The logic doesn't hold up, Leauki.  Schools are part of the 'public square' and permitting prayer doesn't 'establish' anything.

Schools are _not_ part of the public square. They are privately owned property, even if owned by the state.

And that's exactly the logic courts are using all over the western world.

That doesn't make them right, or you right by extension.  Even if schools are not part of the public square, the government is limited in many ways that the average citizen is not.  The government cannnot violate the Constitution under any circumstances, regardless.

The Constitution was made to restrain the government, not people.  Our government was based on this Constitution, and if we ignore it, our government will not work properly.

The Constitution says that freedom of speech and free practice of religion are rights.  That means the government cannot take that right away, including on "their" property.  That means schools.

I therefore conclude that by prohibiting prayer in schools, the government is directly violating the first amendment.

You can throw as many excuses and explainations as you want Leauki, but you can't make the Constitution say the opposite of what it says.  Freedom to practice religion is a right, and you and the court system are wrong.

And this is all assuming that by allowing prayer, the government endorses it, which is not necessarily true as I have stated before - even if schools are not part of the public square.  The argument of tacit consent doesn't hold up here.

Again, that is WHY the government must enact such prohibitions in institutions it pays for.

It's not an excuse. It's a duty government has.

The government doesn't have to endorse it, just to support it, to "establish" it.

Where exactly did you read that freedom of speech etc. cannot be taken away on private property?

Have you tried standing in the board room of some company insisting on your right of free speech on their property recently? If you were right any old geezer could insist on standing in somebody else's house talking away about the miracles of socialism, after all, it's free speech. But it is clearly not true.

Any school owner, like any owner of any building, can certainly PROHIBIT you from enjoying your right of free speech on his grounds. And while I agree that that can become a problem when all the land is privately owned (and land ownership rights outway the right of free speech), it is certainly not a problem if your right to pray cannot be realised by you in a school building.

And the establishment clause forces government to prohibit religious activity in its buildings that are open to the public.

The worhipping of one or more deities, often some religions mock others and sometimes claim science to be false.

Also, sometime religion can be balmed for some bad things, IE: The Crusades.

Leauki, once again you're not listening to anything I have said.  This is why I stopped arguing before.

In fact I have addressed every single on of your points. The fact that you simply repeat your points rather than address my replies doesn't mean that _I_ am not listening.

I still disagree with you, as do American courts.

Religion is just a set of rituals. A deity is not required. Buddhism is a religion, but it doesn't have a deity. I'm not sure if you can call spirits deities, but there are religions that believe in spirits rather than gods.

That is true. And some religions mock themselves.

Yes, that is especially common in Islam and Christianity.

Exapmle the Catholic Church is mocked by most other types of Christianity.

Yes Leauki, you have addressed my points.  You simply keep repeating something I already argued against before - replies #529 and #530 prove that much - and I for one am tired of quoting myself over and over just because you don't remember what I said earlier.

so what's your point?  Mocking is a bad thing, some religions mock each other so therefore all religions are bad? 

Atheists mock Christians.  Scientists mock Christians as well.  So does that make Atheists and Scientists bad as well? 

In fact Seth isn't that what you're doing as an Atheist? 

Well I can only speak for Christianity.  We, as Christians, do not claim Science as false.  We claim pseudo-Science as false and there is a difference. 

The theory of Evolution as taught in the schools is NOT science, only cloaked in Science. 

exactly the sorta comment i personally believe (thus making anything i say from this point forward irrefutably true) could and would only be uttered by a psuedo-christian not merely blasphemously cloaked in christianity but also very likely to be washed in a red koolaid substitute for the blood of the lamb.

@KFC: I am just stating my views on religion.

How would you know? You never understood the theory.

I do remember what you said earlier, I just remain in disagreement.

If you are used to people starting to agree with you after you _repeat_ (not _explain_, but _repeat_) your position you might have another problem.

I have never met a Creationist who was willing to attack Darwinian evolution.

I have met several Creationists who attack a weird parody of evolution.

If evolution was "pseudo-science" one would assume that it would be possible at least for people to exist who both believe that evolution is "pseudo-science" AND be able to remember what Darwinisn evolution actually is.

The three most obvious differences between Darwinian evolution as taught in schools and godless heathen atheist secular pseudo-science (GHASP) as attacked by Creationists are those:

1. GHASP claims that one species changes into another and that it crosses "species borders" that cannot be crossed. Creationists claim (without proof) that "species borders" cannot be crossed and that hence GHASP is wrong. Real evolution claims that species borders do not exist, are never crossed, and that one species rarely ever changes into another but instead evolves into separate species without ever crossing a "species border".

There are not yo my knowledge any Creationists who have even understood why there is no "species border" let alone how one species can become two without crossing one.

2. GHASP is all about random chance. Creationists claim that something as complicated as, for example, a frog cannot come to be by random chance and that hence GHASP is wrong. Real evolution has nothing to do with chance.

