Beepbeep replied to Part Three, saying that he does not support teaching any type of God-design in schools because it's un-scientific. He said some other things as well, but I can't think of them off the top of my head. Here's what I wrote, as my final say for the time being on the topic.
First of all, I do not claim that "god-belief" is scientific, but I do believe that explaining the probability of an Intelligent Designer is. "Evolution" is just as un-scientific as "god-belief," if not more. Having a god is not a required element of a religion. Atheists generally fall into the category of "secular humanists." This is a religion. It is a religion that makes man and his ability to reason the "god" of their religion. Evolution is the main way to "explain their origins," as you would say theists--and all other religions--explain their origins. Therefore, if teaching the potential and probability of an Intelligent Designer is not allowed in a classroom, than secular humanists/evolutionists/atheists are themselves trying to establish a religion, the religion of secular atheistic humanism--violating the separation of church and state.
This goes without mentioning the often fraudulent "proof" put forward for Evolution, as well as the fact that it is often taught AS FACT, which is more than un-scientific: it's a malicious and straight-out lie.
Lastly, as an Australian, I would not expect you to understand the meaning of America's separation of church and state, for the vast majority of Americans do not. That wording does not even appear in the Constitution. The Constitution says that the government "shall not establish a religion." This was to assure citizens that the government would not interfere with their freedom of religion--not vice versa. The term "separation of church and state" appeared first in a letter by Thomas Jefferson TO BAPTISTS, assuring them that the government would not establish CONGREGATIONALISM as the state church, like Anglicanism was in England.
Yet, now, in every public arena almost, it seems that secular humanism--or, if not that, than universalism--is established as the state religion. The Intelligent Design Movement is not asking to be the only science taught in schools. It wants to be taught alongside Evolution as an alternate. Why won't evolutionists accept this? Because they want to keep their monopoly on child-brainwashing.
Lastly, since you still won't --and obviously will never-- get my logical explanation of Intelligent Designer, I will say no more on it now.
p.s. [not in original comment] What this atheist doesn't seem to get is that the term "intelligent" is not a slap in the face of God's omniscience, but rather, it is a slap in the face of Evolution.
~Kingdom Advancer
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Guess what...if you allow government to endorse a certain religion, then you are interfering with other peoples' right to practice a different religion freely. That is why Jefferson (who helped write the Constitution) endorsed separation of church and state--so that everyone could practice their own religion without interference. In fact, Jefferson was a deist (you should really read his redaction of the Gospels--it's really interesting); you think he would endorse a government founded on a religion he didn't believe in?
"Guess what...if you allow government to endorse a certain religion, then you are interfering with other peoples' right to practice a different religion freely."
Who are we talking about here? Who, under my measures, would not be allowed to practice a different religion freely? As of now and/or in the past: Christian chaplains are not allowed to pray as their faith dictates! The Ten Commandments are taken out of courthouses! The Ten Commandments are taken out of schools! Prayer is taken out of schools! The Bible is taken out of schools! Attempts are made to get "under God" out of the Pledge of Allegiance! Signs of the cross during Easter and baby Jesus during Christmas on public property are pushed to be removed! A veterans' memorial that's a cross is sued to be taken down!
[note: some of these attempts have failed]
The fact is, Christians are already having their religious rights taken away from them. Atheists and secular humanists have deceived the vast majority of people into the misconception that--if you don't believe in a higher power--then you are not a part of a religion. That is false: WHATEVER your view on God is--THAT is your RELIGIOUS belief!
So, atheists and humanists have made public signs of faith manditorily non-sectarian--which really means universalistic. "All roads lead to heaven and don't tell anybody else what to believe." Well, Christian chaplains believe that Jesus is "the Way, the Truth, and the Life," and that "no one comes to the Father, but by" Him. Jesus Christ is the Christian's key to the throneroom of the King of kings, and atheists are trying to take that away. Non-sectarian prayers do little for anybody--the Muslim prays to Allah; the Satanist prays to Satan; some may pray to your so-called "Giant Plate of Spaghetti"; atheists don't pray at all. Non-sectarian prayers are forcefully vague and ingenuine. Whenever there's a time of prayer in a public place, people of different beliefs will pray silently according to their faith--"correcting" anything the chaplain may say that is "wrong" according to the individual's faith. Why should the leader of the prayer be forced to sacrifice his religious integrity?
After all, the eventual end of such religious persecution is a man-centered "moment of silence."
As for removing the Ten Commandments in courthouses, what's that all about? The Law agrees with the Ten Commandments that murder is wrong, theft is wrong, covetousness leads to theft, lying ("bearing false witness") under oath is against the Law, foul language ("taking God's name is vain") is not permitted in the courtroom, and rebellion against--or dishonoring of--parents is hardly ever a good thing. [Those were listed as to relevance and the way they came into my head.]
And, our entire country's economic system is built around the idea of the Sabbath.
So, in the courtroom, there's 70% agreement between the Law and God's Law. This is not to mention that adulterous affairs [and/or lust issues] can lead to broken families, or even rape. And it's one's own personal right to religion (including the rights of the judges) to believe in a God Who is just (just like it is people's right to believe in a god who is not just or in no god).
So really, there's no basis to take the Ten Commandments out of the courtrooms except for the cause of Christian persecution.
As for the Ten Commandments out of schools:
Ditto last statement, and look at the statistics--the massive increase in crime--since they were taken out of schools.
The rest of the examples I gave are just blatant examples of anti-Christianity, and the attempted establishment of non-sectarianism and/or atheism in our country.
Of course, I didn't even mention yet the fact of evolution in the science classes. Kids are essentially told:
"Well, you CAN believe God. That's fine, and everything. But Creationism is not scientific. Evolution is VERY scientific. And Evolution proves that God is not a necessity. So, if you like that whole mythological, traditional, blind-faith thing, nobody is stopping you from believing in God; but if you want to be a scientific intellectual, then you should believe in Evolution."
It's diabolical propaganda! They try to take prayer, the Bible, the Ten Commandments, and "under God" out of schools, and then begin to teach their religion and their religion's explanation of origins. And that's what this is: religious, faith-requiring, beliefs. In no way is atheism or evolution more concretely set in evidence and facts than theism and creationism. In fact, atheism and evolution are much less so!
The bottom line: 80% of Americans consider themselves Christians, and a recent poll showed that over 90% believe in God. Our country was founded majoritatively by believers in God, and our ancestral documents illustrate this. Yet, it seems that atheism is taking over the public and intellectual square--not rightfully so, but underhandedly and forcefully so.
"In fact, Jefferson was a deist... you think he would endorse a government founded on a religion he didn't believe in?"
What religion are you talking about endorsing? I wasn't talking about any form of Christianity being endorsed. I want Christians to have freedom to express their faith. I was talking about Secular Humanism ALREADY HAVING BEEN UNDERHANDEDLY, UNOFFICIALLY ENDORSED!
By the way, I'm sure Jefferson, like our other Founding Fathers, understood the idea of separation of church and state: to keep the government out of the church, not to keep the church out of the government. See, cause back then, they understood that you can't really separate your religious beliefs from your politics and your outward expression. They also understood that WHATEVER your belief in God--theism or atheism--is your religion. Remember the quote I used of Jefferson's? "All believers AND UNBELIEVERS in the Bible."
Post a Comment