789
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 216:
Line 216: + + + +
→Basic Problem
: "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'?
: "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)
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:21, 5 March 2008 (EST)
::What ''should'' be done is probably nothing... school officials should not be allowed to preach to children in any way, shape, or form. That is the natural conclusion is prayer or moments of silence are endorsements of religion, I think. I didn't think I needed to spell out that the alternative to (1) or (2) was to do neither.
::Your argument above is that because I want the same things atheists want, that therefore I am "favouring [sic] atheism over Christianity, not being neutral." But this argument is obviously fallacious. The absence of religious endorsement is not endorsement of atheism. Favoring atheism over Christianity would be for me to advocate that a teacher lead a moment of contemplation of the human mind or something of that nature. I don't think that the President should be an ordained minister, either, the same way atheists think... that doesn't mean I am favoring an atheist President, though. Your reasoning is unsound.
::I agree that was probably the original intention of the separation. However, when the process is carried to its logical conclusion, as I attempted to demonstrate above, the only way to effect a separation is for the government not to speak in favor of any religion in an official capacity, so that the government is not endorsing any religion. But please note above... I tried to carefully work this out for you so you could follow step by step. I didn't address naturalism in the science classroom because it is a very separate issue. Consider that if prayer in the classroom is inevitably an endorsement of religion, as I believe I have indicated sufficiently in my argument above, it has nothing to do with the merits of what else is taught in science. It may well be that excluding intelligent design is also an endorsement of religion, in this case atheism. It may well be that it is not. I don't want to argue this point, however, since it is entirely off topic, as I believe is apparent.
::Returning to the matter at hand, I believe I have ably dealt with each of your objections. If you feel differently, I again ask that you please reference specific points in my above argument, out of courtesy and for ease of argument.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 13:24, 5 March 2008 (EST)