It has to be a holiday for practical reasons: a majority of people would take off anyway.

Of course it should be a recognized holiday--all I am saying is that it was never celebrated as a religious holiday until very recently. It was celebrated much like St. Patrick's Day is celebrated today--in fact, it was so much of a "party" holiday that religious authorities in the 17-19th centuries discouraged its observance. Though I am not certain, I would venture to guess that Christmas became a national holiday in the first place because of its very secular-ness: at the time, the holiday had precious little to do with religion.

im for more governement holidays...as many as I can get because it seems its the only way I get a vacation outside of my normal days off.

Although!!!! JUNE 5 - 10th Me and BF are going to Vegas....GF cant go because she just started her new job (at my company) and doesnt have any time to get off....but VEGAS BABY!!!! first vacation in 2 and a half years!@!

Well secular humanism gets the same free exercise rights of any other religion. It does not need to have a particular set of beliefs; a set of beliefs does not matter in free exercise concerns, as witnessed in Tarcaso, Frazee, and Thomas v. Indiana Employement Security Division (which was a case that said Thomas had a free exercise right to unemployment because the fact that he would not work on Saturday, even though other Jehovah's Witnesses would, was excusable as not being termination for cause - even though the community of Jehovah's Witnesses said it was ok, Thomas' particular beliefs are protected). There is no free exercise rights to use drugs, as the Peyote case (Employment Division of Oregon v. Smith - which also set up the neutrality standard in free exercise) demonstrates. And just because a religion allows gay marriage (or advocates for gay rights) doesn't mean the state has to accept it, as we have seen with more liberal churches.

Anyway, the current basis for free exercise is the neutrality doctrine (well, there is some debate about whether Locke v. Davey changes anything, but we don't know yet). That means if it is neutral on its face and neutral in application, the law will stand, even if it has a minor infringement on religious belief. If the law is blatant discrimination then it may violate the free exercise clause (it has to go through compelling standard after that).

Free exercise doesn't always grant you an exception. In fact, nowadays, you probably won't get an exception to a generally applicable law.

If you went to court saying your church allows for gay marriage and you go to court to enforce it under free exercise, you'll be laughed out of court. Even under Sherbert test formulation (pre Smith), it wouldn't have flown. There are churches that do marry off homosexuals. It isn't like secular humanist would be the first to do it. Those marriages are not recognized under the state and the state is not required by the free exercise clause to do so. Public sex acts are part of the general criminal code and therefore a free exercise exception does not flow.

Also the Frazee case wasn't one where the Court didn't want to judge sincerity of belief. The petitioner asserted, quite readily, that he didn't belong to any religious community and his personal spirituality said that Sunday was a day of rest.

I appreciate you taking the time. I wanted to push one point further. It still seems to me that rights for "secular humanists" (which still seems to be anyone not of a particular religion even though not everyone would identify with that label) only extend as far as they do for any religion. In other words, if you can point to a particular religion getting protection, you can opt-in to take advantage of their benefit. Secular humanists, however, have no protected practices of their own.

I expected you would use the peyote case for the drug example (and leaving aside whether that case is good law), but my argument still stands: what beliefs can secular humanists claim as their own?

You rightly point out that the neutrality principle controls (which is why religous organizations aren't all tax exempt) and I think that answers most of my questions. Still, I think it is a mistake to say secular humanism is considered a religion by the courts. Because it is only co-extensive (in terms of rights) with religions, it doesn't have any claims of its own. I guess your point about it not being a religion for purposes of the Establishment Clause illustrates the point too. Do you know of any case (and I doubt there is one, but would be very interested if there was) that explains why secular humanism can be considered a religion for purposes of one clause and not the other?

I'm going to have to do some thinking about this because it has been several years since I studied religion cases. So many things disappear from your head after law school.

Etymological query; doesn't secular somehow imply non-religious? Isn't the argument that secular humanism is a religion ... somewhat bizarre?

Well, this opens another can of worms but is worth addressing. I would say that this is the strained logic of the anti-faith based crowd in trying to have their agenda put forth by calling something a 'life-style' because no so-called 'higher power' is acknowledged and then turning around and censuring any faith-based response by labeling it as 'religion' based on a belief in a higher power. Pure semantics used to advance one philosophy over another.

This is why liberal teachers and administrators think that they can freely advance 'tolerance' of any and all 'progressive' agendas (because they are based on man) by calling them 'life-style choices' regardless of how hostile they may be to a particular set of faith-based beliefs, and then in turn censur any response along those lines because that is promoting 'religion.'

A faith-based person would argue that because man is designed in a certain way then he can only be fulfilled with a relationship with God. But if that relationship is missing then that same man will attempt to fill that void with his own set of rules, convictions, ect..., and even though these 'beliefs' may not include a higher power in name they would still embody all the same type of practices, commitments, ect..., as any other 'religion' claiming faith in a higher power.

