<p>What else did the fundamendalists push??? Who else would push AGAIN to teach creastionism in school, but the current government. I remenber the scopes trial the first time around. The current admin is sending millions to Faith based initiatives…that is religious based and that is only now we have that. I’m sure there’s lot more…don’t worry we’ll think of it.</p>
<p>ff, re: gay marriage, because you can’t have a democracy only when it’s convienient, You either have equal rights all the time or not.</p>
<p>
No one at the federal level. And even at the local level it is not being pushed to displace teaching of evolution. Why does the introduction of an alternative view upset you so much. I thought you favored alternative views:
I guess these are just hollow words to you.</p>
<p>
You mean that you don’t have a whole list at the tip of your tongue? So why the cause for intolerant words if you have to think long and hard for examples to back them up?</p>
<p>
I agree completely. However, we apparently disagree on the definition of democracy. Your definition of democracy is that select minorities of your chosing get to make their own rules. However, minorities that you don’t agree with can be banned, shunned or castigated for their views.</p>
<p>What about when Justice Scalia basis his death penalty rulings on religion: Christians are not afraid to die, so the death penalty is okay. While NON BELIEVERS are and thats why they don’t like the death penalty.</p>
<p>No, it is not legislation, but it is using religion in law at the federal level</p>
<p>And, yes it is Mr. Scalia’s own words.</p>
<p>The operative word is consensus on the one iten.
Re creationism The local level can push for creationism because it is getting top down approval and locals know they have a very willing ear and support in congress. If opposing ideas mean your ruin the education of children in our country (versus the real science education they’re learning in other countries) just to suit one little religion in the world then that is something we must stand up to and say NO. We complain that the Muslims in the Middle and Far East are training their children to know only religious knowledge and bigotry, why oh why would we do that to our own children here?</p>
<p>What you post about Scalia does NOT sound like it comes from a ruling that he made. So to characterize it as the “basis” for his rulings is a bit disingenuous/deceptive. Justices are free to have their own personal beliefs just as you and I are. If it happens that your personal belief is consistent with your interpretation of the constitution that’s fine. However, Scalia is known for his hard-fast interpretation of the original intent of the constition.</p>
<p>Case in point: much was said against Judge Breyer to argue against his appointment to the appelate court because of his religious beliefs that he publicly avowed. Yet, in the case of the Alabama judge who refused to remove the ten commandments from his court room, Breyer upheld his interpretation of the law, not his personal beliefs, in siding against the judge.</p>
<p>Oh and btw abortion does have wide spread support, but the religious right wants to get rid of roe versus Wade. Do we wait until all our rights our removed and we see how much legislation has gone again us or do we see the writing on the wall and fight for our rights now??? Later will be way too late.</p>
<p>
That’s a pretty big leap, don’t you think? It’s hyperbole like this that we can do without. How can you possibly claim that mere exposure to the idea of creationism will “ruin” their entire education.</p>
<p>He of course didn['t say it in a RULING, it is what he said in how he decides ruling:</p>
<p>Indeed, it seems to me that the more Christian a country is, the less likely it is to regard the death penalty as immoral. Abolition has taken its firmest hold in post-Christian Europe and has least support in the church-going United States. I attribute that to the fact that for the believing Christian, death is no big deal. Intentionally killing an innocent person is a big deal, a grave sin which causes one to lose his soul, but losing this physical life in exchange for the next the Christian attitude is reflected in the words Robert Bolts play has Thomas More saying to the headsman: Friend, be not afraid of your office. You send me to God. And when Cramner asks whether he is sure of that, More replies, He will not refuse one who is so blithe to go to him. </p>
<p>“For the non-believer, on the other hand, to deprive a man of his life is to end his existence what a horrible act.”</p>
<p>And besides being less likely to regard death as an utterly cataclysmic punishment, the Christian is also more likely to regard punishment in general as deserved. The doctrine of free will, the ability of man to resist temptations to evil is central to the Christian doctrine of salvation and damnation, heaven and hell. The post-Freudian secularist, on the other hand, is more inclined to think that people are what their history and circumstances have made them, and there is little sense in assigning blame. "</p>
<p>
If it has such widespread support, why do you fear the overturning of Roe? You do realize that Roe effectively takes away the right of the “widespread majority” from expressing their views by means of legislation. That’s precisely the way that abortion was legalized in other European countries and why it is not such a controversial topic there. I would think that if there is such a widespread majority in favor of choice that the pro-choice people would want to have Roe overturned so that they could have their beliefs codified into law.</p>
<p>Oh yeah, and weren’t many slave owners Christians, or at least church goers,</p>
<p>I am interested in the way that science is taught in other areas but what I don’t understand is those who argue that creationism should be taught in public schools- Public organizations need to be free from advocating a religion - I would rather students not be taught any science than inaccurate science.</p>
<p>“it is what he said in how he decides ruling:”</p>
<p>I don’t see anything in this that says that this is the foundation of his ruling. Are you denying him his own personal beliefs?</p>
<p>
And probably a lot were also atheists/agnostics. So what? The point is that the leading advocates of abolition were religious people. </p>
<p>On a side note; many people try to make fun of GWB for his religious advocacy and try to put words into his mouth regarding his getting “messages” from God. How many people are aware that prior to the Battle of Antietam, Abraham Lincoln prayed for a Union victory and said that it would be a sign from God that he should free the slaves. When the Union prevaled in turning the Confederate advance back at Antietam Lincoln saw this as a sign from God and shortly thereafter signed the Emancipation Proclamation. In today’s world he would be laughed at and scorned. Yet, somehow there is a belief that the country is becoming a theist state. I just don’t get it.</p>
<p>
How about teaching alternatives for which the “science” of evolution has absolutely no answers? Like the ultimate origin of the matter and energy from which everything evolved?</p>
<p>He has his beliefs, but he says that the death penalty isn’t immoral and that most Christian are not afraid of death, and when he jusitifed his postion it wasn’t immoral he used religious quotes, and once he decided it wasn’t immoral, that was the basis for his decisions on the death penalty.</p>
<p>He says he made his decision of the morallity of the death penalty based on religious teachings and because he decided the death penalty was immoral, that is how he interprets the constitution, Amendment 8, on cruel and unusual punishment.</p>
<p>And, how dare he separate the citizens of this country into Christians and Non Believers…his words…if he says that out loud, how do we possibly trust what is in his head…sorry, but anyone that calls does that is using religion. NON BELIEVERS??? what is that? what don’t they believe and why does it matter in THE LAW…and he is making moral decisions based on his religious readings, well…</p>
<p>and he says most Christians believe in the death penalty…maybe so, but what does that matter in THE LAW</p>
<p>I don’t see alot of CHRISTIANITY and JESUS in the constitutiuon, but yet this PUBLIC figure uses it all the time. Personal beliefs are one thing, but he says he uses the CHRISTIAN beliefs as his moral compass (paraphrase) and because our country has a CHRISTIAN history, and BELIEVERS are okay with death, he thinks the death penallty is moral.</p>
<p>And leading advocates against slavery where women</p>
<p>Rather than your selective quotes from his speeches or writings and your assertion that these were the basis for his rulings, I would want to see his exact rulings.</p>