Global Warming?

[toppop52]

I agree with that. Am I not complying with that?

Yes you are, you aren't the one ignoring any theory or possibility that doesn't go along with a preconceived notion.

 

[toppop52]

What part of "It seems reasonable to look at the actions and writings of the founding fathers in order to apply the Constitution's intent to the changing world" is hard to understand. Jefferson's letters and actions give a clear indication of his intent and his feeling that Government should not get involved in Religion.

Loren

His letters make it clear, but they are after the fact and not part of the document as written. The original simply says the government is not to promote or deny. In other words, not to interfere.

 

[turnkey4099]

His letters make it clear, but they are after the fact and not part of the document as written. The original simply says the government is not to promote or deny. In other words, not to interfere.

So "not to interfere" means? No laws against promoting religion in public schools, for example?

The supremes have made clear rulings and there is no confusion on just when an government agency has stepped over the line.

Harry K

 

[turnkey4099]

But to be a good person of science ALL must be considered on equal basis until disproven/proven.

All? Leprechauns? Santa? Science goes where the evidence leads - they don't study stuff that has zero evidence for its existance.

Harry K

 

[madmax12]

So "not to interfere" means? No laws against promoting religion in public schools, for example?

The supremes have made clear rulings and there is no confusion on just when an government agency has stepped over the line.

Harry K

How the constitution is interpreted has been a changing position. The phrase "living" constitution has made its way into the judgements. Those promoting this new way of interpretation are, coincidentally...on the left, progressive side.

The presence of genuine faith in the Supreme Being, and man being ultimately responsible to Him, is in other founding documents. Jefferson had a genuine belief in Him. He may have respected other's beliefs, but he had his own firmly held faith in The Creator.

While it would be speculative, on my part, I have a hard time seeing Jefferson on the side of the progressive movement. That is the movement fully pushing the two dominant "science" subjects of this thread in the school system. They fight just as hard for gun control, womb death, teen ***, and gender confusion.

Pulling Jefferson to the side of the progressives is disingenuous.

Also, a position clearly present in this thread, is that the faith of the founding fathers is from a time of stupidity...when people were scientifically in the dark. In my opposition's view, had the founding fathers had the benefit of today's knowledge, the documents would all be very different. That view, is what the "living" constitution interpretation is all about. Pretend the founders would have been modern day progressives, in their thinking...and make the constitution say that.

It's a modern day attempt at reinterpreting history...and changing it. Evolution is just a small piece of that progressive puzzle. Interesting that the two thoughts are from the 1800's.

 

[Loren49]

This article investigates Jefferson's religion:
Jefferson's Religious Beliefs « Thomas Jefferson
-------------------------------------

His personal religious beliefs are not the issue here. His actions and opinions which support the separation of Church and State is the point. It doesn't matter whether he would be classified as a conservative or a progressive. Where in this thread was Jefferson being promoted as a progressive? The point is that it is not a function of government to promote a religion. Does anyone have an example of a nation with a State sponsored religion that is a model to try to replicate?
------------------------------------

MadMax12 quote:"The presence of genuine faith in the Supreme Being, and man being ultimately responsible to Him, is in other founding documents. Jefferson had a genuine belief in Him. He may have respected other's beliefs, but he had his own firmly held faith in The Creator."
----------------------
Not sure he was the Christian you have described though it really is not relavent to his feelings on Church and State:
--------------------------------
Jefferson Quote:
Thus in the spirit of the Enlightenment, he made the following recommendation to his nephew Peter Carr in 1787: "Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must more approve the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear."[1]

"The rights of conscience we never submitted, we could not submit. We are answerable for them to our God. The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. ... Reason and free enquiry are the only effectual agents against error.[2]

Jefferson believed in the existence of a Supreme Being who was the creator and sustainer of the universe and the ultimate ground of being, but this was not the triune deity of orthodox Christianity. He also rejected the idea of the divinity of Christ, but as he writes to William Short on October 31, 1819, he was convinced that the fragmentary teachings of Jesus constituted the "outlines of a system of the most sublime morality which has ever fallen from the lips of man."

On June 25, 1819, he wrote to Ezra Stiles Ely, "I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know."

--------------------------------------------------------

Schools should teach science along with other academic disciplines and stay out of religious beliefs.

 

[toppop52]

So "not to interfere" means? No laws against promoting religion in public schools, for example?

The supremes have made clear rulings and there is no confusion on just when an government agency has stepped over the line.

Harry K

Your words, not mine! Not promoting or curtailing religion, how much simpler can it be to understand? Unless of course ones agenda makes it appear cloudy on a unny day.

 

[toppop52]

So "not to interfere" means? No laws against promoting religion in public schools, for example?

The supremes have made clear rulings and there is no confusion on just when an government agency has stepped over the line.

Harry K

Your words, not mine! Not promoting or curtailing religion, how much simpler can it be to understand? Unless of course ones agenda makes it appear cloudy on a sunny day.

 

[turnkey4099]

Your words, not mine! Not promoting or curtailing religion, how much simpler can it be to understand? Unless of course ones agenda makes it appear cloudy on a sunny day.

Come on, don't be coy. Define whatd you mean by "curtailing religion". Not allowed to promote shcool prayer part of it?

