Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/19/christine-odonnell-church-and-state-gaffe

Herp-a-derp...

I'm pretty sure she wasn't talking about the phrase not being in the constitution, but rather expressed blissful ignorance about America's pretty forward-thinking and liberally-minded forefathers.

Strange that it can be said that conservatives 200 years ago were more backward than today, eh?

The big blow up I heard on the Conservative talk radio stations (Hannity, Limbaugh, Big Meanie a.k.a. Levine) was the spin the Separation of Church and State was a "modern misconception" (I think that is Hannity's own term).

Well, let's take a look now:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Given the document's intent, which was to establish freedoms that American citizen were entitled to, the law essentially looks like it means "We will not make a law that makes one religion above another in terms of power or preference and we won't tell you to not to practice your religion or impede it in anyway."

So it means that the Federal government cannot make a law that causes a religion to become restricted in some way shape or form. A law could be made to benefit all religions or to punish discrimination against people of religious affiliation, but dunno.

There can be lots of grey area about anything when people of opposite political spectrums collide.

Well, from the summary you've provided, I don't see how it supports the teaching of creationism unless it was taught alongside every single other religion's creation theory

Henners91 wrote:Well, from the summary you've provided, I don't see how it supports the teaching of creationism unless it was taught alongside every single other religion's creation theory

And that is the grey area. It's also interpretation as well. What gets defined as religion?

And in this case, creationism is a "science." It does not follow that because of the First Amendment that it should be taught in school because creationism is not a religion.

Now as for restricting religion and religious education from public schools is another issue altogether (but supported by precedence in law as a big no-no, but tell that to a fundamentalist Chrisitian).

That's an opinion.

How about asking scientists if they think it is a science or a religious concept.

She's an idiot and her opponent is a former Marxist. Delaware deserves what it gets getting into an election where these two are the candidates.

Kilkrazy wrote:That's an opinion.

How about asking scientists if they think it is a science or a religious concept.

Good point. Scientists will say it is not a science and will say is a religious concept. Even better- those scientists who don't believe in religion would say creationism doesn't even exist because religion isn't real.

It's all make believe.

Don't believe in God is probably a better turn of phrase.
And a good scientist would have to say something like "it COULD be true,but there is not much testable evidence for the idea."

WarOne wrote:It's all make believe.

I love the idea of a dinosaur pretending that the earth is 5,000 years old.

WarOne, are you serious or indulging in high level irony? Kudos to your comedy genius either way.

Da Boss wrote:Don't believe in God is probably a better turn of phrase.
And a good scientist would have to say something like "it COULD be true,but there is not much testable evidence for the idea."

With respect to religion and belief in it, scientists originally melded the ideas of science with religion, attempting to prove that religion and science were together, harmoniously.

When scientists found over and over again that science was separate from religion, then you see the big break in terms of religion and science where scientists bascially say religion (miracles/divine events of religion- not religion itself) are phenomenons that have no quantifiable or observable data to interpret. It's not exactly science speech saying God(s) don't exist, but essentially casts heavy doubt as to it actually existing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

George Spiggott wrote:

WarOne wrote:It's all make believe.

I love the idea of a dinosaur pretending that the earth is 5,000 years old.

WarOne, are you serious or indulging in high level irony? Kudos to your comedy genius either way.

I leave that to your interpretation, good sir.

Ask Dr. Who- who is a man of scientific repute as he has a Dr. prefix to his name.

Frazzled wrote:She's an idiot and her opponent is a former Marxist. Delaware deserves what it gets getting into an election where these two are the candidates.

I can't back this up at all but I heard there were former-Marxists in Bush's cabinet

Okay, unlikely hearsay aside, I don't think it's exactly rare for former-Marxists to be found in politics: Those who choose to enter that field will likely express an interest early in life and when are we more susceptible to radicalism than when we are young? It's a relatively well-established norm that people mellow out as they get older... I'm assuming (though I haven't read up on him) that this guy attended some meetings and demos in his adolescent years/early 20s? I wouldn't hold that against someone...

And yeah, that argument is intended to cover my own tracks should I ever run for Office

Not as if that will happen though... I'm not at Oxbridge studying PPE :(

Kilkrazy wrote:That's an opinion.

How about asking scientists if they think it is a science or a religious concept.

There are plenty of Scientists that believe in creationism. And would call Creationism "Creation Science".

These are scientists who have PhD's from first rate Research Universities and hold professorships at said Universities. Like Ivy League schools for example.

The problem is that the field is fairly young and historically has been constantly having to play catchup. Now in the last few years (20 or so). Many Creation Scientists are starting to bring forth some really interesting insights into creation and really challenging some of the presuppositions that have been predominate for the last 50 to 100 years.

GG

I hope you will not take it amiss if I ask for some references.

How is this moron a politician?

Kilkrazy wrote:I hope you will not take it amiss if I ask for some references.

Second.

