Three cheers for Tevas common sense !

[ironglow]

 n They didn't allow the liberal, leftist "progressives" to rewrite history Even from the very leftward bias of the NY Times..they still look good (the conservative members, that is)...
   http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/13/education/13texas.html

   

[dukkillr]

We went through that here a few years ago in Kansas.  The uber conservatives got a majority on the school board and then outlawed evolution.  It was the only thing in my adult life that I have seen that could motive moderates to vote in the primaries.  And vote they did.  The changes were reversed after the next election...

[teamnelson]

From the article: “I reject the notion by the left of a constitutional separation of church and state,” said David Bradley, a conservative from Beaumont who works in real estate. “I have $1,000 for the charity of your choice if you can find it in the Constitution.”

That is awesome! There's a man that puts his $ where his mouth is.

[Squib]

Three cheers for Tevas common sense !


te-V-as common sense!    and they call us missouri guys chicken humpers...

[alsaqr]

Yep, the Texas BOE outed Thomas Jefferson from textbooks and replaced him with a couple others that most folks never heard of.  Yep, old Jefferson must have been a bad guy because he owned a Koran.   

http://www.infowars.com/thomas-jefferson-dropped-from-texas-school-textbooks/

[dukkillr]

The wall between Church and State is explained by Jefferson and that Texas dude has $1000 that no one can find it.  It's an inside job.

[mauser98us]

Iv'e been to Tevas a couple of times.Even spent a year there one month in the panhandle in the metroplis of Hereford. Had a hard time gettin used to the dry county tho. Had to go to Umbarger to get liquored up.

[teamnelson]

The wall between Church and State is explained by Jefferson and that Texas dude has $1000 that no one can find it.  It's an inside job.

the reason it's not found is because it's not in the constitution. It's in a letter Jefferson wrote to Baptists who were afraid the government was going to establish a federal religion, and Jefferson assured them that a particular religion would not be promoted over another. Never ever did anyone say faith would have no role in society or government. Speak facts gents.

[nomosendero]

The wall between Church and State is explained by Jefferson and that Texas dude has $1000 that no one can find it.  It's an inside job.

the reason it's not found is because it's not in the constitution. It's in a letter Jefferson wrote to Baptists who were afraid the government was going to establish a federal religion, and Jefferson assured them that a particular religion would not be promoted over another. Never ever did anyone say faith would have no role in society or government. Speak facts gents.

You are right TN, but he allready knows that!

[nomosendero]

Some people want the USA to re-create itself as a theocracy in thier image.....TM7

And some want to to revert back to what our forefathers believed.

[teamnelson]

I am a federally paid clergyman, my role was established and protected by Title 10, and has been around longer than the country. I ensure religious accomodation is provided for all military members, and provide directly for those my church claims. Ours is the only legally protected role in our government for total confidentially; not just hipa, total. Cannot be subpoenaed or ordered. I am endorsed by my church having met both federal and church requirements, and my church has ecclesiastical authority over me. Kinda begs the question of separation huh?

Our forefathers were pluralists in that faith like all ideas flourishes in a free market of ideas. They remembered what happened in the years prior to our independence where states declared themselves to be all catholic or all Protestant, and the battles fought, people kicked out of their homes, etc. So they established a government that was supposed to have minimal intrusion into our lives, to include faith. They were protecting faith from the state, not the other way around.

[gwhilikerz]

We went through that here a few years ago in Kansas.  The uber conservatives got a majority on the school board and then outlawed evolution.  It was the only thing in my adult life that I have seen that could motive moderates to vote in the primaries.  And vote they did.  The changes were reversed after the next election...

Just goes to show the "moderates" sometimes have no clue. I rejected evolution years ago, even in high school. That stance caused me plenty problems in school. But to this date I have seen no evidence that some animal or human has evolved.

