You are correct. Read my post #440 for an explanation.
Where do you get this stuff? No public school had a Christian Morality class. They didn't teach Christianity - having golden rule plaque or saying 'under God' in the pledge isn't teaching religion.
I went to public school in the 1950's and 1960's, and every Wednesday morning in elementary school we had a Christian service. In High School there was Christian prayer at most major gatherings, and every Christmas there was the time-honored Messiah by the school choir. Of course, there was that pesky Golden Rule and Ten Commandments posted in the hallways. BTW, the "Golden Rule" is Christian morality, in a nutshell. The Law of the Lord (referred to in Psalms 1:1) is this: "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law . . ." (Matthew 7:12). Moses taught us to "love thy neighbour as thyself" (Lev 19:18), and Jesus the same many times (Matt 19:19, 22:39; Mark 12:31; Luke 10:27, some using different wording. Paul and James repeated those words.
The desire to return to a fantasy olden age dominated by religion is another facet that fundamentalists have in common.
I'm not a fundamentalist, so I wouldn't know. But I will take your word for it. Sounds like a good idea to me. It couldn't be worse than this Sodom and Gomorrah, where lies are so commonplace that telling the truth is labeled extremism.
Oh yes, MY perversion and all the other Christian perversions of not mixing up faith with science - of not wanting to make everyone believe exactly the same thing. Such a ruinous thing.
Oh, I like science. I dislike arrogance labeled as science.
Intelligent design is on par with spontaneous generation and is often included along with Lamarck's ideas in the beginning of evolution units.
Speaking of arrogance...
And I thought you were making it up or quoting some propaganda line. I guess I was right.
Give us an example of a successful, self-sustaining secular nation with reasonable longevity.
The Scientific American article quoted earlier even held that in discussion, theory and fact can be used interchangeably. There is no uncertainty implied in 'theory'.
I guess "Laws" need not apply, huh?
"Yet, you have called those who aren't against evolution, atheists and heretics, that evolution is a false science, junk science, has nothing to do with reality, perverse, unGodly, and promoted the suppression of evolution to foster the nation's moral and spiritual growth - saying that fools that support evolution are killing the nation.
Yea, maybe that was a bit harsh, if taken out of context. What I was implying was that those who teach evolution, and at the same time deny the existence of, and the teaching of, a creator, are junk scientists as well as dangerous, arrogant fools who are assisting in the destruction of the social fabric of our nation.
In psychology, this is called transference - a transfer of one's own conscious and unconscious motivations to the opponent.
Agree. And that is exactly what leftists do.
It has been the fundamentalist fringe in Arkansas, Kansas, and now Georgia, demanding that evolution be struck from the textbooks. When have you seen scientists demand a law that evolution be taught in all churches whenever Genesis is discussed?
I don't agree with the fundamentalists. I believe evolution should be taught in schools; but as a theory rather than the "Gospel according to Science".
Would you accept a non-Christian nation, or are all religions equivalent in their ability to sustain a state?
Ok - Cassini dropped.
"Golden Rule" is Christian morality, in a nutshell.
There is a big difference between Christmas choral shows and requiring all students to profess a certain belief as stated by a certain denomination. That would go against the First Amendment without a doubt - "Madison then spoke, and said that "he apprehended the meaning of the words to be, that Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience." " and Thomas Cooley " Undoubtedly the spirit of the Constitution will require, in all these cases, that care be taken to avoid discrimination [472 U.S. 38, 106] in favor of or against any one religious denomination or sect; "
If your school required all students to attend services and in opening prayers, Christmas services, etc. promoted one sect, then it violated the Constitution and that practice was no doubt, stopped.
Give us an example of a successful, self-sustaining secular nation with reasonable longevity
Depends on your definitions - the US attempted to establish a secular government with a nonsecular people. The Roman Republic and Roman Empire lasted for about 600 years without a state religion, with discussion as to how much the enforced Christian Empire had on the decline. China lasted for a couple thousand years with only the State, with the ultimate representation of the Emperor, as a god. Secular? But if you look at nations with one state enforced religion, you see a pattern of upheaval, England, well, most of Europe, collapse of the Mohammedan Empire. I'll have to see what's out there on that when I have time.
I guess "Laws" need not apply, huh?
Laws and theories are interchangeable words as has been discussed before. The charge that theory implies uncertainty is a common and refuted charge from creationists.
What I was implying was that those who teach evolution, and at the same time deny the existence of, and the teaching of, a creator, are junk scientists as well as dangerous, arrogant fools who are assisting in the destruction of the social fabric of our nation. [snip] I don't agree with the fundamentalists. I believe evolution should be taught in schools; but as a theory rather than the "Gospel according to Science".
One of the main points from the opposition of the creationist movement is that as a scientific theory, evolution belongs in the science class and as an issue of theology, creationism belongs in the church or Sunday school class.
I have never come across a teacher or professor who has made the statement that evolution proves the nonexistence of God. That is not how evolution is taught. It is a reaction from literalists who make that assumption. They are wrong, and in my opinion, creation and evolution don't cancel each other out by definition - but they do not belong side by side in a science class or textbook.
I believe evolution should be taught in schools; but as a theory rather than the "Gospel according to Science".
It is taught as a theory, being a theory is that wide body of knowledge on a subject with observations, experimental data, postulates, etc. A theory is a more concrete things that 'oh it's just a theory' and has it's own evolution of thought. But it isn't taught as a Gospel - those are taught in churches, at least the four 'accepted' ones are.