It still sounds to me like I've been politely insulted so I hope the information that follows fixes your wagon:

"" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology) "
"In physical cosmology, cosmic inflation, cosmological inflation or just inflation is the theorized extremely rapid exponential expansion of the early universe by a factor of at least 1078 in volume, driven by a negative-pressure vacuum energy density.[1] The inflationary epoch comprises the first part of the electroweak epoch following the grand unification epoch. It lasted from 10−36 seconds after the Big Bang to sometime between 10−33 and 10−32 seconds. Following the inflationary period, the universe continued to expand, but at a slower rate.""

The foregoing quoted paragraph if you watched the video in my previous post explains the concept of *"cosmic inflation"* which was tacked on to the *big bang theory* to explain the disparity of time (age of glaxies) and distance
And if you don't understand it, it also explains my comment in an earlier post about how these *big bang* theorists are now claiming the universe came into immediate existence ...

Oops, as if it had a mind of its own, after it popped out of its little hole and got far enough away to account for the time/distance disparity, it then supposedly slowed down, but continued to expand ...

Oops, one source I encounterred says our universe is *static*.

PS:
"(any teachings from the bible have no place in schools for example)."-UB

First UB, you're trying to label me as some sort of religious fanatic which I'm not
And second I've stated that there are words in the Bible worth conveying to our youth like:
you shouldn't commit murder and you shouldn't steal and you should pay your taxes.

rex

Last Edited : Tuesday, 18 December 2012 - 12:16

Whether the big bang theory holds up or not is not really the issue, since in the scientific method, any theory can be superseded by new evidence or new understanding. Someday we may find that the universe began in some other fashion if there is a reason to believe that. There is no shame in being ignorant, just in willful ignorance. For now, the common understanding is that the universe began as a tiny point of expanding energy, eventually allowing the formation of stars and galaxies.

Teaching a commonly held scientific theory in schools is not going to be aimed at converting anyone to a particular religion or stopping them from exercising their religion. Parents can teach skepticism to their children to help protect them from lies. Priests, ministers, rabbis, imams and other leaders can teach sacred knowledge in appropriate settings, just not in public schools in America.

I think that's about all I have to say on this issue at this time.

So, in the Mog Public Schools of America, how does one teach about the founding of our representative republic and our founding documents? "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." from the Declaration of Independence would need to be rewritten or ignored. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all persons will be equal, with certain rights that might include, life, liberty, happiness, or whatever other rights we might deign to allow them at any particular time and circumstance based on who happens to be in power." doesn't have quite the same authority or attraction. It is however more accurate to a godless society that we are in the process of creating. With no creation and no Creator, there are no unalienable rights endowed by Him. God created the universe and life and us. He is the basis for the founding of the United States and was the heart of our system of government. Efforts to remove Him have been, and are, a big mistake with ramifications far beyond our current societal situation or even our current existence.
There is nothing in the Constitution that prevents teachers from teaching religious beliefs in public schools in the US. Most of the same people who misread the right to bear arms to mean the government can decide if we can bear arms, also misread the prohibition on the Congress establishing a religion (ignoring the part about prohibiting "the free exercise thereof") to mean individual teachers in schools in the individual states must be prohibited from mentioning religion. In our Constitution, individual rights are protected and the government is prohibited from inhibiting our rights. Unfortunately many of our public servants have failed in their oath to uphold and defend the Constitution over the centuries...and the burden has shifted in the wrong direction.

As for the Big Bang Theory, I enjoy examining the perspective of Stephen Hawking who is considered an authority in the area by some. He has a book and an hour long TV show where he explains the universe and that there is no need for God to have a universe. He tells us how current research shows that at the sub-subatomic particle level there are particles that can wink in and out of existence and therefore it is completely reasonable that our entire universe was able to do this as one event in the past. He goes on to give an analogy of how this could be. His explanation is that it is like a flat piece of ground where there is nothing, then someone can come along and dig a hole making a negative hole and a positive pile that would maintain the previous balance and be just as likely. Thus, our universe is made of matter and anti-matter and all is in balance because of the Big Bang.
My question is: what happened to the person who dug the hole? My answer is: that was God saying "Let there be light." Prof. Hawking doesn't explain his view on the subject. I also find it amazing that matter can wink in and out of existence on a sub-atomic level and a universal level, but seems remarkably stable at the levels in the middle where we live. I guess we should watch out on 12/21/12 since the entire universe might wink out of existence or another one might wink into existence right on top of us. It could happen.

