Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

An atheist society would never think of considering consitutional implications of atheism. How would the matter come up? Religion would have withered away.

Wouldn't it? That's your objective surely?

You need to say it would or else admit a demand for religion which precedes priesthoods and out of which the institutions of priestcraft grow. And a demand that resists your arguments with some energy.

It is infantile to assert that the priesthood foisted itself upon us out of nowhere. It is a gross insult to the human race to assert such a thing. That we have been on the wrong track for 25,000 years and it has only been discovered when a nasty priest caned farmerman's arse or when he needed some argument against a spirited defence of purity and virtue.

A dictionary is a book in which words are changed into smaller coin just as a $ bill can be.

From the Associated Press story on Texas curriculum changes:


As Setanta mentioned, the First Amendment contains two clauses about religion, one clause prohibiting government from establishing a religion, and another clause guaranteeing free exercise of religion. Free exercise of religion requires prohibiting government establishment of a religion. The two clauses are interdependant. Religious liberty can not exist unless there is a separation of church and state.

Right wing fundamentalists preach constitution as written, but they would subvert it in an instant to make all adhere to the Christian religion (as practiced by them, natch). That is why we have to fight the slightest infiltration of the schools, just as hard as we know how.

Since the main men stating the separation of church and state are Jefferson and Madison, the TEXAS ed board , noteably, has been seeking to water down Jeffersons influence and limit the extent of influence of his letters in which these phrases appeared.

Then you get 30,000 gods or possibly 300,000 and a Tower of Babel as high as the sky. Hence argument from authority diluted to next to nothing. Argument from law comes next with legal experts interpreting and reinterpreting and backed up by force. Just as Ed said--as hard as we know.

I had not realized that you want to make Christianity the rule under force of government, spendi. I thought before, that you wanted to allow it, but not force all to be Christian. And here you are trying to say atheists are about government control over the mind.

I dont think that spendi carries his ideas out to any logical conclusions.

I fully understand Ed why you had not realised that I wanted to make Christianity the rule under force of government. I hadn't said I did nor even given the slightest hint of it. I much prefer it to be freely chosen after considering all the arguments of which there are a very large number and thus difficult to explain in a short post such as this one is intended to be.

My extended short post on the Ignore function is obviously asking too much of the anti-IDer's attention span and comprehension capabilities. It is hard to think it has gone on Ignore given its content.

I certainly don't want to force everyone to be Christian.

But I do wonder how an atheist government would go about exercising control over our minds. I can't imagine there being no control over our minds. I can't see us turning up for work under such circumstances with our shoes polished and in a clean shirt. And with no Christian control, freely chosen as I said, I see no alternatives to no control or atheist control.

Perhaps you might explain other possibilities.

I also quite like Io's idea of the Christians stitching up the non-Christians in insurance claims and, one presumes, in real estate deals. It's hardly burning at the stake now is it.

Christians stitching up the non-Christians in insurance claims and, one presumes, in real estate deals.

How does that work?

Whatever you think fm I think you patronised Roberta. Gratuitously too. You used her to make some point or other of your own which had nothing to do with her. Yes--used her. The point had nothing to do with anything actually.

In the pub after the service has finished. The basic principles are obvious.

Spendiworld would have the Christians handling the affairs of others and noone who can be shown to be non-Christian on their mothers side would have to be dealt with as the "non-Christian problem"

Shes a professional editor, she has had good experience(apparently) dealing with writers who think that it goes from their pens to Gods ears. Ive read her stuff over the years. Its to the point and doesnt take prisoners with bad writing. Ive commented on her style elsewhere (not related to any of your stuff) If thats patronizing then I guess Im guilty.
Youre just trying to use your frequent technique of applying counter "logic" to make me assume some one down position based on something you infer. Its like the many times you try to "disabuse" the many accusations that you are a mysoginist. You havent succeeded in ridding yourself of that title yet, despite your attempts .

