|
|
| The Declaration of Independence Declared Unconstitutional? |
| 12.01.04 (11:52 am) |
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - A California teacher has been barred by his school from giving students documents from American history that refer to God -- including the Declaration of Independence.
Amazing, isn't it? Apparently the Principle of Stevens Creek School in Cupertino ( a suburb of San Francisco ) has decided that teaching the Declaration of Independence is now forbidden, since it contains references to a creator.
Makes one wonder just how far the left is going to go with this historical and cultural purge of our nation. If left unfettered, will we eventually remove any and all such references so that we are only allowed to discuss historical figures who also happened to be atheists? Which leads to an interesting side question, can anyone name a historical figure of note in our nation’s history that was an atheist?
Is it really any wonder why those on the left are having such a difficult time selling their ideology to the vast majority of the American people, when stories like this one are more and more prevalent each day?
I hope that you will all take a moment and join me in sending an email to Principle Patricia Vidmar of Stevens creek Elementary, and tell her that we hold at least one truth to be self evident. That we are all endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights, one of them being the right to express our extreme displeasure to a person like herself who is payed with tax payer funds, in other words our money, and is placing her own misanthropic political agenda above the welfare of her own students.
You can send an email to Principle Vidmar in care of Stevens Elementary using the email below:
block_leann@Cupertino.k12.ca.us
I did a bit of investigation myself, and found a news release published by the Cupertino School District on the subject, which reads as follows:
November 30, 2004 – Cupertino, CA.— The federal lawsuit filed by Stephen Williams against representatives of the Cupertino Union School District has raised a number of questions about District curriculum. The Cupertino Union School District will continue to educate its fifth grade students about America’s founding era leaders and the political, religious, social and economic ideas and beliefs that led to the birth of our great nation. The Declaration of Independence, sections of the United States Constitution, and other historical documents are re-printed in our textbooks, displayed in some of our school buildings, and taught in our social studies curriculum and lessons. There has been no ban of such documents or their underlying principles in the Cupertino Union School District.
The Constitution requires the District to uphold the First Amendment which mandates the separation between Church and State. Courts have repeatedly held that public schools have the right and the duty to review instructional materials to ensure compliance with this constitutional obligation. The District’s conduct in this matter has been consistent with its obligations. The Cupertino Union School District’s principals and other instructional leaders play a crucial role in working with teachers to ensure that constitutional mandates are met, and that all instructional materials are appropriate and consistent with the State framework and applicable State curriculum standards. The District will continue to act in accordance with its legal obligations and educational objectives.
So while they are apparently willing to reprint certain portions of the Declaration of Independence in the textbooks and use this material, the full Declaration, at least in their view, is Unconstitutional because it contains references to God.
One really has to wonder if perhaps the people in charge of this school district are not the same folks that are lobbying so hard for the "medical" use of marijuana, and if they haven't started indulging in it themselves. You would really have to be on drugs to even say something like this with a straight face.
For those of you who would also like the opportunity to give the Cupertino Board of Education a reality check for this rather bizarre interpretation of our Constitution, you can reach them via email here:
board@cupertino.k12.ca.us
I for one intend on writing them a rather lengthy email, and would encourage others to do the same. It would be nice if these folks would begin to realize that their attempts to revise history will not go unheeded, or unchallenged.
Editors Note: It was noted in a comment left by Dr. Forbush that Cupertino is actually a suburb of San Jose, rather than San Francisco as was originally reported by other news agencies. We double checked this information and it turns out Dr. Forbush was indeed correct, Cupertino is indeed a suburb of San Jose, not San Francisco as was originally reported. We've sent Dr. Forbush 25 tbucks for spotting this factual error.
|
|
|
| |
posted by: RedTigress
post date: 12.01.04 (1:09 pm)
It's sad how much some people hate those of us who love God.
And they say most of the problems come from religion. What about the problems with those who down right despise it?
posted by: DrForbush
post date: 12.01.04 (3:20 pm)
Actually you are jumping to conclusions here. Cupertino is actually a suburb of San Jose, which is about 40 miles from San Francisco. But, of course the "liberal San Francisco" plays better in the "Right wing" press.
The teacher is pushing the envelope by using historical text in order to push his religious agenda. He purposely searches for bits in order to talk about God in his classroom.
