iNow

One of the things I think you may be forgetting, ParanoiA, is that these are the same people who tried to remove evolution from the curriculum, and who tried to add creationist and ID concepts to biology class. There is often something to be said about interpretation and history, but it's not as if this desire to adjust the curriculum based on ideology is something new for these people. You can respect feisty attitudes and maverick-ness all you want, but when someone wants to teach everyone's children a false view of reality merely because it aligns with the personal mythology of a small handful of people in power, I find that rather disturbing. Now, I'm not saying that my view of history is true and their view is false, but I am calling into question their motives, their intentions, and their sincerity considering their poor prior record on these types of matters. I am challenging the why, not the what... If that makes any sense.

Not just odd... I find it infuriating, exasperating, distressing, disheartening, and downright mad. The Daily Show weighed in last night. If we can't fix the issue, at least we can laugh at it, a bit: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-march-17-2010/don-t-mess-with-textbooks

I choose option #2. My reason is because that is the only one which I don't think we can achieve on our own. Numbers one and three, IMO, we can approximate very closely with technology and engineering. Number two, however? I'm not so confident in our ability to accomplish that without assistance, so that's what has prompted my decision to choose that option.

I need to move to where you live. I get these guys knocking like clockwork every Saturday morning. Although, I must concede... I kinda like engaging them. It gives me a chance to use the arguments I've honed online via text in a face-to-face conversation where social graces encourage me to be a bit more cordial and muted. I used to just ignore them... not answer the door. Then, one morning they happened to knock while I was composing a particularly biting response to a religious claim in one of these forums. I thought to myself, "If I'm gonna do it via the internet, I may as well do it at my front door, too." So, I answered it and stepped outside with them. I spent the better part of two hours that day dismantling their arguments with a kind smile and the tone of a school teacher, until finally one of them hugged me, told me that I am part of gods plan, and asked if I would mind if they came back. After smiling a bit, and shaking my head in disbelief, I told them, "As long as you approach my home in the spirit of kindness, you will always be welcome." Perhaps that was my biggest mistake. Old Fred and Dave and whatever other new recruit they happen to be escorting that weekend seem to like me now... I'm an enigma to them or something. But, we're not trying to ban things that people hate others for. This is an issue of constitutionality, and our secular governments express mandate to remain neutral on all religious matters, unless their actions are to protect the free exercise of our citizens. Even better... Wouldn't it make sense to stop hating... period? Evolution, however, has given us hate for good reasons, and that particular emotion will not likely be evaporating from humans any time soon. But, at least as far as I can see, that's not at all the issue here. Nobody is trying to legislate morality. People are trying to enforce our founding charter... The US constitution explicitly forbids government involvement in religion unless that involvement is in execution of the free exercise clause. Despite that, the government has added the words "under god" to the national pledge, added "in god we trust" to our currency, and made "in god we trust" a national motto, and then when challenged on this has argued that the concept of "god" is not religious. This isn't about legislating morality, nor is it about a bunch of people trying to rock the boat and stir up trouble. This is about people standing up for the ideals on which this nation was founded, and for merely asking that our government not (to borrow words from republicans, conservatives, and fox news contributors on the healthcare issue) "shove their ideology down our throats." What you and others see as relatively innocuous comes across to a man like me no different than if they required children to recite, "one nation, where all females are whores." It disgusts me, and I'm justified in that disgust. The law and the constitution are on my side. It confuses me when I encounter fellow citizens who are not.

Those ALL rock, moo! Nice.

You da man, John. I love those posts from you... Always have. I must, however, point out that there is neither anything noble nor anything principled about what is (and has been) happening on the Texas State Board of Education... At least, not among those who seem to be having the greatest influence. There are a few islands of excellence amongst that particular sea of mediocrity, but I fear sea level has been rising for quite some time now, and the children of this vast state are paying the price.

One small correction. You are correct about the addition of "under god" to our pledge taking place during that time, but IN GOD WE TRUST first appeared on the 1864 two-cent coin. However, closer to your point is when "In god we trust" was declared our national motto in 1956... well inline with McCarthy era antics. A law passed by the 84th Congress (P.L. 84-140) and approved by the President on July 30, 1956, the President approved a Joint Resolution of the 84th Congress, declaring IN GOD WE TRUST the national motto of the United States. A great exploration here of the history of god on our currency: http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-sheets/currency/in-god-we-trust.shtml I do appreciate the thrust of your argument, though, and thank you for offering a more historical perspective in response to the "Who cares?" question.

