Don't Even peek in here

[Todd]

The U.S. Supreme Court in Torcaso v. Watkins, 81 S.Ct. 1681 (1961) makes the following statement: Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God, are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism (emphasis added), and others. Since the US Supreme Court has named secular humanism as a religion, and since the two tenets above come from the humanist manifesto, one can conclude that by teaching evolutionism (or at least the part of evolutionism that says that the universe is "self existing and not created", and that man "has emerged as a result of a continuous process") a teacher is, in fact, teaching a religion. The humanists are the loudest criers of the notion of separation of church and state and that anything religious may not be taught in the government schools. Therefore, this could lead to the idea that evolutionism must not be taught in the government schools, since it is religion (according to the US Supreme Court).

 

[Beebeeblue]

I peeked. Whacha gonna do? Eh?

 

[Wizard]

Here we go again........

 

[Todd]

I peeked. Whacha gonna do? Eh?

I'm Gonna have to tell Turner to Spank you

 

[MinkSoul]

todd...

your absoluty right....


walks out of thread shaking his head...

 

[Beebeeblue]

I peeked. Whacha gonna do? Eh?

I'm Gonna have to tell Turner to Spank you

My goodness, I thot you were going to threaten me or something.

 

[Todd]

I peeked. Whacha gonna do? Eh?

I'm Gonna have to tell Turner to Spank you

My goodness, I thot you were going to threaten me or something.

What you don't find Turner's Larger strong hand whipping down on your soft subtle butt in rapid succession threatening?

 

[Beebeeblue]

No, it turns me on. How can something that excites you be threatening?

 

[LittleRedDevil]

Peek.

 

[Thomas Paine]

Although a quick search tells me that Torcaso V. Watkins (the correct cert, btw, is 367 U.S. 488)is apparently a well-flogged horse of the "having no religion is a religion" crowd, there are a few points that don't support what passes for your argument:

Not every word uttered in a Supreme Court opinion makes law. There is a legal concept called "obiter dicta," which means that some statements in an opinion are not law, just amplification or clarification. The quote you cut-and-pasted was found not in the opinion, or the concurrence, but in a footnote to the concurrence. It would be apparent to anyone with a passing knowledge of U.S. Constitutional jurisprudence that when the Court makes law, they don't hide it in a footnote.

Further, in a 1987 case dealing with the secular humanism question, the the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals held:

"The Supreme Court has never established a comprehensive test for determining the "delicate question" of what constitutes a religious belief for purposes of the first amendment, and we need not attempt to do so..."

Secular humanism is a philosophy if it is anything. Just because somebody calls it a religion to suit their own purposes doesn't change that.

A belief in evolution does not preclude a belief in god. Although some may believe in some sort of self-generated cataclysm that got us rolling on our evolutionary path, others believe that somebody had to plunk the first amoeba down into the primordial soup.

I would suggest to you, Todd, that if you believe in a biblical creation theory, more power to you. Schools in the U.S. do not teach evolution as religion, they teach it as science. If you insist on making claims to the contrary, why not try a more suitable approach than throwing around questionable legal theory that you obviously don't understand?

 

[Comshaw]

posted by Thomas Paine:

I would suggest to you, Todd, that if you believe in a biblical creation theory, more power to you.
Schools in the U.S. do not teach evolution as religion, they teach it as science. If you insist on making claims to the contrary, why not try a more suitable approach than throwing around questionable legal theory that you obviously don't understand?

WhoooWaaa! What He said!

One thing I've never understood, why is creationism and evolution mutually exclusive in a lot of religious minds?
I've heard it said that the earth is only 5000 years old, that's why evolution can't be. I've heard it said that God produced the universe in six days, and that's why evolution can't be.
Now explain to me how any mortal man can say what a day is to a God? 24 hrs? 2 million years? Anyone that pretends to interpret such things is only deluding him/herself. or was dropped on thier head when they were a baby.

Comshaw

 

[DevilMayCare]

Although a quick search tells me that Torcaso V. Watkins (the correct cert, btw, is 367 U.S. 488)is apparently a well-flogged horse of the "having no religion is a religion" crowd, there are a few points that don't support what passes for your argument...

