http://www.cbsnews.com/news/lawsuit-to-e...rch-state/

Quote:Some parents in West Virginia are fighting to put an end to a Bible class in public schools.

For nearly 80 years, Bible stories have been taught in Mercer County as part of the regular school week and they’re extremely popular in the community. In a new lawsuit, however, a major lobby for the separation of church and state is arguing that “popular” is not the same as “legal,” reports CBS News correspondent Tony Dokoupil.

Sounds like a no brainer.

So they are forcing kids to take bible classes?

I would also argue that they should stop teaching evolution to kids in public schools, because evolution is a religion to some people.

(02-10-2017 03:49 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  So they are forcing kids to take bible classes?

I would also argue that they should stop teaching evolution to kids in public schools, because evolution is a religion to some people.

Please elaborate on your point.

Evolution is the foundation of all life sciences and at this point it is beyond all doubt. I thought the cons stopped trying to argue against evolution decades ago.

What's the controversy? Separation of the church and state.

This has the opportunity to be a landmark case.

The general direction of the Court over the last decade or so has been towards the right.

The Court has moved further and further away from the faux wall.

I'm very surprised this schools system has managed to continue this course as long as it has. It speaks volumes as to the demographic of the area in question. Honestly..Im sorry this has happened. It looks like only a handful of parents object to their child being in this course and I believe the course is probably a positive benefit to these kids....but...I have to be consistent in my stance on this. I oppose this course simply on separation of church and state grounds. Parents can teach the Bible at home and at their place of worship.

(02-10-2017 03:54 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  This has the opportunity to be a landmark case.

The general direction of the Court over the last decade or so has been towards the right.

The Court has moved further and further away from the faux wall.

I don't get how people conclude that there is not a separation between church and state. The U.S. was founded as a secular nation. No religion is allowed to be endorsed on the federal level. I don't know how many state constitutions have the same provision, but I would imagine the vast majority also have a prohibition against establishing a state sanctioned religion.

(02-10-2017 03:52 PM)john01992 Wrote:  Evolution is the foundation of all life sciences and at this point it is beyond all doubt. I thought the cons stopped trying to argue against evolution decades ago.

So your religion can be forced upon the public, but noone else's religion, right? As long as you call yours "settled science."

There is nothing constitutionally wrong about having bible classes in public school as long as they are not required.

What if it was an Islamic class? Not required but we will have a Koran class. What say you?

(02-10-2017 04:02 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(02-10-2017 03:52 PM)john01992 Wrote:  Evolution is the foundation of all life sciences and at this point it is beyond all doubt. I thought the cons stopped trying to argue against evolution decades ago.

So your religion can be forced upon the public, but noone else's religion, right? As long as you call yours "settled science."

There is nothing constitutionally wrong about having bible classes in public school as long as they are not required.

Evolution is not a religion. There are reams and reams of papers that show supporting evidence that the theory of Evolution is the default model. It's dumb to continue in this thoroughly debunked idea that evolution is "just another theory" and that it takes faith to believe that evolution is real.

(02-10-2017 04:04 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  What if it was an Islamic class? Not required but we will have a Koran class. What say you?

I'd say its better to wipe your ass with the Koran than try and garner any redeemable bit of substance from it.

(02-10-2017 04:05 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(02-10-2017 04:02 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(02-10-2017 03:52 PM)john01992 Wrote:  Evolution is the foundation of all life sciences and at this point it is beyond all doubt. I thought the cons stopped trying to argue against evolution decades ago.

So your religion can be forced upon the public, but noone else's religion, right? As long as you call yours "settled science."

There is nothing constitutionally wrong about having bible classes in public school as long as they are not required.

Evolution is not a religion. There are reams and reams of papers that show supporting evidence that the theory of Evolution is the default model. It's dumb to continue in this thoroughly debunked idea that evolution is "just another theory" and that it takes faith to believe that evolution is real.

....its a theory....not settled science. For clarity...I believe it until I hear a better explanation or it is somehow proven definitively..but..Im open to a new paradigm if one come to light.

(02-10-2017 04:01 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(02-10-2017 03:54 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  This has the opportunity to be a landmark case.

The general direction of the Court over the last decade or so has been towards the right.

