Replies

ThinkDifferent It disparages an accepted scientific theory for the sole purpose of promoting specific religious beliefs.

P-Marlowe: Assuming that is true, how does disparging an accepted scientific theory "ESTABLISH A RELIGION?"

The operative word in ThinkDifferent's response is 'specific'.

If the court accepted the Dove Board's assertion, that would have meant the government was accepting it was okay to proselytize a specific religious belief in a science class an as alternative to a scientific theory, at the expense of all other religious beliefs that might also be contrary to the same scientific theory. That constitutes preference of one religion over another. Showing a preference for one religion over another is one of the steps to establishing a religion.

At which step in the way along the path of establishing a religion did the writers of the constitution intend to draw a line?

At which step in the way along the path of establishing a religion did the writers of the constitution intend to draw a line?

The last step. When the State actually establishes a religion.

Are you aware that the same congress that passed the first amendment also passed a law mandating and funding the teaching of the bible in schools? They were promoting a speicific religious position and their statement was that the teaching of the Bible (which included the new testament) was an important secular goal?

The European states (that the founders sougnt NOT to emulate) had all established specific religions as state religions. That was what the congress intended to protect the populace from, not some innocuous statement by a school board that Evolution may not be as true as some of its proponents suggest.

When the state starts mandating which churches are the official churches of the state and when the state takes taxpayer dollars to fund the ministers and the building of church edifices and when it becomes a requirement for citizenship or a requirment to hold public office that you belong to a certain denomination, then I will agree that the state has crossed the line.

As it stands now, the state has crossed the line on the other side and has in essence made Secular Humanism the official religion of the United States. I suspect, however, that once the Lemon Test has been eliminated, the pendulum may start swinging back to a reasonable position. I think this case may wake the Supreme Court up to the monster they created in Lemon v. Kurtzman.

OK, it's time to ask the question...

How is it that you think it's ok for the government, through the schools or anywhere else, to establish your religion of secular humanism?

And don't feed me this horse-pucky about a religion needing to have a belief in God. Forcing someone not to worship a God is just as much a violation of religious liberty, if not more so, than forcing someone to worship God in general.

Atheism is not the null hypothesis.

If the liberty and individual rights upon which this entire discussion is based are "endowed by our Creator", doesn't it seem vaguely odd to you that teaching children that they were created by their Creator would be a violation of the law which was designed to preserve these rights and liberties?

I apologize if I'm using some crazy fundamentalist creationist logic on you here.