I'm not going to respond again to the diatribe against the ACLU since I've already done so enough. I agree with you that prohibting the colors of Xmas is ridiculous.

As for intelligent design, I actually believe in intelligent design, but maybe not the way the religious right does. In another thread I discussed my beliefs as a deist. Basically that some intelligent force created the universe and then left it alone to develop. This to me is intelligent design. I see no conflict with intelligent design and evolution. If an intelligent force created the universe, why couldn't evolution be part of that design? It makes much more sense to me that such a force created the ground rules and let those rules work.

You are correct when you say that "Freedom of Religion means to not set a specific national government (I think you meant religion)". But its not Freedom of religion that prohibits "religion from public places". Its Separatation of Church and State. That's a different issue. And that's the mistake you make. No one is stopping you from worshipping or believing what you want. The point is preventing the use public property and/or funding to promote any religion.

Also, your "irrefutable fact" is not a fact at all. I'm not sure I agree that atheism constitutes a "system of beliefs". Rather it's the ABSENCE of belief.

You complain bitterly about education not teaching enough. But you totally neglect the role of parents in this. I was not taught religion in schools, but my parents made sure I was aware of other cultures. In another post I spoke of attending the Brotherhood Synagogue. I was given books to read about different cultures. The point is, its not up to PUBLIC schools to promote religion, that's a task for the home. And if students reject the teachings it's the fault of the parents.

Finally, I must comment on your chauvanisitic statement that other religions are afraid their children will convert to Chritianity. Isn't it just as possible that christian children might choose to convert to other religions?

But the issue is Separation of Church and State. Its not prejudice or persecution of any specific religion. Its making sure that there is no hint of state support for any one religion.

Scott<>

There is this absolutely great scene in Inherit The Wind (the play based on the Scopes Monkey Trial). In the scene the character representing Clarence Darrow askes the character repesenting William Jennings Bryan how long the first day was!

Creationism is a strict interpretation of the Bible. The Bible is a set of stories handed down through the ages to account for natural phenomena. As such, to apply a strict interpretion would not seem to make sense. Creationism is based solely on religion and has no place in scientific teaching. I don't believe that the story of creation conflicts directly with evolution.

Scott<>

Another good point!

Oh? Fred's bigotry is showing again? Where was this?

Scott<>

But Scott, facts about certain issues can be found anywhere on the web, and not worth the time to re-print, or research by me.

Nice.

Very nice.

Okay, first off, we need to recognize the founding fathers _did_ have their flaws. The ideal of America is to make things _better_ not to live in the eighteenth century.

Second off, many of the founders were Deists.

Third off, I never said none of the founders were Christian. I said America was never a Christian nation. There's a difference.

No, that's just silly. Religion is based on faith, science is based on evidence and logic.

Ahem. Why don't you consult the Supreme Court about "separation of Church and State."

I missed this the first read. Yes the founding fathers were on the surface christian. But that's because colonists came from christian countries. What the founding fathers based things on was the judeo-christian ethic, not specifically christian religion. The important point is that religious freedom and separation of church and state were important to them. I was a poli sci major and I did my senior thesis on the Articles of Confederation. So I did a great deal of research into the backgrounds and thoughts of the founding fathers. I can say with confidence that founding fathers would not agree with your position.

But what really sinks you is your reference to "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. You need to learn the history of the Pledge. In fact, the Pledge was never even envisioned by the Founding Fathers. The Pedge was written in 1892 by a Baptist minister who was expressing the ideas of his cousin, a utopian socialist! The original Pledge did NOT include "Under God". That was added in 1954 based on a campaign by the Knights of Columbus. According to surviving relatives of the original author he would have objected to that change.

Scott<>

Up until you got to the point of separation of Church and State you were basically right, it is often sad to see educated people having been taught this falsehood. Indeed they wanted the church to be protected from the state, but there is no, and never was historicly a separation of Church and State. Indeed, cities were designed with the church as the main part of the city. All of the education system of the early nation was all religious.
And the major universities were all relgious based.

God was thanked for all the things he had done for our nation in almost ever form.

The separation statement not done until Thomas Jeffererson, in a speech, never in law, was again based for the protection of the Church.

But even on the forming of our nation, there was never true religious freedom, The Church of England was basically an enemy church and members had to form a new church since membership in the Church of England required loyalty to the King of England. So they were not free in their religious belief during the revolutionary war.

The idea of a plege, and other added things the US has is indeed added, but even then the fact that our government felt we were based under God at that time in history even adds how much more the US was faith based still to that time. It has only been recently when our nation has tried to remove God from its teaching.

And in doing so, also trying to re-write history by changing the base of God's role in the forming of our nation, and the faith of its founders.