So the bottom line is, regardless of whether or not you claim faith in a higher power or just in the nature of man, you will still practice some form of religion by default whether that be named 'religion' or 'lifestyle' (remember, religion is at its heart a 'lifestyle) or whatever.

I think that you may still be thinking about people who get free exercise protection have to point to practices of the religion as a whole. However, as Frazee and Thomas (which I've alluded to above) make it clear that the free exercise clause is for the free exercise of the INDIVIDUAL, no matter if it is highly ideosyncratic. Maybe that helps in your understanding of where I'm going with this.

Therefore, there doesn't need to be pointing to a secular humanist 'religion' per se, but rather it is to the spiritual beliefs of the individual secular humanist. Thomas, for instance, involves a case where one Jehovah's Witness disagreed with the rest of his peers on when he could work. His individual free exercise right was protected.

So when I say that secular humanism is a religion for free exercise purposes (and I believe should be), what I'm saying is that the free exercise rights of individual secular humanists should be protected. For example, a secular humanist being forced to swear to God violates his free exercise rights (as well as establishment issues).

This is also why there is a difference in secular humanism in the free exercise and disestablishment arenas. In disestablishment, we have to look at the religious practices of a religion to make sure that the government isn't holding them up. In free exercise we look at what the individual claimant believes.

Of course, neutrality is the rule now, after Smith.

If you broadly define religion that way, as I do as well to an extent, then pretty much every way of life is a religion. The problem with that though is that the religious right will then use it as an excuse to call evolution a religious theory, which it clearly is not. There is something completely different between science and faith, for example evolution and ID. The former is based on scientific theory, the second is usually based on an argument of ignorance ("I don't understand how all of this could have happened from evolution, so therefore there must have been intelligent design"). Though secular humanists tend to accept evolution, it is not a cornerstone of their faith any more than the fact that the Earth revolves around the Sun.

Yes, but I would point out that much of evolution is based on a certain 'faith' as it cannot be emperically tested, and other evidence of it does not exist (no real evidence of species changing from one to another). So in that respect it does fit, and this is what the religious right points out.

One, there is a huge amount of data supporting evolution. Two, conceptually, an experiment could be constructed to test evolution, and in fact, we inadvertently conduct these experiments all the time on micro-organisms. I assume you can understand that drug-resistant germs are an example of evolutionary changes in progress.

Just to clarify, in no way does evolution state that species change from one to another. And I do believe plenty of evidence in favor of evolution exists, just maybe nothing in a lab where they turn an ape into a human, but i'm sure there are thousands of papers on medline.

Observed Instances of Speciation: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

The saddest thing about your worldview is that you either don't know, or disregard the fact that there are people who are both liberal and faithful to God. You totally wash this fact and basically believe that if we don't have the same views that you do we must be anti-faith liberal humanists. It's absurd and sad.

Natural selection has been proven, but that's a long way from man evolving from lemurs.

Not really what I said, but the reason they are called Liberals/Progressives is because they (people calling themselves that) believe that truth in general is an evolving process that changes with society and the times. Whereas the Bible teaches that Jesus Christ (and His Holy Spirit) "Is the same yesterday, today and forever." God's truth does not change, even though styles and customs will (we no longer segregate church services by sex, for example.) These are form rather than substance, and the Bible makes allowances for this. But when your teaching/advancement of philosophy or whatever comes into direct contradiction with a Biblical truth you are just wrong.

Read the story of Jesus at the well with the woman Samaritan. Jesus was compassionate, understanding and forgiving. He knew that she had been living with a man not her husband, and had indeed been doing this with other men for some time now. As a Samaritin she told Jesus that their worship practices differed from His (being Jewish.) Didn't matter. Jesus told her that living that way was wrong, was sin, and that she should repent (change.) Pretty direct and self-explanitory, no 'new age' spin needed to understand it.
Just basic unchanging truth according to God, and if it wasn't important then why would Christ have bothered with it in the first place?

Interesting question. Why is it, in your view, that Christ did not bother with homosexuality?

So what your saying in your own view, is that even though Christ would go out of his way to correct a woman living out of wedlock with a man, He would have no problem with two men living in a sexual situation even though 'gay marriage' has never been recognized in the world's history (except for maybe some obscure, isolated incidents somewheres)? If Christ did not sanction the one how do you see Him overlooking and sanctioning the other?

BTW, Christ existed in Israel under Jewish law. I believe that practicing homosexuality was an offense punishable by stoning, same as adultery. God did say "I would have mercy before judgement", explains Jesus' actions in forgiving the woman at the well and the adulterous woman about to be stoned He intervened in sparing. Jesus did not say either was right in what they did, just that mercy was more important than judgement. Why would He do differently with a homosexual under Jewish law?

If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

Murder was illegal in Isreal around 0 AD I'm pretty sure, and they made sure to spell out that that was not allowed in Christianity.

