BMW 1 Series Coupe Forum / 1 Series Convertible Forum (1M / tii / 135i / 128i / Coupe / Cabrio / Hatchback) (BMW E82 E88 128i 130i 135i)
 





 

View Poll Results: Would you vote for an Atheist for President of US?
Yes 109 67.70%
No 52 32.30%
Voters: 161. You may not vote on this poll

Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      12-13-2007, 09:18 AM   #45
scottwww
Brigadier General
scottwww's Avatar
United_States
325
Rep
4,759
Posts

Drives: 07 BMW 335i, 15 Infiniti Q60S
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: USA

iTrader: (0)

Send a message via MSN to scottwww
Quote:
Originally Posted by e90im View Post
Here you go:

The separation of church and state is a legal and political principle derived from the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ." The phrase "separation of church and state", which does not appear in the Constitution itself, is generally traced to an 1802 letter by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists, where Jefferson spoke of the combined effect of the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. It has since been quoted in several opinions handed down by the United States Supreme Court.[1]


What does gay marriage have to do with teaching intelligent design in science class????
I have quoted the first amendment recently, too. Jefferson had his point of view. The courts are right when they rule that the US Government shall make no law regarding an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. This is to protect religious expression in public and in private. It is not to suppress religious express as you would have it. People like justice Ginsburg are the problem. They have made laws in their judgements rather than fulfilling their duties as judges. Congress has legislated against the first amendment and the courts haven't checked them on it. I am an advocate of the first amendment of the US Constitution, not your interpretation of it.

You object to intelligent design. I am not especially a supporter of it. I am not that familiar with what goes into teaching "intelligent design." I do object to many things that are taught in the schools. You named one that you object to. I named one that I object to.

I do not object to the schools teaching about geology and fossils and such. I find all manner of science to be fascinating. I do object to them teaching it as if the understanding they have today is all true. They need to be much more proactive in promoting the scientific method which is to acknowledge that "this is a theory that will likely be proven wrong some day and replaced with something closer to the truth." Science is the means to learn what we can about our environment and how to interact with it. It is not to be taken as "proven" fact expecially when there is good science that contradicts.
Appreciate 0
      12-13-2007, 09:48 AM   #46
drF80
Major General
187
Rep
5,355
Posts

Drives: F80
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Dallas, TX

iTrader: (4)

Quote:
Originally Posted by scottwww View Post
I have quoted the first amendment recently, too. Jefferson had his point of view. The courts are right when they rule that the US Government shall make no law regarding an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. This is to protect religious expression in public and in private. It is not to suppress religious express as you would have it. People like justice Ginsburg are the problem. They have made laws in their judgements rather than fulfilling their duties as judges. Congress has legislated against the first amendment and the courts haven't checked them on it. I am an advocate of the first amendment of the US Constitution, not your interpretation of it.

You object to intelligent design. I am not especially a supporter of it. I am not that familiar with what goes into teaching "intelligent design." I do object to many things that are taught in the schools. You named one that you object to. I named one that I object to.

I do not object to the schools teaching about geology and fossils and such. I find all manner of science to be fascinating. I do object to them teaching it as if the understanding they have today is all true. They need to be much more proactive in promoting the scientific method which is to acknowledge that "this is a theory that will likely be proven wrong some day and replaced with something closer to the truth." Science is the means to learn what we can about our environment and how to interact with it. It is not to be taken as "proven" fact expecially when there is good science that contradicts.
Scott, you obviously either do not know anything about the science and purpose of it, or you ignore what you know. You do object being thought on things as we see them today -- then how are we supposed to derive and evolve new solutions and ideas -- called progress??? The science, in the core does not assume things or accept them as they are -- we accept them only as proven things. And many things are proven as the science accepted them from simplest examples of 1+1 = 2 to the quantum theories and so on. The existence or non-exiestence of God has never been proven. The existence of some JC was documented but only as some rebel guy and so on. THe ending of the story was never proven. THe question is that maybe later generations misinterpreted what was meant to be described in the books (intentionally or not) and then the whole religion thing was turned into a huge business... Tell me, what is one of the Richest "corporations"in the world? Yep, Catholic Church in Vatican. Why?
Appreciate 0
      12-13-2007, 10:47 AM   #47
scottwww
Brigadier General
scottwww's Avatar
United_States
325
Rep
4,759
Posts

Drives: 07 BMW 335i, 15 Infiniti Q60S
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: USA

iTrader: (0)

Send a message via MSN to scottwww
Quote:
Originally Posted by dr325i View Post
Scott, you obviously either do not know anything about the science and purpose of it, or you ignore what you know. You do object being thought on things as we see them today -- then how are we supposed to derive and evolve new solutions and ideas -- called progress??? The science, in the core does not assume things or accept them as they are -- we accept them only as proven things. And many things are proven as the science accepted them from simplest examples of 1+1 = 2 to the quantum theories and so on. The existence or non-exiestence of God has never been proven. The existence of some JC was documented but only as some rebel guy and so on. THe ending of the story was never proven. THe question is that maybe later generations misinterpreted what was meant to be described in the books (intentionally or not) and then the whole religion thing was turned into a huge business... Tell me, what is one of the Richest "corporations"in the world? Yep, Catholic Church in Vatican. Why?
In my prior post I was going to include something about mathematics being one of the few disciplines that could offer proofs. I had to leave the house to get to the office. I don't have much time for this reply either because I have work to do.

Most things cannot be proven as they can in mathematics. What it comes down to is varying degrees of opinion. When you have a nation that includes a large Christian population, you should not discriminate against them with your secular approach to teaching. The public school should not be teaching unproven science and political agendas as if they were truth. This doesn't mean to not teach them at all. It does mean to give a clear concept of the uncertainty of the science.

One recent example would be Al Gore's movie. There is plenty of science that refutes what Mr. Gore had to say. I don't know what the truth is in regard to global warming and the degree to which humans contribute to it, but I do know that Al Gore is wrong in his science and in his drawing conclusions. (I have no intention of steering this thread into a discussion of the merits of global warming theories. I merely illustrate a point.)

The greatest objections I have about the schools curriculum is not science. It is their social agenda. They distribute condoms. They teach moral relativism. They push the liberal point of view.

In some of these thing, I am not saying they must stop. Teachers have their point of view and it comes through no matter how hard you might try to disquise it. What I am saying is that when children and their parents have freedom of choice, that is to educate their kids in schools that are compatible with their point of view, then we are far better off. I have not looked at the details of it, but a school voucher system was recently passed in the state of Utah. Whether this one achieves what I would want to see, I don’t know. What I want to see is a voucher that allows students to attend school where they please and can be admitted. If you want to send your kids to the atheist school, have at it. If you want to send your kids to the Islamic, Jewish, or Christian school, you should be free to do so. If you prefer to send your kids to the liberal arts elementary, do it. You have no right to dictate where my kids go to school. Unfortunately, it is available only to the few to have their kids go to a school of their choice. It comes down to the money. If I sent my child to the school of humanism, I would still have to pay for the public school system. This is not possible for most families. It is discriminatory against all but the upper income families where tuition and texts are an insignificant cost.

If vouchers are not possible because of your concept of the first amendment where you might interpret it to mean that state and local taxes cannot be used to pay for tuition to religious schools, then I would be a strong advocate for the Libertarian approach. I understand that as the abolishment of the public school system. This would give us all choice, though not a good choice for low income families. This is why vouchers are the best answer.
Appreciate 0
      12-13-2007, 12:42 PM   #48
its ray den
Second Lieutenant
2
Rep
206
Posts

Drives: 2004 Mazda6s
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: NY

iTrader: (0)

my main complaint about this thread is that it assumes that a christian president is dumber than an atheist. it also assumes that a christian president will promote christianity through the government.