But at the same time, I would say that "creationism" has nothing to do with religion. Or rather, it has just as much to do with religion as evolutionary theory (which, as I see it for the purposes of this discussion, is none)--at least in terms of Christianity. (I suppose either could be turned into religions or tenents of new religions.) For my own part, I think what is generally referred to as creationism or intelligent design is rather close to a repudiation of authentic Christian faith. In any case, the question becomes not one of whether a religious doctrine should be taught in school but whether or not a widely discredited, incoherent scientific theory/political ideology should be taught in school. And I think the answer is definitively "no."

Albatross wrote:How is this moron a politician?

Sorry, you'll have to narrow that down a bit-you pretty much described all politicians.

The people who don't want a seperation between church and state like to play a rhetorical game, where they point out that the constitution never mentions a seperation of church and state. This is technically true, as that phrase itself is never used, instead the constitution says ""Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." Which uses different language to mean exactly the same thing.

It's likely O'Donnell heard the argument at one time or another, it appealed to her and lacking any kind of intellectual curiousity took it at face value, hence her surprise at hearing what was actually in the 1st amendment.



Meanwhile, here's a quote from James Madison, fourth president and founding father. He was a smart man. O'Donnell is an idiot.

"The experience of the United States is a happy disproof of the error so long rooted in the unenlightened minds of well-meaning Christians, as well as in the corrupt hearts of persecuting usurpers, that without a legal incorporation of religious and civil polity, neither could be supported. A mutual independence is found most friendly to practical Religion, to social harmony, and to political prosperity"

generalgrog wrote:There are plenty of Scientists that believe in creationism. And would call Creationism "Creation Science".

These are scientists who have PhD's from first rate Research Universities and hold professorships at said Universities. Like Ivy League schools for example.

The problem is that the field is fairly young and historically has been constantly having to play catchup. Now in the last few years (20 or so). Many Creation Scientists are starting to bring forth some really interesting insights into creation and really challenging some of the presuppositions that have been predominate for the last 50 to 100 years.

Like several others have said, this really need a cite - all I've ever seen of Creation "Science" is some guys with a degree from a religious university sitting around poking at evolution.

Frazzled wrote:

Albatross wrote:How is this moron a politician?

Sorry, you'll have to narrow that down a bit-you pretty much described all politicians.

Except for those you approve of I'm guessing

OT, I think the tea party would be well served to find a candidate who can at least debate at a 4th grade level (the 4th grade me did a presentation on the constitution, and subsequently the 4th grade me knew more about our country’s founding than university me does... I blame alcohol and chicks for my mental demise ).

Also wasn’t she the person who the Republican Party said couldn’t be elected dog catcher?

Those are two separate things. We should clarify that as everyone busies themselves making fun of people of faith...again.

There are plenty of scientists who believe in a form of creationism. To think all scientists are atheists is..misplaced.

Whether scientists believe in "creation science" is a separate category.

You do us a disservice to imply that we all make fun of people of faith.

To think all people who believe in Christianity believe in Creationism is also misplaced. There are plenty of scientists who have religious faith and do not believe in Creationism.

Belief in Christianity does not require belief in the literal truth of the whole Bible.

If one accepts the Bible story of creation as an allegory, one can explain the universe and evolution as being mechanisms set up by God, but not requiring constant tinkering by God to keep them working.

This is fully consistent with mainstream Christian faith as propounded by the Roman Catholic and C of E churches, and is consistent with scientific theories.

Frazzled wrote:There are plenty of scientists who believe in a form of creationism. To think all scientists are atheists is..misplaced.

Yeah, contrary to what a lot of people like to imagine, the majority of scientists are not atheist, including those in fields like geology and biology. Hell in astronomy there's probably a positive correlation towards faith - those are some spiritual dudes.

But are we really going to have this conversation again. I mean, there's probably an interesting conversation to be had about the seemingly very high number of completely insane candidates running in this election that we could have. But the religious debate... again?



*and there are both religious people and atheists who like to play up the supposed conflict between science and faith.

Ma55ter_fett wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Albatross wrote:How is this moron a politician?

Sorry, you'll have to narrow that down a bit-you pretty much described all politicians.

Except for those you approve of I'm guessing

Frazzled? Approve of a politician? You must be thinking of someone else.

Kilkrazy wrote:You do us a disservice to imply that we all make fun of people of faith.

To think all people who believe in Christianity believe in Creationism is also misplaced. There are plenty of scientists who have religious faith and do not believe in Creationism.

You're not taking the full breath of creationism into play. Anyone who is religious believes in a form of creationism. Its the scope, timeline, and process that people disagree on.

If one accepts the Bible story of creation as an allegory, one can explain the universe and evolution as being mechanisms set up by God, but not requiring constant tinkering by God to keep them working.

EXACTLY! And that would be a form of creationism.

Thats why I was noting there's a big difference between creationism and "creationism science" which is a very small subset issue, and may or may not have a term peculiar to the US.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manchu wrote:

Ma55ter_fett wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Albatross wrote:How is this moron a politician?

