[SK in CV]

[quote=jstoesz]
I find that specific argument (that you want to have) spurious. Because if we have choice, why would you care about whether ID is taught in some schools? Unless you are interested in controlling other people’s kids that is.

[/quote]

This is really getting rediculous. I have no desire to tell anyone what they teach their kids. But it’s rediculous to include ID in publicly funded schools. Not only because it is a thoroughly modern version of creationism, designed specifically to get around constitutional limitations, but it because it isn’t science. It isn’t anything. It is comparable to teaching flat earth as a valid alternative. To teach it as science is encouraging kids to be stupid. And at minimum, we all have a stake in not doing that.

Now you want to teach it in a private school? Go ahead and make your kids stupid. But I really don’t want to pay for it. Not because it’s religion. Because it’s stupid. There is no final constitional answer as to whether school vouchers are allowed under the law. But “vouchers for stupidity” isn’t a real good selling point.

[SK in CV]

[quote=jstoesz]
I find that specific argument (that you want to have) spurious. Because if we have choice, why would you care about whether ID is taught in some schools? Unless you are interested in controlling other people’s kids that is.

[/quote]

This is really getting rediculous. I have no desire to tell anyone what they teach their kids. But it’s rediculous to include ID in publicly funded schools. Not only because it is a thoroughly modern version of creationism, designed specifically to get around constitutional limitations, but it because it isn’t science. It isn’t anything. It is comparable to teaching flat earth as a valid alternative. To teach it as science is encouraging kids to be stupid. And at minimum, we all have a stake in not doing that.

Now you want to teach it in a private school? Go ahead and make your kids stupid. But I really don’t want to pay for it. Not because it’s religion. Because it’s stupid. There is no final constitional answer as to whether school vouchers are allowed under the law. But “vouchers for stupidity” isn’t a real good selling point.

[SK in CV]

[quote=jstoesz]
I find that specific argument (that you want to have) spurious. Because if we have choice, why would you care about whether ID is taught in some schools? Unless you are interested in controlling other people’s kids that is.

[/quote]

This is really getting rediculous. I have no desire to tell anyone what they teach their kids. But it’s rediculous to include ID in publicly funded schools. Not only because it is a thoroughly modern version of creationism, designed specifically to get around constitutional limitations, but it because it isn’t science. It isn’t anything. It is comparable to teaching flat earth as a valid alternative. To teach it as science is encouraging kids to be stupid. And at minimum, we all have a stake in not doing that.

Now you want to teach it in a private school? Go ahead and make your kids stupid. But I really don’t want to pay for it. Not because it’s religion. Because it’s stupid. There is no final constitional answer as to whether school vouchers are allowed under the law. But “vouchers for stupidity” isn’t a real good selling point.

[SK in CV]

[quote=jstoesz]
I find that specific argument (that you want to have) spurious. Because if we have choice, why would you care about whether ID is taught in some schools? Unless you are interested in controlling other people’s kids that is.

[/quote]

This is really getting rediculous. I have no desire to tell anyone what they teach their kids. But it’s rediculous to include ID in publicly funded schools. Not only because it is a thoroughly modern version of creationism, designed specifically to get around constitutional limitations, but it because it isn’t science. It isn’t anything. It is comparable to teaching flat earth as a valid alternative. To teach it as science is encouraging kids to be stupid. And at minimum, we all have a stake in not doing that.

Now you want to teach it in a private school? Go ahead and make your kids stupid. But I really don’t want to pay for it. Not because it’s religion. Because it’s stupid. There is no final constitional answer as to whether school vouchers are allowed under the law. But “vouchers for stupidity” isn’t a real good selling point.

[SK in CV]

[quote=jficquette][quote=SK in CV][quote=jficquette][quote=ocrenter]Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

sounds like separation of church and state is pretty clear cut here.[/quote]

It’s not there at all. It simply says that the government has no business meddling with religion period.[/quote]

Idealogues see things as simple. As cut and dried. Black and white. The words, as written, are opaque, neither black nor white. Clarity has only been provided by almost 219 years of precedent, set by the supreme court. Pointing to the words, without the context of those subsequent court decisions is ignoring the law.[/quote]

The words are very clear. They just run counter to what the ideologues on the left feel they should say.[/quote]

Thank you for providing evidence for my thesis.

[SK in CV]

[quote=jficquette][quote=SK in CV][quote=jficquette][quote=ocrenter]Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

sounds like separation of church and state is pretty clear cut here.[/quote]

It’s not there at all. It simply says that the government has no business meddling with religion period.[/quote]

Idealogues see things as simple. As cut and dried. Black and white. The words, as written, are opaque, neither black nor white. Clarity has only been provided by almost 219 years of precedent, set by the supreme court. Pointing to the words, without the context of those subsequent court decisions is ignoring the law.[/quote]

The words are very clear. They just run counter to what the ideologues on the left feel they should say.[/quote]

Thank you for providing evidence for my thesis.

