Quantcast

Comments about ‘Supreme Court avoids talking about God in school’

Return to article »

Published: Friday, Feb. 24 2012 7:04 a.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Ernest T. Bass
Bountiful, UT

Gosh those liberals are going to ruin this country.

Ernest T. Bass
Bountiful, UT

@Flashback: Does that include when people want to separate church and state? It seems like the cons are the ones who get offended at upholding the constitutional separation of church and state.

Lagomorph
Salt Lake City, UT

VC: "But to me, the evidence I've seen for evolution from apes is far from convincing. AS A SCIENTIST myself, I marvel at how much we DON'T know... Also, I myself DO see the hand of God in His creations... But from what I see around me, He did a wonderful job of creating order out of chaos. I'm speaking AS A SCIENTIST and a believer." [emphasis added]

Are you by any chance an engineer?

Cf. Salem Hypothesis

Rocket Science
Brigham City, UT

Belief in a Heavenly Father, God, Supreme Being etc requires faith - enough said, I can neither prove nor disprove to Blue. I can only share my belief through my faith.

At the same time scientific theory, is theory. A theory is neither, nor can it be true nor false. A theory is simply stated a statement of the understanding of certain phenomena. A theory is either useful or not useful in its efforts to explain. Theories concerning gravity used to include that we could never escape the bounds of earth yet I have been part of developing the mechanized means to do so. We can learn more and refine our theories as we progress.

I am one who finds much usefulness in understanding the theories of men and also find that many are actually consistent with my belief of a Heavenly Father. I want my children to know and understand theories of men and I teach them the things of our Heavenly Father whom I believe in.

I believe it is wise to study theory, and while perhaps within constitutional bounds it is likewise very unwise, disrespectful and ignorant to denigrate the faith of another.

IMAN
Marlborough, MA

RE:Liberal Ted "Disregarding religious beliefs because someone doesn't believe, does not mean religion is barred from anything the government has it's hands in"
I have no idea how you comrehended my post and translated it to your above statement. I make no mention of disregarding anything. Let me try to make a more simple statement for you. My view is that deabte on relious theology, pro or con has no place in the public education system.

trueblue87
Provo, UT

Because one chooses to ignore the evidence or does not understand it, does not mean the evidence does not exist.

Blue
Salt Lake City, UT

RocketScience: "At the same time scientific theory, is theory. A theory is neither, nor can it be true nor false. A theory is simply stated a statement of the understanding of certain phenomena. A theory is either useful or not useful in its efforts to explain."

You get at best partial credit for that answer.

Scientists use the word "theory" to identify a way of modeling an array of related phenomena in a way that best fits available observations. The Theory of Evolution is every bit as scientifically valid as Germ Theory or Relativity Theory.

While it is technically true that it is impossible to declare that the Theory of Evolution is "true," the plain fact remains that no other model of biological phenomena has been found that so simply, elegantly and comprehensively explains the origin of species while simultaneously conforming with other scientific disciplines.

Religious beliefs that pretend to explain the natural world around us crumble under the most casual rational scrutiny.

Borrowing your metric then, evolution is "useful," while creationism is "not useful." It should therefore not be deemed offensive for a teacher to say as much to students.

A voice of Reason
Salt Lake City, UT

I'm a member of the LDS Church. I have every right to say that my beliefs aren't based on superstition but on reason and my personal experiences. As long as we accept the teacher who says "there is no God" then we must accept a teacher saying "there is a God" all the same. While I accept this teacher's right to express themselves, in my opinion the public school system should function to serve all belief systems- making such comments from either teacher to be inappropriate. However, does such a comment violate or infringe this student or any other students freedom? Absolutely not. This isn't even remotely logical; it's a joke. From my perspective, it seems that we see more of these claims because of a mentality in our society that "what's yours is mine" or in other words- "I have a right to you doing/saying things the way I want it."

Others accepting you or what you believe isn't a right. You are free and the existence of "another belief" does not infringe this. A citizen, a state official, or anyone else cannot take this away by stating freely what they believe. Freedom means you can choose what you believe, not that you can choose what others say to you or think about you. I've had professors tell me that all evidence supports God's existence. I've had professors tell me that religion is stupid. Somehow, neither took away my choice and my taxes still paid for an education that taught me to think and write objectively if I need to and so on.

Liberal Ted
Salt Lake City, UT

Blue & IMAM,

How is it you can be soo intolerant to those who believe in God and choose to worship? It's amazing that society will push to protect porn as freedom of speech. But, praying to God, is attacked, mocked, ridiculed by those who claim superior knowledge.

