Continuation to Helix the II's Evolution, Fact or Theory?

from JoeUser Forums
Well.. Helix the II locked the Evolution, Fact or Theory post. So I am continuing it on my own post.

Quote from Helix the II: My concern isn't circled around intent and you do agree, Daiwa, that it is unlawful (no matter how much sense it makes to you) for the judge to declare the sticker unconstitutional, since nowhere is religion endorsed, enspoused, or forced upon anyone. It isn't suggested you read the bible, attend sunday school, or pray to God. It does not say abandon your science, it says question it. That's all the sticker says. It is purely that simple, no matter who wanted that sticker placed there or why. Your problem is not the sticker, but the people.

Now, the problem with this argument is that the entire problem with the sticker is the intent. It was put on the books to promote religion, and therefore it is obviously endorsing religion. Therefore, it is unconstitutional. If the sticker said, "The things included in this textbook are the generally accepted scientific theories. As is expected in science, some things have not been conclusively proven and may eventually be found to be incorrect. While the things contained in this book are generally considered to be the best theories and explanations available, and will be the only theories and explanations taught, the reader will be permitted to come to their conclusions. The reader is encouraged to continue their academic road into the future keeping abreast of the latest changes in the scientific theories contained in this book.", then this would be acceptable because the reasoning behind it is to educate the reader to the fact that the things in the book are only theories, and it promotes staying abreast of the latest accepted theories. The sticker actually placed on the book undermined the education of the students. Students have a constitutionally protected right to receive a proper education in public schools, and such things as these stickers prevent that from happening. Religious fanatics can not be given the ability to undermine society simply by declaring that their actions are "just warnings". My problem, Helix, is both with the sticker, and with people such as you that irrationally support such nonsense. So in that sense, I guess you are right. I do have a problem with the people.
politics
17,305 views 25 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
Now, the problem with this argument is that the entire problem with the sticker is the intent. It was put on the books to promote religion,


Now *prove* that theroy or find something else to hammer on.
Reply #2 from PolMach Forums Top
Now *prove* that theroy or find something else to hammer on.


most scientific theory cannot be proved. do we put a sticker on everything?
Sins of a Solar Empire II
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
Okay the sticker is reafirming that evolution is just a theory so as not to appear to be pressing it on people...it's supposed to keep the schools and makers of the books out of trouble. Apparently people are still pissed....in this day and age half the people will be pissed and the other half will be slightly more pissed....politics suck...the end.

~Zoo
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply #3 By: whoman69 - 1/16/2005 9:48:05 PM
Now *prove* that theroy or find something else to hammer on.


most scientific theory cannot be proved. do we put a sticker on everything?


If required... YES!
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
Doc... what is your response to my sticker?
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
do we put a sticker on everything?


I have a good place to put some stickers....

~Zoo
Reply #7 from PolMach Forums Top
If required... YES!


So when is it required? Would that be when it somehow comes into conflict with religious dogma? I believe in God in no way believe that the theory of evolution or even the big bang theory lessen my faith. The bible is a guide not to be taken literally. We should take its teachings and learn from them. Literal arguments from the bible have been used to back the ideas of slavery, torture and racism. They were used to form the Spanish Inquisition and the crusades.
God said let there be light, and there was a big bang. No problem. He built the earth in seven days. Just how long is a day for an immortal? There is proof that life existed on this planet millions of years before homo sapiens arrived. With a literal interpretation of the bible that is not possible. The other life forms on our world could only be a couple of days older than man. Does the fact that it is literally not true make the bible any less true? No, it is still a valid source for our daily lives.
Reply #8 from PolMach Forums Top
You get an insightful. And I think Sandy has taken this off in a new direction. I beleive as you do, however, I do not believe that judges should MAKE law. As the sticker was not religious, and completely within the rights of the Citizens to decide for themselves, then I have a problem.


it was religious in that only evolution was singled out. there are other theories out that not able to be proven in fact. is there a sticker on those. no, the only reason that sticker is there is for religious reasons. that is why the stickers were removed.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top

So when is it required? Would that be when it somehow comes into conflict with religious dogma? I believe in God in no way believe that the theory of evolution or even the big bang theory lessen my faith. The bible is a guide not to be taken literally. We should take its teachings and learn from them. Literal arguments from the bible have been used to back the ideas of slavery, torture and racism. They were used to form the Spanish Inquisition and the crusades.
God said let there be light, and there was a big bang. No problem. He built the earth in seven days. Just how long is a day for an immortal? There is proof that life existed on this planet millions of years before homo sapiens arrived. With a literal interpretation of the bible that is not possible. The other life forms on our world could only be a couple of days older than man. Does the fact that it is literally not true make the bible any less true? No, it is still a valid source for our daily lives.

You get an insightful.  And I think Sandy has taken this off in a new direction.  I beleive as you do, however, I do not believe that judges should MAKE law.  As the sticker was not religious, and completely within the rights of the Citizens to decide for themselves, then I have a problem.

Again, I state my mantra.  If you do not like a law, change it, dont break it.  The Judge broke the law, plain and simple, and his reasoning is bordering on the psychotic.

Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
the only way I support this is if they require every Bible to carry a sticker that says that God can't be proved and therefore caution should be taken when reading the book

the Qu'ran, et al also need this
Reply #11 from PolMach Forums Top
it was religious in that only evolution was singled out. there are other theories out that not able to be proven in fact. is there a sticker on those. no, the only reason that sticker is there is for religious reasons. that is why the stickers were removed.


