Freedom of Religion is its Own Enemy

World Wide Web ^ | 5/26/05 | Henry R. Sturman

[Fester Chugabrew]

Amazing what one can learn when they read a book.

Amazing what one can learn without reading a book, too. Not only so, but it is amazing how many books misrepresent the facts. Who ever reads a book and accepts its declarative statements as true without verifying the propositions lives by faith that the propositions are true.

A child's story begins with the words "There once was an ugly duckling." Is that statement one of fact, or one of fiction, or both? How do we know for sure which answer is best rooted in reality?

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Not only so, but it is amazing how many books misrepresent the facts. Who ever reads a book and accepts its declarative statements as true without verifying the propositions lives by faith that the propositions are true."

So you have personally verified the declarative statements of the Bible, including the creation stories of Genesis, the Ark, Flood, and so on? Please tell us of your personal observations in these matters.

And please give us ANY evidence that the earth is hollow.

[orionblamblam]

> I can use sense

Good! Now, excercise that skill.

[Right Wing Professor]

Continental Congress On Sept. 11, 1777 approved the import of 20,000 copies of the Holy Bible, in response to the shortage caused by the Revolutionary War. "The use of the Bible is so universal and its importance so great that your committee refers the above to the consideration of Congress, and if Congress shall not think it expedient to order the importation of types and paper, the Committee recommends that Congress will order the Committee of Commerce to import 20,000 Bibles from Holland, Scotland, or elsewhere, into the different parts of the States of the Union. Whereupon it was resolved accordingly to direct said Committee of Commerce to import 20,000 copies of the Bible." Link Our Founding Fathers opened the first Congress in prayer and the first Congress approved importing or printing 20,000 Bibles and now, revisionist and activist judges tell us we cannot let children pray in school or read Bible stories.

This story's on Christian websites all over the net. It's at best incomplete. Here's a nicely researched piece .(Scroll down to 'TIMELINE').

What actually happened: a three-man committee advanced a resolution to recommend the purchase. Congress voted narrowly (7-6) to approve a resolution directing another Committee to purchase the bibles, but apparently never acted on it, being busy, as the link says, 'prosecuting a war of some sort'.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Congress voted narrowly (7-6) to approve a resolution directing another Committee to purchase the bibles, but apparently never acted on it, being busy, as the link says, 'prosecuting a war of some sort'."


Obviously the rebel scum lost the war after this turn away from God and the Bible. It's been moral degeneracy ever since.

lol

[Fester Chugabrew]

Well, if you wanted to do away with public schools, forcing them to teach whatever lunacy any freak wants taught would be one way to destroy them.

There are more ways than you might realize I am on your side. Given the general population one may well wonder whether public schools represent the sum of ignorance. I happen to think the things we contend over - between you and me - can be a part of general education without either of us accusing the other of preaching the "lunacy of freaks." At the same time, it is not lost on me that a certain "lunacy of freaks" is out there, among whom are willing participants flying passenger aircraft into populated skyscrapers for their cause.

A tone of civility must attend those occasions where science and theology appear to be at odds. We happen to live in a country where civil contemplation over ideas is welcomed. Although the propositions of the proponents of intelligent design may appear preposterous from your point of view (which point of view I am not not willing to dismiss arbitrarily, even as a young earth creationist who appears to you as one who champions ignorance), they are worth sounding out into the reason and senses of all interested observers in order that they might be evaluated on their own merits.

It pains me to see the force of law brought to bear on what ought, or ought not, be spoken out for individuals to consider for themselves. I do not want the voice of dogmatic evolutionists silenced, but I would certainly hope for an atmosphere in which it could be challenged without the interference of judges and legislatures.

Based on past history, however, I am given to believe that a kind of mob spirit would squelch any serious dialogue between either party. At any rate, despite my own belief, it would be less than charitable of me to blurt out that any and every dogmatic evolutionist is a "lunacy freak." Deception and pride do not advertise themselves as such. Moon Bats are the last to realize they don't quite fit into the scheme of normalcy. That's okay. They have something to say, and it might just be the absolute truth.

[Fester Chugabrew]

So you have personally verified the declarative statements of the Bible . . .

No more than you have personally verified and proven the heliocentric theory of the solar system. But I have fairly well verified there exist the heavens and the earth, and that these demonstrate an order and arrangement far above my capacities as an intelligent being.

[Fester Chugabrew]

And please give us ANY evidence that the earth is hollow.

Ever heard of "caves"? You know, the "cavemen" and all that? That's more evidence for a hollow earth than you'll ever give as evidence that there are neither heavens nor earth, and that either of the above could arise completely apart from intelligence or design. What evidence do you have that you are a product of nothing that entails intelligence or design? I don't see it. You we're able to type an intelligent post to me and I understood it. I even know you are human. How did nature make that happen without the use of any intelligence or design? Evidence, please.