No. The issue is that this change is being driven to try to shoe-horn one ideological view of history into all future children's minds. It is trying to manipulate and contort what is and what is not presented to children to more closely align with their religious and ideological beliefs. If they were trying to make these changes to offer a more realistic and accurate view of history to children, then there would be no problem. However, that is not what is happening here. They are trying to engage in revisionist history so it more closely reinforces their personal worldviews and belief systems. This is nothing new with the ideological Texas State Board of Education who seems to care very little about educating children... They seem to care more about indoctrinating them. For more on this history, this is a great site: http://ncse.com/

Two points here, Jackson. One - Atheism is not a religion. It is not an ideology. It is not a worldview or source of beliefs any more than a lack of belief in Thor, lack of belief in unicorns, or lack of belief in the easter bunny is a religion, worldview, or source of beliefs. Atheism is merely the absence of theism. That's it. Beyond lack of belief in god(s), one cannot accurately infer anything whatsoever or garner any relevant information about a person based on the label atheism alone. When I said earlier in the thread that my "religion" might be considered one where there are no gods in context of our constitution, it was to more clearly illuminate how the addition of the word "god" to our pledge and coinage can be seen in no other way than government giving preferential treatment to one belief system/worldview over others. I magnified this point by also including polytheism in my argument. Two - The 9th Circuit court DID side with the atheist viewpoint on this in the past (or, more precisely, with the viewpoint that "under god" in our pledge makes impossible the governments mandate to be neutral in all matters religious, unless their actions are to specifically support the tenets outlined in the Free Exercise Clause). Even this time around, as already outlined above by Cap'n Refsmmat, this was a ruling specific to California's law on mandatory pledging, not the addition of the words "under god" to the pledge. Specific to their ruling on the words "under god," see below: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elk_Grove_Unified_School_District_v._Newdow From the 9th circuit hearing: Decided - the 1954 insertion of "under God" was made "to recognize a Supreme Being" and advance religion at a time "when the government was publicly inveighing against atheistic communism"—a fact which (according to the court) the federal government did not dispute. The court also noted that when President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed the act which added the phrase "under God," he also announced "From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our Nation and our people to the Almighty." Judge Alfred Goodwin from the 9th circuit remarked: "A profession that we are a nation 'under God' is identical, for Establishment Clause purposes, to a profession that we are a nation 'under Jesus,' a nation 'under Vishnu,' a nation 'under Zeus,' or a nation 'under no god,' because none of these professions can be neutral with respect to religion." Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged I guess it's a good thing that I am making no such argument then, huh? Now, I would be happy to explore with you some of the dangers of patriotism gone too far, of unchecked nationalistic fervor... and how the minds of large masses of people can be more easily controlled by leaders and charlatans when this type of "us/them" sentiment is carried too far or becomes rooted too deeply, but that would be better suited to a different thread... Perhaps one in the Psychology section.

Really, Pangloss... Must you continue with these types of comments? The consistent derision, dismissal, and disrespect in your posts has grown rather appalling. YES, something needs to be done about it. It's unconstitutional. End of story. The price of freedom in our country is that we must all remain ever vigilant to these types of transgressions. Your response here that it's just a bunch of trouble makers not doing what they're told and suggesting this is little more than "PC run amok" is reminiscent of your views on same-sex marriage... as if it's somehow wrong to stand up and fight for the principles of equality and separation on which our nation was founded. You're responses here show precisely why it's so hard to respect your authority or arguments in these types of discussions. You continue to do little more than deride and dismiss those who oppose a decision which is clearly untenable, unjustifiable, and unconstitutional. In addition to what I've already shared above, my stance (and the stance of other thread contributors) on this issue is further supported by the below: http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/11/pledge.of.allegiance/?hpt=T2 The appeals court framed the issue as a dispute over whether was a traditional patriotic exercise or a blatant religious message. The same court in 2002 agreed with Newdow and other atheist parents. In dissent to Thursday's ruling, Judge Stephen Reinhardt said the pledge was an overtly religious message. "Carrying out such an indoctrination in a public school classroom unconstitutionally forces many young children either to profess a religious belief antithetical to their personal views or to declare themselves through their silence or nonparticipation to be protesting nonbelievers, thereby subjecting themselves to hostility and ridicule," he wrote.

