Whoever said 'Separation of Church & State'?
We hear it all the time; Separation of Church & State. Does it say this in the United States Constitution, or, more specifically, the Bill of Rights? The answer is no.
The First Amendment in the Bill of Rights reads:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Nowhere does it state that government shall rule to keep religion out of state matters either. My question is this: Who was the first person to say 'Separation of Church & State'? Or whoever said it was the government's job to keep the theory of intelligent design out of school? If the state can allow the teaching of evolution, then why not intelligent design? It can easily be argued that the study of evolution is a religion. (I'll give those who don't agree with me a moment to calm down.)
Think about that for a moment, unless of course you've turned the newspaper into a crumpled mess on the floor for the cat to play with at this point.
Intelligent design says that something was smart enough to make everything work together. He/She put the earth just the right distance from the sun, made the conditions just right, set the ball rolling with animals and made humans dominate, then sat back to watch what would happen.
Evolution says that something happened, all of the makings of life suddenly existed, and life was made where no life was before. Different species developed over millions of years out of slime in a pond, only one got smart, and there you have life as we know it.
I don't see the problem with throwing both of them out there and letting our kids draw from their parents' teachings and their own brains (oh, I forgot, we don't want them to use those while in school, just to do what they're told). Hmm, maybe if presented with both, kids would lean towards intelligent design.
Why doesn't anyone ever bring up the part in the First Amendment that states; 'or prohibiting the free exercise thereof'? This sounds like prohibiting to me!
The First Amendment in the Bill of Rights reads:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Nowhere does it state that government shall rule to keep religion out of state matters either. My question is this: Who was the first person to say 'Separation of Church & State'? Or whoever said it was the government's job to keep the theory of intelligent design out of school? If the state can allow the teaching of evolution, then why not intelligent design? It can easily be argued that the study of evolution is a religion. (I'll give those who don't agree with me a moment to calm down.)
Think about that for a moment, unless of course you've turned the newspaper into a crumpled mess on the floor for the cat to play with at this point.
Intelligent design says that something was smart enough to make everything work together. He/She put the earth just the right distance from the sun, made the conditions just right, set the ball rolling with animals and made humans dominate, then sat back to watch what would happen.
Evolution says that something happened, all of the makings of life suddenly existed, and life was made where no life was before. Different species developed over millions of years out of slime in a pond, only one got smart, and there you have life as we know it.
I don't see the problem with throwing both of them out there and letting our kids draw from their parents' teachings and their own brains (oh, I forgot, we don't want them to use those while in school, just to do what they're told). Hmm, maybe if presented with both, kids would lean towards intelligent design.
Why doesn't anyone ever bring up the part in the First Amendment that states; 'or prohibiting the free exercise thereof'? This sounds like prohibiting to me!
posted by Logan VanLandingham at 10:58 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home