If you can't prove your negative, then I will tell you how a positive can be proven. Have you asked God if he exists? Have you tried asking with a sincere heart and with real intent if he exists? I've asked and He listened and responded. If you prepare yoursevles you to can enjoy that knowledge. Again, it's your choice what you do with that.

I don't see a problem with me worshiping God and you not worshiping him. That's your choice to not worship. However, you do not have the right to take away my choice to worship. Especially where, how and what I may. I won't make an effort to force you to worship. And you shouldn't make an effort to force me, my children, and other believers from worshiping.

The tolerant silent atheists need to step up, and show society that these radical atheists do not represent all atheists. The atheists that are sue happy and are simply trying to line their pockets with taxpayer dollars, because they were offended by a sign, a prayer, a faith, a pledge of allegiance. It's interesting that these atheists in lawsuits are going for money with the very word written on it that they despise and mock. I suppose in a way, everyone is seeking for God:) even our atheists friends.

But, please explain how God does not exists. You must have figured it out some way, since you don't believe in him. So go on and explain how you came to that conclusion. Let's be intellectually honest and have a discussion. Don't be offended, and I also won't be offended by all of the shocking "truth" and "revelation" you'll deliver.

You're first arguement is weak in stating that you are unable to prove a negative. Really? Is that the route such a great thinker is going to take on this issue?

Don't get me wrong, I understand there are times when religious people have/can be forceful. I don't appreciate that either. But, I see no difference between having faith shoved down your throat and having atheism shoved down ones throat either. Let's allow public discussion on both sides. Instead of creating laws to restrict religion, why not approach the school and see if you can have an open dialogue about the topic.

Who knows maybe politicians can learn something from that type of behavior. Maybe this will help prepare our future leaders to learn to get along with each other and learn that there are other valid opinions in the world. Instead we teach them that you should be offended over every little thing that comes your way, you solve issues in the court, you sue and take peoples money from them to make a point, you vote for activists for the agenda you agree to, you don't tolerate someone elses thought processes, and the list goes on.

Schwa
South Jordan, UT

I'd like to hang a banner in my old high school that says "God is dead." Do you think they'll let me do it? If not, why would this other group get to hang their banner. Do you see the reason schools need to stay out of it?

mcgilm
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

@ Very Concerned

The same people who founded the constitution, which so many people use to beat up on religious beliefs, practices, people, and doctrins, also put references to God in our money, made numerous public references to God, and recognized His hand in forming this nation. The first amendment is very simple when it comes to religion. *Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.*

You need to go do some history research. Nowhere in the constitution is God mentioned, nor in the Declaration. References to God on our money was not there originally, and has actually occured over the course of the 100 years or so. The same with the pledge, which was originally written by a socialist monk. The original version never included the reference to God, which was added in the 1950s after much pressure by the Knights of Columbus.

And most of the high profile founding fathers that everyone touts, were Deists, not Christians.

Gregg Weber
SEATTLE, WA

I see the comments back and forth.
A real DEBATE. Sorry 'bout the caps but there should be one place where everyone can put their arguments for or against something like this. It would be in a proper manner of expressing and an orderly method of presenting. It would be logical with someone saying if the argument was so or was a fallacy. It would be a debate and not just a shouting and interrupting and 30 second sound bite presentation. It could be done in a newspaper, getting back to the analyzation, or a TV/internet network like GBTV.

LValfre
CHICAGO, IL

"Blue
Salt Lake City, UT
The plain, simple, amply and repeatedly proven fact is that creationism very clearly _is_ "religious, superstitious nonsense." The teacher in question was simply speaking the truth.

If verifiable facts offend you then you have problems that are far bigger than the US Constitution."

We should be happy this teacher is so intelligent. We want our children to be taught be the world's best and brightest. Notice how India and China are exploding academically while we're falling behind ... it's time for a change in the education system and this teacher is a start.

LValfre
CHICAGO, IL

"Ernest T. Bass
Bountiful, UT
Gosh those liberals are going to ruin this country."

Rude and brash statement. For all you know this guy is ultra conservative but doesn't believe in god. You're stereotyping an atheist as liberal which is frankly not true (i'm an excellent example).

@very concerned,

"We have an innate yearning for a belief in God. "

Correction: YOU have an innate yearning for a belief in God. I have no desire once-o-ever anymore and many feel the same way. I hope by WE you meant Christians and not humans because that's inherently false.

"As far as religion in the *public square*, such as commenting in this newspaper, voting your conscience, blogging, proselyting, religion on TV, etc., etc., etc., reasonable religious dialogue should not be discouraged, but should be open and free."

