Christians should keep Scripture out of politics

[Nucklesack]

Originally Posted by This_person

But, atheism is a view of religion - a non-diest view. Secular, proven concepts are one thing, theories are another. If something's not proven nor provable, I would think it should have no bearing on what we do in government by this standard. Therefore, economists, meterologists, evolutionists, etc., should not be allowed to teach their philosophies at government funded schools without equal time to each and every conflicting idea. Or, is that just dumb?But, forcing concepts of no faith (which is what I said, not forcing no faith, but the concepts of no faith) on someone would be equally protected against, thus wrong to do, and influencing to governmental leaders.

Secularism is the absence of belief and is not the same thing.

Your exactly right, Government and Government funded schools, should not be in the practice of approving/relying/teaching/espousing any religion.
Removing Faith from Government is not teaching or forcing No Faith onto anyone. You see it as the same thing, but its not.

No where does it state to teach secularism/atheism/nofaithism, what it does state is to keep Government and Religion seperate.

In Science class its totally acceptable to teach the Theories of Science. Just as its acceptable in a theology class to teach the Theories of beliefs. As much as you want to argue differently, they are not the same thing.

[PsyOps]

Originally Posted by Nucklesack

Secularism is the absence of belief and is not the same thing.

Your exactly right, Government and Government funded schools, should not be in the practice of approving/relying/teaching/espousing any religion.
Removing Faith from Government is not teaching or forcing No Faith onto anyone. You see it as the same thing, but its not.

No where does it state to teach secularism/atheism/nofaithism, what it does state is to keep Government and Religion seperate.

In Science class its totally acceptable to teach the Theories of Science. Just as its acceptable in a theology class to teach the Theories of beliefs. As much as you want to argue differently, they are not the same thing.

The Constitution never intended to keep religion out of politics. The intent of the 1st is to prevent our government (specifically Congress) from establishing an official religion. It's just that simple.

So teaching about religion in our schools and about creationism in the science classrooms by no means violates this. It forces no one to adhere to any particular religious doctrine.

Now, mind you, we could get a William Ayers or a Ward Churchill that have an agenda to indoctrinate our kids but this still doesn't constitute a state-sponsored religion.

I’m just about what you and so many others are really that worried about.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by PsyOps

The Constitution never intended to keep religion out of politics. The intent of the 1st is to prevent our government (specifically Congress) from establishing an official religion. It's just that simple.

So teaching about religion in our schools and about creationism in the science classrooms by no means violates this. It forces no one to adhere to any particular religious doctrine.

Teach any theory, and you must teach all theories (isn't that what's been said before about religions?)

[Nucklesack]

Originally Posted by This_person

Teach any theory, and you must teach all theories (isn't that what's been said before about religions?)

And your attempts are an example of why Religion should be taught in Theology class, and not Science class. Creationism is not a Scientific theory, it is a theological one.

You keep trying to equate the 2 when they arent similiar

[Nucklesack]

Originally Posted by PsyOps

The Constitution never intended to keep religion out of politics. The intent of the 1st is to prevent our government (specifically Congress) from establishing an official religion. It's just that simple.

So teaching about religion in our schools and about creationism in the science classrooms by no means violates this. It forces no one to adhere to any particular religious doctrine.

Now, mind you, we could get a William Ayers or a Ward Churchill that have an agenda to indoctrinate our kids but this still doesn't constitute a state-sponsored religion.

I’m just about what you and so many others are really that worried about.

That is your interpretation, the words of the Founding Fathers show their is disagreement about the Seperation of Church and State.

Teaching Religion in school belongs in the correct context, in a theological discussion. Science and Scientific Theory and Creationism are not similiar, one is a Scientific Theory and one is a Theological belief.

Creationism would fall under Theology class, because its One Belief of One Faith (ok maybe more than one) but it is not the ONLY belief (just the one you agree with). Other Faiths have different Origin events, Theology class is the setting to discuss them.

That is where the "worry" comes from, You and T_P are trying to equate (one particular) Creationism event with Scientific Theory. Besides the fact that they arent mutually like issues, your not asking for other faiths Creation events to be discussed, you want your particular flavor discussed.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by Nucklesack

And your attempts are an example of why Religion should be taught in Theology class, and not Science class. Creationism is not a Scientific theory, it is a theological one.

You keep trying to equate the 2 when they arent similiar

ID has as much proof and tangible evidence for the formation of life on this planet as any scientific theory out there. I equate them, because they're both equally proven, and provable.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by Nucklesack

That is your interpretation, the words of the Founding Fathers show their is disagreement about the Seperation of Church and State.

Teaching Religion in school belongs in the correct context, in a theological discussion. Science and Scientific Theory and Creationism are not similiar, one is a Scientific Theory and one is a Theological belief.

Creationism would fall under Theology class, because its One Belief of One Faith (ok maybe more than one) but it is not the ONLY belief (just the one you agree with). Other Faiths have different Origin events, Theology class is the setting to discuss them.

That is where the "worry" comes from, You and T_P are trying to equate (one particular) Creationism event with Scientific Theory. Besides the fact that they arent mutually like issues, your not asking for other faiths Creation events to be discussed, you want your particular flavor discussed.

I'd be happy if ANY of them were discussable besides one theory.

[Nucklesack]

Originally Posted by This_person

ID has as much proof and tangible evidence for the formation of life on this planet as any scientific theory out there. I equate them, because they're both equally proven, and provable.

Doesnt matter, its a Science class, its perfectly understandable for a Science class to discuss a Science theory.

Your trying to lend merit to a Theological Belief by equating it, but its not the same. A Theological Class is where you would discuss a Theological theory, but then you really should discuss all the Theological beliefs, and not just the one you agree with.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by Nucklesack

Doesnt matter, its a Science class, its perfectly understandable for a Science class to discuss a Science theory.

Why is the unprovable, untestable, unfeasible theory of one person science, and another person theology?

[Nucklesack]

Originally Posted by This_person

Why is the unprovable, untestable, unfeasible theory of one person science, and another person theology?

I'm starting to believe your being purposely obtuse

Because one is based on the principles of Scientific Theory, and the other is based on a mythical story (don't be offended).