I was just wondering how you could argue on one hand that Jesus only talked about important stuff, yet the most important issue on the docket for the RR these days appears to be homosexuality. Believe whatever you want to believe about it, but the political situation reeks more of opportunism and scapegoating than actual morality. Maybe you don't think that gay marriage is a big issue though, since Jesus didn't talk about it, I don't want to speak for you or make you representative of the entire RR.

I think that that in itself is where the ignorance comes from. It's the blinders that makes you judge. IT's your blinders that make it so you cannot see that not everything is black and white and that in a democracy there can be differing opinions that are both right. If the Bible makes you treat others better so be it, thats great. But I believe int he Torah and in that I believe it helps me treat others better. Mine is just as right as yours is, and so are those who believe in the Quran, or a different interpretation of the bible, etc. your closed minded view is were you go wrong, not your book.

You have been providing some good entertainment this week. I have been sharing this post with some former classmates and professors, most theology post graduates.

This quote is so far my favorite example of your anti-relative relativism rhetoric. The ironic thing is that you are showing the beauty of Christian Discourse. The fact that the discourse is paradoxical is the very reason it has been successful. No amount of language can adequately describe Jesus being fully man and God, or describe Christ being begotten. The only way we can approach these problems, and many others, is to put them into context, our context, of our time, and experiences. Once we do, we can say we have a personal relationship with the infinite (another paradox).

I think you might have some good points. However, as soon as you start name calling, your argument becomes something other than a declaration of your faith/beliefs. From what I can tell you are not a dualist, you do not need evil (for you liberals) to know good. The faith and spirituality I think you are trying to profess seems to me to be more of an unstoppable beacon of light, hope and (most important to me) JOY. And I don't see it, thus 5 days of venom, and amusement.

Maybe your just interpreting the Bible wrongly to fit your worldview.

Go read the article sabotai linked to. Observational data exists of evolution happening.

Well, this one calls for some kind of response. Don't see how I've name-called in the least, just used common terms to describe positions (liberals, ect...) and stated pretty obvious points. When school administrators take it upon themselves to promote life-styles and practices to everyone in a classroom regardless of the faith and beliefs of those same kids parents, that is in iteself a hostile act and cannot be called anything else with a straight face. Sean Hannity talks about some school official/teacher/health care worker giving a 6-yr old kid a condom. If you see nothing hostile towards Christian beliefs and practices in that then good luck to you.

Yeah, I know, suddenly everyone is ga-ga over a supposed dinosaur with feather as this provides the 'missing link' between dinosaurs and birds. This argument is really no different than most others, folks just seeing what they want and discounting contradictory evidence.

If you want to have your kids taught specific things to Christian beliefs than send your kids to a private school. I guarantee that teacher got in trouble....use an extreme to prove a ridiculous point. It doesnt matter if somethingis hostile towards christianity, that is not the benchmark for public schools. Sorry Bubba, I say again, please keep your fucking religion out of my public school, where Jewish kids might go, where my tax dollars go....and I'll keep my religion out of it too. If you want to meet in a bar and chat about religion, so be it. Invite me to your church and try to convert me, ok. But keep your religion out of Public stuff.......but if you disagree, I guess you could always try to get a bunch of right wing judges attached to the courts to eventually have NO seperation of the Christian church and state (swallow that, sit back, think about it...isn't that what you really want anyways? a Christian Country. See thats where your shit is so fucked up....intolerance disguised as religion...for shame)

yup I agree Bubba

Well, just go back a few posts to the ones regarding Secular Humanism. All your doing if you want to replace a Judeo-Christian outlook in public schools with a Secular Humanist one is favoring one religion over another. Curse all you want, doesn't change the fact that you still wind up being guilty of the very things you accuse me of. Besides, most know I do advocate the breakup of the monolithic public school system into much smaller components that are more tailored to teaching things on an individual level. Even the great Satan (according to Microsoft haters) Bill Gates is advocating change when he states that our high schools of today are obsolete and inadequate.

You didn't read sabotai's link, did you? It has nothing to do with feathered dinosaurs. It gives examples of one species becoming another species in modern times. Meaning within the last century.

Easier said then done.

You can not be serious. I mean, really. How is the outlook of secular humanism being implemented in the school? There is no "There is no God" class right after chemistry. What outlook is being implemented?

exactly...no one says there is no god. They just say "do it on your own, on your personal time, between classes." Its that whole, "unless everyone agrees that Christianity is the light and admits it publicly, it must be an attack on our beliefs." So unless I walk down the street wearing a shirt that says Im a Jew I must be a secular humanist becuase im not having it come out of my pores. So ridiculous that people actually feel this way....

instead BW why not try jamming the bible directly down someone's throat...might get the same results.