[DocRock]

"This story's on Christian websites all over the net. It's at best incomplete."

The link to Internet Infidels was well researched. However, my comment is "at best" complete. I will agree that it can be found on numerous Christian websites, but it can also be found in the Library of Congress site HERE. (Scroll about 2/3 down the page.)

Strange coincidence about the Sept 11th date.

[qam1]

In 1962-63 there was an incredible jump in violent crime, increasing over 650%.

Do you have a link for that assertion or are you lying and just making stuff up?

Looks like you're lying because here are the crime rates from 1960-2002.

The rates have been trending up prior to 1963 but there is no where near the big jump you describe (Notice murder & rape rates didn't change at all from 1962-1963 )

There was also a dramatic drop in SAT scores, sending a once steady 965-980 national average through the floor, dropping for over fifteen years,

Link please!!!

Here are the average SAT scores from 1966-2002

finally ending at 890.

The lowest ever was in 1980 at 994 so you are just making stats up

Child abuse shot through the roof; from being unknown to involving nearly five percent of the population, and decades later, it is still on its tremendous rise.

Link please!!

Most likely child abuse has always been a problem but in the past it was never reported.

Why such an incredible drop in national morality?

2 Words - Baby Boomers

In the court case Engle v. Vitale(1962), school prayer was removed.......Our nation is in trouble. As Washington said in his presidential speech, "The propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected upon a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained."

Then explain the following real (not made up like yours) statistics

From 1991 to 2001, The Number of the non-religious doubled in number while at the same time the number calling themselves Christians declined by 10% this decline in Christianity is especially seen in young people.

Yet the even though the younger generations are the most unchristian violent crime rate has declined through this period, as well as The pregnancy rate for unmarried women has continuously declined through the 1990s and the abortion rate dropped by about 25 percent for both married and unmarried women through the 1990s , The teen Pregnancy Rate Reached a Record Low, More Teenagers are saying no to sex and Drug use by teenagers continues to decline.

Now if being force fed religion had anything to do with being moral, As the country (especially the young) turns more & more secular wouldn't the trends be going in the opposite direction.

Here is two articles for ya' on how the morailty of young people in our country is improving greatly

Rush Limbaugh on the Next Generation and It's the Morning after in America

You will notice 1 thing missing from both articles, Religion.

Sorry but Christianity doesn't equal morals and if it vanishes from America it will have no bearing on the morals of our country.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"No more than you have personally verified and proven the heliocentric theory of the solar system."

So you are a COMPLETE irrationalist? Unlike you, I understand that we were born with a brain that enables us to reason. I don't HAVE to personally observe everything in nature in order to be able to evaluate evidence that something is the way it is. I don't HAVE to travel to China to know that a place call China exists. It is not faith that convinces me, it is reason. Copernicus and Galileo did not have to travel into outer space to know that the earth traveled around the sun; there was plenty of evidence for it, and evidence against an earth centered solar system. And the evidence for the sun centered solar system was only grown while the evidence for the earth centered one has been disproved.

YOU were the one who was saying how foolish it was to believe anything from a book unless you had personally witnessed the events.

"But I have fairly well verified there exist the heavens and the earth, and that these demonstrate an order and arrangement far above my capacities as an intelligent being."

How did you verify this? And how does this verify ANYTHING in the Bible, a book whose events you have never witnessed firsthand yet you believe anyway. In your own words,

"So you merely believe what those studies have preached to you...It may be inconvenient, but unless you do so (personally observe the events in question--my addition; C.C.) you are only believing what other people have told you."

You have never observed the events in Genesis, therefore, you believe them because you were told to believe them.

"Ever heard of "caves"? You know, the "cavemen" and all that? That's more evidence for a hollow earth than you'll ever give as evidence that there are neither heavens nor earth, and that either of the above could arise completely apart from intelligence or design."

1) You DO realize that caves are only on the earth's crust right? We know from numerous methods that the earth is not hollow. The best evidence comes from seismic readings:

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20050418/earthcore.html

2) I have never said that there is no Earth or that there is evidence that there is no Earth. The heavens? I haven't been to any yet, though a few Calculus classes in high school did seem like a hell dimension. As for Universe, I never said it didn't exist either. Neither the existence of the Earth or the Universe verifies the stories in Genesis. Certainly the existence of both say nothing about the origins of either. Remember, you weren't there when it happened, and since you don't believe in reason but only direct observation, you are only believing stories that were handed down to you.

