On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 12:58:24 -0400, Jim wrote:

John H Rant wrote:
On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 08:36:19 -0400, Jim wrote:

John H Rant wrote:
On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 08:24:47 -0400, Jim wrote:

thunder wrote:
On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 08:02:13 -0400, Jim wrote:


Sorry fella. You cannot teach history without touching on religion.
Also, with few exceptions, the federal government has no jurisdiction
over what may or may not be taught in public schools.
Well, Intelligent Design is one of those exceptions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmil...chool_District
"Let's not make a Federal case out of it." That's my cry.
The case shouldn't have been heard in a federal court. It could have
been settled at the local level. The federal government is walking all
over state and local rights. Ultimately, the peoples voice was heard
when the school committee members were fired. Justice was served "by the
people".
Crap, if everyone felt like you, the ACLU would be out of work and
unemployment would get even higher.
No comprende.

If everyone felt that the slightest discussion of religion should
*not* be made into a federal case, the ACLU would be out of work -
thus increasing unemployment.

We're on the same page then?

sí, señor.

"H the K" wrote in message
m...
On 10/6/09 8:27 AM, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 06:57:21 -0500,
wrote:

On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 07:42:08 -0400, H the K wrote:


Prayers and religious teachings have no place in public K-12 schools.
You want kids to learn your religion? Send them to a religious school.

Exactly, we expect and demand the government to stay out of our
churches. It's not the government's responsibility to teach religion.
That's what parents, churches, and religious schools are for.

Let me ask you this.

Would it be acceptable to teach the subject of creationism as part of
the social sciences education? If not, why not?


No. It would be the teaching of a superstitious religious belief.

--
Birther-Deather-Tenther-Teabagger:
Idiots All

Then why teach "science"? Lot of science is beliefs. Lots of beliefs that
have fallen by the wayside. Can not move faster than the speed of sound.
Lots say we can not go faster than the speed of light. Even Einstein did
not claim that. Just that it would take infinite energy. How can photon's
get to the speed of light and not use all available energy? You want to
teach only your beliefs. Maybe your beliefs are as screwed up as other
nutcases.

"JohnH" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 5 Oct 2009 23:04:09 -0700, "CalifBill"
wrote:


"JohnRant" wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 16:43:26 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 17:33:59 -0400, JohnH wrote:


Isn't it strange that this mental development happened to only one of
the animals that lived over those hundreds of thousands of years?

Did it? Or are we just now understanding animal development? Hell, even
the lowly crow has been witnessed problem solving and using tools. And
language? Many, many, species communicate both verbally and physically.

Tell me when one of them develops and produces something to increase
its food supply. Guano doesn't count.

I'm not going to argue with your idea that other animals have the
mental reasoning capacity as human. If you believe so, fine. I *will*
agree that some humans seem to have the reasoning capacity of slugs.

We have a couple right here.
--
John H

All decisions, even those of liberals, are the result of binary
thinking.

Ants farm. Bring in grass and leaves that symbiotic bacteria grow on,
giving the ants the final food product.



When they develop a cultivator to keep out the weeds, let me know.
Otherwise it's just instinct.
--
John H

All decisions, even those of liberals, are the result of binary thinking.

How did they aquire that instint?

On 10/6/09 2:36 PM, CalifBill wrote:
"H the wrote in message
m...
On 10/6/09 1:59 AM, CalifBill wrote:
"H the wrote in message
m...
On 10/5/09 3:56 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 14:55:29 -0400, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

All science is based on "viewpoints". What the heck do you think
drives scientific inquiry? One scientist's view is that Global Warming
is real. A different scientist looking at the same data calls
bulls**t. Openheimer felt that testing an atom bomb would set the
atmosphere on fire. Others didn't.

None of those "viewpoints" are science however, just opinions or
hypotheses. They become science, or not, after evaluation of the
underlying theory (if any), experimental proof by multiple
individuals, and peer review. Then it's not a viewpoint any longer.