as i've gone through with e90im already, i have given pretty good arguments that show that a christian is not foolish because he believe in something that can't be proven by science. i've given great examples of how science always changes as we discover new things so science is not as much proven fact (or real truth) as you all think it is, but it is merely what observations, measurements and experiments would indicate about our natural world. do i believe in science? yes. i also believe in God. the faith system is similar, but the evidence is not the same. the evidence in science is more concrete, easily observed by many which makes it easier to believe. God on the other hand is hard to observe, record and reproduce. we can't experiment on God so it makes His existence harder to believe.

but that doesn't mean that it's impossible. which was another thing i tried to say with e90im. if the majority of people were color blind, does that mean color doesn't exist? truth and reality is not contingent on what we believe or know.

on my second complaint: every president from the birth of american until now has been a believer in God (or so they say). have we strayed from the first amendment rights to religious freedom and made this nation a christian nation? i don't think so. there is no basis for such a claim as america is still one of the most diverse nations in the world. there is no national church here and people are free to believe whatever they want. you are free to believe that there is no God. you can believe that, and express that anywhere. you even have the freedom to go to a church and say that you don't believe in God. no one can stop you.

so why do you feel that christians can only pray at home or at church? why can't we have the manger scene on our front yard? how is the 10 commandments being displayed at a courthouse offensive to you? if anything, atheists are restricting our religious freedom by lobbying for such laws, disguising the first amendment right to mean that you have the right to be free of religion.

sorry, that's not what religious freedom is about. you need to learn to deal with it, and be tolerant of it.

and i'm sorry bush is such a bad president, but him being a christian has nothing to do with it. it's all politics...
Appreciate 0
      12-13-2007, 01:33 PM   #49
drF80
Major General
187
Rep
5,355
Posts

Drives: F80
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Dallas, TX

iTrader: (4)

Quote:
Originally Posted by its ray den View Post
and i'm sorry bush is such a bad president, but him being a christian has nothing to do with it. it's all politics...
I agree with this...
Appreciate 0
      12-13-2007, 02:04 PM   #50
ATG
Major
ATG's Avatar
Cuba
43
Rep
1,058
Posts

Drives: f30 328 xdrive, e90 335i gone
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Eastside

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
religion is even more politics, my friend. it's a state within a state that has unlimited abilities to make money by selling something of a lesser value than oxygen.
Appreciate 0
      12-13-2007, 05:54 PM   #51
its ray den
Second Lieutenant
2
Rep
206
Posts

Drives: 2004 Mazda6s
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: NY

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
religion is even more politics, my friend. it's a state within a state that has unlimited abilities to make money by selling something of a lesser value than oxygen.
politics is everywhere. it's in your workplace. your school. you can't avoid it. heck, there was even some politicking going in my softball team. politics itself isn't the problem. it's selfish ambition. it's bad leadership.
Appreciate 0
      12-13-2007, 06:41 PM   #52
ATG
Major
ATG's Avatar
Cuba
43
Rep
1,058
Posts

Drives: f30 328 xdrive, e90 335i gone
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Eastside

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
meanwhile, the poll results are very interesting. do we have a new generation of voters here?
Appreciate 0
      12-14-2007, 11:38 AM   #53
ATG
Major
ATG's Avatar
Cuba
43
Rep
1,058
Posts

Drives: f30 328 xdrive, e90 335i gone
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Eastside

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
In a nutshell, it's all about mobs sharing their spheres of influence. Christian mob, muslim mob, etc. Being a big happy family is an essntial thing for any mob to survive because it's difficult to hold power based on fear only. The christian mob in the U.S. has now grown much stronger than any other organization and has had incredible power to influence the society and the government. Regardless of what the Constitution officially says, the line between the state and christian mob is extemely blur now.
Appreciate 0
      12-14-2007, 12:47 PM   #54
scottwww
Brigadier General
scottwww's Avatar
United_States
325
Rep
4,759
Posts

