iNow

seraph - The summary answer is that abiogenesis is accepted by nearly every scientist who isn't blinded by their religious views. Once religion gets involved, however, the acceptance of abiogenesis seems to decrease accordingly. One option to learn about what research is going on is to use the search feature on this site. Search for posts by member "Lucaspa" and the word "abiogenesis." Ensure that you return the results as "posts" instead of "threads," and you will see many references to current research on this topic. Lucaspa is a staff member here who is very well trained in biology, and he has posted rather extensively on this topic. http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/search.php

If light did experience time dilation, then (since it's traveling AT the speed of light) it would experience infinite dilation, and time would basically stop relative to everything else. However, it doesn't help to think about it in this way, as it doesn't make sense. The reason it does not make sense is because something needs to have a valid rest frame in order to view/measure experience from that objects frame of reference. Since light is never at rest (it always, by definition, travels at the speed of light), it does not have a valid frame of reference, and therefore does not experience the time and length dilation/contraction we use when describing the experience of actual (valid) reference frames. Again, light has no rest frame, and therefore it is meaningless to try applying the concepts of time dilation, time contraction, length dilation, and length contraction. IINM...

These two threads have been moved to some forum where regular members (such as me) can no longer view or contribute. Can these please be reinstated soon? Thanks for any feedback or additional information. Politics: Top secret DoD documents containing Bible verses released Psychiatry and Psychology: How Religion Hijacks Neurocortical Mechanisms, and Why So Many Believe in a Deity * With the second thread above, another member here has already PM'd me trying to figure out what was going on, and why he could no longer find/view the thread. He'd expressed interest, and had a desire to explore the research shared, but since there was so much of it, hadn't had time to do so previously. Then finally, today, he had time to dive deeper into the links and supporting information, but the thread was gone and he now no longer has access to the abundance of data and research which was pulled together there. Any help in resolving this quickly would be much appreciated. Thanks in advance for acting on this request and moving these threads back to their original forums.

In all honesty, considering how things in my country have been proceeding lately, with the huge power and influence religion seems to be taking in our government, I really wasn't so sure, myself. I won't go so far as to say I was surprised by the courts ruling, but I can rightly say that I was incredibly relieved when reading about their decision.

The confusing part to me is not at all related to their reproduction, but the granting of inalienable rights and what that would actually mean.