There I will disagree. WHile I will not contend the intent was religious, the sticker was not. And there fore, while I would not want it posted, as long as it did not violate any laws, and it did not, the judge did not have any right or precedence to veto it.

When it comes down to it, you can associate almost any law as relgious based upon the fact it was inspired by religion. That it does not promote a religion or interfere with anyone's right to excercise their religion, then it should not be trhown out on the whim of an individual. Dont like it? Pass a law or revoke one. Dont make one dictatorially.
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
There I will disagree. WHile I will not contend the intent was religious, the sticker was not. And there fore, while I would not want it posted, as long as it did not violate any laws, and it did not, the judge did not have any right or precedence to veto it.

When it comes down to it, you can associate almost any law as relgious based upon the fact it was inspired by religion. That it does not promote a religion or interfere with anyone's right to excercise their religion, then it should not be trhown out on the whim of an individual. Dont like it? Pass a law or revoke one. Dont make one dictatorially.


You seem to have a problem with the power held by the Judicial branch. While you may think that this is a recent "abuse" of power, the power of the Judicial branch to decide laws goes back to almost the creating of the Supreme Court. I am blanking out on the precidence case, but it was ruled that the Judicial branch has oversight regarding laws and their constitutionality. Here is where I have my question. Since you seem opposed to the power of the Judicial branch, did you have a problem when the supreme court gave the presidency to George W. Bush?
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top

You seem to have a problem with the power held by the Judicial branch. While you may think that this is a recent "abuse" of power, the power of the Judicial branch to decide laws goes back to almost the creating of the Supreme Court. I am blanking out on the precidence case, but it was ruled that the Judicial branch has oversight regarding laws and their constitutionality. Here is where I have my question. Since you seem opposed to the power of the Judicial branch, did you have a problem when the supreme court gave the presidency to George W. Bush?


Number 1, the power was never given to the Judicial to MAKE laws, only to interpret them (read the constitution).


Number 2, Nothing was given.  What was stated was that the courts (Read Fla Supremes) cannot arbitrarily change laws to suit their wants and desires. 


Dont go there, you will lose.  Nothing was given, and even in hindsight (with the media being the sight), nothing was lost by gore.  If you would like, I can site you paragraph and verse on why your post is not only wrong, but stupid.  For now, I will let you just research the truth.  And not post any more incorrect statements.

Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
I want stickers on all works of fiction, too, saying that they shouldn't be taken seriously. And stickers on all works of non-fiction that say that there are possibilities that minor inaccuracies exist in them. And then I want stickers on the stickers saying that they are strictly advisory stickers and shouldn't keep anyone from reading a book.
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #12 By: sandy2 - 1/17/2005 1:44:06 PM
You seem to have a problem with the power held by the Judicial branch. While you may think that this is a recent "abuse" of power, the power of the Judicial branch to decide laws


To *decide* laws then yes they should have that power. To *make* laws? No frelling way!
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
I want stickers on all laws saying that they are merely in existance because they have not yet been considered constitutional, and that one day they might be considered thus, so beware.
Reply #17 from PolMach Forums Top
There I will disagree. WHile I will not contend the intent was religious, the sticker was not. And there fore, while I would not want it posted, as long as it did not violate any laws, and it did not, the judge did not have any right or precedence to veto it.

When it comes down to it, you can associate almost any law as relgious based upon the fact it was inspired by religion. That it does not promote a religion or interfere with anyone's right to excercise their religion, then it should not be trhown out on the whim of an individual. Dont like it? Pass a law or revoke one. Dont make one dictatorially.


There is no other science theory that has these stickers, so if the intent is religious in nature the stickers are religious. You have just adopted a state sanction religion by doing so and that is against the Constitution.
Reply #19 from PolMach Forums Top
There is no other science theory that has these stickers, so if the intent is religious in nature the stickers are religious. You have just adopted a state sanction religion by doing so and that is against the Constitution.


No, you just have gone over to the dictatorial. That you admit it does not violate law, means that you adhere to self appointed jerks to make law. There was NO RELIGION in the stickers. period. THERE IS NO BASIS to void it. Period.

It was not sanctioning any religion, it was not promoting any religion. It was not religious. It was stupid, but show me where in the constitution where it says the people cannot be stupid?

No, spare me your dictatorial diatribe. I Still believe in the people to enact laws of their own, no matter how stupid. Stupid? change them. We dont need hilters to tell us they are stupid and to abrogate them.
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
It was not sanctioning any religion, it was not promoting any religion. It was not religious. It was stupid, but show me where in the constitution where it says the people cannot be stupid?


This is correct in my view. We have the right to be stupid. And we exercise that right regularly.

My view is that the sticker has no business existing, but that the judge was wrong to find it unconstitutional. As long as the teachers were free to educate (without proselytizing) and creationism was not required to be taught as science, I'm OK with the sticker's content - no sweat off anyone's back. But we all see the elephant sitting in the corner and we should stop pretending it's not there.

And thanks, Sandy, for keeping the thread going.

Cheers,
Daiwa
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
Uh oh.....................
I'm gonna hafta put stickers on my Palm Pilot. I carry SciFi novels in it, so it's gonna need stickers. I hope somebody develops a palm sticker disclaimer for this. But, I downright refuse to put stickers on my TV, regardless of what I'm watching.
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
I would love there to be stickers on my credit card bills advising me that until all purchases are positively proven to have been made, I don't have to pay the balance. Yeah, that would be nice.
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
I think it's a ploy by sticker manufactorers to make money.


Another example of your thorough understanding of liberal thought, Myrr. Self-awareness is a wonderful thing. Good one.

Cheers,
Daiwa