Drives: 07 BMW 335i, 15 Infiniti Q60S
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: USA

iTrader: (0)

Send a message via MSN to scottwww
The First Amendment protects the free exercise of religion. If secularism, atheism, and secular humanism, etc. are not religion, then they are not protected to as high a standard as religion. They are protected by freedom of speech. Religion is protected also by freedom of speech. Yet many secularists, atheists, and secular humanists would have the suppression of the exercise of religion and would gag religious speech. This is a terrible violation of the First Amendment.
Appreciate 0
      12-14-2007, 12:51 PM   #55
Neurorad
Major
Neurorad's Avatar
50
Rep
1,221
Posts

Drives: 330xi 6MT Blk/Blk SP
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Location, Location

iTrader: (0)

Have some of you implied that evolution is not a proven theory?

Please make your thoughts on the subject clear, so I know who to ridicule.
Appreciate 0
      12-14-2007, 12:54 PM   #56
ATG
Major
ATG's Avatar
Cuba
43
Rep
1,058
Posts

Drives: f30 328 xdrive, e90 335i gone
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Eastside

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottwww View Post
The First Amendment protects the free exercise of religion. If secularism, atheism, and secular humanism, etc. are not religion, then they are not protected to as high a standard as religion. They are protected by freedom of speech. Religion is protected also by freedom of speech. Yet many secularists, atheists, and secular humanists would have the suppression of the exercise of religion and would gag religious speech. This is a terrible violation of the First Amendment.
Yeah right, poor religious speech! Try to gag it ... good luck!
Appreciate 0
      12-14-2007, 12:58 PM   #57
ATG
Major
ATG's Avatar
Cuba
43
Rep
1,058
Posts

Drives: f30 328 xdrive, e90 335i gone
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Eastside

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
Let's make it clear. The fact that the Constitution separates state and religion assumes that the state is secular, otherwise there would be nothing to separate. So, under the 1st Amendment's establishment clause, the state should not sponsor, subsidize, encourage, or approve of any religion or religious activity. That is being plainly violated when the highest executive officer in the union constantly trumpets his belief in God and implies that God is in fact the power governing our nation.
Appreciate 0
      12-14-2007, 01:39 PM   #58
scottwww
Brigadier General
scottwww's Avatar
United_States
325
Rep
4,759
Posts

Drives: 07 BMW 335i, 15 Infiniti Q60S
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: USA

iTrader: (0)

Send a message via MSN to scottwww
Quote:
Originally Posted by ATG View Post
Let's make it clear. The fact that the Constitution separates state and religion assumes that the state is secular, otherwise there would be nothing to separate. So, under the 1st Amendment's establishment clause, the state should not sponsor, subsidize, encourage, or approve of any religion or religious activity. That is being plainly violated when the highest executive officer in the union constantly trumpets his belief in God and implies that God is in fact the power governing our nation.
Neither the First Amendment, nor any part of the U.S. Constitution sets a preferance for secularism. It does gaurantee the free exercise of religion and that the U.S. Government would not make any law regarding a religious institution. The secularists have perverted the meaning of the words that are so clearly written and have inferred so much more based on "emanations and penumbras."
Appreciate 0
      12-14-2007, 02:05 PM   #59
Neurorad
Major
Neurorad's Avatar
50
Rep
1,221
Posts

Drives: 330xi 6MT Blk/Blk SP
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Location, Location

iTrader: (0)

Just because one wants to keep one's kids out of a shitty public school, it doesn't mean everyone else should pay for it. Stop using religion as a lame excuse.
Appreciate 0
      12-14-2007, 02:24 PM   #60
scottwww
Brigadier General
scottwww's Avatar
United_States
325
Rep
4,759
Posts

Drives: 07 BMW 335i, 15 Infiniti Q60S
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: USA

iTrader: (0)