Do you mind if teachers teach Islam as the correct religion to your kids? How about if your kid's teacher was Hindu and said that Christianity was wrong? How about if you are Jewish and don't want to have to be forced to learn about Christianity in a public school funded by government? If you turn this around I think you'll see what I am talking about.

It would be very easy for me to teach about how the country and the Declaration and Constitution began without having our government endorsing a religion. I would say that some of the founders were Christian, some were Deists and some were probably what we call Atheists. In that time the founding fathers were virtually all from Protestant stock, having been Anglican or Baptist. Few were Catholic. None were Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, Jain, Shinto or Buddhist.

They therefore used speech that was prevalent in those times and the religion they were most connected to, to promote what they were doing. That included mentioning a creator as the originator of human rights. Since they were virtually all of the same or similar sects of Christianity they used the Christian God as the creator. If they had been Hindus it would have been Brahma. If they were Norse it would have been Odin, etc.

OK, now you can fire back something that shows me you neither read what I wrote or thought about it. You won't answer my questions, I know. See those questions up there? Would you like your kid to be indoctrinated in a different religion than yours in a public school? C'mon, answer me.

No,
but it's okay for him to say:
Confucius say man who stand on head too long get headache.

Mog,
You have me confused with someone else. It has been awhile since I have participated in these types of discussions here (they seem mostly useless), but I have always read your posts (and everyone elses...including any links if they worked) and responded with the best logic and reason I can muster.
I am happy to answer your questions (in order presented). Islam...there are schools where this happens now...I have to explain this to my children sometimes and it does not bother me (they have all done projects on the pillars of Islamic faith in public school). Hindu's do say Christianity is wrong...I am happy to explain their perspective to my children as well. If I were Jewish, I would have no larger problem dealing with what people said to my kids in school than I have with what they say on the street...that problem has been part of Jewish history since the Bible was written. The biggest problem I would have being either Muslim, Hindu, Jewish, or Christian would be people telling me or my children that the discussion of religion is out of bounds and only Atheists are entited to their opinion in public schools. That is truly offensive and is, in fact, establishing a religion.

Now, your turn to answer my question from earlier. If we are not created equal by our Creator with unalienable rights that flow from Him, what is your basis for our rights (what is the Atheist version of the Declaration)? If we have no basis for our rights, how do we determine what they are or protect the ones we would like to keep from an all powerful government (continuous conflict perhaps)? There is a reason the freedoms you take so much for granted started here in the US on the basis of these documents that recognize our Creator. That concept you abhor set our citizens apart from all others in world history. The thing that protects us from the selfish will of the dictator (King George III) and the tyranny of the majority (or unchecked minority) is the reliance on our equal rights bestowed on us all by our Creator. All of us (you, me, everyone) are free to have our own opinions and explain them to others...we are not free to unilaterally declare that other's opinions are not suitable for discussion to our children or society. That is where the core of our disagreements originate.

If I somehow failed to answer your questions, please explain my shortfall and give me another chance. I have tried my best to answer them sincerely. I hope you will do the same.
Respectfully,
H.

Last Edited : Tuesday, 18 December 2012 - 18:44

Excellent post Hwatta.

rex

I'll answer your questions, but what I asked you didn't answer. What if your child was told by implication that some other religion than yours was the only correct religion, in public school, paid for by tax dollars? Is that ok with you? This is what people object to, the imposition of some religious belief on their children by teachers. So, by extension, although you believe this is a Christian country, although it expressly isn't, others here don't agree with you. They don't wish to have your religion imposed on them.

I have absolutely no objection to the discussion of world religions in schools, but only as history, not as objective truth. That leads to fighting and death.