But then those of extreme liberal nature are also re-writing or at least finding new meanings to the bible itself to justify their personal beleifs and ideas.

So to with the doing away with religion in schools, court houses and public display, they are reaching into individual teachings of some of the founding fathers, the influence of laws of varoius other nations as an outline to determine what they want the words of the constitution to say.

And even then, in most cases the votes in the Supreme Court are normally very split, which means that the idea being voted on is not agreed to as correct merely an opinion based on their beliefs.
So in general the same ruling, if a case came back with a new court may easily be found to go the other direction.

That's a good piece of news that I did not know and very interesting. I always enjoyed the pledge, though. Thanks for the added info.
http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/16/16_11_7.gif

And we used to have slavery but we have evolved. Same story here.

Have we really did away with it?

We keep people on food stamps ( cards now)
State provided health care under medicade programs for the poor

For others we keep them in low paying jobs where one person can not earn enough to live on their own at any decent level.

In general we now merely have a paid form of slavery. If you have a family you can not really just quit a job, you have to stay since you can not afford to leave.

If you want to move, can't, no money to pay movers, pay first and last months.

We have inslaved an entire new level of people, only they believe they are entitled now.

One only has to drive a street of any inner city to see the new slave quarters of America, they are either slaves to the welfare system or slaves to the drug culture ( perhaps to both)

If we "let them free" like we did the slaves, give them pay for a certain amount of time only and pay for certain housing, and said, you are free, you are free, go live. I doubt it would be considered a good thing today.

Society have not evolved into anything really good, only change their gods and their masters of slaverly.

Slavery of any man is never a good thing but we have done a fairly bad job worring more lately of individual rights over group rights and the betterment of a culture. The idea of our nation being a Republic is completely forgotten most young people don't even know it, they believe we are a democracy.

I sit here shaking my head at how you twist a few facts to get to a conclusion that is so against historical fact.

The First Amendment states; "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." . James Madison, one of the more influential framers of the Constitution stated: "We maintain therefore that in matters of Religion, no man's right is abridged by the institution of Civil Society and that Religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance." If that doesn't confirm that the intention was to keep separate the church and state, I don't know what does!

City planning is a more modern idea. In point of fact, most urban areas grew from trading posts or military forts that were established by rivers or crossroads. Most people didn't live in cities, but in farms lying around them. Churches grew when enough people populated an area to decide to build one.

Yes, the early education system was religion based. That's because it was mostly the clergy that was literate. So education was traditionally a function of the church. It was the US that pioneered education as a matter of a public service and under civil not religious authority. Again reflecting the doctrine of separation of church and state.

I just read your response to Need and the mind boggles at how far off you are.

We "keep" people on food stamps? Welfare reform has greatly advanced in the last couple of decades. The welfare rolls have been significantly reduced by education and work programs. No one is "kept" on food stamps. That's an individual's choice.

Public health care programs are a socialistic function not keeping people in slavery. To say otherwise is ridiculous. There are many stories of people rising above poor beginnings to become successful. To attribute a conscious act of keeping people down as a form of economic slavery is hate mongering in my opinion.

Scott<>

When the constitution refers to separation of church and state it relates to that organization that would suggest a specific religion.. . A school should not enforce prayer, a business should not mandate religious meetings, you should not be discriminated against for your religion.. . It does not say that anyone person should not pray in a school during school hours or that an employee can not make or attend a chrismas dinner or that you have to be of a certain religion to get hired some where. It says what it says to protect the right of an individuals FREEDOM to CHOOSE.. . if a school leads prayer you can say that the one not wanting to pray doesn't have the freedom not to.. . if a company mandates employee participation to some Christmas dinner, you could say that the person not wanting to does not have the freedom not to.. . In American you can practice religon ANYWHERE.. . but as a country based of "freedom of choice" you can not orchestrate any religion in a place where another person may not have the right not to participate or feel obligated or pressured to engage in the activities that encompass that practice. I find it ironic that all kinds of things are being banned because of the "christian" reference, but I have yet to hear of anyone complain about slogan on U.S. currency IN GOD WE TRUST.

Hi, Wilkinslaedi,
You make a very, very good point with the currency of America.
I am sure that will be, sooner or later, pounded on by the ACLU and other minority organizations, with court cases before judges of their choice, who make rulings against God, American values and morals, and religions.

Very good comment about currency.

The use of In God We Trust on currency has been around for a long time. If the ACLU or anyone wanted to protest this, I suspect they would have done so by now.

I do agree that it may be offensive to atheists, but since it doesn't specify which god we are supposed to trust in, it is sufficiently non sectarian.