I've tried that myself in the past. Unfortunately, our liberal gun laws make that option a bit more dangerous than it would be in other states. http://thinkprogress.org/2010/03/12/texas-education-board-cuts-thomas-jefferson-out-of-its-textbooks/ The Texas Board of Education has been meeting this week to revise its social studies curriculum. During the past three days, “the board’s far-right faction wielded their power to shape lessons on the civil rights movement, the U.S. free enterprise system and hundreds of other topics”: To avoid exposing students to “transvestites, transsexuals and who knows what else,” the Board struck the curriculum’s reference to “sex and gender as social constructs.” The Board removed Thomas Jefferson from the Texas curriculum, “replacing him with religious right icon John Calvin.” The Board refused to require that “students learn that the Constitution prevents the U.S. government from promoting one religion over all others.” The Board struck the word “democratic” from the description of the U.S. government, instead terming it a “constitutional republic.” As the nation’s second-largest textbook market, Texas has enormous leverage over publishers, who often “craft their standard textbooks based on the specs of the biggest buyers.” Indeed, as The Washington Monthly has reported, “when it comes to textbooks, what happens in Texas rarely stays in Texas.” This is what we're dealing with down here, people: http://www.texastribune.org/stories/2010/feb/17/meet-flintstones/ Nearly a third of Texans believe humans and dinosaurs roamed the earth at the same time, and more than half disagree with the theory that humans developed from earlier species of animals, according to the University of Texas/Texas Tribune Poll. The differences in beliefs about evolution and the length of time that living things have existed on earth are reflected in the political and religious preference of our respondents

Just to clarify, the word "god" is not referenced anywhere in our constitution. The closest we come is near the end, where the signatures were added, is a comment that dates the document as, "Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven." That was pretty common parlance at the time to identify dates. As per the Declaration of Independence, which uses the word "creator," there are two points against that particular position. One - The word creator was not in the draft put forth by Jefferson. It was added after the fact by (likely) Ben Franklin in an attempt to get the rest of the states to sign off on it with less argument (more at the link below). Two - The Declaration of Independence is NOT a governing document. It is not used as the law of our land, but was instead sent to King George III of England to declare we were no longer going to be subject to his reign. http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html It has often been seen on the Internet that to find God in the Constitution, all one has to do is read it, and see how often the Framers used the words "God," or "Creator," "Jesus," or "Lord." Except for one notable instance, however, none of these words ever appears in the Constitution, neither the original nor in any of the Amendments. The notable exception is found in the Signatory section, where the date is written thusly: "Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven". The use of the word "Lord" here is not a religious reference, however. This was a common way of expressing the date, in both religious and secular contexts. This lack of any these words does not mean that the Framers were not spiritual people, any more than the use of the word Lord means that they were. What this lack of these words is expositive of is not a love for or disdain for religion, but the feeling that the new government should not involve itself in matters of religion. Here's what the original draft of the Declaration of Independence (not a governing document) said, until someone on the committee of five (most likely Franklin) made the change: http://www.constitution.org/tj/tj-orddoi.htm We hold these truths to be sacred and undeniable, that all men are created equal and independent; that from that equal creation they derive in rights inherent and unalienables, among which are the preservation of life, and liberty and the pursuit of happiness; More on the history of this here: http://candst.tripod.com/doitj.htm To sum what is known: The original version Jefferson wrote did not contain the word Creator. A copy that John Adams wrote in his own hand did not contain the word creator At some point after Jefferson wrote the original draft and before it was submitted to Congress it was changed to the wording with regards to creator that we know today

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elk_Grove_Unified_School_District_v._Newdow Newdow v. United States Congress, Elk Grove Unified School District, et al., 542 U.S. 1 (2004), was a lawsuit originally filed in 2000 which led to a 2002 ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance are an endorsement of religion, and therefore violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The case was heard by the U.S. Supreme Court, as Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow. On June 14, 2004, the Supreme Court held Michael Newdow, as a non-custodial parent, did not have standing to bring the suit on his daughter's behalf. The mother was previously given sole custody of the daughter. The Ninth Circuit's decision was thus reversed as a matter of procedural law. Thus, the Court also did not consider the constitutional question raised by the case. More from the above: From the 9th circuit hearing: Decided - the 1954 insertion of "under God" was made "to recognize a Supreme Being" and advance religion at a time "when the government was publicly inveighing against atheistic communism"—a fact which (according to the court) the federal government did not dispute. The court also noted that when President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed the act which added the phrase "under God," he also announced "From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our Nation and our people to the Almighty." Judge Alfred Goodwin from the 9th circuit remarked: "A profession that we are a nation 'under God' is identical, for Establishment Clause purposes, to a profession that we are a nation 'under Jesus,' a nation 'under Vishnu,' a nation 'under Zeus,' or a nation 'under no god,' because none of these professions can be neutral with respect to religion."