As for the question about inalienable rights, those were decided on by humans, not God. Jefferson wrote them down. God did not write the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution. Humans decided that God gave us those rights! Humans are capable of understanding their situation and codifying behavior without any help from any specific religion. Sure, it takes ideas derived from many sources including the bible, but also from American Indian government ideas, English common law, and common sense. (And as far as this agnostic is concerned, God has never communicated with humans directly so every holy text is written by man and not god, but that is a another discussion.)

I do not take our freedoms for granted and that is exactly why I protest when the freedom to not be forced to believe a particular religion is foisted on me. Making Christian religion the basis for thought in public school is not freedom, just the opposite. It teaches one to believe in it with no proof whatsoever and threatens you with punishment if you don't believe. That is coercion in my book. So leave it out of schools, please.

I suppose all human discourse beyond "give me your money" is pointless, huh? I hope I answered your questions.

Last Edited : Tuesday, 18 December 2012 - 20:02

You two are just not on the same wave length or something like that ...
you Mog say Hwatta hasn't answered your question where it seems to me that he has with the following:

"Islam...there are schools where this happens now...I have to explain this to my children sometimes and it does not bother me (they have all done projects on the pillars of Islamic faith in public school). Hindu's do say Christianity is wrong...I am happy to explain their perspective to my children as well. If I were Jewish, I would have no larger problem dealing with what people said to my kids in school than I have with what they say on the street...that problem has been part of Jewish history since the Bible was written. The biggest problem I would have being either Muslim, Hindu, Jewish, or Christian would be people telling me or my children that the discussion of religion is out of bounds and only Atheists are entited to their opinion in public schools. That is truly offensive and is, in fact, establishing a religion."

As far as concerns "endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights", Hwatta is trying to say that the document of our Declaration of Independence was intended to supercede the authority of King George in the minds of Americans by declaring that our rights and freedom are guaranteed to us by God ...
there were plenty of loyalists at the time.

As far as my desires concerning exposure of the Bible in our schools due to its value as a classic work of literature, your following statement satisfies me:

"I have absolutely no objection to the discussion of world religions in schools, but only as history, not as objective truth."-Mog

However, you keep trying to say that I want the Christian religion preached in our schools;
So to that I say:
please explain in greater depth the meaning of your statement above that I've quoted.

rex

Thanks Rex for your attempt to clarify and I suspect you are correct about the different wavelengths thing. I hope it helps.

The thrust of my answer (the part Rex quoted) is that, not only would it be OK with me...it actually happens already and I am fine with it. It is not a problem. It is OK.

The other thing that is happening in school and society is that American citizens are being told that the open discussion or expression of religion is not allowed. That I do object to, strenuously. Any idea, or opposition to any idea, should be able to stand up to free exchange of thought. One purpose of our rights is to protect that freedom for all of us. The current Atheist movement is trying to change the basis and restrict the practice of those rights.

If the founding fathers really meant there were rights they agreed upon as men, they would not have needed to cite the authority of our Creator to make the point. Had they not based their argument on God, they would have failed and we would not have the rights and freedom we are losing today. (Again, thanks Rex for the summary...our rights come from God...NOT men...otherwise we must argue about them with each individual man who disagrees, like King George III who believed our rights came from him.)

Other American citizens expressing their personal beliefs (in public school, on the street, or in the rotunda of the Capitol building that used to be a Christian church for the majority of its existence), is not a threat to anyone's religious freedom. It does not tell you what you must believe, only what others believe. Telling us we are not free to discuss the subject is taking our rights for granted. If it is OK for you to deny our right to express our beliefs, then we have the same right as men to deny yours. The fact you don't like being outnumbered is not a defense to this truth or make it any less an infringement on our designated right to exercise our religion in public.
Cheers,
H.

You have all the right in the world (or the USA anyway) to talk about, proselytize and spread your religious teachings anywhere EXCEPT in publicly funded spaces. Isn't that clear enough? You have all of society to speak to, many ways to do it, including churches, newspapers, magazines, the internet and so on. No one is trying to stop you from doing any of these things, just the things that impact those who don't happen to believe as you do.