[skarke]

When a macro-evolutionist can explain to me the Cambrian explosion using Darwinian theory, I'll take a second look at it.  No one can deny that there are inter-genus variability, even inter-species variability that might be partially explained by some degree of natural selection, there isn't a shred of evidence that demonstrates the sea-slime to homo sapien link.

When atheists claim that they rely solely on "fact" for their beliefs, they fail to accomodate the fact that a hallmark of their belief structure, macro-evolution, remains merely a theory.  I might add that it is one that is slowly falling out of favor with an increasingly skeptical scientific community.

[steve y]

Could there be a connection between Darwinism and Marxism? They both came out around the same time and seem alot like the struggle we have today with the direction our government is going and climate change crap. Even when I was being taught evalution in school I just couldn't grapple with the idea we evolved from a monkey. Today I absolutley refuse to believe we do. Stands to reason that they are all conected because they both deny the existance of God and all His creation. Am I way off base? Steve

[nomosendero]

When a macro-evolutionist can explain to me the Cambrian explosion using Darwinian theory, I'll take a second look at it.  No one can deny that there are inter-genus variability, even inter-species variability that might be partially explained by some degree of natural selection, there isn't a shred of evidence that demonstrates the sea-slime to homo sapien link.

When atheists claim that they rely solely on "fact" for their beliefs, they fail to accomodate the fact that a hallmark of their belief structure, macro-evolution, remains merely a theory.  I might add that it is one that is slowly falling out of favor with an increasingly skeptical scientific community.

Falling out of favor, yes & much like "Global Warming", believed in large part by the same "enlightened" folks.
 

[nomosendero]

Could there be a connection between Darwinism and Marxism? They both came out around the same time and seem alot like the struggle we have today with the direction our government is going and climate change crap. Even when I was being taught evalution in school I just couldn't grapple with the idea we evolved from a monkey. Today I absolutley refuse to believe we do. Stands to reason that they are all conected because they both deny the existance of God and all His creation. Am I way off base? Steve

No, you are not off base at all, they very much dovetailed!! Also, Hitler was big on evolution & the "enlightened" Germany was embracing the idea at warp speed & decided certain races were "apelike" & had to be eliminated.

[nomosendero]

I ensure religious accomodation is provided for all military members

....to primarily minister to those of your faith, but will fill in when necessary for those of other sects or faiths...is that correct?  
I don't see anywhere  the Founder's established, hinted at, or proclaimed any state religion to be formalized. In fact, that was one of the things they were rebelling against.


..TM7

Which is why they did not establish a GOV. Religion.

We all know this stuff. The founders sought and obtained Religious freedom. They were fleeing religious persecution. They did not want the Gov. to est. The Church of England as a "Government" religion. Same would apply to Baptist or whichever. However the words "Separation", "Church" & "State" just aren't there.
Bit we also know that we were a Nation founded on Christian principles.

[ironglow]

  While I in no way want a theocratic state ruled by any denomination, just as surely those who would disallow a discussion of issues from a Christian viewpoint and even attempt to rule out voluntary prayer, are fully as intransigent, if not more so...than those who would impose a theocracy.
  Certainly, the evidence is overwhelming by testimony of our founding fathers, that this nation was founded upon and designed around Christian principles. They even warned us that to ignore these founding principles and values would likely spell doom for the republic. To the seriously observant, evidence is mounting to prove their assertions correct.
    Evolution should not be struck from the curriculum but rather should be taught alongside intelligent design, these being the two dominant theories offered. It is interesting to observe that of these two leading theories, neither has been empirically proven through scientific protocol and either one requires a great deal of faith to accept.
  Scientists on either side are strident in their expository demonstrations of their cases. Let the debate begin, only the unsure and tenative, would be afraid to debate their position.
  
  BTW: The substitution of Tevas...for Texas.
    For those who complained; they should be pleased they do not have as large of fingers or as sticky a keyboard as I have...
  I really do feel bad about being the only one who commits typographical errors around here !   ..

[billy_56081]

ANd evolution is on a "theory". Lets not go off like our tinfoilhat members and start saying things are facts when they are not.