I could go either way with this, but if you don't honestly represent the facts you make it sound like the liberal are outlawing US historical documents. This is not true at all. Instead, the teacher was asked to check with the principal before presenting material in class.
posted by: stepdad
post date: 12.02.04 (3:00 am)
Sorry Doc, the only religious agenda being represented here is not Christianity, it's Secular Humanism. A relgious belief, I might add, that takes far more faith than Christianity does.
To deny that our nation was founded on Judeo Christian values is simply historically false, and to attempt to remove any and all references to a Supreme Being from history requires rewriting it.
That is reprehinsible behavior, whether your in San Francisco or San Jose.
posted by: deviant1
post date: 12.02.04 (5:42 am)
why thats almost a frigging stupid as trying to teach judeo-christian creationism as science isn't it?
posted by: stepdad
post date: 12.02.04 (5:47 am)
Reply to: deviant1
Actually there is as much, if not more scientific support for intelligent design as there is for the theory of evolution. One is denied completely and the other is taught more often as fact than theory in public schools.
But of course forcing your religious agenda on children seems to be just fine with you, its only when alternative points of view are offered that you seem threatened. Amazing that some peoples belief in a Supreme Being is so "offensive" to folks like you that you'll go to any length, no matter how ridiculous, to deny it. You'd rather have these children grow up completely ignorant of such things rather than presenting both views and allowing them to make the choice. Your doctrine demands that only one viewpoint, yours, be presented and that it must be presented as fact when in truth it is little more than theory, a theory with some rather glaring flaws.
So tell me deviant, why is it that you need to conceal facts from these kids? It's a fact that our nation was founded by religious men who believed in a Supreme Being. Why must we rewrite history to support your views?
posted by: deviant1
post date: 12.02.04 (6:28 am)
Reply to: stepdad
Your unsderstanding of what a scientific theory is, is quite lacking.
Creationism by any stretch of the imagination does not follow scientific method. Creationism is not a scientific theory, therefore has no place in a science classroom.
Actually, I have no problem with religion being taught as religion, just not as science. By all means, in a religious class feel free to teach creationism.
I was educated in a religious school and thats how they taught things. Science as Science, religion as religion.
I am not asking that history be rewritten. Had you read my response a little closer you would note that I find it rediculous that American Historical documents be not taught in school because of a refernce to a creator.
If on th other hand, as Dr. Forbush suggests, some zealot is using one line from the Declaration Of Independence in order to spend an hour of a history class talking about God, well, thats a different story.
Again in that case, teach history as history, religion as religion, not religion as history.
You state:
"Your doctrine demands that only one viewpoint, yours, be presented and that it must be presented as fact when in truth it is little more than theory"
Really? I fail to see how that is. You would think that I was trying to make religion being taught as science and history instead of religion. :) Whats next? Talk all about Jesus in PE class if you learn about fishing? Cause after all, there is lots of stories about Jesus fishing.
Just curious as to what my "religious agenda" is? I see you have me pegged as a "secular humanist". Exactly how did you come to this conclusion? Just making assumptions?
posted by: stepdad
post date: 12.02.04 (6:53 am)
"Your unsderstanding of what a scientific theory is, is quite lacking. "
Lol.. well fortunately what I apparently lack in understanding of scientific theory you more than make up for with your unparalleled grasp of condescension... lol..
"Creationism by any stretch of the imagination does not follow scientific method. Creationism is not a scientific theory, therefore has no place in a science classroom. "
You might want to actually go back and read my post first before you continue, it will make you look far less foolish in the future. I never said anything about Creationism. I was discussing the theory of intelligent design. Before you try and debunk a theory, you might want to try addressing the correct one. Rather hard to prove the theory of gravity is wrong if you say it is wrong by attacking the theory of relativity instead.
"Actually, I have no problem with religion being taught as religion, just not as science."
Then you'll agree that secular humanism has absolutely no place in the classroom. Excellent, were apparently making some progress.. lol..
posted by: deviant1
post date: 12.02.04 (8:55 am)
Reply to: stepdad
You state:
"You might want to actually go back and read my post first before you continue, it will make you look far less foolish in the future. I never said anything about Creationism. I was discussing the theory of intelligent design. Before you try and debunk a theory, you might want to try addressing the correct one."
