Should church and state remain separate?

[Bo]

Yes

[Franzl]

Now that's a brilliant question...

[Free Palestine]

Yes, but I don't think it's much of a big deal if, say, the town hall wants to put up a nativity scene or whatever.

[Mechaman]

Hell yes.

Power and moralf****try is a very dangerous mix.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Hell yes.

Power and moralf****try is a very dangerous mix.

     Pretty much agree with this. People can think whatever they want, but they have no business requiring me to obey the dictates of their religion.

[Bo]

Now that's a brilliant question...

Sarcasm?

[RosettaStoned]

Hell yes.

[useful idiot]

Should there be an established church? Absolutely not.
Should the government recognize any religious, an organization or otherwise, as true? No.
Should there be prayer in school? No.
Should the ten commandments be posted at a courthouse? Prob not, but it doesn't bother me.
Is there anything wrong with a politician expressing their religious beliefs publically? No.
Is there anything wrong with a prayer opening and closing a governmental event? No.
Should creationism be taught in schools? In a Christian sense, no, but if we're talking about intelligent design, then I don't think it's unconstitutional to present that as a theory for the cause of evolution, or to present holes in the theory. That should be left up to the local school boards.

You can take this question from several angles, but I think as long as we keep things within reason on both sides we shouldn't have a problem. I don't think we had many problems with this up until the modern era, with the exception of Darwinism in schools.

[Earth]

Should creationism be taught in schools? In a Christian sense, no, but if we're talking about intelligent design, then I don't think it's unconstitutional to present that as a theory for the cause of evolution, or to present holes in the theory.

Not science, goddamn it.

Church and state should remain as separate as honesty and televangelism.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Hell yes.

[John Dibble]

Absolutely.

[k-onmmunist]

Yes. Disestablish the Church of England and get the Lords Spiritual out of the HoL

[nclib]

Hell yes, but remain is not the best choice of words. Religion already has pervaded our legal system. For example, laws in many states banning the sale of alcohol on Sundays before noon, and plenty of sexual/relationship restrictions that would be hard for anyone to justify on a secular level.

[useful idiot]

Should creationism be taught in schools? In a Christian sense, no, but if we're talking about intelligent design, then I don't think it's unconstitutional to present that as a theory for the cause of evolution, or to present holes in the theory.

Not science, goddamn it.

It's not science to say there is no god and that evolution explains causation, as that's completely unprovable. Why the hell do you care if someone says to kids that there may have been a designer, or there may not have been, but still teach evolution in full? To say that that's unconstitutional is absurd, and more of an atheist position than a scientific one. Agnosticism is more scientific, and having teachers explain that there may or may not have been a designer is pretty agnostic. If it doesn't violate the constitution, which it obviously doesn't unless you're trying to interpret the constitution in a way that allows you to tell people how they should run their own education system, then it should be up to local school boards to decide.

[Хahar 🤔]

Biology as it is presented (in my school, at least), is perfectly compatible with theistic evolution, but made no mention of divine action. I have no problems with this.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Should creationism be taught in schools? In a Christian sense, no, but if we're talking about intelligent design, then I don't think it's unconstitutional to present that as a theory for the cause of evolution, or to present holes in the theory.

Not science, goddamn it.

It's not science to say there is no god and that evolution explains causation, as that's completely unprovable. Why the hell do you care if someone says to kids that there may have been a designer, or there may not have been, but still teach evolution in full? To say that that's unconstitutional is absurd, and more of an atheist position than a scientific one. Agnosticism is more scientific, and having teachers explain that there may or may not have been a designer is pretty agnostic. If it doesn't violate the constitution, which it obviously doesn't unless you're trying to interpret the constitution in a way that allows you to tell people how they should run their own education system, then it should be up to local school boards to decide.

     How about we, you know, not mention anything about any sort of creator? That would make the most sense to me, since the origin of the universe is largely indeterminable (sure, we know things the Big Bang occurred & the universe as we know it began at that point, but it's not as if we are anywhere close to determining the origin of matter & energy in the universe).

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Does anyone here seriously support establishing a State Church in America?

[useful idiot]

Should creationism be taught in schools? In a Christian sense, no, but if we're talking about intelligent design, then I don't think it's unconstitutional to present that as a theory for the cause of evolution, or to present holes in the theory.

Not science, goddamn it.

It's not science to say there is no god and that evolution explains causation, as that's completely unprovable. Why the hell do you care if someone says to kids that there may have been a designer, or there may not have been, but still teach evolution in full? To say that that's unconstitutional is absurd, and more of an atheist position than a scientific one. Agnosticism is more scientific, and having teachers explain that there may or may not have been a designer is pretty agnostic. If it doesn't violate the constitution, which it obviously doesn't unless you're trying to interpret the constitution in a way that allows you to tell people how they should run their own education system, then it should be up to local school boards to decide.