Neither am I, however, I'm seeing zero non-waffling hand-waving support for the position that these comments from the Christian bible on the DoD briefings about an active wartime engagement aren't unconstitutional. Let’s put this into a slightly different form for context… This just in! High level presidential briefings regarding an active war engagement, briefings prepared by the Department of Defense, have quotes intended to sway executive decisions taken from the Quran. Below represent the cover pages given our president by the Secretary of Defense, with the US DoD seal affixed beside: 5:51: “O you who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians as friends, they are but friends to one another. And if any amongst you takes them as friends, then surely he is one of them. Verily, Allâh guides not those people who are the wrong doers.” 9:123: “O you who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are close to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allâh is with those who are the pious.” 9:14: "Fight them and Allah will punish them by your hands, lay them low, and cover them with shame. He will help you over them." "The Messenger said: 'Anybody who equips a warrior going to fight in the Way of Allah is like one who actually fights. And anybody who looks after his family in his absence is also like one who actually fights." "Believers, when you encounter the infidels on the march, do not turn your backs to them in flight. If anyone on that day turns his back to them, except it be for tactical reasons...he shall incur the wrath of God and Hell shall be his home..." (Surah 8:12-) This isn’t about personal belief or expression. The problem here is with this being on DoD briefings to the President of the United States about an active wartime engagement, and noting that the only people defending it are those who happen to share similar beliefs. line[/hr] Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, 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. -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT., Jan. 1, 1802 Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Okay... Let me take a whack at your attempt at a rebuttal. Below quotes are from the aforementioned post #58: Your point fails because you are no longer representing the actual situation under discussion here in this thread. As has been pointed out previously, the issue at play here is not the mere "expression of religious views," it is INSTEAD the intertwining of said views with official government documents, and the plastering of quotes from the Christian bible on military briefings from the Department of Defense to the POTUS regarding an active wartime engagement. You equivocating that with merely "expressing their religious views" is both disingenuous and greatly lacks integrity. This is not an issue of mere expression, and relates entirely on where and how that expression was made. Please try to keep your arguments focused on the issue at hand and perhaps we can avoid some of these unnecessary misalignments we keep experiencing with one another. I say AGAIN: Nobody here is arguing that our leaders and officials in government cannot have their own beliefs, or that they cannot use the word god. While I do personally think it would benefit all of us greatly if they avoided so doing, that is not a valid description of the argument taking place here. This is SPECIFICALLY about the insertion of quotes from the Christian bible onto military briefings to the POTUS prepared by the Department of Defense regarding an active wartime engagement. I implore you! At least try to represent this matter based in reality, Pangloss. Your comments continue to imply that this matter is based on something much more trivial, as if the president exclaimed "God, I hate the Yankees" and we are roasting him for something so silly and unimportant. That’s not the case. This is a serious matter, and part of the challenge is that you continue to misrepresent it. Please… At least try to represent the matter based in reality. This is not a difficult request, and is precisely why you've seen the word "strawman" in this thread appear so many times. No, actually, I answered him with a point about how any mixture of religion and government in our official documents or official actions is treated by our constitution. This is a critical difference, in that this is not merely about personal "expression," but where and how that expression has taken place… which has been pointed out repeatedly to you and others already. I think perhaps that the funniest part of this quote is that your own argument implicitly defeats the position you are using it to try to defend. By citing the Lemon Test, you have defeated your own assertion. The Lemon Test would actually have prevented these quotes from the Christian bible from being allowed on the DoD briefings regarding an active wartime engagement since there is no relevant secular purpose for having them there. Now, when I challenged you to give one secular reason for allowing quotes from the Christian bible on to DoD briefings to the POTUS regarding an active wartime engagement, you responded that these quotes were there for "the morale of the troops." Excuse me? The "morale of the troops?" Since when are troops given visibility to presidential briefings from the DoD? That's certainly news to me? Your response is a completely bullshit answer since the audience for these documents was NOT the troops, but the president and other top rank military officials… Not to mention that the documents themselves were being used in an official governing capacity. Your position is simply indefensible. Point #3 in the Lemon Test regarding "entanglement" cited by you above is clearly infringed, and there is simply NO secular reason for having quotes from the Christian bible on these DoD briefings to the POTUS regarding active wartime engagements. So, I say again, your position is simply indefensible. And yet again, you focus solely on the word "endorsement," at the expense of the clear and precise context which has been brought to that language from the SCOTUS rulings and reading of texts from the authors of those words. It has been abundantly established that the meaning of “endorse” or “establish” has been consistently interpreted to extend beyond just those narrow few acts. As noted above, the Everson case is noteworthy for its extensive discussion of the purposes of the Establishment Clause, and for the fact that all nine justices agreed that the clause was intended to do far more than merely prohibit the endorsement of religion or the establishment of a state religion. In sum, I didn't find your post #58 to be a very useful argument regarding the topic under discussion. I found it entirely lacking and wholly off-point as per the reasons summarized above.

I'm rather struggling to understand your comment. You are presenting it in such a way that it implies Obama can EITHER use his intelligence to write a well articulated speech OR use his intelligence to better our country, our policies, and our people... as if the two are somehow mutually exclusive. They're not, so what's the deal? Amazingly, he can do more than one thing at a time... Like walking and chewing gum. Please tell me this isn't just some regurgitation of comments you heard from his political enemies in the US, and expand on why you suggest that he is using speeches to fool people instead of to connect with them to find support among the populace for all of his other activities and initiatives. As for the OP... I'm trying to refrain from judgment until something actually happens with this. I want to see what he actually does, not argue about our speculations regarding what that may or may not be.

The courts found Kara's mother (diabetic daughter, prayer instead of medicine, disturbing 911 call when it was already too late, despite attempts by family to get action taken sooner...) ... guilty of killing her daughter. http://www.jsonline.com/news/wisconsin/45850182.html A jury Friday found a central Wisconsin mother guilty of killing her 11-year-old daughter by praying for her to heal instead of rushing her to a doctor. A Marathon County jury deliberated about four hours before convicting Leilani Neumann, 41, of rural Weston of second-degree reckless homicide. <...> Neumann's daughter Madeline died of untreated diabetes March 23, 2008, surrounded by people praying for her. When she suddenly stopped breathing, her parents' business and Bible study partners finally called 911. Prosecutors contend a reasonable parent would have known something was gravely wrong with Madeline, and her mother recklessly killed her by ignoring obvious symptoms of how gravely ill she was. During closing arguments, Marathon County District Attorney Jill Falstad described Neumann as a religious zealot who let her daughter, known by the nickname Kara, die as a test of faith. <...> Leilani Neumann's stepfather, Brian Gordon of San Diego, said he was disappointed by the verdict and the jury was mistaken. He said his stepdaughter did nothing wrong in trusting in God to heal her daughter. "We should have that right in this country," he said. There will be a vigorous appeal and an investigation of possible prosecutorial misconduct, the stepfather said. "I don't care how far we have to carry this. There will be vindication and exoneration." Gordon also said he was angered by Falstad's description of his family as religious extremists. "We definitely are not terrorists," he said. "We are Bible-believing, God-believing, Holy Ghost-filled people who want to do right and be right." I don't think he knows what a "religious extremist" is.