Send a message via MSN to scottwww
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neurorad View Post
Just because one wants to keep one's kids out of a shitty public school, it doesn't mean everyone else should pay for it. Stop using religion as a lame excuse.
Would you rather just have the stuff (and instructors for that matter) that is offensive to us removed from the curriculum? It is a concession to advocate the voucher system rather than removing the problem.
Appreciate 0
      12-14-2007, 02:28 PM   #61
its ray den
Second Lieutenant
2
Rep
206
Posts

Drives: 2004 Mazda6s
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: NY

iTrader: (0)

how many times do we have reiterate and reinterpret the first amendment in regards to religion?
Appreciate 0
      12-14-2007, 03:18 PM   #62
scottwww
Brigadier General
scottwww's Avatar
United_States
325
Rep
4,759
Posts

Drives: 07 BMW 335i, 15 Infiniti Q60S
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: USA

iTrader: (0)

Send a message via MSN to scottwww
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomwid View Post
Why are you so hard headed? Do you not understand that any public place (supported by taxpayers dollars) should be "neutral"?

How would you like it if gays started putting up rainbows all over the court house?

All I'm saying is that you have no right to otherwise bombard us with your BS in a public place. That is all. That goes for Muslims, Buddists, as well as Christians.

So no, I don't agree with the 10 commandments in a court house or any other pulbic place, sans a museum.

I also don't think it's right that churches don't get taxed. WHAT THE F*CK is that?? You don't realize how much this angers me. A Church is like any other business, they are there for the PROFIT. You see these pastors riding around in a Bently, and he doesn't even pay tax on the land he owns!!! Something needs to change, but I doubt it'll happen because religious fanatics idiots like George Bush is running the country.
Your "neutral" is not neutral. It is an oppression. Truely neutral would be that nothing would be excluded. My argument doesn't appear to be about the things you are so concerned about, unless you really are continuing to advocate that public funds be used to suppress the free exercise of religion.

In the example of the schools, my tax money is being used to punish kids that might take their Bibles to school to read on their break times (this may have already been adjudicated, but I havent' heard the result). My tax money is being used to purchase and disseminate offensive materials. This is totally unacceptable.

You seem to be saying that it must be your way. I object to your way imposing on my way. This is why I advocate all ways having equal access to the public money. If that is not good enough, then the money should be cut off and there should be no public schools.

This problem of the secularization of America is far deeper than we have covered here.
Appreciate 0
      12-14-2007, 03:46 PM   #63
ATG
Major
ATG's Avatar
Cuba
43
Rep
1,058
Posts

Drives: f30 328 xdrive, e90 335i gone
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Eastside

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottwww View Post
This problem of the secularization of America is far deeper than we have covered here.
Appreciate 0
      12-14-2007, 03:48 PM   #64
scottwww
Brigadier General
scottwww's Avatar
United_States
325
Rep
4,759
Posts

Drives: 07 BMW 335i, 15 Infiniti Q60S
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: USA

iTrader: (0)

Send a message via MSN to scottwww
Here is an example of an oppressive public school. Fortunately they backed down. If this went through the judicial process, I would hope that the court would judge in favor of the plaintiff.
Christmas Victory

Anna requested our assistance on behalf of her son, Josiah, a second-grade student attending an elementary school located within the Branchburg Township School District in New Jersey. Earlier this month, Josiah’s class was given a creative art assignment to decorate a cut-out mitten. The children were not given any limiting instruction except to create their own artistic design that represented the seasonal holidays. All the children’s mittens (except Josiah’s mitten) were displayed in the school’s gymnasium on a bulletin board titled, “Celebrating the Warmth of the Season.”

Josiah’s class decorated their mittens with various red and green designs, patterns, pictures of Santa Claus, and some students included their names as part of their design. The bulletin board is composed of numerous holiday expressions of each student’s own artistic choice. Josiah’s mitten contained his holiday expression, which happens to contain his family’s religious beliefs about Christmas: “Jesus Saves Lives.” The teacher refused to display Josiah’s mitten precisely because of the religious content. Thus, Josiah brought his mitten home to his mother, explaining that his teacher would not display the mitten. Anna then spoke with the school’s principal regarding the matter. The principal refused to display the mitten, stating that she had contacted the school’s lawyers, and the lawyers determined that the school could not display Josiah’s mitten; she further stated that the school had law that supported their position also. Interestingly, in past discussions between Anna and the principal regarding the school’s holiday curriculum, the principal had stated her position about Biblical content: Although the Bible cannot be part of holiday curriculum, the students may ask questions and make comments during instructional time with regard to the religious nature of the holidays.

We sent a demand letter to the school district’s attorney on behalf of Anna and Josiah. Two days later, we received a written response explaining that, although the school disagreed with our position on the law, they would display Josiah’s mitten in order to avoid “the expenditure of time and resources that would be consumed in litigating over the matter.” The school will “restore the mitten to the display in question, with full reservation of rights with respect to any similar action in the future.”
Maybe you could put up an example of your kind of a victory?
Appreciate 0
      12-14-2007, 06:28 PM   #65
Neurorad
Major
Neurorad's Avatar
50
Rep
1,221
Posts

Drives: 330xi 6MT Blk/Blk SP
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Location, Location

iTrader: (0)

This Josiah crap is a bunch of propaganda, circulated by a narrow-minded group of religion nuts.

The idiot teacher wouldn't let the stupid child hang the Jesus decoration in a public display, in a public school. Hmm. Yeah. I see the problem.

Sorry, Scott. I call 'em like I see 'em.

I have to come down on the side of reason, sensibility, logic, and truth, in this religion debate.

Suspend belief, and look at the facts. Develop a world outlook, try to grasp the big picture. Expand your views of time and distance.

Say it out loud: "Humans are not special." Repeat endlessly, until you understand what that means, on personal, interpersonal, state, and religious levels.

There are no such things as magic, divine beings, or gods. Thus, everything 'religious' has been decreed by simple, evolved human animals. Humans are not special. That truth is impossible for most people to grasp, mostly because of organized religion. If you suspend religioius belief, you will see clearly, and yes, it will make you extraordinarily anxious, for a while.
Appreciate 0
      12-14-2007, 06:35 PM   #66
scottwww
Brigadier General
scottwww's Avatar
United_States
325
Rep
4,759
Posts

Drives: 07 BMW 335i, 15 Infiniti Q60S
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: USA

iTrader: (0)

Send a message via MSN to scottwww
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neurorad View Post
This Josiah crap is a bunch of propaganda, circulated by a narrow-minded group of religion nuts.

The idiot teacher wouldn't let the stupid child hang the Jesus decoration in a public display, in a public school. Hmm. Yeah. I see the problem.

Sorry, Scott. I call 'em like I see 'em.

I have to come down on the side of reason, sensibility, logic, and truth, in this religion debate.

Suspend belief, and look at the facts. Develop a world outlook, try to grasp the big picture. Expand your views of time and distance.

Say it out loud: "Humans are not special." Repeat endlessly, until you understand what that means, on personal, interpersonal, state, and religious levels.

There are no such things as magic, divine beings, or gods. Thus, everything 'religious' has been decreed by simple, evolved human animals. Humans are not special. That truth is impossible for most people to grasp, mostly because of organized religion. If you suspend religioius belief, you will see clearly, and yes, it will make you extraordinarily anxious, for a while.
If an atheist presidential candidate had a response at all like that in regard to the news about Josiah's class, I would not be able to vote for him/her.

Do you have a victory story from your side that you would like to share?
Appreciate 0
Post Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:28 AM.




1addicts
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
1Addicts.com, BIMMERPOST.com, E90Post.com, F30Post.com, M3Post.com, ZPost.com, 5Post.com, 6Post.com, 7Post.com, XBimmers.com logo and trademark are properties of BIMMERPOST