"What evidence do you have that you are a product of nothing that entails intelligence or design?"

Evolution IS design. It just doesn't require an intelligent being to drive it. Since I know you already have seen evidence that supports evolution in numerous threads here, you demand for evidence is not sincere. You believe what you were told from a book you can never verify. You are a sheep. I believe what reason demands. Nonetheless, here is some evidence:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

[N. Beaujon]

This is a bunch of B.S. First of all this guy isnt articulating our founding fathers he's parroting the Lemon Test from Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971).

Religion shouldn't be taught in our public schools....Do you want your kids being taught the Koran? While I agree Evolution is a theory it has basis in scientific fact. Creationism is a religious belief. It should be mentioned but if you start teaching creationism in school you open the door wide for every religion. That's what religious schooling, churches and home influences are for. Keep religous teachings out of the school because, God forbid, some Mullah gets his claws into your kids' developing mind. There would be no end to that slippery slope.

[N. Beaujon]

As to 2. Most people think public schools should teach certain things other than science, such as physical education, moral education, sexual conduct, political ideas, social skills... political correctness..."

These are exactly the things that should NOT be taught in our public schools. How about "reading, writing and 'rithmatic", instead? It's when we strayed from these programs that we got ourselves into an objectivist, post-modern nightmare. Today, we turn out functional illiterates because we don't teach things that are grounded in fact. This guys case for teaching religion in school is just mindbogglingly dumb and his arguments are completely lacking in scholarship.

[Fester Chugabrew]

. . . I understand that we were born with a brain that enables us to reason.

I never claimed that you have come to whatever beliefs you have by apart from either reason or evaluating evidence. Evaluating evidence is not the same as direct observation. How many people claim to know the earth revolves the sun, when in fact they have no evidence except what is written in scholarly books?

"But I have fairly well verified there exist the heavens and the earth, and that these demonstrate an order and arrangement far above my capacities as an intelligent being." . . . How did you verify this? And how does this verify ANYTHING in the Bible, a book whose events you have never witnessed firsthand yet you believe anyway. . . .

With respect to the first set of knowlege, I verified these things the same way you verified you were born with a brain that enables you to reason. I didn't have to read about it in a book. Some things appear to be self-evident and are capable of direct observation. The presence of earth and sky happen to be two examples. The condition of the center of the earth has never been the subject of direct observation on my part, though I am told orionblamblam has visited the place. My reason tends to reject his report as fictitious.

With respect to the second set of knowledge, namely those things written in the canonical scriptures, I believe them for four reasons. 1.) They have been delivered to me after a history of careful preservation (thus indicating they are not intended as a Dr. Suess book, and 2.) I have yet to find any of their statements to be wholly contrary to possibility. There are other reasons, but I'd rather be short on the math since, in some intelligent circles, 1 + 1 = 4.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

It was landmark U.S. Supreme Court precedent Reynolds v. United States in 1878 that made "separation of church and state" a dubiously legitimate point of case law, but more importantly; it confirmed the Constitutionality in statutory regulation of marriage practices.

Ironic isn't it?

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

It was landmark U.S. Supreme Court precedent Reynolds v. United States in 1878 that made "separation of church and state" a dubiously legitimate point of case law, but more importantly; it confirmed the Constitutionality in statutory regulation of marriage practices.

Congress, state legislatures and public referenda have statutorily determined polygamous, pederast, homosexual, and incestuous marriages are unlawful. No Constitutional Amendment restricting marriage is required to regulate "practice" according to the Reynolds decision.

Marriage is a religious "rite," not a civil "right;" a secular standard of human reproductive biology united with the Judaic Adam and Eve model of monogamy in creationist belief. Two homosexuals cannot be "monogamous" because the word denotes a biological procreation they are not capable of together; human reproductive biology is an obvious secular standard.

All adults have privilege to marry one consenting adult of opposite gender; therefore, Fourteenth Amendment "equal protection" argument about "privileges and immunities" for homosexual marriage is invalid. Driving, marriage, legal and medical practices are not enumerated rights; they are privileged practices that require statutory license. Nothing that requires a license is a right.

Homosexual monogamy advocates are a cult of perversion seeking ceremonious sanctification for voluntary deviancy with anatomical function and desperately pursuing esoteric absolution to justify their guilt-ridden egos. This has no secular standard; it is an idolatrous fetish. Why not properly apply the adjudicated Reynolds 'separation of church and state' here?

No person can logically say that carnal practices engaged by homosexuals are consistent with human anatomical function. It is obvious, and an impervious secular argument to say that biology is a standard by which we can measure. The hormonal drive to mate is biologically heterosexual.