Harry K

 

[tungularafishcamp]

Being a birdwatcher, I once looked up past Christmas count records for Maine (early part of the last century) regarding the Cardinal. It was generally absent from Maine counts through to the period of the 1960's. After then it showed only in southern Maine. In increments it has shifted north and is occurring in counts as far north as Dover Foxcroft (45+ lat- level+ with top of NH,VT) with a regularity. This mirrors the warming climate. It is unable to survive the temps/climate that were previously the norm, but those temps/climate are not the norm anymore. There were just a few days last winter where it dropped below 0 in my area. It was not so unusual for the temps to remain below 0 for a month at a time, or a week of -25. The cardinal inhabits the range at which it is able to survive. It also breeds here in the summer now.
The old Maine Christmas Counts did not have the Cardinal recorded because it was too cold for them. It nolonger is for them. Now they are here. - Observable examples of global warming. (There are other species following the same trend-robins + Tufted Titmouse).

Might that not just because of more people=more bird feeders=more and different bird survival rates??

 

[toppop52]

Come on, don't be coy. Define whatd you mean by "curtailing religion". Not allowed to promote shcool prayer part of it?

Harry K

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ...."

If I want to pray in school, out loud or otherwise, so long as it's not during class time, that says I can, it doesn't say I have to or that others should, just that I can.

 

[Egon]

Uh; having discussions on water density, it's cause and effect could be more interesting!

 

[toppop52]

Uh; having discussions on water density, it's cause and effect could be more interesting!

Why H20's viscosity changes below 32 degrees Fahrenheit, and how to marginalize those effects....

 

[IslandTractor]

If I want to pray in school, out loud or otherwise, so long as it's not during class time, that says I can, it doesn't say I have to or that others should, just that I can.

I don't believe that the most ardent atheist would argue that an individual cannot offer a non disruptive individual prayer in a public school. That has never been the issue. The constitutional battle has been over group prayer led by a teacher or other person.

 

[toppop52]

I don't believe that the most ardent atheist would argue that an individual cannot offer a non disruptive individual prayer in a public school. That has never been the issue. The constitutional battle has been over group prayer led by a teacher or other person.

Why doesn't the teacher and any group of students wishing to do so have the same rights?

 

[Gator6x4]

I for one am glad the courts removed government sponsored or mandated religion from our schools.

I attended school prior to the US Supreme Court’s decision on State sponsored prayer in schools. I have had the opportunity to observe State Sponsored Religion in action in a public school environment.

The school I attended had a policy where each day a different student on a rotational basic had to stand in front of the class and lead the class in a Christian prayer. Failure to do so resulted in corporal punishment.

Do I think any child should be subjected to such treatment? No I do not. Will I demand and support bringing criminal charges against anyone who practices such a medieval promotion of a religious belief, YES.

I wonder what parents would say if a school age child of today came home and told them he was beaten because he refused to lead the class in the five times daily prayers of a middle east religious belief.

If parents feel religion and prayer is so important in their children’s life teach it at home. Better yet instead of hanging out in a bar on Saturday night stay at home and take children to a church on Sunday morning.

Given the number and diverse religious beliefs in the United States we all need to remember one thing, “Our rights, religious or otherwise ends where someone’s else begins”. Because we put our left shoe on first every time does not make our religious or individual rights truncate, diminish or negate the rights of others.

 

[EE_Bota]

I for one am glad the courts removed government sponsored or mandated religion from our schools.

I attended school prior to the US Supreme Court’s decision on State sponsored prayer in schools. I have had the opportunity to observe State Sponsored Religion in action in a public school environment.

The school I attended had a policy where each day a different student on a rotational basic had to stand in front of the class and lead the class in a Christian prayer. Failure to do so resulted in corporal punishment.

Do I think any child should be subjected to such treatment? No I do not. Will I demand and support bringing criminal charges against anyone who practices such a medieval promotion of a religious belief, YES.

I wonder what parents would say if a school age child of today came home and told them he was beaten because he refused to lead the class in the five times daily prayers of a middle east religious belief.

If parents feel religion and prayer is so important in their children’s life teach it at home. Better yet instead of hanging out in a bar on Saturday night stay at home and take children to a church on Sunday morning.

Given the number and diverse religious beliefs in the United States we all need to remember one thing, “Our rights, religious or otherwise ends where someone’s else begins”. Because we put our left shoe on first every time does not make our religious or individual rights truncate, diminish or negate the rights of others.

I don't think anyone in this discussion would be on board with state sponsored forced prayer.

 

[2LaneCruzer]

Uh; having discussions on water density, it's cause and effect could be more interesting!

I agree. I served in a British Thermal Unit during WWII, so I am more than qualified. I have experience with tensiometers, calorimeters, viscometers, thermometers and densitometers. I also drink the stuff, pump it, spray it and bath in it. I even add a bit of it to my rum and Coke in its crystilline, solid form. AND I would venture that TBN members are much more experienced with it than with the science of global warming.

 

[Gator6x4]

I don't think anyone in this discussion would be on board with state sponsored forced prayer.

When you have a person in the position of "TEACHER" or someone else employed by the State, County, City or School District standing in front of a group of students or others and leading the group in prayer, you have State Sponsored Religion.

 

[Loren49]

If I want to pray in school, out loud or otherwise, so long as it's not during class time, that says I can, it doesn't say I have to or that others should, just that I can.

Silent prayer has never been in question. Now, what would be the motivation to pray out loud in a public school other than to draw attention to one's holiness or to try to convince others? After 20 years in the public school I would find audible prayers in the classroom or hallway a problem. A group that meets at school for that purpose is not a problem. There was a group at my school that met around the flagpole to pray (I assume) before homeroom in the morning. If the group met in a hallway at that time of day it would be disruptive. Any meeting in the hallway would be a problem if the level of the communitcation was too high.
There is also a level of noise on a public sidewalk that would be a problem.

Your interpretaion of "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ...." is also a problem. We have free speech yet cannot holler "fire" in some settings anymore than disruptive praying or proselytizing in a school hallway.

Loren