Personally, I think this statement is indicates the great paranoia that the secular crowd has of faith-based people in general. Nowheres have I ever said you have to live this way, do things this way. All I've ever said is that those of faith should be respected for what they believe and that includes in ALL subjects taught in public schools including health class, ect... But mention the Bible to some like yourself and immediately we get the whole 'Taliban coming, sky is falling, jamming Bibles down our throats' mantra that seems to unite secularists in general.

Secular Humanism is not a neutral-based way of thought. By its very nature it promotes an attitude that undermines respect for faith and those who practice it by placing everything into the physical/intellectual arena with no room for the spiritual...talking of that in a general sense. Just allowing teachers the ability to include the words 'higher power' or 'God' in a very generic would go a long way to correct this, but of course that would be seen as promoting faith over secularism as opposed to the accepted way now of promoting secularism over faith. Fearing the very idea of a higher power or the thought of God in general is just paranoid.

The quote that I should have responded to was Mr.Bigglesworth one up regarding the 'outlook.' Don't feel like typing it over.

I am going to study this one very carefully, so don't expect a quick comment on it. Not convinced this isn't just more natural selection, maybe more advanced forms of it.

so teach condom usage in health class? as well as abstinence?

if you want faith taught it should be in a private school....faith is something the kid should bring to school NOT learn AT school. Perhaps be taught about religion but NOT taught a religion. Comprende? Send your kid to private school if you want his faith taught.

At what age in your world do the kids start putting condoms over bananas? My answer is no. That's like asking me if its ok for me to give your kid a Bible during school so he can learn about what the vast majority of his countrymen believe in. That ok with you?

I have no problem with kids of an appropriate age being taught clinical sex education. Using that to promote a 'how to have sex' agenda is not the same thing.

And give me a tax voucher so I can send him to private school?

Public school is not for YOU, its for EVERYONE and EVERYONE is NOT CHRISTIAN. I just cant belive you dont get that yet....its not about your religion in public school its about learning and learning is not about teaching whether or not GOD exists and who the fuck is right and wrong. Save it for sundays.

So you should decide what is taught but in the earlier post you said teach everything. So if it fits you fine, if not than it must not happen. INTOLERANCE!!! RIGHT the fuck, there. Your way, then you camouflage it as "teach everything" but when it doesnt you piss in a bucket and throw it. Thats BS, cant have it both ways buddies.....

YUP ON SUNDAYS AT CHURCH!!!


appropriate according to your religion right....thats just BS you want IT ALL dont you?

What...I can't be Pro-life AND Pro-Choice? Thought we were making up new rules here. ;)

dont lump me in asshat - Pro choice is not equal to pro-death, like you want people to believe.

just stick to defending your own hypocrisy...you need to focus on that because you fail miserably.

I don't want my tax dollars going to teach your kid fairy tales. You can pay for that on your own if it is that important to you. I'm sure you wouldn't pay to send a kid to an Islamic school.

The faith-based people are trying to get an amendment to the Constitution passed that says that some people can't live there life a certain way.

I have a friend, an English teacher, who has an official reprimand for teaching the Bible in a world literature class. There was no prosletyzing, since the class was never actually taught; the reprimand was for the curriculum devised by the teacher. The teacher's union wouldn't touch the case.

I have no doubt it's controversial, look at BW....Perhaps teach about the Bible in history class but NOT the bible itself, and probably not in English considering all of the spelling and grammar errors. It can be done, it was done in my school, and I enjoyed it quite a bit but that's cuz i love history. You faith-ees just have to be content to have your religion be your own ON YOUR OWN TIME, NOT IN PUBLIC SCHOOL....sunday mornings seem like a great time to talk about it.

The Bible is probably the most significant piece of literature in existence. It's not worth reading in a literature class? And 'spelling and grammar' errors? What the fark are you talking about???

They generally read books that can be finished in class.

significant for its religious value, not because the fairy tails contained therein have serious literary value.

Did you know that the Hebrew text has many spelling errors that are cleaned up in translations?

Here is an example, the first in the Bible:

Genesis 8:17-
uvekhol haremes haromes al haaretz hvtzeh itakh
and all the creepers that creep on the ground with you

hvtzeh is misspelled. It should be haytseh. A vav was printed in the original instead of a yud. The word that appears there is non existent. It is known to be an error, but Jews do not fix the errors. Rather, they leave it in the text without vowel points and print the correction in the margin with vowel points.

In Genesis 30:11
vatomar leah bagad vatikra et shemo gad
and said Leah he has betrayed and she called his name Gad

Gad means fortune.

bagad means "he has betrayed". It is an obvious mistake. Again, the correction appears in the margin. It should have been ba-gad. This means "fortune has come" and makes sense in the context, especially since Gad means "fortune". An alef was left out and one word was formed from two, which radically changed the meaning of the verse.