[ironglow]

Agreed TM,
    Govt should not meddle with any religion..except when that religion includes sedition or terrorism. In proper context, the Bill of Rights is to protect the rights of the people, not the rights of the govt. The first amendment gives the freedom of speech and religion TO THE PEOPLE..not the govt; so obviously it was not meant for the govt to pick and choose.
  That much belabored "wall of separation" was a phrase coined by Thos Jefferson in a letter to the Danbury Baptists. The Danbury (CT) Baptists were concerned that the Episcopals or Anglicans were getting a bit cozy with some high officials. Jefferson wrote to assure them that no denomination would have any more influence than another . He said NOTHING about disallowing theological ventures in the federal govt; he simply assured that Baptist body that things were not to be as they were in England with the Anglicans...a "state church".
   You will notethat Jefferson reiterated the 1st article of the Bill of Rights.. that congress should "Make no law respecting an establishment of religion, OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF" (my emphasis). If congress lets pass laws tha forbid voluntary religious exercise (so long as it not hindering others)..obviously they are prohibiting "free exercise".
        Read both letters..Danbury Baptists and the Jeffersonian answer;

  http://www.gainesvillehumanists.org/baptist.htm

[steve y]

It would seem to me with Darwinism being only a theory, that those who espouse it believe it to be scientifically true. Just as the people who believe in "global warming" say that the science is settled based on fact. It would also seem to me that to believe in evolution takes much more faith to believe in than creationism. For to have believe in hapenstance or happy little accidents takes much greater faith than to know that the beauty of this universe could not have been a happy little accident. Steve

[nomosendero]

It would seem to me with Darwinism being only a theory, that those who espouse it believe it to be scientifically true. Just as the people who believe in "global warming" say that the science is settled based on fact. It would also seem to me that to believe in evolution takes much more faith to believe in than creationism. For to have believe in hapenstance or happy little accidents takes much greater faith than to know that the beauty of this universe could not have been a happy little accident. Steve

That is right.

[nomosendero]

No need rolling the 1st over & over, we all know what it says, some just don't like it, or more specifically the obvious that this Nation was founded on Christian principles, but at the same time not forcing this on you, it's a beautiful thing.

[ironglow]

It would seem to me with Darwinism being only a theory, that those who espouse it believe it to be scientifically true. Just as the people who believe in "global warming" say that the science is settled based on fact. It would also seem to me that to believe in evolution takes much more faith to believe in than creationism. For to have believe in hapenstance or happy little accidents takes much greater faith than to know that the beauty of this universe could not have been a happy little accident. Steve

  Steve;
  I do agree with you but was speaking objectively, as I would hope such text book board members would try to do. Frankly, with an open and fair debate, I believe the intelligent design theory would hold it's own..if not prevail. Alas, it looks as though many of the Darwinists do also and that is obviously why they contest open inquiry into both theories.

[ironglow]

NS...well actually more specifically, I think they didn't establish a state religion, or faith, because it is most often and usually the foundation for tyranny thruout history, and seemingly the case most recently in this country...hence the 1st amendment, but you should read the original draft of the 1st by Madison.  Civicly that is the duty of all elected officials to uphold the 1st, and not say stuff like "we also know that we were a nation founded on Christian principles", because that just might not be the case if we look at the Founders membership in fraternal orgs and absence of belonging to churches. And it is civicly wrong and prevented....that is if you believe in the 1st, etc. You should totally get your religion at home or temple, mosque, church, or study groups. Any effort to merge religion with civic government is the work of the devil and should be verboten... Why would any religious person want anything as dark as the government to minister to one's soul or regulate/promote spiritual affairs...that would be agendi driven BS.

I'm sure we agree on this one...