Quite right. The way I've always thought about it is that the "viscosity" of the inner ear fluid changes, therefore it oscillates differently with movement, and hence causes the cilia against which it pushes to fire differently... which all results in the signal reaching the brain to seem scrambled and more chaotic. Since it's such a finely tuned system to begin with, even that slight change in viscosity causes the normal feedback systems to get all "wonky." That's the technical term...

The questions seems to be, "What do you mean by treat as human?" Does that mean we "perceive" them as human? Does that mean we give them jobs and try to prevent them from dating our daughters? Does that mean they vote and get to hold seats of power? Does that mean they can declare their superiority over all other lifeforms and pollute the shit out of our planet since god told them it was okay? My inclination is that you are referring specifically to rights... such as those inalienable ones with which we're all endowed. TBH, I have a hard time wrapping my head around what that would even mean when applied to a non-reproducing, non-organic machine.

No. For much the same reason that I wouldn't treat a man who thought that he was god AS god. *Disclaimer: I fully recognize the huge number of subtle complexities I've just brushed over.

Yet another... http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8063855.stm Officials in Serbia are investigating a rehabilitation centre affiliated to the Orthodox Church where drug addicts have allegedly been filmed being beaten. A video of one assault, published by Vreme magazine, shows a man appearing to assault a patient by hitting him with a shovel and punching his face. One former resident said staff had offered to cure his addiction with "pleasant conversation" and beatings. A priest running the centre, near Novi Pazar, said a "heavy hand" was needed. <...> A former patient said that sometimes they would be told to form a circle around a "bad one" and watch them being beaten by the priests and other staff. "They would hit him with clubs, shovels, fists, bars, belts, whatever they got their hands on," he told Vreme. Archpriest Peranovic, he said, "knows how to hit - his hands are often bloody". "When he hits, using his arms and legs, his robe flies all over the place. He practises martial arts," the former patient added. After the video's publication, doctors and psychologists warned that physical violence would not help rehabilitate or cure drug addicts. I just don't understand why all of those doctors and psychologists using science hate the church so much to defame it like that. Don't watch the video at the link if you're squeamish.

Anyone else care to comment? I'm kinda tired of Pangloss repeating himself and bringing no new information to the table.

Why People Believe Invisible Agents Control the World http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=skeptic-agenticity Souls, spirits, ghosts, gods, demons, angels, aliens, intelligent designers, government conspirators, and all manner of invisible agents with power and intention are believed to haunt our world and control our lives. Why? The answer has two parts, starting with the concept of “patternicity,” which I defined in my December 2008 column as the human tendency to find meaningful patterns in meaningless noise. Consider the face on Mars, the Virgin Mary on a grilled cheese sandwich, satanic messages in rock music. Of course, some patterns are real. Finding predictive patterns in changing weather, fruiting trees, migrating prey animals and hungry predators was central to the survival of Paleolithic hominids. The problem is that we did not evolve a baloney-detection device in our brains to discriminate between true and false patterns. So we make two types of errors: a type I error, or false positive, is believing a pattern is real when it is not; a type II error, or false negative, is not believing a pattern is real when it is. If you believe that the rustle in the grass is a dangerous predator when it is just the wind (a type I error), you are more likely to survive than if you believe that the rustle in the grass is just the wind when it is a dangerous predator (a type II error). Because the cost of making a type I error is less than the cost of making a type II error and because there is no time for careful deliberation between patternicities in the split-second world of predator-prey interactions, natural selection would have favored those animals most likely to assume that all patterns are real. But we do something other animals do not do. As large-brained hominids with a developed cortex and a theory of mind—the capacity to be aware of such mental states as desires and intentions in both ourselves and others—we infer agency behind the patterns we observe in a practice I call “agent*icity”: the tendency to believe that the world is controlled by invisible intentional agents. We believe that these intentional agents control the world, sometimes invisibly from the top down (as opposed to bottom-up causal randomness). Together patternicity and agenticity form the cognitive basis of shamanism, paganism, animism, polytheism, monotheism, and all modes of Old and New Age spiritualisms. <more at the link>