The thing is that although Christians are the vast majority in this country they feel persecuted when told by the Supreme Court that it is unconstitutional to teach religion in public schools. This is for the sake of minority believers. it is fair to all.

As I said, as history it is important that people understand how religion has shaped our world for good and for bad so they can make up their own minds about what to believe.

You seem to still misunderstand my question to you or are willfully ignoring it to make some other point. I have tried hard to answer your questions and objections but you continue to gloss over the meat of my question. Would you allow teachers to teach your children a different religion than yours in a public school? By teach I mean proselytize for that religion to the exclusion of others. Sure, Islam is mentioned in schools, hard to avoid that, but what if the schools had to allow a prayer to Allah each morning, then a reading of the Koran, then a discussion of why Christians and jews are evil and wrong? I'll answer it for you since I expect you to duck it again, you almost certainly wouldn't go along with that. How about if they taught your kids that Greek Gods are the only true gods? Zeus and etc? How about if they said there was no god?

What I'm getting at here is that we as a people have long recognized that allowing a particular religion to be taught as true to kids in school is just not a good idea. If we lived in a monolithic religious country like some, that might be OK, but this is a diverse nation and no one gets to claim special rights because of their religious beliefs.

By the way, you are free to express your opinions about religions in schools as a private discussion, but the teachers can't. I never said anything about stifling religious thought or speech in the general sphere of human activity as you spuriously put those words in my mouth. I didn't ever say that.

Your argument about the creator giving us those rights is only according to you at this point in history. Is it necessary for there to be a creator as such to grant these rights that humans rather obviously made up themselves? Laws and morals develop because of human interactions and finding that some behaviors are bad for society. No need for a religion to give us morality, in fact, I can show you overwhelming evidence that religion has the exact opposite effect on people in many cases, turning them into heartless murderers for their beliefs. It happens every day all over the world, by believers of all the major religions. Scary people to me.

Hwatta, I think you would benefit form reading about civil liberties and those who defend them, they have been over this ground a million times and far more eloquently than I am capable of being. All of these issues have been talked about in depth and legislated on, also these issues have been repeatedly brought before the Supreme Court and even at its most conservative it hasn't allowed prayer in schools, or the teaching of religious dogma.

Cheers,
M.

(One other thing, you suppose that had the founding fathers not used the creator as the author of these rights they would have failed to create and sustain this country. Pure speculation on your part, I'm afraid. Not a good argument at all since it is your personal opinion based on your personal religious beliefs, not any historical accuracy that I am aware of. My opinion is that they would have done just as well or better, but t

There you go again Mog,
I ask you to elaborate upon this:
""I have absolutely no objection to the discussion of world religions in schools, but only as history, not as objective truth."-Mog";

That is, the ideas you WOULD ALLOW (i.e. including the teacher's allowance) in school;
But instead you elaborate on our right
"to talk about, proselytize and spread your religious teachings anywhere EXCEPT in publicly funded spaces."-Mog

rex

PS:
You're not going to like this Mog and I suspect that most teachers in the USA tend to shelve their right to TEACH ABOUT religion, but anyway, the answer to my question is here:

"" www.freedomforum.org/publications/first/teachersguide/teachersguide.pdf "
"Public schools may not inculcate nor inhibit religion. They must be places where religion and reli­gious conviction are treated with fairness and respect. Public schools uphold the First Amendment when they protect the religious liberty rights of students of all faiths or none. Schools demonstrate fairness when they ensure that the curriculum includes study about religion, where appropriate, as an important part of a complete education.""

If I'm not mistaken, you're also wrong about many of your opinions which they must be if you're wrong about them.
If a religious fanatic wanted to demonstrate his 1st Amendment rights, he could send his kid to school with a Bible and every chance that kid got to preach to the other kids from that Bible, he could
And the teacher could only stop him if the other kids complained that they were being harassed by him.