[SK in CV]

[quote=jficquette][quote=SK in CV][quote=jficquette][quote=ocrenter]Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

sounds like separation of church and state is pretty clear cut here.[/quote]

It’s not there at all. It simply says that the government has no business meddling with religion period.[/quote]

Idealogues see things as simple. As cut and dried. Black and white. The words, as written, are opaque, neither black nor white. Clarity has only been provided by almost 219 years of precedent, set by the supreme court. Pointing to the words, without the context of those subsequent court decisions is ignoring the law.[/quote]

The words are very clear. They just run counter to what the ideologues on the left feel they should say.[/quote]

Thank you for providing evidence for my thesis.

[SK in CV]

[quote=jficquette][quote=SK in CV][quote=jficquette][quote=ocrenter]Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

sounds like separation of church and state is pretty clear cut here.[/quote]

It’s not there at all. It simply says that the government has no business meddling with religion period.[/quote]

Idealogues see things as simple. As cut and dried. Black and white. The words, as written, are opaque, neither black nor white. Clarity has only been provided by almost 219 years of precedent, set by the supreme court. Pointing to the words, without the context of those subsequent court decisions is ignoring the law.[/quote]

The words are very clear. They just run counter to what the ideologues on the left feel they should say.[/quote]

Thank you for providing evidence for my thesis.

[SK in CV]

[quote=jficquette][quote=SK in CV][quote=jficquette][quote=ocrenter]Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

sounds like separation of church and state is pretty clear cut here.[/quote]

It’s not there at all. It simply says that the government has no business meddling with religion period.[/quote]

Idealogues see things as simple. As cut and dried. Black and white. The words, as written, are opaque, neither black nor white. Clarity has only been provided by almost 219 years of precedent, set by the supreme court. Pointing to the words, without the context of those subsequent court decisions is ignoring the law.[/quote]

The words are very clear. They just run counter to what the ideologues on the left feel they should say.[/quote]

Thank you for providing evidence for my thesis.

[SK in CV]

[quote=jstoesz][quote]Keep repeating it. It won’t make it any more true. Research its origin. It is a laughable argument.[/quote]

It is certainly not trying to fit evolution into the confines of a literary device known as a story (the two Genesis stories). The origins of the basic concepts of ID go back to Plato and his thoughts of the Unmoved Mover. [/quote]

It is trying to fit creationism into the confines of SCOTUS decisions (See Edwards v. Aguillard 1987), which prohibited the teaching of creationism in public schools. Its modern existence as a concept, coincides exactly with that decision. It is a modern re-invention of Evangelical Christian, Charles Thaxton. It is not science. It is an excuse.

[SK in CV]

[quote=jstoesz][quote]Keep repeating it. It won’t make it any more true. Research its origin. It is a laughable argument.[/quote]

It is certainly not trying to fit evolution into the confines of a literary device known as a story (the two Genesis stories). The origins of the basic concepts of ID go back to Plato and his thoughts of the Unmoved Mover. [/quote]

It is trying to fit creationism into the confines of SCOTUS decisions (See Edwards v. Aguillard 1987), which prohibited the teaching of creationism in public schools. Its modern existence as a concept, coincides exactly with that decision. It is a modern re-invention of Evangelical Christian, Charles Thaxton. It is not science. It is an excuse.

[SK in CV]

[quote=jstoesz][quote]Keep repeating it. It won’t make it any more true. Research its origin. It is a laughable argument.[/quote]

It is certainly not trying to fit evolution into the confines of a literary device known as a story (the two Genesis stories). The origins of the basic concepts of ID go back to Plato and his thoughts of the Unmoved Mover. [/quote]

It is trying to fit creationism into the confines of SCOTUS decisions (See Edwards v. Aguillard 1987), which prohibited the teaching of creationism in public schools. Its modern existence as a concept, coincides exactly with that decision. It is a modern re-invention of Evangelical Christian, Charles Thaxton. It is not science. It is an excuse.

[SK in CV]

[quote=jstoesz][quote]Keep repeating it. It won’t make it any more true. Research its origin. It is a laughable argument.[/quote]

It is certainly not trying to fit evolution into the confines of a literary device known as a story (the two Genesis stories). The origins of the basic concepts of ID go back to Plato and his thoughts of the Unmoved Mover. [/quote]

It is trying to fit creationism into the confines of SCOTUS decisions (See Edwards v. Aguillard 1987), which prohibited the teaching of creationism in public schools. Its modern existence as a concept, coincides exactly with that decision. It is a modern re-invention of Evangelical Christian, Charles Thaxton. It is not science. It is an excuse.

[SK in CV]

[quote=jstoesz][quote]Keep repeating it. It won’t make it any more true. Research its origin. It is a laughable argument.[/quote]

It is certainly not trying to fit evolution into the confines of a literary device known as a story (the two Genesis stories). The origins of the basic concepts of ID go back to Plato and his thoughts of the Unmoved Mover. [/quote]

It is trying to fit creationism into the confines of SCOTUS decisions (See Edwards v. Aguillard 1987), which prohibited the teaching of creationism in public schools. Its modern existence as a concept, coincides exactly with that decision. It is a modern re-invention of Evangelical Christian, Charles Thaxton. It is not science. It is an excuse.

[SK in CV]

[quote=jstoesz]But I repeat, Intelligent design has nothing to do with Christianity/Judaism or Genesis.[/quote]

Keep repeating it. It won’t make it any more true. Research its origin. It is a laughable argument.

[Author]

Posts