lap

Where does it say "separation of church and state?"

__________________
"When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic." -- Ben Franklin

GasPasser

The First Amendment and its Establishment and Free Exercise clause pertaining to religion, were created to prevent the meddling of the government in church affairs (Free Exercise Clause - i.e. Church of England) and to put an end to the floor debate over which Christian denomination should be established as the "Official" Church of the United States (Establishment Clause). It does not prohibit the mention of God or Religion in a Public Institution, or in school teaching...education and curriculum being a state matter and under the jurisdiction of a state's Supreme Court and that state's Constitution (Which can be more restrictive of public discussions of religion). As Lap said, there is no such thing as "Separation of Church and State," it was only a phrase used by Thomas Jefferson in a personal writing, which was later quoted in a Supreme Court decision.

kidicarus5897

where did I say it was said or written anywhere?? I just want to know, what happened to the idea of the separation of church and state? The idea was a strong influence when the constitution was written, which was alluded to previously. I made no claim that this was in any way a law, or "said" anywhere. Booya

__________________
Hey, it's not lying if what I said would be true if the facts were different......

lap

Well, I can tell you where it was written but I guess you already know. Booya!

__________________
"When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic." -- Ben Franklin

GasPasser

When the Constitution was written, it was not a strong thought (maybe for Jefferson). There was debate during the infancy of the country over who would be the State Church. There has been a Judeo-Christian prayer said before every session of Congress since then. The main concept is for Government neutrality. With that said, many of the arguments made by the anti-creationists have nothing to do with neutrality, but rather exclusion...which is why it can be argued they are the ones in violation of the "Separation of Church and State."

The mere prevention of the discussion of religion is in violation; likewise, so would teaching Creationism at the exclusion of Evolution.

In the Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet (1994), the majority opinion stated that "government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion."

kidicarus5897

a little something called the first ammendment if we need to get reference-happy. ""Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." Teaching a religious point of view as fact in a state-run school seems at odds with the first ammendment, which was agreed upon in Dover. There is a big difference between teaching and exercising religious views.

__________________
Hey, it's not lying if what I said would be true if the facts were different......

GasPasser

Yes, that is correct, I would totally agree if it were being taught that way. But are we talking about it being taught as fact or as a competing theory when origins are discussed in Science class?

Like I said earlier, prohibiting discussion because it involves religious dialog also violates the First Amendment.

lap

The first amendment applies to congress as they are the only body who can make laws. And it only applies to a law establishing a religion. Congress has never made such a law establishing any religion.

__________________
"When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic." -- Ben Franklin

kidicarus5897

I am pretty sure science has never claimed to have the answer to the origin of life on this planet, nor is it taught in science class. Science has theories about the origins of life based on ovservations of amino acid combination, simple RNA and DNA sequences and evolution from a basic single-cell organism. Creationism has NO observations in the real world to support its competing "theory" for the origins of life.

Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis. Hypothesis: This is an educated guess based upon observation. It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved. Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation.

Development of a Simple Theory by the Scientific Method:

"Observation: Every swan I've ever seen is white.
Hypothesis: All swans must be white.
Test: A random sampling of swans from each continent where swans are indigenous produces only white swans.
Publication: "My global research has indicated that swans are always white, wherever they are observed."
Verification: Every swan any other scientist has ever observed in any country has always been white.
Theory: All swans are white."

Science does not have the answer, but that does not mean that religion does. It's all subjective philosophy, not science

__________________
Hey, it's not lying if what I said would be true if the facts were different......

kidicarus5897

U.S. District Judge John E. Jones delivered a stinging attack on the Dover Area School Board, saying its first-in-the-nation decision in October 2004 to insert intelligent design into the science curriculum violates the constitutional separation of church and state.
Judge rules against ‘intelligent design’ - Science - MSNBC.com

__________________
Hey, it's not lying if what I said would be true if the facts were different......