Page 20 of 30 FirstFirst ... 101819202122 ... LastLast
Results 191 to 200 of 300

Thread: O'Donnell Questions Separation of Church, State in Senate Debate

  1. #191
    Sage
    SheWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:41 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    24,508

    Re: O'Donnell Questions Separation of Church, State in Senate Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    Liberals that have taken over the education system would never allow, or admit that their misreading of the establishment clause to allow federal funds to go to religious schools. Their power would disappear, because the fundamental and deliberate distortion of the Constitution is the cornerstone of the survival of liberal progressivism.

    j-mac
    I am a little confused by what you are trying to say.. that liberals who misread the constitution are allowing federal funding to go to religious schools?

  2. #192
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,053

    Re: O'Donnell Questions Separation of Church, State in Senate Debate

    I'm more worried by the fact that she wants local communities to be in charge of setting educational standards. That's simply unacceptable in the 21st century. If parents want to teach their kids creationism they can go to church.
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

  3. #193
    Student
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Last Seen
    03-20-13 @ 04:18 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    254

    Re: O'Donnell Questions Separation of Church, State in Senate Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    Then if I read you right, you would have no problem teaching creationism, or Intelligent design right along side with evolution?

    j-mac
    Quote Originally Posted by Ajay:
    Politicians who like to discuss evolution are the ones who bring it into a public political debate. That would be Christian fundamentalists and Christian conservatives, along with a smattering of others of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic strains of faiths.
    ---------------

    Huh? I would if they were credible scientific theories. But they aren't.

  4. #194
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,494

    Re: O'Donnell Questions Separation of Church, State in Senate Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    I'm more worried by the fact that she wants local communities to be in charge of setting educational standards. That's simply unacceptable in the 21st century. If parents want to teach their kids creationism they can go to church.
    Yeah, we need a central government to control the indoctrination, er, education that takes place in the country's schools.

    Personally, I don't think either theory should be taught in school. One is a religious theory and the other is an anti-religious theory, making them both a belief and not worthy of being taught to school kids. School exists to teach kids how to think, not what to think.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  5. #195
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,053

    Re: O'Donnell Questions Separation of Church, State in Senate Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    Yeah, we need a central government to control the indoctrination, er, education that takes place in the country's schools.

    Personally, I don't think either theory should be taught in school. One is a religious theory and the other is an anti-religious theory, making them both a belief and not worthy of being taught to school kids. School exists to teach kids how to think, not what to think.
    Evolution is a theory the way the theory of general relativity is a theory. The only people who refuse to accept it are those who are too ignorant of basic scientific principles to actually understand it or can't accept it because of their religious beliefs. Again, calling a standardized teaching of history is not indoctrination. It's a very basic and logical sociological concept. It makes sense.
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

  6. #196
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Last Seen
    08-29-17 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    16,575

    Re: O'Donnell Questions Separation of Church, State in Senate Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    One is a religious theory and the other is an anti-religious theory, making them both a belief and not worthy of being taught to school kids.
    Please post exactly how the theory of evolution is "anti-religious".

    Even most religious people realize that evolution and their respective religion can coincide with each other.

    Unless of course you are referring to the Big Bang Theory which is not the theory of evolution.

  7. #197
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Naperville, IL
    Last Seen
    09-24-12 @ 02:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    11,963

    Re: O'Donnell Questions Separation of Church, State in Senate Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by texmaster View Post
    Read the Constitution Deuce.

    Separation of Chruch and State is not in the Constitution.

    She is right. Its amazing you didn't know that.
    Jefferson used the phrase in a letter "...I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State." The phrase was quoted by the United States Supreme Court first in 1878.

    Understanding the constitution is not just about reading the words, but understanding what they mean and all the relevant SCOTUS cases that have further defined and clarified those words.

    You'd think Odonnell, being a constitutional expert and scholar would know that.

    So the first amendment protects religion from government and, hopefully, vice-versa.