Just what is "theory of intelligent design" that you speak of?
http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2002/1106id2.shtml
An exerpt:
"Recognizing that the "intelligent design theory" represents a challenge to the quality of science education, the Board of Directors of the AAAS unanimously adopts the following resolution:
Whereas, ID proponents claim that contemporary evolutionary theory is incapable of explaining the origin of the diversity of living organisms;
Whereas, to date, the ID movement has failed to offer credible scientific evidence to support their claim that ID undermines the current scientifically accepted theory of evolution;
Whereas, the ID movement has not proposed a scientific means of testing its claims;
Therefore Be It Resolved, that the lack of scientific warrant for so-called "intelligent design theory" makes it improper to include as a part of science education;
Therefore Be Further It Resolved, that AAAS urges citizens across the nation to oppose the establishment of policies that would permit the teaching of "intelligent design theory" as a part of the science curricula of the public schools;
Therefore Be It Further Resolved, that AAAS calls upon its members to assist those engaged in overseeing science education policy to understand the nature of science, the content of contemporary evolutionary theory and the inappropriateness of "intelligent design theory" as subject matter for science education;
Therefore Be Further It Resolved, that AAAS encourages its affiliated societies to endorse this resolution and to communicate their support to appropriate parties at the federal, state and local levels of the government."
Creationism by another name is still Creationism. Atempting to make it sound like science does not make it science.
You further state:
"Rather hard to prove the theory of gravity is wrong if you say it is wrong by attacking the theory of relativity instead."
Just curious as to what this "theory of gravity" is that you speak of. To my knowledge the current accepted explanation of Gravity is explained by the General and Special Theory Of Relativity along with Quantum Mechanics. So if there is a problem with the accepted explantion of Gravity it in fact has everything to do with (both theories of) Relativity.
So basically, you have shown yourself to have no idea what your talking about. Before you start talking about what should or should not be taught in a science class you might want to do a little research on the subject outside of your church.
You Further state:
"Then you'll agree that secular humanism has absolutely no place in the classroom. Excellent, were apparently making some progress.. lol.."
First off, secular humanism is not a religion. If it were it would have a place in a religious class. As it is a philosophy it would have a place in a philosophy class.
Secular Humanism Defined:
"Secular Humanism a non-religiously based philosophy promoting humanity as the measure of all things. It had its roots in the rationalism of the 18th Century and the freethought movement of the 19th Century.
They trace their roots to the rational philosophy first created in the West in ancient Greece. Many regard Socrates as the first and greatest of the Humanists.
They value knowledge based on reason and hard evidence rather than on faith.
... they reject the concept of a personal God...
... They accept democracy and reject both theocracy and secular dictatorships as political systems that are dangerous to individual freedoms.
They value freedom of inquiry, expression and action. They have a history of combating bigotry, hatred, discrimination, intolerance and censorship.
"
So your naming "Secular Humanism" as a religion is totally off base. Of course, the religious right loves to label anyone that doesn't believe in god as "secular Humanists". Why bother with the euphemism? Why not call all us "Secular Humanists" heathens or blasphemers or heretics because thats what you really mean. Disguising your intolernace with nice sounding words doesn't make you any less intolerant.
posted by: stepdad
post date: 12.02.04 (9:35 am)
Reply to: deviant1
Intelligent design theory is simple, considering the fact that it is statistically speaking a mathematical impossibility for all life on earth to have evolved as a function of random chance that some form of intelligence must have had a hand in creation. Nothing more, nothing less.
There are quite a few fundamentalists that believe in Creation Science, which is far different than the simple theory of intelligent design. They put forth the hypothesis that the story of Genesis is a literal word for word description of creation and that the world is not 4 1/2 billion years old. This is not a theory I subscribe to or support.
As to the board of directors of the AAAS, I could care less what they think of the theory regardless of how badly they mistate it, or how badly they ignore things about the theory of Evolution. The Theory of Evolution does not adequately explain the diversity of life here on earth, in fact to date not a single fossil of a transitory species has ever been discovered despite the thousands of fossilized species we have discovered. Not one. That doesn't sound very scientific to me personally. But somehow the fact that this is a gaping hole in the theory of evolution is overlooked. Interesting. Sounds like evolution requires as much faith, if not more, than intelligent design. Yet you readily accept one as scientific and disregard the other without thought or research. Interesting, but not scientific.
As to my church, it might interest you to know that they for the most part accept the theory of evolution, with certain reservations as mentioned above. They take no official standpoint on the theory being correct or incorrect, as the theory itself does not preclude the notion of a Supreme Being. So it isn't the hurch that causes me to have reservations about the theory of Evolution, it is scientific evidence (and lack there of) that precludes me from accepting evolution as much more than a theory, and one with serious flaws at that. I merely find it interesting that while there is as much scientific evidence to support Intelligent Design as there is Evolution, you reject one outright and embrace the other blindly. Sounds more like a religious devotion than a scientific principle to me.
"They accept democracy and reject both theocracy and secular dictatorships as political systems that are dangerous to individual freedoms. "
But our founders were deeply religious men who wrote and spoke of God often in the public arena, even included references to him in official documents and bills. When I was a kid we said the pledge of allegience in school, including the "Under God" part, and we studied the Declaration of Independence, in it's entirety. And despite all of those evil, insane references to a Supreme being in the entire history of our nation we have never, ever been a theocracy or even anything close to it. In fact we have always offerred our citizens the absolute most freedom in regards to their religious beliefs in practices regardless of what they might be. So honestly when you guys start on this whole evil theocracy thing you just sound paranoid, or delusional to me. I think a lot of other folks see it that way too.
So your a secular humanist, so what. Your beliefs have no more basis in absolute truth or fact than my own as a Christian. But while I respect your beliefs, you do not respect mine. While I can accept that some of your beliefs are presented in the public school systems, you are terrified that anyone might present some of mine.
Why is that, do you think?
posted by: DrForbush
post date: 12.02.04 (10:04 am)
Reply to: deviant1
Reply to: stepdad
Strange how this gets off the topic a bit. It's also strange how the religious right always brings up the founding fathers expressing their belief in God.
Actually, Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin among others had great trepidation when it came to religion. They knew the dangers of a state religion and they pushed for seperation of church and state. Most of us believe this is a good thing today, but in 1776 people weren't so sure. The Puritains were the fundamentalists of the day and they had certain ideas about religion. In order to make everyone happy they needed to have some mention of God in these documents. But, don't think that the founding fathers were uniformly behind these religious mentions.
posted by: deviant1
post date: 12.02.04 (10:08 am)
Reply to: stepdad
I know how much you love to try and distort things but geez, stay coherent dude.
Maybe you need glasses: I am not a secular humanist, as I mentioned in my post. Maybe try reading it all the way through ...
While you have your glasses on try reading the part about thocracy again. You know, the part about Secular Humanism defined. I fail to see where it says anywhere that the US is a theocracy. Can you point that out for me? Making assumptions again?
Additionally, I blindly accept nothing. I have taken university level courses on Evolution.
I understand it, I don't think that you do. Can you explain it to me? I highly doubt it.
This coming from such a well versed scientist that has no idea what consitutes a scientific theory. Or even what ones he quotes are about, such as Relativity.
AAAS is probably the one of the most respected scientific bodies in the world. So you are saying that they soemhow, against all that they believe in (scientific metheod) also "blindly" agree with Evolution while rejecting a much more sound theory of ID? Why would hey do that?
Do you think that it might be because of no scientific evidence? Hmmm, I think they are much more qualified to decide matters of science than you.
By the way, there is ample evidence in support of the theory of Evolution. Where is yours?
posted by: deviant1
post date: 12.02.04 (10:13 am)
Reply to: stepdad
You state:
"While I can accept that some of your beliefs are presented in the public school systems, you are terrified that anyone might present some of mine.
Why is that, do you think?"
First off, you have no choice but to accept that science is taught as science, thats just the way it is. To try to deny that is futile.
Secondly, as I will repeat for the nth time. I don't care if religion is taught in Public Schools, just teach it in a class about religion.
posted by: deviant1
post date: 12.02.04 (10:13 am)
Reply to: stepdad
You state:
"While I can accept that some of your beliefs are presented in the public school systems, you are terrified that anyone might present some of mine.
Why is that, do you think?"
First off, you have no choice but to accept that science is taught as science, thats just the way it is. To try to deny that is futile.
Secondly, as I will repeat for the nth time. I don't care if religion is taught in Public Schools, just teach it in a class about religion.
posted by: DrForbush
post date: 12.02.04 (10:14 am)
The question often becomes what should we be teaching our children in school?
The answer is, of course, we need to teach our children how to function in society so that we have an educated electorate that can make good choices in our democratic society.