Morality and all of its associated concepts are from the belief that some higher power is defining the correctness of human behavior. It is apparent some people still worship idols in this day and age. Should we really be canonizing special societal privileges in the law based on a person's idolatrous fetishes? Whatever happened to the ‘separation of church and state’? Perhaps homosexual monogamy advocates could conclave to enshrine their own phantasmal state religion and consecrate Michael Jackson as its first Pope!

Today, "morals" are a religious pagan philosophy of esoteric hobgoblins. Transfiguration is a pantheon of fantasies as the medium of infinitization. Others get derision for having an unwavering Judaic belief in Yahweh or Yeshua, although their critics and enemies will evangelize insertion of phantasmagoric fetishisms into secular law.

Was Freudian psychoanalytic theory of sexual stages in psychological development more accurate than accredited? The Michael Jackson Complex is fixation on mutilation of and deviance with human anatomy in the media. It is a social psychosis catering to the lowest common denominator and generated with Pavlovian behavioral conditioning in popular culture.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"All adults have privilege to marry one consenting adult of opposite gender;"

No, it is a right. There is nowhere in the Constitution where the government is given the authority to regulate marriage. If it isn't in the Constitution, the government does NOT have the authority to do it. We are not granted privileges with the Constitution, the Government is given restrictions on its powers. The bill of rights is just an acknowledgment of a few of our rights, it is not a list of the only rights we have.

"Driving, marriage, legal and medical practices are not enumerated rights; they are privileged practices that require statutory license. Nothing that requires a license is a right."

No, they are rights. Licenses for driving only are enforced on public roads. I can drive all I want on my own land, with no license from any government. As for legal and medical licenses, they are just an unconstitutional infringement on the rights of lawyers and doctors to practice freely. They were made to protect the established professions (like most professional licensee's) from competition. The Constitution (US or state) does not give the government the authority to regulate who can or can't practice law or medicine.

"Morality and all of its associated concepts are from the belief that some higher power is defining the correctness of human behavior. It is apparent some people still worship idols in this day and age."


Which higher power? Yours? Mine? Bin Laden's? It's one thing for you to believe something is wrong; it's another to think you have the right to force someone else to live as you demand when their actions do not infringe on your life, liberty, or property. It's none of your business.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Some things appear to be self-evident and are capable of direct observation. The presence of earth and sky happen to be two examples."

What is that is self-evident though? Is it self evident that the stars are light-years away and are suns like ours? (yes, I know that there are many kinds of stars). Self evidence is NOT a good guide to scientific concepts, because what is often taken to be self evident (flat earth, earth centered universe, stars are small and completely different than the sun...) is totally wrong.

"With respect to the second set of knowledge, namely those things written in the canonical scriptures, I believe them for four reasons. 1.) They have been delivered to me after a history of careful preservation (thus indicating they are not intended as a Dr. Suess book, and 2.) I have yet to find any of their statements to be wholly contrary to possibility. "

The fact that something (the bible) is old does not mean it is right. The Iliad is old too, in many parts older than the bible, yet I do not take it as historical (however much it may be based loosely on early Greek historical events). Authority is not advanced through the age of the book. The point was that you ridiculed someone for reading books when they could not personally verify what was in them, but when you defend the absurdities of the creations stories in Genesis, you resort to blind faith because the book was what you were told to believe even though parts defy logic (the ark, flood, Cain and Abel's wives, the whole human race coming from 2 people when genetic inbreeding would have quickly killed them off...). If the Bible said 1+1=4, you would have no choice but to accept it.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Self evidence is NOT a good guide to scientific concepts . . .

It is certainly not the only guide, but it serves as a foundational one. All science operates with givens, and those givens are, to the observer, self-evident.

The fact that something (the bible) is old does not mean it is right.

You are correct. The age of a document is not a singular indication of its veracity, but it may be considered as one of many evidences to consider it worthy of acceptance intellectually.

The point was that you ridiculed someone for reading books when they could not personally verify what was in them . . .

I would be remiss if I ridiculed someone just for believing what they read in books. My point is that we should not kid ourselves concerning the indirect nature of much of the evidence presented to our reason and senses. If science is unwilling to claim for itself the ability to determine absolute facts or truth, then it must assume the mantle of faith alongside all human observers.

[P_A_I]

"Is separation of church and state prescribed by the United States Constitution or not?"

Yes. 'Separation' is in effect directed [prescribed] in three different places. --
States are directed to have republican forms of governments, [no theocracies allowed].
- No religious tests for office are to be allowed.
Nor are laws to be made that respect any of the establishments [teachings/precepts] of religion.

My [bracketed] comments help to explain my argument.. Except to those, like you, who oppose our religious freedoms. You are your own worse enemy.