     How about we, you know, not mention anything about any sort of creator? That would make the most sense to me, since the origin of the universe is largely indeterminable (sure, we know things the Big Bang occurred & the universe as we know it began at that point, but it's not as if we are anywhere close to determining the origin of matter & energy in the universe).

If a school board doesn't want to include it, they shouldn't have to. But they shouldn't be prevented from doing so because of people that want to circumvent democracy by claiming something is unconstitutional when it really isn't.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Should creationism be taught in schools? In a Christian sense, no, but if we're talking about intelligent design, then I don't think it's unconstitutional to present that as a theory for the cause of evolution, or to present holes in the theory.

Not science, goddamn it.

It's not science to say there is no god and that evolution explains causation, as that's completely unprovable. Why the hell do you care if someone says to kids that there may have been a designer, or there may not have been, but still teach evolution in full? To say that that's unconstitutional is absurd, and more of an atheist position than a scientific one. Agnosticism is more scientific, and having teachers explain that there may or may not have been a designer is pretty agnostic. If it doesn't violate the constitution, which it obviously doesn't unless you're trying to interpret the constitution in a way that allows you to tell people how they should run their own education system, then it should be up to local school boards to decide.

     How about we, you know, not mention anything about any sort of creator? That would make the most sense to me, since the origin of the universe is largely indeterminable (sure, we know things the Big Bang occurred & the universe as we know it began at that point, but it's not as if we are anywhere close to determining the origin of matter & energy in the universe).

If a school board doesn't want to include it, they shouldn't have to. But they shouldn't be prevented from doing so because of people that want to circumvent democracy by claiming something is unconstitutional when it really isn't.

     I doubt that it being constitutional to teach intelligent design somehow negates the point that teaching it would be highly pointless. I didn't go to a public school so maybe I'm mistaken, but I hardly think that public school biology classes are pulpits of atheism.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Teach biology in biology class and religion in religion class...it's that simple.

[fezzyfestoon]

Teach biology in biology class and religion in religion class...it's that simple.

This is getting bad.  Stop agreeing with me.

[useful idiot]

Should creationism be taught in schools? In a Christian sense, no, but if we're talking about intelligent design, then I don't think it's unconstitutional to present that as a theory for the cause of evolution, or to present holes in the theory.

Not science, goddamn it.

It's not science to say there is no god and that evolution explains causation, as that's completely unprovable. Why the hell do you care if someone says to kids that there may have been a designer, or there may not have been, but still teach evolution in full? To say that that's unconstitutional is absurd, and more of an atheist position than a scientific one. Agnosticism is more scientific, and having teachers explain that there may or may not have been a designer is pretty agnostic. If it doesn't violate the constitution, which it obviously doesn't unless you're trying to interpret the constitution in a way that allows you to tell people how they should run their own education system, then it should be up to local school boards to decide.

     How about we, you know, not mention anything about any sort of creator? That would make the most sense to me, since the origin of the universe is largely indeterminable (sure, we know things the Big Bang occurred & the universe as we know it began at that point, but it's not as if we are anywhere close to determining the origin of matter & energy in the universe).

If a school board doesn't want to include it, they shouldn't have to. But they shouldn't be prevented from doing so because of people that want to circumvent democracy by claiming something is unconstitutional when it really isn't.

     I doubt that it being constitutional to teach intelligent design somehow negates the point that teaching it would be highly pointless. I didn't go to a public school so maybe I'm mistaken, but I hardly think that public school biology classes are pulpits of atheism.

The fact that it's pointless doesn't negate the fact that those decisions should be left up to individual school boards, and not legislated at the federal level or decided by people who have no stake in the education system of another county or school district.

I'm not saying I support the teaching of intelligent design either, just that I don't feel it's my job to tell others how to handle the education of their children by using the constitution in inappropriate ways.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Should creationism be taught in schools? In a Christian sense, no, but if we're talking about intelligent design, then I don't think it's unconstitutional to present that as a theory for the cause of evolution, or to present holes in the theory.

Not science, goddamn it.

It's not science to say there is no god and that evolution explains causation, as that's completely unprovable. Why the hell do you care if someone says to kids that there may have been a designer, or there may not have been, but still teach evolution in full? To say that that's unconstitutional is absurd, and more of an atheist position than a scientific one. Agnosticism is more scientific, and having teachers explain that there may or may not have been a designer is pretty agnostic. If it doesn't violate the constitution, which it obviously doesn't unless you're trying to interpret the constitution in a way that allows you to tell people how they should run their own education system, then it should be up to local school boards to decide.

     How about we, you know, not mention anything about any sort of creator? That would make the most sense to me, since the origin of the universe is largely indeterminable (sure, we know things the Big Bang occurred & the universe as we know it began at that point, but it's not as if we are anywhere close to determining the origin of matter & energy in the universe).

