nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 212:
Line 212: + + + +
→Basic Problem: The flaws.
Perhaps someone disagrees with me... it would simplify things to indicate which point you find a flaw in my reasoning.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 01:18, 5 March 2008 (EST)
Perhaps someone disagrees with me... it would simplify things to indicate which point you find a flaw in my reasoning.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 01:18, 5 March 2008 (EST)
: "non-denominational" usually refers to denominations ''within'' Christianity, not "inter-faith". But that doesn't change your main point. What you overlook is what I've posted higher on this page: that a government ''can't'' be neutral. You claim problems with a couple of different approaches, but don't explicitly say what ''should'' be done. I'm assuming that you think that they should not do anything (i.e. no prayer, not time of silence, etc.). But that is what the atheists want, so you are favouring atheism over Christianity (etc.), ''not'' being neutral.
: "Separation of church and state" was designed to prevent the government controlling ''the church organisation'' (as happened in England). It was never intended that the government not acknowledge Christianity. However, that is the way that activist judges have "interpreted" ("twisted" would be a better word) the constitution, with the result that government schools teach as truth the atheistic origins myth, among other atheistic ideas. How is that 'neutral'?
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:21, 5 March 2008 (EST)