Sorry, you'll have to narrow that down a bit-you pretty much described all politicians.

Except for those you approve of I'm guessing

Frazzled? Approve of a politician? You must be thinking of someone else.

Indeed, and I am sure I am not the only person who walks into the election booth shouting "Death to Clan McLeod!"

Frazzled, looking at the current list of candidates:

Kilkrazy wrote:You do us a disservice to imply that we all make fun of people of faith.

To think all people who believe in Christianity believe in Creationism is also misplaced. There are plenty of scientists who have religious faith and do not believe in Creationism.

Belief in Christianity does not require belief in the literal truth of the whole Bible.

If one accepts the Bible story of creation as an allegory, one can explain the universe and evolution as being mechanisms set up by God, but not requiring constant tinkering by God to keep them working.

This is fully consistent with mainstream Christian faith as propounded by the Roman Catholic and C of E churches, and is consistent with scientific theories.

Not all scientists make fun of people of faith. People do get frustrated with ideologues who use faith as part of their explanation of how things work. If a Christian talk radio host invokes God as part of a reason something happens, do you think not a few eyes get rolled?

Frazzled wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:You do us a disservice to imply that we all make fun of people of faith.

To think all people who believe in Christianity believe in Creationism is also misplaced. There are plenty of scientists who have religious faith and do not believe in Creationism.

You're not taking the full breath of creationism into play. Anyone who is religious believes in a form of creationism. Its the scope, timeline, and process that people disagree on.

If one accepts the Bible story of creation as an allegory, one can explain the universe and evolution as being mechanisms set up by God, but not requiring constant tinkering by God to keep them working.

EXACTLY! And that would be a form of creationism.

Thats why I was noting there's a big difference between creationism and "creationism science" which is a very small subset issue, and may or may not have a term peculiar to the US.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manchu wrote:

Ma55ter_fett wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Albatross wrote:How is this moron a politician?

Sorry, you'll have to narrow that down a bit-you pretty much described all politicians.

Except for those you approve of I'm guessing

Frazzled? Approve of a politician? You must be thinking of someone else.

Indeed, and I am sure I am not the only person who walks into the election booth shouting "Death to Clan McLeod!"

Frazzled, looking at the current list of candidates:

First, that is religion and as such it would seem to violate the First Amendment by implementing it in public schools.

Second, it isn't true. Some religions view the universe to have been formed spontaneously, and the gods grew within it, who later created men and beasts. Or the Earth pre-existed and gods and men emerged spontaneously. You can of course view these as religious perspectives on the current scientific theories of the origin of the universe. They are very different visions to the Judaeo-Christian-Islamic version, in which God created everything out of chaos.

Anyway, right wing evangelical US politicians don't talk about creationism, they talk about Creationism Science, or Intelligent Design, by which they mean the hand of the Christian God constantly fiddling with the world and making changes, and that is what controls Evolution. That is what they want to be taught in schools, alongside the theory of Evolution.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Anyway, right wing evangelical US politicians don't talk about creationism, they talk about Creationism Science, or Intelligent Design, by which they mean the hand of the Christian God constantly fiddling with the world and making changes, and that is what controls Evolution. That is what they want to be taught in schools, alongside the theory of Evolution.

And do you think that some scientists find the idea absurd, or that scientists find it acceptable as an answer for how things work?

I've kept things in aquariums that were smarter than this woman...

Kilkrazy wrote:You do us a disservice to imply that we all make fun of people of faith.

To think all people who believe in Christianity believe in Creationism is also misplaced. There are plenty of scientists who have religious faith and do not believe in Creationism.

Belief in Christianity does not require belief in the literal truth of the whole Bible.

If one accepts the Bible story of creation as an allegory, one can explain the universe and evolution as being mechanisms set up by God, but not requiring constant tinkering by God to keep them working.

This is fully consistent with mainstream Christian faith as propounded by the Roman Catholic and C of E churches, and is consistent with scientific theories.

I don't get it, if Christians can deny certain parts of the Holy Book penned by their creator, why not the whole lot?

I mean, lots of people ditched Catholicism to justify money-lending and the hoarding of capital anyway...

And now it's devolved to paying lip-service to a deity and then continuing to live our exploitative immoral lives, there's just no point in keeping up the facáde anymore....

I may not be a fan; but real Christians should be Catholic fundamentalists that take the entire Bible literally ;P

Stone the gays!

Frazzled wrote:There are plenty of scientists who believe in a form of creationism. To think all scientists are atheists is..misplaced.

Creationism generally refers to the belief that the Earth was created relatively recently (~6000 BC is the typical time) and that humans were created directly as humans and did not evolve from any other form of life. Essentially no scientists who work in hard science believe in that. Plenty of people who are not atheists do not believe that. If you're using creationism to describe a belief that the world was created by God at some point in the past without the specific 'no human evolution' and 'short time ago', then there are plenty of scientists who believe that, but it's not what is usually referred to as creationism.