If a school board doesn't want to include it, they shouldn't have to. But they shouldn't be prevented from doing so because of people that want to circumvent democracy by claiming something is unconstitutional when it really isn't.

     I doubt that it being constitutional to teach intelligent design somehow negates the point that teaching it would be highly pointless. I didn't go to a public school so maybe I'm mistaken, but I hardly think that public school biology classes are pulpits of atheism.

The fact that it's pointless doesn't negate the fact that those decisions should be left up to individual school boards, and not legislated at the federal level or decided by people who have no stake in the education system of another county or school district.

I'm not saying I support the teaching of intelligent design either, just that I don't feel it's my job to tell others how to handle the education of their children by using the constitution in inappropriate ways.

     Well I agree with that. At the same time, I don't think Earth was actually suggesting that teaching intelligent design is unconstitutional, but rather he misinterpreted your post as saying that intelligent design should be taught.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Should creationism be taught in schools? In a Christian sense, no, but if we're talking about intelligent design, then I don't think it's unconstitutional to present that as a theory for the cause of evolution, or to present holes in the theory.

Not science, goddamn it.

It's not science to say there is no god and that evolution explains causation, as that's completely unprovable. Why the hell do you care if someone says to kids that there may have been a designer, or there may not have been, but still teach evolution in full? To say that that's unconstitutional is absurd, and more of an atheist position than a scientific one. Agnosticism is more scientific, and having teachers explain that there may or may not have been a designer is pretty agnostic. If it doesn't violate the constitution, which it obviously doesn't unless you're trying to interpret the constitution in a way that allows you to tell people how they should run their own education system, then it should be up to local school boards to decide.

     How about we, you know, not mention anything about any sort of creator? That would make the most sense to me, since the origin of the universe is largely indeterminable (sure, we know things the Big Bang occurred & the universe as we know it began at that point, but it's not as if we are anywhere close to determining the origin of matter & energy in the universe).

If a school board doesn't want to include it, they shouldn't have to. But they shouldn't be prevented from doing so because of people that want to circumvent democracy by claiming something is unconstitutional when it really isn't.

And I have no problem with including intelligent design in a high school philosophy class that covers the "origins of life".

It does not, however, belong in science class.  That is because the widely accepted theory of evolution sufficiently explains the science behind the origins of life.

I don't think the church would like it if I became a member and demanded that all Sunday School classes start giving equal time to evolution.  I mean.. it'd be okay, right?  Cuz there's nothing that explicitly denies the existence of God in the theory of evolution or that God created the heavens and the earth.

If the church wants to be involved with the state, then they can pay taxes like any other business or individual and they can be regulated thereby as well.  Good enough?
If I were a Christian with a bundle of kindling lodged in my ass all in a tiff over a nativity scene on school property.. I'd be more supportive of the separation of the church and state simply for the fact that in this day and age, the state could destroy the church as we know it.  And no small number of people would celebrate.

[Earth]

Should creationism be taught in schools? In a Christian sense, no, but if we're talking about intelligent design, then I don't think it's unconstitutional to present that as a theory for the cause of evolution, or to present holes in the theory.

Not science, goddamn it.

It's not science to say there is no god and that evolution explains causation, as that's completely unprovable.

No one said saying "there's no God" is scientific. I don't quite get the way you're using your second point.

Why the hell do you care if someone says to kids that there may have been a designer, or there may not have been, but still teach evolution in full?

I care because I don't want intelligent design, which is not a scientific theory, to be taught in a science class. The same way I don't want a discussion of economics in science class, or a lesson on Marcel Duchamp's anti-art.

It belongs in theology, not science. Unless there is a theological course, then it has no place in public schools.

To say that that's unconstitutional is absurd, and more of an atheist position than a scientific one.

So what? I never brought up the issue of constitutionality, I rely on whether or not the subject in question is a part of science to determine whether or not a science class should include it.

Agnosticism is more scientific, and having teachers explain that there may or may not have been a designer is pretty agnostic.

Now this is where the argument diverges; it's irrelevant for this discussion which position, atheism, or agnosticism is "more scientific".

Having teachers explain this would be a mistake, not in that it's "ohhh boogeyman Christianity in public schools" but that there is no evidence to support intelligent design, or a creator. Stick to something testable.

If it doesn't violate the constitution, which it obviously doesn't unless you're trying to interpret the constitution in a way that allows you to tell people how they should run their own education system, then it should be up to local school boards to decide.

I disagree; the local school board should not be setting the curriculum, particularly for something most of them would not know anything about.

If a school board doesn't want to include it, they shouldn't have to. But they shouldn't be prevented from doing so because of people that want to circumvent democracy by claiming something is unconstitutional when it really isn't.

Education is not democratic. It is foolish to think otherwise.