Gen 24:33
vayiysem (meaningless) appears instead of vayusam (and was put)

Gen 25:23
shnei gayyim (two valleys) appears instead of shnei goyyim (two nations)

Gen 36:5, Gen 36:15
The name ya'ush is misspelt as ya'ish

Gen 39:20
Asurei- hamelech (the prohibited of the king) appears instead of asirei ha-melech (the prisoners of the king)

Exodus 4:2
The text reads mizeh beyadekha (which means "from this in your hand") when it should read, mah zeh beyadekha ("what is this in your hand")

Exodus 37:8, Exodus 39:4
The word "katzotav" ("it's ends") is misspelt, with an extra vav appearing in the word.

Leviticus 11:21
asher-lo ("which to it" [means "which has"]) is mis-spelt with an alef, making it asher-lo' (which means "which not" and makes no sense in the context)

Numbers 1:16
kru'ei is spelled with a yud instead of a vav, changing its meaning from "called/appointed" to "read" or "readable"

Numbers 32:7
lamah tani'un (why do you hinder) is spelt lamah tanu'un making it meaningless.

Numbers 34:4
vehayu totze'otav ("it's terminations will be") The verb "to be" is in third person singular instead of third person plural, and appears incorrectly in the text as vehayah..., which is very wrong. It's like saying "ils sera" in French or "ellos sera" in Spanish.

Deut 5:10
Accidentally reads "to those who love me and keep his commandment" instead of "those who love me and keep my commandments".

Deuteronomy 21:7
"Our hands did not spill this blood" The "did not spill" is in third person singular even though "our hands" is clearly plural. It should read lo shafkhu instead of the textual error lo shafkhah. This is sort of like saying "They did not did" instead of "they did not do" in English.

Deut 32:13
"the heights of the land" has a double-plural. It's like saying "heightses" in English.

Deut 33:2
Ashdat lamo means nothing. Ashdat is the first part of a semikhut (a compound conjugation) for the word ashedah, which is the slope of a mountain (The NIV goes this route, but admits textual difficulty in a footnote). But this interpretation is wrong grammatically, since the word appearing is ashdat, not ashedah which means that another noun should appear following it.

Ashdat har would mean "mountain slope", but ashedah would be "slope". Ashdat by itself means nothing.

The marginal text shows that this was a mistake and should be esh-dat , spelt the same, but with a space in between the first two and last two letters. This would mean "fire of judgement for them" (or "fire of religion"- since the word for "religion" in Hebrew, also means "judgement".) The NASB uses this rabbinic correction for their interpretation, but they interpret this as refering to lightning- which is a liberty taken by them, which, although logical, may or may not be correct.

All these Hebrew spelling errors are fixed up in Christian translations.













there are more.....human error? sure. not a big deal IMO but remember these prophets were writing the word of god.

When we say that the Bible is inspired, we are saying it is inspired in the original documents. "Inspiredness is not a quality attaching to corruptions which intrude in the course of the transmission of the text, but only to the text as originally produced by the inspired writers. The acknowledgment of biblical inspiration thus makes more urgent the task of meticulous textual criticism, in order to eliminate such corruptions and ascertain what that original text was."1 Therefore, when critics of the Bible point out apparent contradictions, what they are doing is either failing to understand the context of the passages they are examining, or they have encountered a scribal copying error. The fact is that there are indeed copyist errors on the biblical documents and they account for many alleged contradictions. Remember, it is the autographs (original writings) that are inspired and inerrant, not the copies. The copies we have now are copies of inspired documents. The copies are not themselves "inspired"; that is, they have no guarantee of being 100% textually pure. Does this then mean that we can't trust the Bible? Not at all. The copies are so accurate that all of the biblical documents are 98.5% textually pure. The 1.5% that is in question is mainly nothing more than spelling errors and occasional word omissions like the words "the", "but", etc. This reduces any serious textual issues to a fraction of the 1.5% and none of these copying errors affects doctrinal truths. Following are some types of copyist errors:

*

Dittography - Writing twice what should have been written once.
o

A good example would be writing "latter" instead of "later." "Latter" means nearest the end. "Later" means after something else.
*

Fission - Improperly dividing one word into to words.
o

Example: "nowhere" into "now here."
*

Fusion - Combining the last letter of one word with the first letter of the next word.
o

"Look it is there in the cabinet... or Look it is therein the cabinet."
*

Haplography - Writing once what should have been written twice.
o

A good example would be "later" instead of "latter." "Later" means after something else. "Latter" means nearest the end.
*

Homophony - Writing a word with a different meaning for another word when both words have the exact same pronunciation.
o

Meat and meet have the exact same sound but different meanings. Also, there and their and they're are another example.
*

Metathesis - An improper exchange in the order of letters.
o

Instead of writing "mast," someone writes "mats," or "cast" and cats."

Additionally, we need to clarify that the copies have "repeated" copyist errors. This means that each of these copy errors is counted as another, when in reality, they are repeated mistakes. Following is an illustration of how these variants, as they are called, are counted.