I hope you understand Mr. Paine, when you make a cogent, forceful presentation like that there's nothing much left on a thread like this to talk about. Thank you very much!

 

[OUTSIDER]

The U.S. Supreme Court in Torcaso v. Watkins, 81 S.Ct. 1681 (1961) makes the following statement: Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God, are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism (emphasis added), and others. Since the US Supreme Court has named secular humanism as a religion, and since the two tenets above come from the humanist manifesto, one can conclude that by teaching evolutionism (or at least the part of evolutionism that says that the universe is "self existing and not created", and that man "has emerged as a result of a continuous process") a teacher is, in fact, teaching a religion. The humanists are the loudest criers of the notion of separation of church and state and that anything religious may not be taught in the government schools. Therefore, this could lead to the idea that evolutionism must not be taught in the government schools, since it is religion (according to the US Supreme Court).

Sorry Todd but all the above statement proves is the law can be an "ass". You believe in one thing and some people believe in another and all you do by posting threads like these is stir up a hornets nest, then someone calls you a bad name and you go off in a huff and complain bitterly that we're all "anti christian's" and that we're all ganging up on you, why not just call it a day and agree to disagree on this one.

 

[Todd]

why not just call it a day and agree to disagree on this one.

but thats no fun

 

[OUTSIDER]

why not just call it a day and agree to disagree on this one.

but thats no fun

Sure it's all fun and games now but mark my words there'll be tears before bed time over this one.....hold on it's fucking bed time now.....I'm off.
BTW thanks for the site address's you sent me

 

[Todd]

Sure it's all fun and games now but mark my words there'll be tears before bed time over this one.....hold on it's fucking bed time now.....I'm off.
BTW thanks for the site address's you sent me

I haven't had a wet pillow yet from my views. Maybe others have but not me. Goodnight. Your welcome for the address's

 

[LittleRedDevil]

It's all fun and games until someone loses an eye.

 

[crystalhunting]

Todd...last I checked Secular Humansism wasn't tax exempt...nor is there any established meeting places for it

It's all semantics.....get over it!

 

[Thomas Paine]

I hope you understand Mr. Paine, when you make a cogent, forceful presentation like that there's nothing much left on a thread like this to talk about. Thank you very much!

Sorry, DMC, it was a momentary burst of sanity. I'll be more careful in the future...*g*

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

Please explain to me your tenuous connection between secular humanism's (I can give you a dozen philosopies that people claim are "secular humanism") highly arguable definition as a "religion" and what in God's Holy Trousers that has to do with the astounding leap to "Evolution is a religion" which is precisely the convoluted construct you imply.

More bad critical thinking and misunderstood definitions from the Creationsit lobby. Todd, you hear this pap shot down time after time after time -- but you don't listen. Why should anyone keep answering a man so impressively deaf?. How long until you start to feel foolish? How long until you realize that the Creationists have worked very hard at very little? How long until you wake up and believe the overpowerpowering arguments of the scientific community?

When it comes to common sense you are a profound doubting Thomas.

[Edited by Dixon Carter Lee on 04-15-2001 at 05:40 AM]

 

[SimplySouthern]

I think I'm in love with Thomas Paine. All those big legal sounding words in one post. *swoon*

You make very valid points, Mr. Paine. I had intentions of posting something "smart" to this thread but you said it all.

Todd, I am in awe of the depth of your conviction, but finding obscure references to back it up lends little credence to your ideas. Perhaps a post more geared towards your personal experience, etc. would be less likely to get you flamed. Or not...you know how this crowd is.

 

[Thomas Paine]

I think I'm in love with Thomas Paine. All those big legal sounding words in one post. *swoon*

Gee, if that worked, what would happen if I whispered "res ipsa loquitor" in your ear?

 

[DevilMayCare]

Todd, you hear this pap shot down time after time after time -- but you don't listen. Why should anyone keep answering a man so impressively deaf?. How long until you start to feel foolish? How long until you realize that the Creationists have worked very hard at very little? How long until you wake up and believe the overpowerpowering arguments of the scientific community?

I'll offer this quote again. Its never felt more appropriate than on this thread...

Man is a credulous animal and must believe something. In the absence of good grounds for belief, he will be satisfied with bad ones.

Bertrand Russell