Of course this answer is up for interpretation. The religious will say, see we need to teach about God so we can have moral people making these judgements. The secular people will say, see we need to teach scientific facts so that these people will understand the complexity of the world we live in and hence make proper decisions.
Traditionally, the science, math, history, english etc have been taught in public school, and the religion was left up to the parents. This makes sense because everyone believes in different religions and different ideas about religion. In other words, we have agreed to disagree on the topic of religion. Until the fundamentalists poked their heads in.
I have preached on the evils of fundamentalist thought, so I'll make it short here. The fundamentists think that they have the one true answer and they will not accept any other view. This means that they want all children to be taught what they believe to be true, and they will continue to push this idea until the end of time. They push in every place including schools, and other public places like courts and public buildings. They loose some, but they also win some. They cheer the wins and the continue to fight the losses in the hopes of spreading their evil...
posted by: deviant1
post date: 12.02.04 (10:17 am)
Reply to: DrForbush
Some of the founding fathers liked slaves too. Not to be disrespectful or anything but the American idea that the founding fathers walked on water (haha) as it were, is erroneus to many modern issues.
posted by: deviant1
post date: 12.02.04 (10:21 am)
Reply to: DrForbush
I guess thats why Stepdad here seems to be so against a religion class. Why? It would have to be a class in comparative religion.
Otherwise how would it reflect the diversity you mentioned? It just wouldn't fit in with the fundamentalist mindset. What good is teaching a class about comparative religion? Fundamentalists need THEIR message being taught, and noone elses!
posted by: stepdad
post date: 12.02.04 (10:23 am)
Reply to: DrForbush
"Actually, Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin among others had great trepidation when it came to religion. They knew the dangers of a state religion and they pushed for seperation of church and state."
But there idea of separation of Church and State was that the government shouldn't be able to tell you how to worship. They never believed, advocated or supported the notion that all mention of religion, God, Christianity or morality should be stricken from the public square or the public consciousness, indeed they were firm believers that all of our rights were granted to us not by our government but by God. It is the cornerstone of our entire system of government, and the very foundation that all of the bill of rights is based on. Any right given to you by the Government can be taken away from you by the government. But our Declaration of Independence and indeed the Bill of Rights to our Constitution clearly spells out that there are rights that we possess that cannot be infringed upon by our government, and the reason for that is simple, because they were not granted to us by the government but by a higher authority over which government has no control.
It is your premise that any mention of God or a higher power in the public venue will result in a theocracy and the loss of individual freedoms. The entire history of our nation proves you wrong. However have you considered the possibility that the course you advocate, the total removal of a supreme being from our public consciousness, might well be far more damaging to individual liberties than you can possibly imagine?
I mean if we have no rights granted to us by any authority higher than our elected officials, what prevents those elected officials from removing whatever rights they please whenever they can get a majority to agree with them? Nothing. So you tell me, what is more dangerous to freedom? We have over 200 years of history proving that the discussion of God or a Supreme Being of some sort does not erode individual freedoms one iota, in fact it increases them.
You have about 20 years of history that shows that the removal of all such references does nothing to advance individual freedoms and in fact has probably contributed to a general decline in our culture that might well prove disastrous for our nation.
So if you are indeed a person who values rational thought, why is it that you choose to continue to support the later rather than the former, even if you don't happen to believe in God?
"The Puritains were the fundamentalists of the day and they had certain ideas about religion. In order to make everyone happy they needed to have some mention of God in these documents."
You might want to reread your history, and research this a lot more carefully. The great Puritan migration to the New World came to an end in approximately 1640, quite a bit early than the start of the Revolutionary war nearly 130 years later. And while there may have been puritan populations in states like Rhode Island and Virginia they were hardly in a position to hold a tremendous sway over the new government that saw it’s birth in 1776.
Most of our Founding fathers were deists of one form or another, but you won't find many puritans among them at all. And your notion that puritans wanted to impose there religious beliefs on others is a bit difficult to accept as well, considering the fact that the reason for their migration was to leave behind governments that were persecuting them based on there religion. So your entire premise is simply historically false.
posted by: stepdad
post date: 12.02.04 (10:34 am)
Reply to: deviant1
"First off, you have no choice but to accept that science is taught as science, thats just the way it is. To try to deny that is futile."
I have no problems with teaching scientific fact as scientific fact. I've never objected to the fact that light travels at 186,000 miles per second, or that gravity accelerates objects at a speed of 9.8 meters per second squared or 32 to feet per second per second. I do object to a highly questionable theory that has been misrepresented as scientific fact is taught to the exclusion of other, equally credible theories that are every bit as scientific. Strange that you seem to wish to teach only your beliefs, even though they require every bit as much faith if not more than mine.
"? It just wouldn't fit in with the fundamentalist mindset. What good is teaching a class about comparative religion? "
Well, it might help to ask a fundamentalist that question, since I'm not one I'm not really qualified to answer it on their behalf. However from my own standpoint I don't advocate that someone teach the story of Genesis as literal truth, any more than I advocate the teaching of Greek mythology's explanation of our worlds origins.
I do however note that there is as much credible scientific evidence to support the notion that our creation was a matter of intelligent design, rather than random chance and as such it should not be simply ruled out or dismissed out of hand. We shouldn't be teaching these kids a specific agenda, we should simply be giving them the facts. Strange you seem to take such umbrage at this notion.
posted by: stepdad
post date: 12.02.04 (10:39 am)
Reply to: deviant1
"I guess thats why Stepdad here seems to be so against a religion class. Why? It would have to be a class in comparative religion. "
Might interest you to know that I have no objection whatsoever to compartive religion courses, in fact my wife has taken many and has enjoyed them all throughly. I myself am familiar with a multitude of religious beliefs and customs, it has always been an area of interest for me. I don't deny others their beliefs nor am I judgemental about them. I respect an honor their right to believe as they see fit, which is something my religion teaches me I should do.
Sadly it seems your own religion teaches you to denigrate anyone that doesn't instantly cowtow to your own myopic views. Funny isn't it, how your supposed to be the tolerant ones in this debate and yet all of the condescending snide remarks about personal beliefs are on your side of the equation?
You've already mistakenly labeled me as a fundamentalist so many times it is almost laughable, and yet you simply cannot comprehend that someone might actually be a Christian without being a fundamentalist. Funny, you seem to have no difficulty seperating the religion of islam from the actions or beliefs of islamic terrorists. To bad you can't be quite so tolerant of Christianity.
posted by: deviant1
post date: 12.02.04 (10:42 am)
Reply to: stepdad
I see you didn't bother to answer the question of what is worng with a class in comparative religion, which you quoted.
Secondly, the Theory of Evolution is taught as just that.
Thirdly, when the vast majority of scientists agree that Evolution has credible evidence and that "Intelligent design" does not. I look for myself and I agree with the methodology. They are the champions of scientific method. We all know religious people are :)
Just as I would not go to a scientist about questions of Faith, best not to go to a religious person for expertise on science.
posted by: deviant1
post date: 12.02.04 (10:49 am)
Reply to: stepdad
You keep accusing me of having a religion? What might that be pray tell?
Evolution is an accepted scientific theory. Intelligent design is not.
It is you that is trying to force your belief system into science. Science and religion is not the same thing. The theory you speak of has little to no suport in scientific circles. This is because it does not pass the test of scientific method, simple as that.
You state:
Funny, you seem to have no difficulty seperating the religion of islam from the actions or beliefs of islamic terrorists. To bad you can't be quite so tolerant of Christianity."
I said something about Islam anywhere? Wheres that?
posted by: stepdad
post date: 12.02.04 (10:57 am)
Reply to: deviant1
"Maybe you need glasses: I am not a secular humanist, as I mentioned in my post. Maybe try reading it all the way through ...
While you have your glasses on try reading the part about thocracy again. You know, the part about Secular Humanism defined. I fail to see where it says anywhere that the US is a theocracy. Can you point that out for me? Making assumptions again?"
Wow.. are you normally this arrogant and condescending? Are you capable of debating a topic without being snotty? Thus far from your reponses it doesn't seem so, which I find rather amusing truth be told. Supposedly your the "enlightened" on in this debate and yet your behavior to date has been nothing short of childish.
I think if you had a decent, intellectual argument to support your beliefs you could probably state it and you wouldn't need to resort to such behavior, which leads me to believe that you simply lack a well supported intellectual argument.