Even secular thinkers as diverse as Bloom and Ouspensky would disagree with you.

Grammatical errors: Biblical scholars have noted that almost every page of the Bible, whether written in Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek contains both spelling and grammatical errors. Although some spelling errors could be attributed to mistakes by later copyists, it appears reasonable to assume that some of the grammatical errors were in the original copy. If one assumes that the Bible is not inerrant, then one would expect errors of all types to creep into the Bible: errors in fact, errors in belief, errors in spelling and errors in grammar. But if the Bible is inerrant, one wonders why the original writings were not free of errors in grammar.

Finally:

it's silly to say that if these stories were NOT contained in the bible, they would be considered the most important literary works of all time. You'd have to show me quotes and context to make me believe this is what they were saying.

Speaking of lumps...

Bubba

its noble that you let your beliefs stand in the way of thought and tolerance...reminds me of this pic...Im just feelin' picture-y today

Too bad for whatever reason I can't see your pics on my screen. Enjoy 'em all to yourself. Fact is though, my final thought to you, regardless of how educated, intelligent, sophisticated or whatever else you believe yourself to be...as soon as you name-call (and I don't mean using a term like liberal for the sake of argument or whatever) you lose all credibility. Preach your hate to the rest of your collective hive (like-minded name-callers).

What name calling? Asshat LOL

as a matter of fact asshat is lingo around here ....asshat is not so bad.

If thats the curse word youre referring to, you're over reacting. Other than that the worst thing youve done IMO is try to rule America under a Christian thumb....thats not so bad, could be worse. You could be a satanist and want the same thing.

And dont you think that the collectiive comment fits your side like a glove, "No one should have a choice on abortion!! no one should be able to study evolution (Kansas)!! No one should be able to teach safe-sex!!"

I dont hate you, I rarely hate anyone.....Remember, I'm not against gay marriage, or think republicans are worse than nazis or terrorists. I accept you for you....I'd rather have a KKK member wear white robes around me than a suit - at least I know what the robes stand for and I can see the snake for the snake, the suit hides the scales.

DOLA:

why is it that you and St. never respond to a rebuttal. I just showed that there are many, well documented sites regarding spelling and grammar errors in the bible, yet nothing. Its like you throw a rock and run.

Well, I was really thinking more of another poster when I put that out...guess your comment just gave me the chance to unload it on you. That was wrong of me, but the other guy can suck rocks waiting for me to ever respond to him again.

Actually thought your post on biblical grammer was pretty interesting. Just know that most modern Biblical scholars already do study it in the original Greek, Hebrew and Aramec (or the Arabic wording I take the last to mean). So all this stuff gets sorted out in the subsequent Bible studies and teachings in churches, over radio, on dvds or whatever. Everything is pretty methodically sourced, if not by me.

BTW, cannot bring up KKK without mentioning that the only member of congress ever to have been not only a member, but a Grand Wizard of the KKK is Senator Robert Byrd of West Va. Democrat. Thought the GOP was supposed to be the racists?

REACH - do you hnestly think people dont think that the Democratic party lines itself up with minorities moreso than the Rep. party? If so, you truly are living in a dreamworld, whether its accurate or not.

I think the Bible should be able to be taught in English class, in a perfect world. But this is not a perfect world, and many people would take an opening like that and turn it into a 'praise Jesus' class, and then the lawsuits would start rolling in. So the schools can not risk the liability. And it's not like the Bible is the only controversial book not to be allowed into an English class.

No offense, but you really don't seem to answer anyone anyway. You throw wild accusations out there (founding fathers being deists is a liberal conspiracy, schools are pushing the secular humanist agenda, etc) then don't back them up when challenged.

Ya, it's tough for him to argue when even the Bible can't back up his positions.

That's pretty much my point, exactly. People are offended by religion and don't believe it's possible to discuss it rationally without harming children, or something. School is ideally a place of reason; we should not be teaching out of fear of who we might offend or anger, but rather we should be teaching subjects in a style that allows our children to think for themselves. I think banning religion from the public schools is reactionary and stupid, since religion is a huge part of most people's lives, and a massively important subject in the world today.

Dola- Flasch, the whole spelling/grammar thing is just a digression. If it's a big deal, then you're suggesting the Bible be held to a higher standard than Shakespeare or Chaucer, for example. Also, the Bible transcends Christianity. There are books in the Bible that are important to Jews and Muslims as well.

Also, add Asimov to the list of secular thinkers who considered the Bible important (I'm just going by own bookshelf here - so far I've found Asimov, Bloom, and Ouspensky, 3 very different secular thinkers, all of whom consider the Bible something worth writing books about.)

I agree, I am FOR teaching about religion in Religion classes. I had one in my school and it was great. HOWEVER, the teacher needs to be able to be vanilla. Not favor one religion over another. He or she needs to be able to address throughout a school year, at least all of the major religions AND the thought of atheists that there is no god. He or she also needs to be sure that BASIC and the other religious entities that exist (student driven) in the school do not use the platform to push theirs. If they dont want to learn about other religions than don't sign up for the class...its usually an elective anyways.