I have never read a Creationist who understood why natural selection is not about chance, or at least acknowledged that the theory of evolution doesn't claim that it is.

3. GHASP  appears to explain how life started. Creationists claim that GHASP cannot explain how life started and hence GHASP is wrong. Real evolution doesn't make any claims about how life started.

Our local Creationists here also seem to be unable to say anything about evolution without mentioning at least one of the three features of GHASP mentioned above.

And that is why it surprises me that they can tell that evolution is "pseudo-science". They don't even know what evolution is.

1.  I gave you a reason that species borders exist, and why they cannot be crossed.

2.  Evolution has to be about chance unless you believe something is guiding it.

3.  You're conveniently dodging the question of where life came from.

It just so happens that most creationists have to include at least one of the 3 features of "GHASP" because a majority of evolutionists think this way.  I would think that makes you the one in error - or are you saying it is possible for mainstream scientific thinking to be wrong?

And I told everyone that such borders don't exist and gave an explanation why not. In fact the theory of evolution explains why those borders don't exist.

No. You still don't understand it. Evolution is not about chance and never has been.

And you are conveniently dodging the question of why Ernie's best friend is called Bert. However, both questions have nothing to do with evolution.

No. No evolutionists think that way. It's a Creationist misconception that any scientists thinks that way. I think it is based on an inability to understand evolution.

It is. But in this case it is just you misrpresenting mainstream scientific thinking. As I said, you simply don't understand evolution. That's why you fall for those fallacies.

Didn't I just say that no Creationist can argue without using at least one of three misconceptions about evolution. And behold the Creationist who managed to rely on all three, even numbered.

IQOfSpam,

Read this:

http://citizenleauki.joeuser.com/article/334809/Creationism_and_Linguistics

It describes the evolution of languages and why there is no "language border" to be crossed when languages evolve and one language becomes two languages.

If you are confident that there is a "speciec border" that "cannot be crossed", please either identify the language border and explain why it cannot be crossed or feel free to admit that there is a method for how one thing can become two without crossing a "thing border", a method you didn't understand and didn't know about.

KFC and I both understand what schools are teaching (as well as what they are not teaching) more than you know. We are opposed to teaching Darwin's pseudo-scientific atheism of "amoeba to brute animal to mankind" natural transformation in which new, higher genetic information is gained which was not possessed by one's ancestors as scientific fact when it's no such thing. Natural selection is not evolution....mutation is not evolution....variety within kind is not evolution...change of an eco system is not evolution....growth to maturity is not evolution.

What we expect of the education systems is not too much...stop the intolerance and teach both sides of the debate.  Until and unless Darwinists come up with definitive, empirical proof of its claim, students should be taught both sides of the Orgins debate. Students should be told that the emergence of life in all its unimaginable and irreducible complexity can have been the result of creation according to an intelligent design.    

There are 3 Jewish intellectuals (I won't call them Creationists) who severely challenged (I won't say attack) the academic tyranny of Darwinism in the movie "Expelled: No Intelligence Required".

In  this movie, the leading "lights" of Darwinism and scientific atheism (Richard Dawkins of Oxford, Daniel Dennet of Tufts, William Provine of Cornell, etc. ) make fools of themselves by displaying their lack of credible answers to Stein's most basic questions.

Stein interviews Dr Gerald Shroeder, a nuclear physicist of MIt and now professor at Hebrew University, and Dr. David Berlinski, a mathematician and philosopher whose latest book is The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions probably the best defense of religious faith against atheistic scientism ever written.

Remember, both KFC and I have said that ET is part truth and lie. In an interview, Dr. Berlinski explains that the centerpiece of Darwin's ET is empty becasue in fact is trivial truth. He says that even though there are all sorts of elaborate strategies designed to circumvent the objections, it doesn't get beyond, "que sera, sera", what survives, survives. He then explains Newton's Principia, and says with Newton's mechanics there is a wealth of detail, predictions that flow from the theory, but completely unlike Darwin's Theory gives no predictions. He says there is nothing wrong with looking and seeing at whatever survives, survives and whatever was, was, but we don't need a theory for that!

There is a very large difference between languages and life.  Using language development as proof that there is no species border doesn't make sense.  Besides, even the most complex language is far simpler than even a basic living organism.

Do you remember my little speech about the mole developing a human eye?  The mole doesn't have the information necessary to make that eye, or even enough genomes that a mutation could result in said eye.  The mole doesn't have the information necessary.  Therefore, for evolution to create this eye, it would have to either use random chance or be guided by some process.  If evolution isn't about chance, then something must tell the mole what to do.

And who is the fool for believing ET as though it was fact?

Genetic scientists tell us that all variation occurs in living things only within each type (kind) and never from one type to another. It is the DNA code itself that is so complicated that erects the barrier, the great wall which cannot be crossed.

There is no evidence in all the history of the world that even 1 true new species has formed from other species, yet evolutionary teachings require that such dramatic changes would have had to occur multiply of thousands upon thousands of time.