Nonsense. The only difference now is those people who have always cared finally have voice... They can speak openly without fear of recrimination. You have no idea the level of discrimination non-believers have faced in this country for decades, and just to be clear here... those people have always given "a rat's patootie." The fact that you were unaware of it doesn't mean it was not there. And there you go... AGAIN... dismissing this as some PC issue... something which doesn't matter... something which is only being done to stir up trouble. Just because it doesn't matter to you, Pangloss, does not mean it doesn't matter. Poison the well, much? Try making a real argument, instead of ridiculing those with an argument you can't seem to understand. Rush Limbaugh is not arguing for equality. Rush Limbaugh is not making his case based on the constitution. Rush Limbaugh is not trying to ensure everyone is treated equally, and that our government lives up to its secular ideal... an ideal so important to our founders that they wrote in the provision expressly. Your comparison to Rush Limbaugh is a false one. True leaders don't run away. They stand up and defend their principles. Your mocking of that action doesn't make it any less important nor any less valid.

I'd like to make clear that framing this issue as one where people take offense sort of misses the point. We don't have any right not to be offended. No where in our governing documents does it say that people have a right not to be offended, yet that's how the argument seems to be shaping itself in this thread. I just want to remind everyone that, beyond the offense we feel with this, the issue is one of constitutionality. The court has ruled that the pledge does not favor certain religions over others. That should be the focus of the arguments against the court decision since that is so plainly silly and indefensible. Use of the word god ABSOLUTELY favors certain religions over others, and the only reason so many people are okay with it is because it favors theirs. We are not a majority rules democracy, and yet that's the only way this decision to allow the word god in the pledge (and on our currency) can be supported. However, since we are a constitutional republic, and our constitution expressly prohibits this type of activity by the government, the word should be removed (our polytheistic and non-theistic citizens are to be afforded the same respect and secular rules as are our theistic citizens). From wiki: The establishment clause has generally been interpreted to prohibit 1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress, or 2) the preference of one religion over another or the support of a religious idea with no identifiable secular purpose. The first approach is called the "separation" or "no aid" interpretation, while the second approach is called the "non-preferential" or "accommodation" interpretation. The accommodation interpretation prohibits Congress from preferring one religion over another, but does not prohibit the government's entry into religious domain to make accommodations in order to achieve the purposes of the Free Exercise Clause. If someone can legitimately show how the addition of the word god to our pledge and our currency is intended to achieve the purposes of the Free Exercise Clause, then I will honestly rethink my position. However, until that time, the argument that this is not unconstitutional is bullshit, and I will fight against it as such. line[/hr] And that's what disgusts me about the position you hold. You see this as little more than an issue of people being politically correct, instead of recognizing it for what it is: Yet another battle for equality... a battle against the way that non-theists are continually discriminated against in our nation and our world by the tyrannical theist majority. For all of your talk about respecting other peoples opinions, this statement right there shows just how profoundly you do not. This is about much more than "PC run amok," and I'm truly sorry that you cannot see or acknowledge that.

Since roughly the 1970s, correct, but local temperature variations don't negate the overall global average which is the focus of this particular thread. Global averages have gone up steadily and consistently, and we are seeing warming temperatures around the world (the warmest averages ever recorded), despite the fact that it gets chilly and snows sometimes in some areas (which, oddly enough, is also foretasted by climate models due to the extra energy in the system).

We are not a democracy, sir... We are a Constitutional Republic, and in our constitution is an express provision that religion and governance be split with a wall of separation. I am not saying that our elected officials cannot be religious practitioners. I am saying that our government is explicitly prohibited from including religion as part of any of its services, laws, or actions unless those services, laws, and actions apply to all believers and non-believers equally. It is plain to see that the inclusion of the word god on our currency and in the pledge gives preference to one religion (or a few religions) over another, and that is explicitly prohibited. As Mr.Skeptic correctly reinforced above, our governments action of inserting god (clearly, a religious idea and concept specific to particular religions) into our currency and into our pledge of allegiance gives preference to the religion of some... specifically at the expense of those who worship many gods or none whatsoever. You are welcome to disagree and hold a counter opinion if you wish, but both you and the court are wrong on this issue if you do. The addition of the term is offensive, unconstitutional, should be removed, and there's really no more to it than that. This would be obvious to you if the word said "allah" or "zeus" instead of "god." The fact that more people accept the term god does not mean that all do, and it's inclusion is unconstitutional on its face. Let the theists practice safely on their own, but keep that shit out of everything with which our secular government is involved.

