a dislike or fear of religion... to be free from. The difference in expression and meaning is very real, even if the result is "coterminous." Read his posts again. He directly addressed the issue of my words "freedom from", and he was very clear in his posts.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2011 11:15:42 GMT -6
I think it's largely pointless to get embroiled in arguments over semantics and etymology. If we really want to get technical, the First Amendment contains an Establishment Clause and a Free Exercise Clause where sectarian religion is concerned; there is no mention of separation of church and state, freedom of religion or freedom from religion verbatim. Individuals, organizations and even legal scholars have each interpreted the intentions of the First Amendment to be coterminous with the idea of freedom of or from religion, so arguing over what it means to various people is a dead end. In other words, if someone thinks freedom from religion means that they are to be free from the state imposing a religious canon upon them, then their interpretation of "freedom from religion" is correct. What do you think the word thereof is referring to? I and many others interpret the document to mean freedom of based on the the ideals and stated beliefs of the Founding Fathers concerning religion. "Freedom from" has a wholly different meaning and is more conducive to modern attitudes about religion, rather than those held back then. One phrase denotes an embracing of all faiths...freedom of, while the other indicates a dislike or fear of religion... to be free from. The difference in expression and meaning is very real, even if the result is "coterminous." Read his posts again. He directly addressed the issue of my words "freedom from", and he was very clear in his posts. So where do you stand on the question of this thread?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2011 11:43:32 GMT -6
What do you think the word thereof is referring to? I and many others interpret the document to mean freedom of based on the the ideals and stated beliefs of the Founding Fathers concerning religion. "Freedom from" has a wholly different meaning and is more conducive to modern attitudes about religion, rather than those held back then. One phrase denotes an embracing of all faiths...freedom of, while the other indicates a dislike or fear of religion... to be free from. The difference in expression and meaning is very real, even if the result is "coterminous." Read his posts again. He directly addressed the issue of my words "freedom from", and he was very clear in his posts. So where do you stand on the question of this thread? I had no problem understanding what he wrote. I disagree with this part of his statement: The staus quo in our schools is fine with me.
|
|
|
Post by viper on Sept 25, 2011 12:35:29 GMT -6
What do you think the word thereof is referring to? I and many others interpret the document to mean freedom of based on the the ideals and stated beliefs of the Founding Fathers concerning religion. "Freedom from" has a wholly different meaning and is more conducive to modern attitudes about religion, rather than those held back then. One phrase denotes an embracing of all faiths...freedom of, while the other indicates a dislike or fear of religion... to be free from. The difference in expression and meaning is very real, even if the result is "coterminous." I understand your argument and why you may wish to eschew the use of "from" as opposed to the use of "of," but most only utilize freedom from to postulate that they can believe as they so choose, and not that religion has to be completely underground or that religious beliefs, practices or other forms of worship aren't allowed to be freely exercised in any public venue by believers in our society. "Prohibit the free exercise thereof" implies, in my opinion, that one is free to believe or practice as s/he sees fit. However, the Establishment Clause also protects us from having the state endorse or proscribe religious beliefs antithetical to our own will or desire, thereby implying that one is free to live his or her life outside of the confines of any one particular religious dogma, without political or legal repercussions, if so desired. So yes, as a citizen, you are free from the confines of a state church(e.g., the Anglican Church) or some sort of a state-sponsored religion. Unless the courts start asserting that freedom from implies being free from exposure to religion whatsoever, which I vehemently disagree with, then it's all interpreted in the same context as a form of intended disestablishment. If we really want to go down the road of being entirely so literal, then there is no "right to privacy," "right to a fair trial," or even a "right to freedom of association" explicitly stated in the Constitution. However, essentially everyone agrees that the Bill of Rights gives us a penumbra of synchronous guarantees that are explicitly stated in the amendments themselves, essentially meaning the same thing as those aforesaid phrases when viewed collectively.
|
|
|
Post by greekgod on Sept 25, 2011 13:37:44 GMT -6
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Viper,
Beautifully expressed.
I wholeheartedly agree.
Thank you Sir!
g
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2011 13:45:15 GMT -6
What do you think the word thereof is referring to? I and many others interpret the document to mean freedom of based on the the ideals and stated beliefs of the Founding Fathers concerning religion. "Freedom from" has a wholly different meaning and is more conducive to modern attitudes about religion, rather than those held back then. One phrase denotes an embracing of all faiths...freedom of, while the other indicates a dislike or fear of religion... to be free from. The difference in expression and meaning is very real, even if the result is "coterminous." I understand your argument and why you may wish to eschew the use of "from" as opposed to the use of "of," but most only utilize freedom from to postulate that they can believe as they so choose, and not that religion has to be completely underground or that religious beliefs, practices or other forms of worship aren't allowed to be freely exercised in any public venue by believers in our society. "Prohibit the free exercise thereof" implies, in my opinion, that one is free to believe or practice as s/he sees fit. However, the Establishment Clause also protects us from having the state endorse or proscribe religious beliefs antithetical to our own will or desire, thereby implying that one is free to live his or her life outside of the confines of any one particular religious dogma, without political or legal repercussions, if so desired. So yes, as a citizen, you are free from the confines of a state church(e.g., the Anglican Church) or some sort of a state-sponsored religion. Unless the courts start asserting that freedom from implies being free from exposure to religion whatsoever, which I vehemently disagree with, then it's all interpreted in the same context as a form of intended disestablishment. If we really want to go down the road of being entirely so literal, then there is no "right to privacy," "right to a fair trial," or even a "right to freedom of association" explicitly stated in the Constitution. However, essentially everyone agrees that the Bill of Rights gives us a penumbra of synchronous guarantees that are explicitly stated in the amendments themselves, essentially meaning the same thing as those aforesaid phrases when viewed collectively. Your argument for the "freedom from" crowd is a fairly modern one and not indicative of the intent of our Founding Fathers to express thier era's feelings about religion and God. Neither of our positions/observations change the way the issue of teaching evolution in schools is dealt with...mine just asks the reader to remember that our Constitution was not instituted in a "Godless" vacuum. The "haters" try their best to distort our Founder's beliefs in God, but ultimately fail because of the extensive amounts of written material available that is atrributed to our Framers. We can both eschew the the "literal meaning" argument out of hand due to its obvious drawbacks.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2011 13:46:49 GMT -6
coterminous.......Wow, haven't heard or seen that word used in awhile! Wow? Okay.
|
|