As to the rest of your posting, you might wish to attempt to comprehend your own writings on the subject to better understand my responses. You stated that you feared expressions of God or a Supreme Being might lead to a theocracy and the erosions of personal freedoms. A paraphrase perhaps, but an accurate one.
I responded by pointing out that our history as a nation clearly shows such fears are unfounded, we had a multidude of such expressions as part of our public conciousness for over 200 years and yet in that entire time we've never come close to becoming a theocracy, so wouldn't that indicate to you that such fears are unfounded?
posted by: DrForbush
post date: 12.02.04 (11:08 am)
Reply to: stepdad
You wrote:
"The great Puritan migration to the New World came to an end in approximately 1640, quite a bit early than the start of the Revolutionary war nearly 130 years later. "
I beg to differ -
Because of its diffuse nature, when Puritanism began to decline in America is difficult to say. Some would hold that it lost its influence in New England by the early 18th century, but Jonathan Edwards and his able disciple Samuel Hopkins revived Puritan thought and kept it alive until 1800. Others would point to the gradual decline in power of Congregationalism, but Presbyterians under the leadership of Jonathan Dickinson and Baptists led by the example of Isaac Backus (1724 - 1806) revitalized Puritan ideals in several denominational forms through the 18th century.
posted by: DrForbush
post date: 12.02.04 (11:16 am)
Reply to: stepdad
You wrote:
" You have about 20 years of history that shows that the removal of all such references does nothing to advance individual freedoms and in fact has probably contributed to a general decline in our culture that might well prove disastrous for our nation."
Somehow you think that this action is not effected by the rest of American Culture? What about the effect of TV which was more likely to effect these children over the same twenty years? Which twenty years? In the last twenty years there could be many other things that could be responsible for the decline in morals. For example under Ronald Reagan much funding to the poor and programs for the poor were cut. Desperate and homeless people do desperate things and crime rates went up. Are you blaming these crime rates on the absent mention of God in the class room? I was in high school longer than twenty years ago. People could talk about God in the classroom. In the high school some kids thought it would be funny to put drugs in a some kids coke during lunch. The kids were rushed to the emergency room. Why didn't the talk of God in the classroom prevent that?
posted by: stepdad
post date: 12.02.04 (11:18 am)
"Because of its diffuse nature, when Puritanism began to decline in America is difficult to say. Some would hold that it lost its influence in New England by the early 18th century, but Jonathan Edwards and his able disciple Samuel Hopkins revived Puritan thought and kept it alive until 1800. "
Interesting.. lol.. so, how many of our Founding Fathers were puritans, and what historical evidence do you have to support the notion that they specifically feared Puritanism? Can you cite any specific evidence whatsoever to support your theory that Puritanism had a great influence on the development of our system of government?
posted by: deviant1
post date: 12.02.04 (2:30 pm)
Reply to: stepdad
You get what you give amigo. You want to drop the attitude on your end then I'll do th same, in fact, I'll start now.
I have some problems with what you are saying. Here they are:
I never mentioned any of the following:
anything about Islam, at all.
anything about the US Government. What you referred to was part of what you label me as: A Secular Humanist which for one, I told you I'm not and two was a part of the definition of said label. Why are you trying to introduce politics into this discussion?
You have not menioned a single way the "Theory Intelligent Design". I am quite aware that I have also not provided that in favour of Evolution. I think that should be a forum all its own ...
How about an evolution Vs. intelligent design blog?
posted by: stepdad
post date: 12.03.04 (4:16 am)
Reply to: deviant1
#1. Politics is inherent in the discussion, this is a political topic posted on a political blog under a political heading. Thus the fact that I discuss it from a political viewpoint was something I thought was simply a given.
#2. Yours are not the only posts I'm replying too, and not everything in the reply section is directed at you personally. I address other points/interests as I see fit. Apologies if this lead to any confusion.
#3. I have stated the theory of intelligent design, but I think you are correct that perhaps a proper blog entry on the subject might be better for discussing it at length. I'll try and get something posted today.
#4. As to the get what you give comment, I would point out two things, your very first posting before a single reply set the tone for the rest of the discussion. You get what you give indeed.
posted by: deviant1
post date: 12.03.04 (4:22 am)
Reply to: stepdad
#4. As to the get what you give comment, I would point out two things, your very first posting before a single reply set the tone for the rest of the discussion. You get what you give indeed.
Its not me complaining about attitude.
I look forward to your blog.
|
|
|
