07 Jul 09
1 edit
I have to admit, I am slowly being convinced on this thread that it is probably best to leave God out of the public school science classroom all together. I don't see much harm in presenting it as an alternative creation of the Universe hypothesis (which, as AThousandYoung pointed out, I am using in a loose sense), but there may not be all that much point in doing so either.
I want to congratulate many of you for presenting coherent and reasonable arguments to that effect.
I still think it's a little silly for atheists to complaint that they're being discriminated against based on amorphous meaningless symbolism of the currency phrase; but that's a separate issue.
07 Jul 09
Originally posted by spruce112358Back to the original argument. We have a seperation of church and state. Obama should not be giving money to any religious organization. America is a melting pot,a true patriot would not give any preference to any deity. And I am sick of "christians" whining that they are being discriminated against. They are by far a majority, so shut up and enjoy it while it lasts.
Science does not demand that reasonable alternatives to the liturgy be taught, for example, that Mary was far from a virgin -- that she slept around and got knocked up so had to be married off quick. Nor does science demand teaching the possibility that Jesus was, "just an itinerant preacher."
Hence there is no need to mention unscientific hypotheses like God in science class.
07 Jul 09
Originally posted by sh76If it is as meaningless as you claim, then you should have no objection to removing it. I'm sure you could see how it would be construed as a state endorsement of religion. Plus atheists are clearly not part of the "we" in "in god we trust."
I still think it's a little silly for atheists to complaint that they're being discriminated against based on amorphous meaningless symbolism of the currency phrase; but that's a separate issue.
E Pluribus Unum is a perfectly good motto that includes even atheists.
07 Jul 09
Originally posted by utherpendragonGive me a break. Have you forgotten how badly that old woman got ridiculed for calling Obama a Muslim, and how even McCain stepped in to correct her?
its hard to tell w/such a snake but,more than likely a muslim
If you really think Obama is a Muslim then you are an idiot. End of discussion.
07 Jul 09
Originally posted by sh76Most atheists that I've heard and spoken to about this don't complain that the symbolism of the phrase is firm discrimination (i.e. when the rubber hits the road no one doesn't hire them or hates them because of it).
I still think it's a little silly for atheists to complaint that they're being discriminated against based on amorphous meaningless symbolism of the currency phrase; but that's a separate issue.
However, as rwingett mentioned, the "we" obviously excludes atheists and shows the nations preference (or "establishment" in constitutional speak 🙂 ) of religion.
It's a much lower priority for me as something to rectify, but it's definitely something that I'd change. E Pluribus Unum is a good replacement.
07 Jul 09
1 edit
Originally posted by rwingettYou're right. I have no objection to removing it. I think atheists are oversensitive if they make a big deal of it. But, if it bothers people, by all means, remove it. Either way wouldn't bother me in the least.
If it is as meaningless as you claim, then you should have no objection to removing it. I'm sure you could see how it would be construed as a state endorsement of religion. Plus atheists are clearly not part of the "we" in "in god we trust."
E Pluribus Unum is a perfectly good motto that includes even atheists.
Well, I should qualify that. It would bother me if courts removed it from the currency, because they'd be overstepping their authority as judges. But if Congress wants to remove it from the currency , they can go right ahead as far as I'm concerned.
07 Jul 09
Originally posted by sh76Remove all his privelages and contact his parents. Maybe detention, but my understanding is that current research does not support detention as a useful consequence for discouraging behavior.
Tommy hits you with a spitball when you turn around to write on the board. Now what do you do?
Just don't say "For God's sake, stop that!"
🙂
07 Jul 09
Originally posted by spruce112358I didn't say tell the kids that maybe God is actively moving rocks. I said that some people believe that a person - God - created matter, energy, and the laws of physics. I also think it should be made clear that this is not science because it cannot be investigated and disproven.
In history or sociology or psychology -- nothing.
In earth science there is everything wrong with it. Nothing about God and His relation to earth is observable or verifiable. There are no 'facts' about God -- nothing to check, and no way to check it.
Science should not say anything about God. And people should not, in God's name, say anything about science.
07 Jul 09
Originally posted by spruce112358What? Science demands nothing, but if one were to examine Mary's virginity or lack thereof scientifically then it might "demand" in a sense those alternatives.
Science does not demand that reasonable alternatives to the liturgy be taught, for example, that Mary was far from a virgin -- that she slept around and got knocked up so had to be married off quick. Nor does science demand teaching the possibility that Jesus was, "just an itinerant preacher."
Hence there is no need to mention unscientific hypotheses like God in science class.
Please clarify your point. I am confused.