Global Warming?

[toppop52]

I agree with that. Am I not complying with that?

Yes you are, you aren't the one ignoring any theory or possibility that doesn't go along with a preconceived notion.

 

[toppop52]

What part of "It seems reasonable to look at the actions and writings of the founding fathers in order to apply the Constitution's intent to the changing world" is hard to understand. Jefferson's letters and actions give a clear indication of his intent and his feeling that Government should not get involved in Religion.

Loren

His letters make it clear, but they are after the fact and not part of the document as written. The original simply says the government is not to promote or deny. In other words, not to interfere.

 

[turnkey4099]

His letters make it clear, but they are after the fact and not part of the document as written. The original simply says the government is not to promote or deny. In other words, not to interfere.

So "not to interfere" means? No laws against promoting religion in public schools, for example?

The supremes have made clear rulings and there is no confusion on just when an government agency has stepped over the line.

Harry K

 

[turnkey4099]

But to be a good person of science ALL must be considered on equal basis until disproven/proven.

All? Leprechauns? Santa? Science goes where the evidence leads - they don't study stuff that has zero evidence for its existance.

Harry K

 

[madmax12]

So "not to interfere" means? No laws against promoting religion in public schools, for example?

The supremes have made clear rulings and there is no confusion on just when an government agency has stepped over the line.

Harry K

How the constitution is interpreted has been a changing position. The phrase "living" constitution has made its way into the judgements. Those promoting this new way of interpretation are, coincidentally...on the left, progressive side.

The presence of genuine faith in the Supreme Being, and man being ultimately responsible to Him, is in other founding documents. Jefferson had a genuine belief in Him. He may have respected other's beliefs, but he had his own firmly held faith in The Creator.

While it would be speculative, on my part, I have a hard time seeing Jefferson on the side of the progressive movement. That is the movement fully pushing the two dominant "science" subjects of this thread in the school system. They fight just as hard for gun control, womb death, teen sex, and gender confusion.

Pulling Jefferson to the side of the progressives is disingenuous.

Also, a position clearly present in this thread, is that the faith of the founding fathers is from a time of stupidity...when people were scientifically in the dark. In my opposition's view, had the founding fathers had the benefit of today's knowledge, the documents would all be very different. That view, is what the "living" constitution interpretation is all about. Pretend the founders would have been modern day progressives, in their thinking...and make the constitution say that.

It's a modern day attempt at reinterpreting history...and changing it. Evolution is just a small piece of that progressive puzzle. Interesting that the two thoughts are from the 1800's.

 

[Loren49]

This article investigates Jefferson's religion:
Jefferson's Religious Beliefs « Thomas Jefferson
-------------------------------------

His personal religious beliefs are not the issue here. His actions and opinions which support the separation of Church and State is the point. It doesn't matter whether he would be classified as a conservative or a progressive. Where in this thread was Jefferson being promoted as a progressive? The point is that it is not a function of government to promote a religion. Does anyone have an example of a nation with a State sponsored religion that is a model to try to replicate?
------------------------------------

MadMax12 quote:"The presence of genuine faith in the Supreme Being, and man being ultimately responsible to Him, is in other founding documents. Jefferson had a genuine belief in Him. He may have respected other's beliefs, but he had his own firmly held faith in The Creator."
----------------------
Not sure he was the Christian you have described though it really is not relavent to his feelings on Church and State:
--------------------------------
Jefferson Quote:
Thus in the spirit of the Enlightenment, he made the following recommendation to his nephew Peter Carr in 1787: "Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must more approve the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear."[1]

"The rights of conscience we never submitted, we could not submit. We are answerable for them to our God. The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. ... Reason and free enquiry are the only effectual agents against error.[2]

Jefferson believed in the existence of a Supreme Being who was the creator and sustainer of the universe and the ultimate ground of being, but this was not the triune deity of orthodox Christianity. He also rejected the idea of the divinity of Christ, but as he writes to William Short on October 31, 1819, he was convinced that the fragmentary teachings of Jesus constituted the "outlines of a system of the most sublime morality which has ever fallen from the lips of man."

On June 25, 1819, he wrote to Ezra Stiles Ely, "I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know."

--------------------------------------------------------

Schools should teach science along with other academic disciplines and stay out of religious beliefs.

 

[toppop52]

So "not to interfere" means? No laws against promoting religion in public schools, for example?

The supremes have made clear rulings and there is no confusion on just when an government agency has stepped over the line.

Harry K

Your words, not mine! Not promoting or curtailing religion, how much simpler can it be to understand? Unless of course ones agenda makes it appear cloudy on a unny day.

 

[toppop52]

So "not to interfere" means? No laws against promoting religion in public schools, for example?

The supremes have made clear rulings and there is no confusion on just when an government agency has stepped over the line.

Harry K

Your words, not mine! Not promoting or curtailing religion, how much simpler can it be to understand? Unless of course ones agenda makes it appear cloudy on a sunny day.

 

[turnkey4099]

Your words, not mine! Not promoting or curtailing religion, how much simpler can it be to understand? Unless of course ones agenda makes it appear cloudy on a sunny day.

Come on, don't be coy. Define whatd you mean by "curtailing religion". Not allowed to promote shcool prayer part of it?

Harry K

 

[tungularafishcamp]

Being a birdwatcher, I once looked up past Christmas count records for Maine (early part of the last century) regarding the Cardinal. It was generally absent from Maine counts through to the period of the 1960's. After then it showed only in southern Maine. In increments it has shifted north and is occurring in counts as far north as Dover Foxcroft (45+ lat- level+ with top of NH,VT) with a regularity. This mirrors the warming climate. It is unable to survive the temps/climate that were previously the norm, but those temps/climate are not the norm anymore. There were just a few days last winter where it dropped below 0 in my area. It was not so unusual for the temps to remain below 0 for a month at a time, or a week of -25. The cardinal inhabits the range at which it is able to survive. It also breeds here in the summer now.
The old Maine Christmas Counts did not have the Cardinal recorded because it was too cold for them. It nolonger is for them. Now they are here. - Observable examples of global warming. (There are other species following the same trend-robins + Tufted Titmouse).

Might that not just because of more people=more bird feeders=more and different bird survival rates??