There isn't a thimbleful of evidence of any sort to support creationism.



How did everything first start?



One of SW Tom's alien ancestors was making a firecracker to show off for
his buddies, and it got a little out of hand...resulting in a Big Bang.



Where did the alien get his start?



From his mommy and daddy, of course.

--
Birther-Deather-Tenther-Teabagger:
Idiots All

On Tue, 6 Oct 2009 11:46:40 -0700, "CalifBill"
wrote:


"JohnH" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 5 Oct 2009 23:04:09 -0700, "CalifBill"
wrote:


"JohnRant" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 16:43:26 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 17:33:59 -0400, JohnH wrote:


Isn't it strange that this mental development happened to only one of
the animals that lived over those hundreds of thousands of years?

Did it? Or are we just now understanding animal development? Hell, even
the lowly crow has been witnessed problem solving and using tools. And
language? Many, many, species communicate both verbally and physically.

Tell me when one of them develops and produces something to increase
its food supply. Guano doesn't count.

I'm not going to argue with your idea that other animals have the
mental reasoning capacity as human. If you believe so, fine. I *will*
agree that some humans seem to have the reasoning capacity of slugs.

We have a couple right here.
--
John H

All decisions, even those of liberals, are the result of binary
thinking.

Ants farm. Bring in grass and leaves that symbiotic bacteria grow on,
giving the ants the final food product.



When they develop a cultivator to keep out the weeds, let me know.
Otherwise it's just instinct.
--
John H

All decisions, even those of liberals, are the result of binary thinking.

How did they aquire that instint?


It was given them by Whomever.

On 10/6/09 2:42 PM, CalifBill wrote:
"H the wrote in message
m...
On 10/6/09 8:27 AM, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 06:57:21 -0500,
wrote:

On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 07:42:08 -0400, H the K wrote:


Prayers and religious teachings have no place in public K-12 schools.
You want kids to learn your religion? Send them to a religious school.

Exactly, we expect and demand the government to stay out of our
churches. It's not the government's responsibility to teach religion.
That's what parents, churches, and religious schools are for.

Let me ask you this.

Would it be acceptable to teach the subject of creationism as part of
the social sciences education? If not, why not?


No. It would be the teaching of a superstitious religious belief.

--
Birther-Deather-Tenther-Teabagger:
Idiots All

Then why teach "science"? Lot of science is beliefs. Lots of beliefs that
have fallen by the wayside. Can not move faster than the speed of sound.
Lots say we can not go faster than the speed of light. Even Einstein did
not claim that. Just that it would take infinite energy. How can photon's
get to the speed of light and not use all available energy? You want to
teach only your beliefs. Maybe your beliefs are as screwed up as other
nutcases.



With the passage of time, scientific knowledge expands, and theories are
either proven, expanded, discarded or wait their turn for further proof.
There is not a scintilla of proof for "creationism" or more important,
for the existence of "god." It's all faith-based.

--
Birther-Deather-Tenther-Teabagger:
Idiots All

"Jim" wrote in message
...
nom=de=plume wrote:
"Jim" wrote in message
...
CalifBill wrote:
"H the K" wrote in message
m...
On 10/5/09 3:56 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 14:55:29 -0400, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

All science is based on "viewpoints". What the heck do you think
drives scientific inquiry? One scientist's view is that Global
Warming
is real. A different scientist looking at the same data calls
bulls**t. Openheimer felt that testing an atom bomb would set the
atmosphere on fire. Others didn't.
None of those "viewpoints" are science however, just opinions or
hypotheses. They become science, or not, after evaluation of the
underlying theory (if any), experimental proof by multiple
individuals, and peer review. Then it's not a viewpoint any longer.

There isn't a thimbleful of evidence of any sort to support
creationism.