I couldn't agree more. Why don't you write to DesNews about their extensive comment moderation? You can beat up atheists all day but 1/10 comments about LDS get approved if you're lucky.

Steve C. Warren
WEST VALLEY CITY, UT

Thanks, Deseret News, for informing us about the brave Rhode Island girl who got the religious banner removed from her school. Alas, she will continue to be ridiculed by Christians as is commonly the case when my fellow Christians don't get their way. I think we refer to this as living the golden rule.

Morgan Duel
Taylorsville, UT

Wow sure is a lot of difference between courts.

"The Pennsylvania State Director of American Atheists, Inc., Mr. Ernest Perce V., was assaulted by a Muslim while participating in a Halloween parade. Along with a Zombie Pope, Ernest was costumed as Zombie Muhammad. The assault was caught on video, the Muslim man admitted to his crime and charges were filed in what should have been an open-and-shut case. Thatâs not what happened, though.

The Judges comments included,

âHaving had the benefit of having spent over 2 and a half years in predominantly Muslim countries I think I know a little bit about the faith of Islam. In fact I have a copy of the Koran here and I challenge you sir to show me where it says in the Koran that Mohammad arose and walked among the dead. I think you misinterpreted things. Before you start mocking someone elseâs religion you may want to find out a little bit more about it it makes you look like a dufus and Mr. (Defendant) is correct. In many Arabic speaking countries something like this is definitely against the law there. In their society in fact it can be punishable by death and it frequently is in their society."

The person who committed the act was let go regardless of the evidence.

Where is the First Amendment right??

Morgan Duel
Taylorsville, UT

Hundreds of demonstrators staged peaceful protests in Nangarhar and Paktia provinces, but ones in Laghman, Kunduz and Logar provinces turned violent.

Here in the US we cannot even raise a banner or sue a teaher regarding religion.

Who free?

indi
,

Blue, since the atheists are demanding the proof, thatâs their worry--not ours. We have our proof in ways that those who profess the religion of Atheism donât understand. One of our proofs IS by looking in the mirror and seeing that marvelous creation and crowning achievementâman. Now, if that is not a satisfactory proof to you, again, that is your problem. But the jury is still out on proving all that weâve seen is just the result of some random explosion in space that brought about the diversity of life forms and all that allows us to exist on this planet without the direction of a Creator. Evolution is still considered a theory. Being such, atheists have a burden of proof of their own to worry about. Consequently, atheists should not spend so much time trying to silence people of faith from presenting an opposing point of view by calling into question their logic, reasoning, or intellectual skills for having a difference of opinion.

My guess is that the atheists true intent is to control the thought process of those they think might defect to the other side.

indi
,

@mcgilm: You state, âYou need to go do some history research. Nowhere in the constitution is God mentioned, nor in the Declaration.â

If you are an example of public education, then we have reason to be concerned. This the text from the Declaration of Independence.

âWhen, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.â

No reference to God?

indi
,

"Our Constitution was made for only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to a government of any other." John Adams

Many of the men and women who fled to the shores of this country were seeking religious freedom. They were persecuted by the crown for their âunorthodoxâ religious beliefs. Many were thrown in prison. Many were killed for just wanting the Bible to be published and read by the populace. The Founding Fathers were quite aware of that history and sought to protect religious freedom in this country. NOT remove religion from the public square, or political thinking. They did not want a Federally mandated church that everyone had to join. They did not want the Federal government to impose ONE church's ideology on everyone else and thus thwart the religious freedom their ancestors had come to America to have.

President Washington declared a national day of prayer and fasting. Religious services were held in government buildings. Congress approved the printing of the Bible and missionary work to the Indians. These are hardly the actions of men who were against religion influencing the nation and community.

The term, "separation of Church and State," is not in the Constitution. It comes from a letter written by President Thomas Jefferson in 1802 in response to a Baptist Minister who was concerned that his congregation would be denied their religious freedom by the federal government. President Jefferson then sought to reassure the Minister that the government would not invade his religious liberty. (BTW, Thomas Jefferson was not even a part of the process for writing the amendment which protects religious liberty--he was in France.)

It is only since our society has become so secular that it refuses to acknowledge that this nation was built on Christian religious principles. Certainly the many symbols displayed of the Ten Commandments in the Supreme Court (and other courts throughout the nation) are some testament to that fact. It is only because those who do not wish to acknowledge any of this Christian influence that we see the push for the silence of the Christian voice and morality in the public arena.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments