Sunday, May 15, 2005
Calling All "Chucky-ist's"
Go HERE and READ IT.
Chucky Darwin, purporter that "all life on planet Earth descended from a common single-cell, arising by chance, in the 'primordial ooze', 3.5 billion years ago."
Chucky Darwin, purporter that "all life on planet Earth descended from a common single-cell, arising by chance, in the 'primordial ooze', 3.5 billion years ago."
Comments:
<< Home
I'm not sure how the post you linked to relates at all to evolution, but...
(1) There's a substantial amount of evidence to support evolution. It's not like scientists just read Darwin's journal and said, "Oh, he's right. We're done doing research now."
(2) On the matter of religion in the state: The Supreme Court would seem to disagree. The same folks who tend to be *against* separation of church and state tend to be the people who use the intent of the founding fathers as the basis of their arguments. The problem with that is that the Supreme Court USED the founders' intent to interpret that ammendment as separation of church and state.
By that I mean that when the courts were looking into the question of religious freedom, they uncovered that famous Jefferson letter with the phrase church and state. Toss in the comments of John Adams in the Treaty of Tripoli and you've got two of the most notable founding fathers and two of the first three presidents of the US saying that the US should be separate from religion, that that was their intent, and that Christianity should NOT play a role in government. Then you look at Ben Franklin, who as a staunch deist was about as non-Christian as any of the Founding Fathers: He brought forth a motion to reference god in the Constititution, but the other attendees at the Continential Congress voted him down nearly unanimously. There's lots of evidence that many of these men WERE religious. But there's lots of evidence that suggested they wanted their religion, and everyone's religion, kept separate from the dealings of the state.
Does it say that word for word in the Constitution? Of course not. But if people are going to be using the intent of the founding fathers as a basis for political philosophy and interpretation of the Constitution, then those same people open themselves up to the truth about what those people thought about religion's place in the US government -- or rather, the lack of its place.
Post a Comment
(1) There's a substantial amount of evidence to support evolution. It's not like scientists just read Darwin's journal and said, "Oh, he's right. We're done doing research now."
(2) On the matter of religion in the state: The Supreme Court would seem to disagree. The same folks who tend to be *against* separation of church and state tend to be the people who use the intent of the founding fathers as the basis of their arguments. The problem with that is that the Supreme Court USED the founders' intent to interpret that ammendment as separation of church and state.
By that I mean that when the courts were looking into the question of religious freedom, they uncovered that famous Jefferson letter with the phrase church and state. Toss in the comments of John Adams in the Treaty of Tripoli and you've got two of the most notable founding fathers and two of the first three presidents of the US saying that the US should be separate from religion, that that was their intent, and that Christianity should NOT play a role in government. Then you look at Ben Franklin, who as a staunch deist was about as non-Christian as any of the Founding Fathers: He brought forth a motion to reference god in the Constititution, but the other attendees at the Continential Congress voted him down nearly unanimously. There's lots of evidence that many of these men WERE religious. But there's lots of evidence that suggested they wanted their religion, and everyone's religion, kept separate from the dealings of the state.
Does it say that word for word in the Constitution? Of course not. But if people are going to be using the intent of the founding fathers as a basis for political philosophy and interpretation of the Constitution, then those same people open themselves up to the truth about what those people thought about religion's place in the US government -- or rather, the lack of its place.
# posted by 
: 9:18 AM, May 16, 2005
: 9:18 AM, May 16, 2005 << Home
Alabama Internet
accordance and compliance with Fair Use Section 107 U.S. Copyright Code.
All other images and content © 2005-2009 David Drake.
Not responsible for content contained at linked sites.
Policy on commenting:
- Anonymous comments have little chance of being published.
- Comments made on posts 60 days old or older have little chance of being published.
- Published comments do not necessarily reflect the views of this blog author.
- Discretion of publishing or rejecting submitted comments rests solely with the owner and creator of this blog.
- Comments that egregiously "plug" (i.e. advertise or promote) another site or blog will be rejected. This doesn't mean you cannot include a link to your story, blog or to another site, but don't go overboard.
- Profanity is not a disqualifying factor, but profane rants solely for purposes of profanity are unlikely to be published.
- The owner and creator of this blog is not liable or responsible for the opinions of those who comment.
