Kansas, Where "Ignorant" is the New "Educated

Post Reply New Topic

umm you said church interfering with state, not the other way around.

here it's true that state interferes with church, but the church doesn't interfere with state, except for the fact we used to have these christian morning thingies at the school lobby but you didn't have to attend if you weren't christian.

but mainly it's the other way around, when we sang something in music that happened to be religious i didn't have to sing because i wasn't a part of the church, though i thought that was a little silly because it was just singing random songs and there was nothing religious about that. i also didn't have to take religion if i didn't want to, there's an alternate class.

what was reeeally stupid was when our teachers tried to make a somali girl take off her headscarf. it was so f*****g stupid. i think the state should leave the church alone and the church should leave the state alone and everyone should be happy. people should be allowed to wear scarves, i mean i don't see em banning cross necklaces. and i wear a pentagram necklace and if someone tried to make me not wear it i'd damn well kick their ass.

Church and State are supposed to be separated. But that doesn't happen because you have people of "faith" running politics who base legislation often off of their own religious beliefs.

I only complain when this legislation goes against my own beliefs. The US is an excellent example of this as well as their own hyprocracy against Xtian beliefs. Like, um, stealing from the poor to fatten the rich?

Anywho. I just have to roll my eyes at Intelligent Design. THERE IS NO BASIS ; IT JUST CAN'T BE DISPROVEN. Unless one redefines "science". Which is clearly what Kansas had to do.

Leave it up to Kansas.

The US was founded on Christian morals and beliefs, but the Founding Fathers also didn't want to create a mandatory religion. The First Amendment basically says that people should be able to choose which religion they are and be free to practice it in public as long as it does not interfere with the rights of other individuals.

However, the "under God" in the Pledge of Alligance was not added until the 1950s. A few months ago, there was this huge debate over whether or not to take those words out. I don't see there being a problem with leaving "under God" in the Pledge, but you aren't required to say it if you don't want to. That's just my opinion.

I don't see anything wrong with people wearing religious jewelry or Muslim people wearing their headscarves. It's their choice and not mine. I also think that schools should be more open to various religions and allow religious groups (of students) to meet in their own time, like any other club would.

I'm like this.....

If Christians are so sure about what they believe in, why do they have to push their religion on everyone else? It never fails. It's as if they're so afraid if they hear something that contradicts their faith then it'll stir up doubts they already feel, something that's too scary for them to face. So what do they do? They change the outside world to suit their beliefs, even if it means altering people's perception of reality based on untruth or without consideration for others and I'm sick of it. If their religion is so powerful, then all the scientific theories in the world shouldn't be able to shake it. So what are they so afraid of, that people who learn alternatives to what they hear on Sunday will finally start making choices for themselves rather than letting the church do it for them?

So endeth my rant.....

its a shame it all had to come to that.

If you are talking about Puritans, then yes, they were Christians. However, they are not responsible for making the United States a country.

If you are talking about the people who created the United States of America and made it what it is (i.e. the Founding Fathers and some others) then no, most of them were not Christians. They were Deists.

Here are just a few:

Ethan Allen
Benjamin Franklin
Thomas Jefferson
James Madison
Thomas Paine
George Washington

As for the US being founded upon Christian morals and beliefs, see what Thomas Jefferson had to say about the issue:

'Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.'
--Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814

If anyone wants more proof that these men were not Christians:

'I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition one redeeming feature. They are all alike, founded upon fables and mythologies.'
--Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Woods (undated), referring to 'our particular superstition,' Christianity

'The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.'
--Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823

Every man, conducting himself as a good citizen, and being accountable to God alone for his religious opinions, ought to be protected in worshipping the Deity according to the dictates of his own conscience.
-- George Washington, letter to the United Baptist Chamber of Virginia, May 1789

'I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life I absented myself from Christian assemblies.'
--Benjamin Franklin

To find out more about Deism go to http://www.deism.org/ or to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism.

Sorry about getting off topic.

Science itself is its own Theology. Science itself is its own Philosophy. All You have to do is read My signature for it comes from a man that lived the same time as the Founding Fathers.