There is a small difference that means everything between us and that is:

I say teach ABOUT religion (generally) vs.
you say teach religion

If you cannot be satisfied with Religion being taught as a part of historical significance, literary significance, etc. than send your kid to your local pastor controlled school. Otherwise, keep the teaching of religion OUT OF PUBLIC SCHOOL.

...but before you read that you were SHOCKED that there was. SO perhaps you dont know everything. Be open minded.

On the Bible's literary value...

The works the Bible should be compared to are those of other civilizations of the ancient world. Do the stories of Job, Abraham, Joseph, Moses, David, and Jesus stand up to those of Odysseus, Aeneas, Gilgamesh, etc? I think that it's pretty obvious they do. And if the spelling and grammar need to be cleaned up, just remember that English as a language didn't even have standardized spelling rules in Chaucer's and Shakespeare's times, and The Iliad and The Odyssey were likely originally oral works, not written.

As far as teaching the Bible in literature classes, or teaching about it in social studies classes, I have no problem with it as long as it's not used to promote religion, but rather, to understand literary analysis or understand the influence the Bible has had on western civilization. But I want the latter to be done honestly (i.e. both the good and bad effects of Christianity taught). But I don't think that's the goal of those so hot to get the Bible back in the classroom.

There are many parts of the Bible than can be read independently of the rest in literature classes. The Book of Job, which does not connect narratively and chronologically with the rest of the Bible, and which is one of richest books metaphorically, is one obvious choice.

This is false. Mutations may be taking place, this is not evolution. There is no evidence existing that ANY ADDITION to genetic blueprints that give place to genetic mutation. Darwin and others claim that this must have happened in the past, but (IRONY) it must be taken on FAITH that it actually did occur.

This would be needed for fish to develope lungs, for example, to change from water creatures to breathing air in order to develope to the next phase. Does not happen.

Even on the level of bacteria, DOES NOT HAPPEN. Either bacteria mutates to lose genetic material and thus survives by not being susceptable to what is killing off other bacteria, or a genetic mutation or 'defect' prevents the bacteria from absorbing water/nutrients/anti-bacterial killing agent that gets the rest but allows the 'super-bug' to prosper.

Mutation=Defects, NOT evolution (natural selection is proven and real, but that is not evolution)

Book Evolution of Living Things "Mutations do NOT produce any kind of Evolution"

Dr. L Spetner ...Never found Evidence of new new additional genetic material to genetic blueprints (Paraphrased)

If a species splits into two separate species (as is the documented case in that article - you have several instances after splits of fertile organisms that cannot mate with the species it split from, and that is one of the things that differentiates one species from another), that is evolution, plain and simple. Mutation IS the evolutionary mechanism, not some completely different from evolution. Mutation can (and usually does) produce genetic defects, but it can also produce new genetic variations that have a better chance at survival.

The concept is pretty simple:

Mutation + Natural Selection = Evolution

http://www.factmonster.com/ce6/sci/A0858139.html

The Bony Fishes

The bony fishes are distinguished from other living fishes by their bone skeletons and by the presence of either a swim bladder (which functions as a float) or, in a few fishes, lungs. The bony fishes are divided into two subclasses, the fleshy-finned fish and the ray-finned fish. The latter group includes over 95% of all living fish species.

The earliest bony fishes were fleshy-finned. They evolved during a period of widespread drought and stagnation and gave rise to the amphibians (the first terrestrial vertebrates) on the one hand and to the ray-finned fish on the other. The only surviving fleshy-finned fishes are the lungfishes and one species of coelacanth (see lobefin). These fishes retain some of the traits of ancestral bony fishes: fleshy fins with supporting bones (precursors of the limbs of land vertebrates), internal nostrils, and lungs.

Ray-finned fishes, now predominant in both fresh and marine waters, represent an advanced adaptation of the bony fishes to strictly aquatic conditions; they are the most highly successful and diverse of the fishes. In nearly all of these fishes the lung has evolved into a hydrostatic organ, the swim bladder. The fins in this group consist of a web of skin supported by horny rays. Each ray is moved by a set of muscles, giving the fin great flexibility. Most ray-finned fish have overlapping scales made of very thin layers of bone. Their skeletal structure is light but strong and most have excellent vision.



Face it your wrong....its all over Al Gore's internet. Google...heard of it?

Meant in fun...

Just using semantics at this point. I say its not, you say it is. I cited my sources for saying its not. Mutation is NOT evolution

BW - so if there is a ton of evidence on your sife, mostly from Faith based sites and a ton of info from scientists on the otherside....can you see why over 50% of Americans disagree and that most Americans, and Humans believe that Evolution took place and continues to take place. Therefore, What make you think that Intelligent Design should be taught in PUBLIC schools?!