The Court has moved further and further away from the faux wall.

I don't get how people conclude that there is not a separation between church and state. The U.S. was founded as a secular nation. No religion is allowed to be endorsed on the federal level. I don't know how many state constitutions have the same provision, but I would imagine the vast majority also have a prohibition against establishing a state sanctioned religion.

That's a misstatement, simple as that.

Many states had official religions.

I agree that there should be separation but there is a difference between separation and stamping it out. The law over the last 50 years has been too far into stamping it out territory.

(02-10-2017 04:12 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(02-10-2017 04:01 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(02-10-2017 03:54 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  This has the opportunity to be a landmark case.

The general direction of the Court over the last decade or so has been towards the right.

The Court has moved further and further away from the faux wall.

I don't get how people conclude that there is not a separation between church and state. The U.S. was founded as a secular nation. No religion is allowed to be endorsed on the federal level. I don't know how many state constitutions have the same provision, but I would imagine the vast majority also have a prohibition against establishing a state sanctioned religion.

That's a misstatement, simple as that.

Many states had official religions.

I agree that there should be separation but there is a difference between separation and stamping it out. The law over the last 50 years has been too far into stamping it out territory.

Im for states rights. If WV wants to have a state religion? fine with me. I think it would cause a schitstorm..but fine.

(02-10-2017 04:10 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(02-10-2017 04:05 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(02-10-2017 04:02 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(02-10-2017 03:52 PM)john01992 Wrote:  Evolution is the foundation of all life sciences and at this point it is beyond all doubt. I thought the cons stopped trying to argue against evolution decades ago.

So your religion can be forced upon the public, but noone else's religion, right? As long as you call yours "settled science."

There is nothing constitutionally wrong about having bible classes in public school as long as they are not required.

Evolution is not a religion. There are reams and reams of papers that show supporting evidence that the theory of Evolution is the default model. It's dumb to continue in this thoroughly debunked idea that evolution is "just another theory" and that it takes faith to believe that evolution is real.

....its a theory....not settled science. For clarity...I believe it until I hear a better explanation or it is somehow proven definitively..but..Im open to a new paradigm if one come to light.

Yes and no. It's true that nothing in science can ever be truly settled with Newton's Laws of Gravity being exhibit one. However, the theory of evolution utilizes the scientific method where falsifiability is possible. Contrast that to the "alternative" to evolution which would be creation science. Creation science has no scientific method to it. That is a belief system. Evolution - OTOH - is a model that has been proven to be quite useful in application in science plus has a lot of data that supports it.

(02-10-2017 04:04 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  What if it was an Islamic class? Not required but we will have a Koran class. What say you?

If there's enough interested parents and they can find someone who wants to teach it, go for it.

I can't muster a single **** to give about a non-required Bible class in a few school systems when there's required "white privilege" horse**** is also being disseminated in so many different schools.

BTW, I thought many people say the best way to turn a Christian into atheist or "free-thinker" was to read the Bible. Think about that one for a little while.

Evolution can't explain how the universe burst into existence.

Evolution also can't help provide purpose to one's life.

If evolution can be taught in classrooms, as well it should, then it should also be acceptable to teach about religion. No one said that by reading the Bible you are forcing religion on someone. Same with reading the Koran. Let students read them in classrooms side by side along with evolution.

(02-10-2017 04:12 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(02-10-2017 04:01 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(02-10-2017 03:54 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  This has the opportunity to be a landmark case.

The general direction of the Court over the last decade or so has been towards the right.

The Court has moved further and further away from the faux wall.

I don't get how people conclude that there is not a separation between church and state. The U.S. was founded as a secular nation. No religion is allowed to be endorsed on the federal level. I don't know how many state constitutions have the same provision, but I would imagine the vast majority also have a prohibition against establishing a state sanctioned religion.

That's a misstatement, simple as that.

Many states had official religions.

I agree that there should be separation but there is a difference between separation and stamping it out. The law over the last 50 years has been too far into stamping it out territory.

Had when they were originally colonies. Granted a few states held onto their state religions after the constitution was ratified, they were all discontinued around 1820s or 1830s to match the U.S. constitution. Did not most (or all) state constitutions add amendments to prevent the establishment of state religions in the future?