Whatever a vast majority want will happen, including amendments to the constitution. Why did slavery exist when it clearly was against the constitution ? Too many people wanted it.

IDers will never take over unless the country falls to rack and ruin. There are many examples where a country has gone through hard times and church attendance had dramatic increases. The harder the life, the more theistic, the easier the life, the more aetheistic.

They have also produced their own phone book recommending "Christian" businesses whilst leaving out ones owned by aetheists .

Stupid, stupid, stupid . . . you see, you come out with idiotic crap like this, demonstrating your complete lack of historical perspective, and then there's no reason for anyone to take you seriously.

Slavery was not only not "against the constitution," it was enshrined in the constitution. Of the few great compromises which made the ratification of the constitution possible, the three fifths compromise was crucial to securing the adherence of the states south of North Carolina. The three fifths compromise allowed the slave population to be tallied at 60% of its numbers in order to determine how many Representatives a state could send to Congress. This gave southern states an inordinate power--power far beyond that implied by the number of adult, white males in their states who were entitled to vote.

Far from too many people wanting it, it continued despite wide-spread opposition. In wrangling and political horse-trading in the House and the Senate, slave state delegations constantly kept the "balance" of slave states at the forefront. The Missouri compromise was called that because Missouri was allowed to enter the union as a slave state, despite pending legislation which would have rendered it too far north to be a slave state. Slave state congressional delegations, however, had the rest of the Congress hog-tied. They were willing to trade anything, including the tariff (their big bogey man, and the annoying issue for northern industrial states) to keep a balance of slave states. People justifiably accused James Polk of initiating the Mexican War with the deliberate provocation of engineering the admission Texas to the Union in order to pick up more slave state territory.

Slavery poisoned our political history from 1787 to 1865, and the residues of that legacy continued to poison social and political relationships for a century and more after that--despite the fact that a majority of Americans were opposed to slavery from the very beginning.

As usual, you don't know what the hell you're talking about. To amend the constitution, two thirds of both houses of the Congress must approve an amendment, or two thirds of the states call for an amending convention--after which any amendment(s) must be ratified by three quarters of the states. It is extremely difficult to amend the constitution in modern times as Congress has learned to put time limits on the ratification of amendments which have been proposed. That was how the Equal Rights Amendment was torpedoed.

The last amendment to the constitution was the twenty-seventh amendment. It was ratified in May, 1992. It was only possible for this amendment to be ratified because it was proposed without a ratification time limit--it was originally proposed by the First Congress in September, 1789. It was ratified 203 years later.

When FM says it is unlikely that the constitution will be amended, he knows what the hell he's talking about--it's not a simple majority issue. He knows what he's talking about--you don't.

The p0st above should read: ". . . states south of Maryland."

When you jump in with both mouths blazing away like that, you had better learn what you are talking about first **** for brains.
Absolute crap ! If you think wide spread is two people in each state, then yes that is widespread...as for the number of people who were against it, that is very few. No-one cared enough and racism was ingrained in many people.

As usual your belligerance underlines your sheer stupidity.No doubt. And do you know why, **** for brains ? Because no one gave a **** about blacks, it was the political power that was at stake. One side wanted the power of blacks being slaves, and the other wanted the power of blacks being freed.

This is what happens when you think you can jump on someone , being the arrogant useless prick that you are...you agreed with me in your rush to be a big bad bully...wish you were here, **** for brains..it would be a very spirited debate.

What absolute gibberish ! Idiotic beyond description ! The vast majority of USAians (Americans live on two continents, dickhead - not that you have ever let accuracy get in your way) didnt give a rats arse about slaves. Most were worried how freed slaves would affect their jobs and livelihoods.

Show me where I said it was likely ? Put up or shut up, **** for brains.
Slavery is against your constitution. Read everything in relation to it. Dont rely on your interpretation. Where do you think the statutory power came from to ban slavery ? Thin air ? You are the most annoying self proclaimed dickhead pretending to be an expert that we have here. Lets take a vote on who would like you to **** off till you grow up, you old fool.