IMO, it shouldn't....

Here comes the donut:

Teach ABOUT religion (historical context etc.)

Don't TEACH religion

BW - Do you like that? Or is that not focused in on Christianity enough.

It's not semantics. You are saying that mutation always results in loss of genetic information. I'm saying that mutation results in a change in the genetic information. It can be either loss of information or new information. That's a fundamental disagreement.

I have no problem with that. Not asking public schools to teach my faith or religion, but do not want the current Stalinist restrictions on talking about it in any form. And discussing the Judeo-Christian philosophy behind our system of government should be taught and opened up to discussion with various sources cited (so teachers could claim the Deist thing, as well as allow evidence for Christian influence on the framers.)

Still want an answer on the Darwin thing. As I understand it, Darwin does postulate that genetic material must have been added ealier for evolution to take place. Yet no evidence of this exists. So that puts Darwin's THEORY, like religion, in the area of FAITH. Intelligent design becomes just as valid a theory. Sorry.

Ok, and we're both agreeing that nothing new is/has been added. I can respect that.

Are you seriously using Darwin's writings as the definitive statements regarding the theory of evolution? You realize he died over 120 years ago, right? You realize that the scientific study of this theory has advanced a great deal since then, right?

Relying on Darwin to be the definitive statement about evolution would be like relying on Charles Babbage as the definitive statement on computers.

Yeah, but Darwin can still be mentioned in the public schools, and God can't.

A complete non-sequiter and not true in any event, but I'll explain the difference: Darwin is known to have existed - there is evidence of such. The theories which Darwin put forth are based on the scientific principle which relies on experimentation and repeatable, predictable evidence, as well as a strong incentive to challenge and improve upon previous areas of study in the interest of getting at the truth.

again, not true, and a LIE. Religion classes are taught all over the country in Public Schools. I took one myself, its an elective in most schools. It is a blatant LIE and simply inflammatroy to say GOD cannot be mentioned in Public School.

Er, no, not even close, I just didn't understand what the point was...

Actually I do not disagree with you, but I don't think you understand how hard it is to teach 'about' religion in the public schools. Whatever the courts/ACLU say, the public schools have basically retreated from any possibility of an appearance of deviation from political correctness. The whole Title IX disgrace is a good parallel. I have many friends who are teachers, most of them secular humanists, and they all have told me you can't talk about religion, except in such a limited fashion as to be pointless. I just read a long article in I believe it was the New Yorker about a history teacher in California who was fired for talking about the Bible and Christianity. Not a single witness said he was prosletyzing.

Again

Bullshit

In religion class, you can talk Christianity when its it's turn. Then Islam, then Judaism, hinduism, etc. my teacher's did it just fine.

If a teacher starts talking Christianity in Science class than YES there is a problem. English class is inappropriate as well SINCE Christianity and other religions are learned about in RELIGION class. Fuck it, St. If you dont get that distinction then you'll only be happy when its talked about in every class, LIKE, say, um private school. Christianity has NO PLACE in Public schools outside of Humanities and Religion class. DONE!! Its that simple.

Well, my high school doesn't have a religion class.

history? humanities? Religion is a big part of history, there you go, learn all about ALL the religions in a 9 week span there.

check your electives.

Well that's fine except in my bathroom there is that article in the New Yorker (a liberal, secular publication) detailing the story of that California high school history teacher I mentioned above who was fired for, not prosletyzing, not spreading the Gospel, but teaching about the Bible in a world history class. We actually agree; I just think you don't realize how chilled the atmosphere actually is. The public high school in my brother's district doesn't have a Bible in it's LIBRARY. It was removed because a student complained.

IMO, its fine to have a bible in the library right next to the Quran, torah, etc.

And if that is simply one case fo the teacher being fired, without a tape recording, lets assume you're right and his teaching was vanilla enough to not sound like he was pushing one religion over another, than his firing is stupid.

These people better learn to hate gays if they want to get into heaven.

Wow... Does BW even read the things he's responding to? Ridiculous... You guys must have the patience of saints to deal with this.

Its kind of fun....sometimes shocking that some people still live with blinders on (no offense, just my opinion), but still fun because you dont usually get to have these conversations in real life.

This can be easily refuted by a simple logic test. Say mutation X changes gene A into gene B, what you would call a 'loss' of information. It is therefore perfectly logical that there would exist a mutation Y which changes gene B into gene A. This would be a gain in information.

I'm not a Bible expert, but I am pretty sure God never mentions the need for three seperate but equal branches of government, with a bicameral legislature. What Judeo-Christian philosophy is behind our system of government?

Just more semantics, I'm using 'new' in reference to additional genetic material (none exists), he's using 'new' to describe mutation. As the book states I quoted earlier "mutation is NOT evolution." Sorry, but your the slow one to not grasp the differences discussed here.