Okay, I can see part of the confusion. You continue to to focus too heavily on the "endorsement of religion" wording, while simultaneously ignoring the references I've provided which give context on that. My references and citation of SCOTUS precedent demonstrates CLEARLY that interpretations and rulings made extend the meaning FAR BEYOND mere endorsement as being unconstitutional. Those extensions from the courts are informed DIRECTLY from and reinforced DIRECTLY by the writings of the constitutional framers who wrote those actual words into our constitution (namely, Madison and Jefferson). This is why the Everson v. BoE case is so important here, and why I've used that reference in support of my position. Here is what it means. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0330_0001_ZS.html In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.' http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/estabinto.htm The case is noteworthy for its extensive discussion of the purposes of the Establishment Clause, and for the fact that all nine justices agree that the clause was intended to do far more than merely prohibit the establishment of a state religion. Further, we don't always have an precise and exact precedent to guide us in whether or not a specific action is or is not constitutional. For example, I'm pretty sure we've never had a court case regarding a president receiving top secret military briefings from the Department of Defense related to an active wartime engagement with quotes from the Christian bible plastered around it. However, what we do have is a very long and consistent tradition of how the courts have viewed these issues. We have precedent about the need for all government actions to have a relevant secular purpose. We have precedent that cities and states cannot have any symbol from a specific religion as part of their official seal or documents. We have precedent that state events and schools cannot promote prayer or religious ritual, and they cannot put biblical quotes on textbooks, or any official documents. All indicators suggest how this issue would be ruled based on existing cases addressing similar issues. It would be deemed unconstitutional, and that is MUCH MORE than an opinion. That is a statement of high probability supported by mountains of evidence and history. http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/everson.html The meaning and scope of the First Amendment, preventing establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, in the light of its history and the evils it was designed forever to suppress, have been several times elaborated by the decisions of this Court prior to the application of the First Amendment to the states by the Fourteenth. The broad meaning given the Amendment by these earlier cases has been accepted by this Court in its decisions concerning an individual's religious freedom rendered since the Fourteenth Amendment was interpreted to make the prohibitions of the First applicable to state action abridging religious freedom. There is every reason to give the same application and broad interpretation to the "establishment of religion" clause. "The structure of our government has, for the preservation of civil liberty, rescued the temporal institutions from religious interference."

Alright, thanks Confucius. Care to elaborate for us pale-faces precisely what "argument" my position "fails to refute," and why? Or, are you instead content to reply with barely intelligible hit and run posts for the remainder of this thread?