 TM7;
  I have already said I do not favor a theocratic government, such as the Muslim nations endure, but by the same token..for an elected official to be required to leave his faith & convictions behind would be the govt "prohibiting the free exercise thereof".
   ..And for you to imply that any appreciable numbers of our forefathers (e.g. signers of the Constitution) were anything but Christian in their belief, is disingenuous at best.

[teamnelson]

I ensure religious accomodation is provided for all military members

....to primarily minister to those of your faith, but will fill in when necessary for those of other sects or faiths...is that correct?  
..TM7

I think the military chaplaincy is the best and clearest example of what the forefathers intended as it comes to the relationship between church and state. We were established so that the right of a citizen to worship freely would not be impeded by their service to the country, in other words they could not claim that their 1st Amendment right had been denied by the necessities of service. Beyond that, the value of faith to the American is a long established fact, and one that was cherished by the founders. Our four core competencies of the military chaplain are: Facilitate everyone (all faiths), Provide for your own (in my case Baptist/Evangelical), Care for all (regardless, and Advise the Commander. So if a Muslim wants to find a local "mosque" to join, I make sure the command allows him the time off, etc., but I don't have to perform a service for him. If he wants to debate theology, we can do so but I cannot prosteltyse him. If I am performing a religious service, I dictate how it goes and have free reign, not the commander. If I am performing a formal military ceremony that requires a prayer or some other religious activity, my CO calls the shots - which usually means I conclude the prayer, "In your holy name." as opposed to "in Jesus name." I provide counseling on any subject, not just spiritual, to any that require it, and again, with the highest level of confidentiality our nation protects. And I report directly to the CO so I can advise them of trends, provide a moral ethical sounding board to decision making, and serve as their action officer for the command religious program.

Obviously, if the separation of church and state were as some believe, I would not have a job. And that attack has come up in the past decade, but repeatedly shot down in congress because our very presence insures that our servicemember's can exercise their 1st Amendment rights. 2 weeks ago a recent parolee from the public school system pitched a fit that he had to put up with an (ecumenical) prayer offered at a formal military event, claiming that separation was in the constitution. The CO pointed out that the complainee was depriving his fellow soldiers from 1) tradition of the service, and 2) exercise of their own faith in a manner that was a respectful as possible to the greatest majority. It is the false notion about separation that is the common justification of infringement of the 1st Amendment.

[notnowjohn]

Come mothers and fathers
Throughout the land
And don't criticize
What you can't understand
Your sons and your daughters
Are beyond your command
Your old road is
Rapidly agin'.
Please get out of the new one
If you can't lend your hand
For the times they are a-changin'.

"Times They Are A-changin'"
Bob Dylan

Science is responsible for the technology to make this forum possible. Science works from gathering data, fossils, DNA, core samples, etc. That data is then interpreted according to empirical values (validity and control) ,subject to peer review before publication. Facts arise as acceptance,(via peer review) that the theory fits the observable data. It is a solid system and almost totally responsible for our technical advances to date. It is vital that all public schools of all levels remain secular. Religious instruction should stay in the temples for those who desire such and not imposed through public education.

[teamnelson]

So you'd make the schools a temple to science, and force all children to worship there.

[steve y]

As the old saying goes: "There are no atheists in foxholes." Steve

[skarke]

Welcome to the forum notnowjohn.

The scientific method does not exist in a vacuum of amorality exempting itself from bias.  I've worked my entire life reading the product of "research".

I do not disagree with the scientific method; rather, the fallacy that scientists are above human nature.  When a belief system, scientific or otherwise, becomes a religion unto itself, the passion of the "investigator" injects bias.

When that belief system "religion" is commonly worshipped by the so called "peer reviewers", then they will add more bias by overlooking flaws in data, especially when their non-critical review furthers their overall belief system.

A classic case in point is the "scientists" at East Anglia, and their absolute disregard for scientific method to advance their religion of global warming.

Bottom line, a scientist free from the reigns of moral accountability can, and will falsify data, lie, fudge, and anything else they deem necessary.

In their religion, "The ends justify the means" Saul Alinsky.