I think the American public are a bunch of hypocrites, and that unfortunately so too are you on this particular issue, Pangloss. If our currency said, "One nation under Allah," then there would be hell to pay, riots in the streets, and significant percentages of our population frothing at the mouth over such an "unconstitutional" term being on our coinage. Same holds true for the pledge. If the court did not strike down our children reciting "One nation under Allah," buildings would be set afire and the court officials dragged out and strung up for lynching. The only reason this seems okay to so many people is because it is inline with their personally chosen and preferred version of "god." From the perspective of a non-theist like myself, the suggestion by the court that the word god is unrelated (or does not give preference) to religion is ridiculous, untenable, and downright shameful. When taken in context of the US Constitution, one might successfully argue that my "religion" is one where god does not exist, ergo the courts are without a doubt giving preference to one set of beliefs (to one religion) at the expense of my own, and at the expense of others like me. Does anyone even know what the word "secular" means anymore? Apparently, our courts don't.

That is inaccurate. Neither bill will fund abortions with tax-payer dollars (at best, a subsidy would be provided a low income person who purchases a plan on the private market which just happens to cover abortion), which makes most of the rest of what you said irrelevant. http://www.slate.com/id/2246905/ Given these stakes, it's worth making some effort to find out what led Stupak and the bishops to think that health reform would spend federal funds on abortion. "If you go to Page 2069 through Page 2078 [of the Senate bill]," Stupak told George Stephanopoulos on March 4 on Good Morning America, "you will find in there the federal government would directly subsidize abortions, plus every enrollee in the Office of Personnel Management-enrolled plan, every enrollee has to pay a minimum of one dollar per month toward reproductive rights, which includes abortions." Stupak is here referring to the exchanges created under health reform and to a nonprofit plan managed by the Office of Personnel Management that would be sold through the exchanges. The latter was a consolation prize to supporters of a public-option government health insurance program that didn't make it into the bill. Let's go to Page 2069 through Page 2078 of the Senate-passed bill. It says, "If a qualified plan provides [abortion] coverage … the issuer of the plan shall not use any amount attributable to [health reform's government-funding mechanisms] for purposes of paying for such services." (This is on Page 2072.) That seems pretty straightforward. No government funding for abortions. (Except in the case of rape, incest, or a threat to the mother's life—the same exceptions granted under current law.) If a health insurer selling through the exchanges wishes to offer abortion coverage—the federal government may not require it to do so, and the state where the exchange is located may (the bill states) pass a law forbidding it to do so—then the insurer must collect from each enrollee (regardless of sex or age) a separate payment to cover abortion. The insurer must keep this pool of money separate to ensure it won't be commingled with so much as a nickel of government subsidy. (This is on Pages 2072-2074.) <...> What really rankles Stupak (and the bishops) isn't that the Senate bill commits taxpayer dollars to funding abortion. Rather, it's that the Senate bill commits taxpayer dollars to people who buy private insurance policies that happen to cover abortion at nominal cost to the purchaser (even the poorest of the poor can spare $1 a month) and no cost at all to the insurer. Stupak and the bishops don't have a beef with government spending. They have a beef with market economics.

It's rather ignorant of you to conflate a mind which has reviewed the argument and found it non-compelling and fatally flawed with a mind being "welded shut."

Your thread would be short-lived since it's fundamentally flawed and proves absolutely nothing. http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2009/08/ontological-argument-for-god-rebuttal.html http://onphilosophy.wordpress.com/2006/06/29/the-ontological-argument-examined/ http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/ontological.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument#Criticisms_and_objections

Thanks for that, John.

To the OP: All of the arguments on that page you linked are countered using the below: http://www.skepticalscience.com/resources.php?a=links&arg=161

Why is that a decision you feel you should have the authority to make, as opposed to... let's say... the individual personally afflicted by those ailments? I'm fine if you feel that way about your own personal care. I am not fine, however, if you feel that your preference should be mandated on others.

Thanks, Dudde. If you liked it, you might also wish to check out two of her previous talks which relate to the same content. Those are available below. http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/02/oreskes_on_the_american_denial.php http://smartenergyshow.com/node/67 Pioneer - This is not a thread to discuss your denial of global warming and why. This is a thread to discuss the video in the OP and the content contained therein. Thanks in advance for your compliance with this.