How did everything first start?
I suspect that science will eventually bump into that stumbling block .
They have a long ways to go before they realize they can't solve the
mystery of the beginning of life.
In the absence of hard facts to disprove religious beliefs I would
suggest to the faithful to *Keep the faith baby*.
In the case of school policies, The only issue the federal government
should be involved with is insisting that The pledge of allegiance be
recited, in every classroom, in its original form, by every student, in
English, at the beginning of each school day. Weather or not prayers are
encouraged, or historical teachings of a religious nature are included
in curriculum, should be decided by popular vote at the local level.



There's a big difference, however, between the knowable and the
unknowable. There will always be something we can't figure out
completely.

The pledge in it's original form didn't include "under God." I believe
strongly in church/state separation, but I don't see the big deal of
including those words. You shouldn't be forced to say them. You can
always pause when that part comes up if it bothers you.

Prayers have no place in school. Historical and contemporary religion
comparisons certainly have a place. Popular voting, especially on the
local level, on this isn't appropriate, as it becomes indoctrination for
those who don't believe. They have rights too.



How do you propose to enforce no prayer rules?


Personally? lol There are plenty of parents who take an active interest, as
I do. Jeez... we complain about everything!! Drives the teachers batty I'm
sure.

--
Nom=de=Plume

nom=de=plume wrote:
"Jim" wrote in message
...
nom=de=plume wrote:
"Jim" wrote in message
...
CalifBill wrote:
"H the K" wrote in message
m...
On 10/5/09 3:56 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 14:55:29 -0400, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

All science is based on "viewpoints". What the heck do you think
drives scientific inquiry? One scientist's view is that Global
Warming
is real. A different scientist looking at the same data calls
bulls**t. Openheimer felt that testing an atom bomb would set the
atmosphere on fire. Others didn't.
None of those "viewpoints" are science however, just opinions or
hypotheses. They become science, or not, after evaluation of the
underlying theory (if any), experimental proof by multiple
individuals, and peer review. Then it's not a viewpoint any longer.

There isn't a thimbleful of evidence of any sort to support
creationism.

How did everything first start?
I suspect that science will eventually bump into that stumbling block .
They have a long ways to go before they realize they can't solve the
mystery of the beginning of life.
In the absence of hard facts to disprove religious beliefs I would
suggest to the faithful to *Keep the faith baby*.
In the case of school policies, The only issue the federal government
should be involved with is insisting that The pledge of allegiance be
recited, in every classroom, in its original form, by every student, in
English, at the beginning of each school day. Weather or not prayers are
encouraged, or historical teachings of a religious nature are included
in curriculum, should be decided by popular vote at the local level.


There's a big difference, however, between the knowable and the
unknowable. There will always be something we can't figure out
completely.

The pledge in it's original form didn't include "under God." I believe
strongly in church/state separation, but I don't see the big deal of
including those words. You shouldn't be forced to say them. You can
always pause when that part comes up if it bothers you.

Prayers have no place in school. Historical and contemporary religion
comparisons certainly have a place. Popular voting, especially on the
local level, on this isn't appropriate, as it becomes indoctrination for
those who don't believe. They have rights too.


How do you propose to enforce no prayer rules?


Personally? lol There are plenty of parents who take an active interest, as
I do. Jeez... we complain about everything!! Drives the teachers batty I'm
sure.

Careful what you stick your nose into sweetie. Screw with a sajjada and
you could lose your head over it.

"Jim" wrote in message
...
nom=de=plume wrote:
"Jim" wrote in message
...
nom=de=plume wrote:
"Jim" wrote in message
...
CalifBill wrote:
"H the K" wrote in message
m...
On 10/5/09 3:56 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 14:55:29 -0400, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

All science is based on "viewpoints". What the heck do you think
drives scientific inquiry? One scientist's view is that Global
Warming
is real. A different scientist looking at the same data calls
bulls**t. Openheimer felt that testing an atom bomb would set the
atmosphere on fire. Others didn't.
None of those "viewpoints" are science however, just opinions or
hypotheses. They become science, or not, after evaluation of the
underlying theory (if any), experimental proof by multiple
individuals, and peer review. Then it's not a viewpoint any
longer.