I notice, however, that Fred ignores all the other EXCELLENT points that wilkinslaedi makes. He has put in a nutshell what I have been trying to get across. He explains simply enough, so everyone should be able to understand it, what separation of church and state means and why it is unconstitutional to allow civil authority to promote any specific religion.

Scott<>

IN RESPONSE TO FR_CHUCK I thought the initial post was about Christmas colors in public schools, and the ACLU... but this has gotten to be a debate further into the deep frustrations of people today. There are so many 'organizations' (most of them are really crutches of a sort) that have cropped up due to these fears and frustrations; i.e. KKK, ACLU, Women's Movements, Masons, religions, sects, terrorist groups, and more.. SOME GOOD AND SOME BAD, SOME HALF AND HALF...


This planet is our home, and we seem to be a very unhappy family on it, and those weak ones who don't join or start a new group, turn to drugs, alcohol, psychosis, just as a means of escape - so something is wrong with the 'reality' they are forced to comply with. What's wrong? Has anyone really cared, or just used all of these situations to get on soapboxes and put themselves above others just to feel better. Too bad this family of siblings just can't yell at each other, get the problem over with and join together at a table as any normal family. There is also micromanaging, corporate competition, industrial spying, and even mobbing at the workplace among other things. Why?


As in every family, some rules have to be followed and we look upon the 'parents' to set these rules. But the 'parents of this world' are too busy to take care of the basic needs of the family. They are responsible for the financial security - therefore jobs, to pay taxes, and feed the personal, physical and emotional needs of this big family. The 'world parents' don't think about equall allowance for all because some of the 'children' do less 'chores' and therefore get less allowance. Some 'children' are just plain lazy but still want what everyone else gets, and sometimes more - if they don't get it, they throw tantrums. Does this sound familiar?? Now the circle continues, as those 'children' who work for this allowance honestly, see the lazy ones get the same benefits, and start thinking why should they work for something and let the other get it for free... Does this ring a bell?? And yes, as in every family, there are sometimes Abusive Parents...

I don't think it's 'slavery' to ask a family member to do his/her fair share within this family, but since the kids are so many, and not enough money to spread around, food is better than starving. If these hungry kids don't get taught values and have kids of their own and expect them to be fed and get their toys for free too. I don't think a small allowance is bad for doing nothing to contribute.

Those that like doing their chores and enjoy the rewards see this and think about putting their hard earned allowance in a safe stash and not share it and turn thrifty. Why? - because when they did share it, it was wasted on unnecessary materialistic products, and then were asked for more because food was then needed. Boy, what a terrrible viscious circle..

Now if those lazy kids get hurt, and there is no more money for doctors, a bandaid is better than nothing, so why complain? If you didn't need that expensive stereo, rings, etc, you'd have money for the doctor.. so if you don't learn how to bake, you can't expect to have your cake and eat it too. Get the meaning??

If kids want to 'run' away from home, do they know where they want to go, what they want to learn, and did they save a little in preparation for this trip? Do they think that if they take the TV with them, they can just plug it in anywhere and continue without doing chores elsewhere? We are talking about values here...

If a farmer does not prepare his crops in time, he will starve in the winter. Should he expect his neighboring farmer to feed him? Come on.. you don't deserve what you don't work for.

Work is needed to keep things going and pay taxes for the future nourishment, but if every kid is lazy or sneaky, and does not pay their fair share, then that tax bin is empty - don't blame it on others.

Once you've been around and see what other 'parents of this world' are doing with the funds available, and see how many mouth's they have to feed and how they are coping with the kids that never 'contribute' and those that work hard, without going crazy, then you can make judgements. Take each country and look what their 'dad' is doing, and what some of the 'older kids' in the family have done, good or bad. Look at the rationality of it all - and then complain about Christmas lights and colors... I think 'perspective' has been lost here somewhere. This is only my opinion and I could be wrong, but so is a lot of stuff with this world.. and I think that this is how I would explain the situation to a 'grandchild' at this point to make some sense of the mess. I still don't know how to explain the solution though, do you?? I do feel however, that it's time to stop arguing for a while...

You go girl!

I debated with myself about responding to the quote below. I agree with much of what you have said, so I initially decided to pass on this comment. But it kind of gnawed at me and I felt the need to say something.

This is one of the reasons I do not believe in organized religion. So many sects, especially christian sects, are based on the hell and damnation theory of religion. They teach fear of god as a basic principle. To me that's just plain wrong. If there is a god watching us, listening to our prayers, etc then that god would be a benevolent being. Religion should be teaching love, respect, brotherhood, tolerance, not fear. The saying goes you get more results with a carrot than a stick.

Scott<>