Wow. What an excellent quote. It simulateously shows an understanding of human nature as well as social protocols, and speaks strongly against some of the worst practices we are seeing from our people today. "The effect of these cruel spectacles exhibited to the populace, is to destroy tenderness or excite revenge; and by the base and false idea of governing men by terror instead of reason, they become precedents. It is over the lowest class of mankind that government by terror is intended to operate." Outstanding. You may enjoy some of this material which supports your conjecture: http://atheism.about.com/od/bookreviews/fr/FightingWords.htm This is what Hector Avalos does in Fighting Words: The Origins of Religious Violence. He reviews the history of explanations of violence, going all the way back to antiquity, and finds that the best predictor of violence tends to be scarcity. People are more likely to fight, and to fight more brutally, when some scarce resource is at stake. Usually the resource is genuine (food, water, land), but sometimes it’s not — and this is where religion comes into play. According to Avalos, religions create scarce resources where no scarcity really exists, and this induces people to fight over them. A religion might preach peace, love, and harmony, but once it establishes a textual canon or sacred site which only some have privileged access to, it also establishes an illusory “scarcity” which eventually causes people to fight. Avalos doesn’t argue that this is the intent of religious leaders, but it’s an inevitable outgrowth of what they are doing — and one which they themselves probably aren’t quite aware of. <...> Religions create a scarcity out of salvation by teaching that being saved requires certain actions or beliefs which not everyone will end up accepting. Thus, unlike things such as air, salvation doesn’t extend to everyone equally. Unlike sacred places, though, rival groups don’t necessarily fight in order to acquire control of it. It’s true that rival groups within a religion fight over what will qualify as orthodoxy (and this may fit with Avalos’ theory), but what about religions that launch wars in order to convert people? Scarcity incites people to fight in order to gain access to and/or control over a resource for their own benefit. Usually, this involves restricting or denying access to outsiders. http://www.curledup.com/religion.htm “Faith is what no one in their right mind would believe.” Dr. Kimball’s definition is less earthy than Archie’s but not that different. Faith is what can’t be explained logically. Since it reflects the believer’s culture, geography and history, there are innumerable variations and interpretations about the nature of man’s relationship with God. Although this diversity is natural, it can also be problematic in certain situations, given differing definitions of what is sacred and what is profane. Like humanity itself, interpretations of what is “God’s will” can be flawed and lead to tragedies like the Crusades, the Nazis, Jim Jones, David Koresh, the on-going Arab-Israeli conflicts, and the 9-11 attacks on the World Trade Center. How can something that brings peace and comfort to so many people around the world turn into something so evil? Dr. Kimball discusses five warning signs of corruption in a religion: Absolute truth claims, blind obedience, establishing the "ideal" time, the end justifies any means, and declaring holy war. In reviewing these signs, Dr. Kimball gives examples from history and current affairs. Absolute truth claims are comforting to some who feel that what’s right for them is by definition what’s right. There are radical Christians, in Dr. Kimball’s examples, who believe all other religions are false. This arrogance has led them to target Jews, Hindis and Muslims for missionary visits on important religious holidays. Kimball describes this practice of trying to convert Jews on the high holy days as being insulting and more of a spiritual attack than a true attempt to share the Christian message. However, Christians are not alone in having extremists who believe that their principles are superior. Most of the world’s major religions have subgroups exhibiting claims that they and they alone know the truth. The results have ranged from merely annoying to serious mistreatment of non-believing neighbors in the name of God. Blind obedience is another danger signal. Checking your intelligence and common sense at the door can lead to situations like the Jim Jones tragedy, where nine hundred believers followed their charismatic leader to Guiana where they committed mass suicide at his command. Dr. Kimball warns against uncritical acceptance of any popular belief -- especially if it advocates violence. Establishing the ideal time presumes that better times are coming. People are awaiting Armageddon, the Antichrist, the second coming of Christ, the end of the world, the end of time, etc. There are those who try to bring about an Islamic state or a Jewish state or even a Christian state by gaining control of the government so that religious precepts become the law of the land. Dr. Kimball cites the Taliban in Afghanistan as an example of this behavior. Based on narrow interpretations of the Quran, morality police punished people for small infractions of Islamic law with beatings, mutilations and death. Kimball also warns of right-wing Christian sects in the United States who wish to impose their radical sense of morality on the general population, and who have established a political agenda to achieve those goals. And here's an interesting snippet: ZiZcKomzHaU

This is a great point. As even Pangloss can admit, in politics and international relations, perception IS reality, and the perception has always been that this war had religious tones. These documents give that speculation a giant concrete footing on which to stand. Another fantastic point. I'm seeing zero positive arguments to support the idea that having such quotes from the Christian bible on top level government/military briefings about an active war engagement is "A-Okay!" Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged No problem (except, I fail to see how you have the audacity to suggest that others are offering an "actual debate.") Would you like to please now address the questions I've put forth, and articulate precisely where the SCOTUS precedents I've shared fail to support my position? That would be a very welcome change from all this waffling about personal opinion and what you think my motivations may or may not be.

Okay. I'll calm down if you promise to PLEASE put your pants back on. Seriously, I'll give you money... just put your clothes on. Can somebody please tell me where the argument I've put forth is not valid, or why the SCOTUS precedents and cases I've noted don't support my points? Can somebody please use evidence and precedent to support claims that there is no problem with having quotes from the Christian bible displayed as a prominent message on the covers of DoD military briefings to the President of the US regarding active wars?