There isn't a thimbleful of evidence of any sort to support
creationism.

How did everything first start?
I suspect that science will eventually bump into that stumbling block
. They have a long ways to go before they realize they can't solve the
mystery of the beginning of life.
In the absence of hard facts to disprove religious beliefs I would
suggest to the faithful to *Keep the faith baby*.
In the case of school policies, The only issue the federal government
should be involved with is insisting that The pledge of allegiance be
recited, in every classroom, in its original form, by every student,
in English, at the beginning of each school day. Weather or not
prayers are encouraged, or historical teachings of a religious nature
are included in curriculum, should be decided by popular vote at the
local level.


There's a big difference, however, between the knowable and the
unknowable. There will always be something we can't figure out
completely.

The pledge in it's original form didn't include "under God." I believe
strongly in church/state separation, but I don't see the big deal of
including those words. You shouldn't be forced to say them. You can
always pause when that part comes up if it bothers you.

Prayers have no place in school. Historical and contemporary religion
comparisons certainly have a place. Popular voting, especially on the
local level, on this isn't appropriate, as it becomes indoctrination
for those who don't believe. They have rights too.


How do you propose to enforce no prayer rules?


Personally? lol There are plenty of parents who take an active interest,
as I do. Jeez... we complain about everything!! Drives the teachers batty
I'm sure.

Careful what you stick your nose into sweetie. Screw with a sajjada and
you could lose your head over it.


Well, Jimmy Bob, I think I'll do what I think it right.


--
Nom=de=Plume

nom=de=plume wrote:
"Jim" wrote in message
...
nom=de=plume wrote:
"Jim" wrote in message
...
nom=de=plume wrote:
"Jim" wrote in message
...
CalifBill wrote:
"H the K" wrote in message
m...
On 10/5/09 3:56 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 14:55:29 -0400, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

All science is based on "viewpoints". What the heck do you think
drives scientific inquiry? One scientist's view is that Global
Warming
is real. A different scientist looking at the same data calls
bulls**t. Openheimer felt that testing an atom bomb would set the
atmosphere on fire. Others didn't.
None of those "viewpoints" are science however, just opinions or
hypotheses. They become science, or not, after evaluation of the
underlying theory (if any), experimental proof by multiple
individuals, and peer review. Then it's not a viewpoint any
longer.

There isn't a thimbleful of evidence of any sort to support
creationism.

How did everything first start?
I suspect that science will eventually bump into that stumbling block
. They have a long ways to go before they realize they can't solve the
mystery of the beginning of life.
In the absence of hard facts to disprove religious beliefs I would
suggest to the faithful to *Keep the faith baby*.
In the case of school policies, The only issue the federal government
should be involved with is insisting that The pledge of allegiance be
recited, in every classroom, in its original form, by every student,
in English, at the beginning of each school day. Weather or not
prayers are encouraged, or historical teachings of a religious nature
are included in curriculum, should be decided by popular vote at the
local level.

There's a big difference, however, between the knowable and the
unknowable. There will always be something we can't figure out
completely.

The pledge in it's original form didn't include "under God." I believe
strongly in church/state separation, but I don't see the big deal of
including those words. You shouldn't be forced to say them. You can
always pause when that part comes up if it bothers you.

Prayers have no place in school. Historical and contemporary religion
comparisons certainly have a place. Popular voting, especially on the
local level, on this isn't appropriate, as it becomes indoctrination
for those who don't believe. They have rights too.

How do you propose to enforce no prayer rules?

Personally? lol There are plenty of parents who take an active interest,
as I do. Jeez... we complain about everything!! Drives the teachers batty
I'm sure.

Careful what you stick your nose into sweetie. Screw with a sajjada and
you could lose your head over it.


Well, Jimmy Bob, I think I'll do what I think it right.


You go girl.