  8. #198
    Sage
    Taylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    US
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:28 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,170

    Re: O'Donnell Questions Separation of Church, State in Senate Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by SheWolf View Post
    Scientific facts and laws don't change.. theories do. Theories are build around a framework of laws and facts.
    Wrong. Our understanding of the world is constantly changing. When contridicted by new information, scientific facts and laws are disproven and (hopefully) replaced by a new fact or law.

    Quote Originally Posted by SheWolf View Post
    Science isn't fallible.. the tests can be.. the theories can be. Saying science is fallible is like saying human logic is fallible.
    No, the comparison is poor one. "Tests and theories" are a part of science -your claim is akin to me saying "cars don't break down, engines and transmissions do"

    Science that is flawlessly conducted is still fallible, the same is not true of logic. Science depends on observation. Logic is all in the head.

    Quote Originally Posted by SheWolf View Post
    Saying science isn't objective is totally inaccurate. Ask people if the theory of evolution is a theory or a fact? There is no subjective answer if the answer is a scientific answer. The objective scientific answer is that it is a THEORY.
    Spoken like someone who has never actually conducted science. Interpretations are constantly tainted by theoretical dispositions, personal characterisitics, etc. The same data can and will lead "objective" scientists to different conclusions.

    Quote Originally Posted by SheWolf View Post
    Give an example of where science fails to be objective.. Do you have any example of science cramming a lie down our throats?
    I'm not sure you understand the meaning of "objectivity." A failure to be objective does not mean that you're lying.

    There are lots of examples where the consensus view in science was wrong, where a particular theoretical disposition blinded the masses to contradictory evidence. Wegener correctly theorized in 1912 that the continents drifted to their present positions from a single landmass. His ideas were thoroughly rejected by the scientific community, which clinged for another 50 years to a very flawed theory that land had once connected the continents and had simply sunk under the ocean.

  9. #199
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,053

    Re: O'Donnell Questions Separation of Church, State in Senate Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by Taylor View Post
    Wrong. Our understanding of the world is constantly changing. When contridicted by new information, scientific facts and laws are disproven and (hopefully) replaced by a new fact or law.


    No, the comparison is poor one. "Tests and theories" are a part of science -your claim is akin to me saying "cars don't break down, engines and transmissions do"

    Science that is flawlessly conducted is still fallible, the same is not true of logic. Science depends on observation. Logic is all in the head.


    Spoken like someone who has never actually conducted science. Interpretations are constantly tainted by theoretical dispositions, personal characterisitics, etc. The same data can and will lead "objective" scientists to different conclusions.


    I'm not sure you understand the meaning of "objectivity." A failure to be objective does not mean that you're lying.

    There are lots of examples where the consensus view in science was wrong, where a particular theoretical disposition blinded the masses to contradictory evidence. Wegener correctly theorized in 1912 that the continents drifted to their present positions from a single landmass. His ideas were thoroughly rejected by the scientific community, which clinged for another 50 years to a very flawed theory that land had once connected the continents and had simply sunk under the ocean.
    So what you're saying is that science, has been corrected by other science? Well gosh golly, I guess that proves that science is well, fallible and objective if it can correct itself. However that just kind of supports the different between science and creationism and religion explanations for 'creation' doesn't? It does not matter how much evidence - and evidence there is - which supports natural explanations for the world around us. The solution to all this complexity has already been found by creationists. It's the creator. Well that's all fine and dandy but how do you know it was one creator? Why not two? Why not 300? And what created this creator? The thing is that when you make up a 'creator' you push yourself into a box. A creator requires a creator doesn't it? Creationism leads itself into a loop with no way of verification or testing. That's why the scientific community doesn't support it.
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

  10. #200
    Sage
    Taylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    US
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:28 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,170

    Re: O'Donnell Questions Separation of Church, State in Senate Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by SheWolf View Post
    Do you think tax dollars should go to religious schools or not? If there is no separation.. then why not send them money?
    Setting aside practicalities...
    The purpose of those tax dollars is to provide a basic education. If a religious school is able to provide just as good a basic education as a secular school, why not pay for it with tax dollars? The government is being completely neutral with respect to religion.

Page 20 of 30 FirstFirst ... 101819202122 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •