but the problem is if you do not believe their way

the fanatics wanna kill ya

like i said

root of evil

but the problem is if you do not believe their way

the fanatics wanna kill ya

like i said

root of evil

from what I understood of your explanation I agree which is why I say why not teach the many "known" theories. since no one can say how anything got started. I used the term "things" because something had to start somewhere////make sense?

From that perspective I would say that there aren’t any ‘theories’ at all.

Even science doesn’t say anything at all about what caused the Big Bang to occur, or how it was initiated or what it arose from.

Science doesn’t deny the possibility of a divine creator. Science does not teach atheism.

So in that sense science isn’t claiming to know how the world came to be.

There aren’t any “known” theories of how the world began. The biblical account of creation isn’t a ‘theory’. There’s no evidence for it. It’s nothing more than the hearsay of men.

If we were going to teach the hearsay of men, we’d have to teach every religion that mankind ever made up, including Greek Mythology, and every other religious idea you can imagine. In fact, if we’re going to starting teaching guesses (which is all that religions amount to) then why don’t we just let the students guess on their own. After all, their guesses are just as valid as anyone else’s.

I disagree. The pledge is to serve a nation ‘under God’. That’s what the pledge says and if the person doesn’t believe in God then they are being asked to make a pledge they don’t support, and by the constitution they shouldn’t need to support that idea.

I actually believe in God and it still bothers me that it's in the pledge of allegiance? Why? Because I don’t believe that God aligns himself with nations. Clearly the biblical God does, but the God I believe in wouldn’t do that.

So even being a religious person I don’t like to see God used by the government in a pledge to their allegiance. It make it sound like they are assuming that God supports their agendas. I’d rather they just stick to their own business, and let God decide who to support.

When nations get into the business of supporting a God they risk becoming involved in Holy Wars.

Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's

I’m a religious person who believes in God and I still denounce any mention of God being in a pledge of allegiance toward a government. Let men be responsible for their own regimes, and leave religion out of it altogether lest the government becomes the God.

Moreover, if you want to speak of patriotism, I am a child of the universe first, a citizen of my country second. And that’s the way it should be for everyone who is a child of the universe, or a child of “God”.

So let's not have any mention of "God" in government affairs, thank you.

The address of the Danbury Baptists Association in the state of

Connecticut, assembled October 7, 1801. To Thomas Jefferson,

Esq., President of the United States of America.



Sir,



Among the many million in America and Europe who rejoice in your

election to office; we embrace the first opportunity which we

have enjoyed in our collective capacity, since your inauguration,

to express our great satisfaction, in your appointment to the

chief magistracy in the United States: And though our mode of

expression may be less courtly and pompous than what many others

clothe their addresses with, we beg you, sir, to believe that

none are more sincere.



Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious

liberty--that religion is at all times and places a matter

between God and individuals--that no man ought to suffer in name,

person, or effects on account of his religious opinions--that the

legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to

punish the man who works ill to his neighbors; But, sir, our

constitution of government is not specific. Our ancient charter

together with the law made coincident therewith, were adopted as

the basis of our government, at the time of our revolution; and

such had been our laws and usages, and such still are; that

religion is considered as the first object of legislation; and

therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of

the state) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable

rights; and these favors we receive at the expense of such

degrading acknowledgements as are inconsistent with the rights of

freemen. It is not to be wondered at therefore; if those who seek

after power and gain under the pretense of government and

religion should reproach their fellow men--should reproach their

order magistrate, as a enemy of religion, law, and good order,

because he will not, dare not, assume the prerogatives of Jehovah

and make laws to govern the kingdom of Christ.



Sir, we are sensible that the president of the United States is

not the national legislator, and also sensible that the national

government cannot destroy the laws of each state; but our hopes

are strong that the sentiments of our beloved president, which

have had such genial effect already, like the radiant beams of

the sun, will shine and prevail through all these states and all

the world, till hierarchy and tyranny be destroyed from the

earth. Sir, when we reflect on your past services, and see a glow

of philanthropy and good will shining forth in a course of more

than thirty years we have reason to believe that America's God

has raised you up to fill the chair of state out of that goodwill

which he bears to the millions which you preside over. May God

strengthen you for your arduous task which providence and the

voice of the people have called you to sustain and support you

enjoy administration against all the predetermined opposition of

those who wish to raise to wealth and importance on the poverty

and subjection of the people.



And may the Lord preserve you safe from every evil and bring you

at last to his heavenly kingdom through Jesus Christ our Glorious

Mediator.



Signed in behalf of the association, Nehemiah Dodge

Ephraim Robbins

Stephen S. Nelson

Jefferson wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802 to answer a letter from them written in October 1801. A copy of the Danbury letter is available here. The Danbury Baptists were a religious minority in Connecticut, and they complained that in their state, the religious liberties they enjoyed were not seen as immutable rights, but as privileges granted by the legislature - as "favors granted." Jefferson's reply did not address their concerns about problems with state establishment of religion - only of establishment on the national level. The letter contains the phrase "wall of separation between church and state," which led to the short-hand for the Establishment Clause that we use today: "Separation of church and state."

The letter was the subject of intense scrutiny by Jefferson, and he consulted a couple of New England politicians to assure that his words would not offend while still conveying his message: it was not the place of the Congress or the Executive to do anything that might be misconstrued as the establishment of religion.

A fanatic is one who cant change his mind, and wont change the subject.
- Winston Churchill

If there is no legal basis for a separation of Church and State then one should be implemented.

A government that is permitted to embrace a specific religion runs the very real risk of becoming a religious-based fascism.

If a government states that it supports freedom of religion, then that very proclamation automatically carries with it an implicit responsibility for the government itself to not embrace, endorse or favor any single religion because, in doing so, it would violate it’s proclamation of freedom of religion.

So it really doesn’t matter what the technical details are, if a government proclaims freedom of religion it must abide by that proclamation or renounce as being untrue. Otherwise it would be a hypocrisy instead of a democracy.

Um you're referring to the establishment clause. Praying or having the word "God" on government documents isn't establishing any single religion. Multiple religions have gods. Multiple religions have prayer. Government doing away with either would be a violation of the same establishment clause as they would then be infringing on the right to free expression of religion.

religion: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

so therefore isn't athiesm a form of religion???

threfore they do have rights as much as anyone else

I disagree because I see 'freedom of religion' to include freedom to not believe in a religion. After all, if an atheist is forced to believe in a religion, then they have no 'freedom of religion'.

So that very notion must include a respect for atheism.

Moreover, why should a government even need to recognize religion or “God” at all? Especially if it’s not permitted to associate any particular beliefs concerning the supposed deity.

What would even be the purpose for the government to bother to recognize it?

It has no purpose in government unless it’s going to be used as a basis for some form of decision making. And it certainly can’t be used for that purpose without proclaiming that the God is like.

So what would the government even do with a God if it recognized one???

It couldn’t do anything with it. It would be a redundant concept and serve no purpose whatsoever.