I think you might be misinterpreting the meaning behind that quotation. Paine is saying that science should be used for knowledge and religion for intangible beliefs. Science isn't philosophy or religion -- it uses empirical methods.

Here's another Paine quotation:

Science has its own sets of beliefs that makes in what it is in the end. Science has become a Institution on to itself, making itself and how it sees itself more important, and influencing other to believe in Science. These beliefs make it Theology in itself. As I have said before I have heard some say Science is my religion, that in the end makes them have science as a Philosophy.

Science is also a human invention that also tries to enslave mankind in thinking it is more important and thinks itself as right always right.

Thomas Paine could have meant it as satire but I will take it a literal.

Science is based on Logic and Evidence. Religion is based on Faith. Science uses empirical data to strengthen or disprove it's arguments. Religion uses intuition, belief, and the passing down of tradition (or maybe a breaking of tradition) from family member to family member. Science uses the senses as its basis. Religion does not necessarily.

Random Aside: You know it's strange, that a little time after the Renaissance and Francis Bacon and all, Philosophy was meant to be the study of science. While Theology was meant to be the study of religion. But now philosophy is almost meshed together with Religion. Just thought that was strange.

Anywho, when filtered through human perception, there's not a great deal of difference I suppose between Science and Religion. Religion uses "proof", albeit not with the Scientific Method, to explain the world around us. But I would still hesitate calling Science a religion, simply because both are just two different terms for understanding the world/universe.

Religions used to be a way of understanding what Science now explains. Why the sun rises, what are those flecks of light in the night sky, the process of death... etc. My only hesitation in calling Science a Religion is because I, myself, don't worship it. It is just a tool. Maybe that's the difference.

Science is a tool and Religion, for many, is a purpose or a way of life. But there are other bases for "ways of life" as well. These I think might fall under the amorphous blob of PHILOSOPHY.

Theos = god. Science has no divine being. I would almost be more inclined to call it a well-supported philosophy than a Religion. But, no. I call it "Science". It is a word unto itself. As is "Religion".

science is not a philosophy, though science can affect ones philosophy. and i definitely would not call science a religion. religion was created by delusional people, or by people who wanted to delude other people. and it has always been used to control and manipulate the masses. science was created by people interested in the truth, and has been used to spread that truth to others. science isn't always right but it's about the quest for truth. religion is nothing more than a sneaky ploy for some to get a lot of power over others. and a lot of the people caught in that web of lies are decent honest people who are also trying to find the truth... religion can even help people, but it is nothing more than a hope that there is something out there because we are all afraid. and some people try to mitigate that fear by looking into science and some by looking into religion...and some by trying to gain as much control and power and money as possible. it all springs from fear and the need to control ourselves and our environment.

I don't see why Science, in some respects, cannot be termed a sub-category of Philsophy though. As I stated earlier, for a long time (especially in the new age of the Skeptic) Philosophy was meant to be the study of Science. Whatever that means. LOL.

Philosophy studies (or studied) Science. Science studies the World. The World in turn restudies Philosophy and Science, hehe.

I don't know. There was an original point in there somewhere before I rambled.

I think Science as a Institution could be deemed a religious organization unto itself. For how it takes criticism badly and when it criticises others it take a view of being superior and truly the only view that is correct all the time. Also as a Institution it must remember it is a human invention and not superior any-other human Institution.

If You would like to View "What Does Science Mean to You?", also if You to post Your Ideals there it would also be appreciated in (PP&R) kevv729.

corrected

Last edited by kevv729 on 12 Nov 2005, 8:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.

what do you mean intuition? science isn't all about intuition, it's about study, theories and proof. i suppose you need intuition in creating theories but proving them has nothing to do with intuition. also by proving its claims, science makes itself superior to any religion.

Scientific Community is the Intuition that is what make the Science the Institution. Making Science superior is wrong because we are creating the science. Science will never be able to explain all things in Life. That is why it should not make itself superior to other beliefs.

Last edited by kevv729 on 12 Nov 2005, 9:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.