Let's explore that bolded bit for a moment, shall we? Was the supporting evidence in this post? Nope. What about here? Darn... Not there either. What about here? Gosh... I still don't see any supporting evidence, but I like you, Pangloss... I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and keep going. What about here? Wow... That was completely irrelevant, and still no supporting evidence. Maybe I'm missing something, though. You SURELY would not be standing up so unwaveringly if you were not absolutely certain that he'd offered supporting evidence of his position, or debunked the position of others which has been strongly reinforced by references, precedent, and citations. I'd better keep going, and review the rest of his posts. I'm just sure that his evidence or quality counter-arguments will be in one of them... Well, that's a bald assertion, and I've dealt with it pretty forcefully already. Still no supporting evidence. I'm sure it's here somewhere... What about this post? Nope. Nothing. Nadda. Zip... However, at least now we have some insight why you're supporting him. He openly stated he agrees with you. What more do we need in an argument based on reality, eh? As long as Pangloss agrees with you, there's no need to rebut the SCOTUS precedent shared in support of the opposing side, or to make an argument for your own. Winning Pangloss is MUCH more important that supporting ones arguments and abiding by the standard rules of debate and intellectual exchange. BTW... I just quoted every one of his posts. No supporting evidence... None whatsoever. Please pull your head out of your ass and uncover your ears/eyes, will ya, please?

The value of a concise reply is completely lost when that succinct response is inaccurate, non-representative of the actual discussion, and completely vacant of supporting evidence. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Thanks for that. I was having a bit of a "WTF!?!" moment myself.

Yes, as is practically every single thing in which the Republican party engages lately.

Molecules. Before that, basic chemistry. It's not about "getting there<sic> information to form together," it's just natural processes taking place across eons of time.

I suggest you read more closely the broad and sweeping decision laid down in the Everson case, with which all nine justices agreed: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/htm...0_0001_ZS.html The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.'" 330 U.S. 1, 15-16. There was no "wall of separation" in those briefing documents. It was instead a wide open passageway with a huge, "Come on in, Y'all... Biblical quotes and ideologies are welcome here" neon sign hanging directly above. Also, since you raised the Lemon Test, please explain to me what relevant secular purpose placing such quotes on the covers of military briefings had. This should be cute. I know precisely what the Lemon Test is, its origin, and its application... having repeatedly leveraged it myself in my arguments in the gay marriage threads. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged You're quite welcome. There are similar references about the insertion of "One Nation, Under God" in our pledge of allegiance which all school children recite (although, they can opt out and choose to remain silent without consequence if they so choose, but are still forced to be surrounded by others who do not). Very likely. There is tremendous religious influence in our country, despite its founding as a secular nation. It's both disturbing and distasteful, and I, for one, cannot wait until my fellow citizens wake up and realize how important it is to COMPLETELY separate their belief/faith from their governing body and principles. However, for the time being, the reliotards wield the most power, which is why some of us consistently fight so passionately against them. Good word. The basic issue here is that, in ALL cases where questions of establishment clause breaches are raised, the courts have consistently erred on the side of declaring any and all questionable practices invalid and unconstitutional. This is demonstrated in cases regarding crosses on city seals, or disallowing schools to openly support prayer (or do so over the loud speaker), for example. For this reason alone (the abundant precedent and clarity with which that precedent has been offered), I posit that their ruling regarding having this type of religious information and/or quotes on official military/government documents (documents which don't have... and should not have... any direct connection to religious policy or issues in our country) invalid and deemed unconstitutional. (What I mean is, if the issue at hand were directly related to religion or our religious policies, then it might be relevant... but that's not the case, since these were Department of Defense briefings related to ongoing wars, and hence religion should be the LAST thing intertwined with them). From a link I shared previously: In general, the Court has demonstrated a willingness to strike down any practices that might be likely to be perceived either as coercive or as a state endorsement of religion. The challenge, of course, is that these religious groups tend to ignore our constitution and the SCOTUS rulings when it suits them. This is part of the reason I keep mentioning how unlikely it is that all of these "tolerant Christians" would hold and be defending these actions if the text in question were from Islamic texts. It's only because it's their own personal brand of hooey that they find it to be "a-okay." If it were "Allah Ackbar" on our currency, or if it were quotes from the Koran on these high level military briefings, I suggest that they would be livid and "fit to be tied," but that's sort of a side issue so I'll consider my point made on that. I completely understand that those are separate issues. I shared those to illustrate the tendency of the court when dealing with matters such as this, and to demonstrate how they would likely rule in this case. Those references allow us to gain insight into how the courts have interpreted similar issues in the past, and how they regularly deal with questions of constitutionality on issues which even SEEM to appear to mix government documents and practices with religion. Their interpretations of the Establishment Clause are clear and consistent, and my references DIRECTLY rebut those who continue to claim otherwise.