PPS:
Wish I could be there to hear the reaction when he gets to that part about it being okay to sell a chicken that died by itself to a gentile.

rex

Last Edited : Wednesday, 19 December 2012 - 16:35

If this is the meat of your question: "Would you allow teachers to teach your children a different religion than yours in a public school? By teach I mean proselytize for that religion to the exclusion of others. Sure, Islam is mentioned in schools, hard to avoid that, but what if the schools had to allow a prayer to Allah each morning, then a reading of the Koran, then a discussion of why Christians and jews are evil and wrong? I'll answer it for you since I expect you to duck it again, you almost certainly wouldn't go along with that. How about if they taught your kids that Greek Gods are the only true gods? Zeus and etc? How about if they said there was no god?", then my unambiguous, clear, concise answer is YES. I though I made it clear earlier, but you are ignoring my answer because you don't like it or don't believe it. In fact, my position is that it has been, is, and will continue to happen. I have NO problem with it and I deal with it as it happens. My kids have been forced to celebrate (not just hear about, celebrate) Ramadan and Kwanza, among other pagan feasts, in various public schools in various states and years (I have 4 kids with the 2 youngest now in High School). My children have actually lost points for well researched, properly written and cited papers that presented a perspective that the teacher objected to on religious grounds...in English classes in Junior High, High School and University level classes. It happens to Christian students everyday.
Again, to be clear, the problem is that some teachers believe as you do, that the mention of Christianity can be and/or is prohibited in public schools. This is not true and it is a violation of civil rights and the Constitution. (Thanks Rex for the link).
Also, prayer has been allowed in the public schools within our lifetimes Mog. The rulings you speak of have never been unanimous and it has never been ruled on by a conservative court. For almost 200 years, it wasn't even a question. As I said earlier, the same people who have difficulty understanding the plain words and historical context of our Constitution have no problem reading in other meanings from extraneous documents, foreign laws, or just thin air to meet their own political agenda (legislating from the bench is a liberal specialty). That is why the Constitution is important...it defends the rule of law, not of men. In practice, we have allowed 5 unelected individuals to define our rights instead of doing the hard work of actually passing laws or amending the Constitution. This is sad and another downfall of our elected officials as they fail to uphold their oath of office.
Regards,
H.

OK, your unambiguous answer is yes, so you don't mind if teachers tell your kids that their religion is wrong and that they should believe another one. Hmmm. Really, I think that is hard to believe. If I had kids and some public school teacher began preaching I'd have them in court tomorrow. And they'd lose.

Yes, in historical times we have allowed prayer and teaching religion in school. We also allowed slavery. Things change. The country isn't the same place it was demographically in 1950 or 1861.

I think this is where I bow out of this discussion, having said all I need to say and then had to repeat it a few times. Goad me as you will, I am done for now.

Then, I will make my final statement and bow out of the discussion as well.

I understand your point of view. You have presented it pretty clearly. I don't agree with it, but I understand it. Rights don't change because of demographics...if they do, they aren't really rights, only temporary legal decisions. I don't understand why you don't believe my answer or my point of view are genuine. I have never been anything but honorable and honest with you in any game we've played or in any of our forum discussions. I have no reason to lie to you and wouldn't even if I did (I'm not claiming I never make mistakes or misstatements...only that I never do it on purpose). I'm done for now, too.

Best regards,
H.

"As for the question about inalienable rights, those were decided on by humans, not God. Jefferson wrote them down. God did not write the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution. Humans decided that God gave us those rights! Humans are capable of understanding their situation and codifying behavior without any help from any specific religion. Sure, it takes ideas derived from many sources including the bible, but also from American Indian government ideas, English common law, and common sense. (And as far as this agnostic is concerned, God has never communicated with humans directly so every holy text is written by man and not god, but that is a another discussion.)"-Mog

Your *"English common law"* came down to them from Roman law through Latin via the Roman Catholic Church and the Pope and we Catholics believe that our Pope as the successor of Saint Peter communicates directly with God.

rex

"Your *"English common law"* came down to them from Roman law through Latin via the Roman Catholic Church and the Pope and we Catholics believe that our Pope as the successor of Saint Peter communicates directly with God. "

Can't all Christians communicate directly with God? That's what we call "prayer."

Neb,
you're obviously more pious than most of us in here, but Merry Christmas to all and to all a good night.

rex