You demonstrate that you know nothing about the history of slavery in the United States. The Republican Party would never have come to power if only two people in each state opposed slavery. What an idiot. You also miss the point of your own stupidity with regard to "whatever the vast majority" want. To get two thirds of both houses to approve an amendment and to then get three fourths of the state legislature to ratify a proposed amendment take the kind of sustained political focus that simply having a "vast majority" supporting something doesn't necessarily imply. Under current circumstances, in which time limits are imposed, the amendments which ended slavery, assured due process and privileges and immunities, established the income tax, provided for the popular election of senators, gave women the vote, abolished poll taxes and then extended the franchise to anyone 18 years or older would never have been ratified. I'm not surprised, though, that you didn't read and understand what i wrote. You're too wrapped up in the excellence of your uninformed opinions.

Time and again you demonstrate that you know nothing about American history. If no one at the North cared about slavery, where did Mr. Lincoln come up with the literally millions of Americans who were willing to serve the Federal government in the war? Do you think they just came out for the party? What a clown. Why did hundreds of thousands sacrifice their lives or suffer maiming--because it sounded like being a good time? Incredible stupidity.

Once again, you know nothing. Why don't you try reading the constitution, and try educating yourself about how it was written and then adopted? Slavery was not outlawed until the ratification of the thirteenth amendment in 1867. Prior to that, not only was slavery legal, but it was protected under the constitution. Read about the Dred Scott decision sometime, idiot.

Farmerman stated that there would never be an "atheistic" United States. He was right for a variety of reason, not the least of which is the hilarious improbability of amending the constitution to repeal the first amendment, or even just the "no establishment" clause. You come in with your stupidity about the "vast majority." You demonstrate that you know nothing about the United States constitution, nothing about the amendment process, and nothing about practical politics. What's really hilarious is that all of your stupidity is offered in support of a contention that the United States would become an atheistic state. Leaving aside the hilarity of the proposition on the face of it, the United States is already a secular state, completely secular, with the first clause of the first amendment to the constitution guaranteeing no religious establishment. As FM has pointed out, that goes for "atheism," too, Bubba.

It is always worth noting how very viciously insulting you get whenever you don't have a case to make, and get called for writing stupid things.

That old standby of the anti-Ider's short range of conversational gambits appears once again. The RIC, as I call it, which I've explained before on these threads but as my explanation obviously has had no remedial outcome, one of the reasons I'm on Ignore in a few cerebral constructions, I will endevour to try to explain it again only this time I will try to make it more memorable.

The Reverse Invidious Comparison. The example under consideration here is a double-barrelled one and as crude as when fm gives a little duck sat on his footstool the hunting treatment. The clicking cogs in the reader's noggins are supposed to whirr for a short time, drop into place like three bells in a fruit machine, and the message that Setanta is clever, clever, clever and has a fullsome appreciation of historical perspective can be read off in the rectangular panel. Not that readers here will do so because this is a scientific thread and scientists are more discerning that the average person according to the NCSE: a fact that Setanta has seemingly overlooked for some mysterious reason.

The remainder of Setanta's post then goes on to prove that he has no historical perspective worth discussing, a not unusual occurence, and for him to think he has under such circumstances is the very definition of complete stupidity.

Slaves are walking and driving by his windows with a minute by minute frequency. Their conditions have improved, in the main, and more efficient methods of managing them have been developed since the old days. A proper historical perspective is alert to that on a permanent basis.

Setanta also makes the ghastly and distasteful error of declaring that anyone lacking a historical perspective, even allowing his own definition to stand for a moment, presents no reason to be taken seriously.

Without going into detail, as befits a thread which apportions so much credibility to the editorials of Cox Enterprises, I have to say that I have met many people with no historical perspective and I have been quite prepared to take them seriously on many occasions few of which I am now particularly proud of. So much so indeed that I have been known to take leave of my senses and to set aside the instinct of self preservation.