@pb1022 saidWell, Thomas Jefferson said this after:
The words “separation of church and state” are nowhere mentioned in the U.S. Constitution. What is mentioned is that Congress shall not make a law establishing a religion or prohibiting the free exercise of religion.
And that was put in the Constitution to protect religion from the government - not the other way around.
“I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State,” Jefferson said."
@kingdavid403 saidOk, I had heard a while back that the phrase was mentioned outside the Constitution. My only point was it’s not in the Constitution. And having fled from religious persecution, the founders were concerned about government interfering with religion, not the other way around.
Well, Thomas Jefferson said this after:
“I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State,” Jefferson said."
4 edits
@pb1022 saidOr, were the founders worried about a religion taking over the government, same as what they had fled?
Ok, I had heard a while back that the phrase was mentioned outside the Constitution. My only point was it’s not in the Constitution. And having fled from religious persecution, the founders were concerned about government interfering with religion, not the other way around.
Many Deists signed the Constitution; thank God, in my opinion.
@medullah saidI think society has a duty to intervene when the physical health of a child - or even its life - is threatened due to their parents' religious beliefs. But, the idea of society intervening to stop parents raising their children as they see fit in terms of religious beliefs [or non-religious beliefs] seems impossible and totally ill-advised to me.
I quite like the idea of parents deciding what they want their children taught on this subject.
@pianoman1 said"All right-thinking people" find it abhorrent that anyone would interfere with the raising of their own children. Especially since the mindset you have espoused here is attached the ideological agenda of militant atheism.
Children in some parts of the US are being subjected to mental abuse.
They are being taught Creationism. Not as a theory to balance Evolution, but as a fact. This is a thought crime that should be condemned by all right-thinking people. Teachers and parents are blocking off the tsunami of scientific evidence, and putting their faith in a book written some 4000 years ago by ...[text shortened]... ma, Tennessee, South Carolina and Wisconsin - the so-called Bible Belt.
This MUST stop.
Responses?
I think what you want is to brainwash children into believing God is dead and evolution is the science of the enlightened atheist.
You're a propagandist with an agenda. Stay away from children.
@fmf saidTrue. More should be done by "society" to "intervene" when the physical/emotional/psychological and, yes, even the spiritual wellbeing of a child is threatened by an unbalanced adult, whether a parent or other relative or neighbor or random demented individual.
I think society has a duty to intervene when the physical health of a child - or even its life - is threatened due to their parents' religious beliefs. But, the idea of society intervening to stop parents raising their children as they see fit in terms of religious beliefs [or non-religious beliefs] seems impossible and totally ill-advised to me.
The state otherwise has no business interfering in the nuclear family, which should be protected, nourished and supported above all else.
@fmf saidI agree. Although evolution is taught as fact I’m not sure that you can any more prove it than you could creation, that is to say in its own way (many variations) its almost a religion in itself.
I think society has a duty to intervene when the physical health of a child - or even its life - is threatened due to their parents' religious beliefs. But, the idea of society intervening to stop parents raising their children as they see fit in terms of religious beliefs [or non-religious beliefs] seems impossible and totally ill-advised to me.
@josephw saidTake out the word "physical", and this could easily be seen as you expressing agreement with the OP.
More should be done by "society" to "intervene" when the physical/emotional/psychological and, yes, even the spiritual wellbeing of a child is threatened by an unbalanced adult, whether a parent or other relative or neighbor or random demented individual.
The state otherwise has no business interfering in the nuclear family, which should be protected, nourished and supported above all else.
@fmf saidOnly the former thinks a parent telling his or her child that Genesis is fact amounts to child abuse.
Both Pianoman1 and josephw have much in common: they both think more should be done by society to intervene when the wellbeing of a child is threatened by unbalanced adults.
Wake up, moron.
@pb1022 saidOne says 'society should intervene to stop the abuse of children, while the other says 'society should intervene to stop the brainwashing of children, It's much of a muchness,
Only the former thinks a parent telling his or her child that Genesis is fact amounts to child abuse.
@fmf saidRead the OP, stupid.
One says 'society should intervene to stop the abuse of children, while the other says 'society should intervene to stop the brainwashing of children, It's much of a muchness,