Florida Atheists Sue Over Prayers at City Meetings
We read:
"A Central Florida atheist organization has filed a federal lawsuit against the City of Lakeland over opening city commission meetings with prayer.
The lawsuit comes after the Atheists of Florida voiced specific outrage over the use of the name "Jesus Christ." An April 5 meeting became heated after a citizen got into a yelling match with the atheists, prompting commissioners to recess the meeting.
Courts have ruled invocations at meetings of government bodies are constitutional under some conditions. Lakeland’s policy has been ruled constitutional by the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, which stipulated that governments must make a reasonable effort to incorporate all religious faiths.
Source
But would they be game to question invocations to Allah? Or would they just sit there quietly and congratulate themselves on how "tolerant" they were?
35 comments:
This is why religion should be kept out of public meetings and state affairs, because not everyone in society belongs to the same religion or denomination or recognizes any religion at all.
The US is a democracy (representative/republican) so the majority doesn't have the right to squash minority opinions as in "might-is-right" and "tyranny of the majority". The Founding Fathers anticipated this problem.
Sorry, but religion is at the core of our United States Government, and the foundation upon which this nation was built. Our Founding Fathers never intended that religion be removed from everything, including government. They wanted to ensure that no one church (or denomination) would become the "state" church. It was all about DENOMINATIONAL tolerance, not INTER-RELIGIOUS tolerance. The era before and during the founding of the United States was fraught with disputes and issues about the authority and political power of the Catholic Church in Rome and the Church of England, not between Christians, Atheists, Jews, and Muslims.
-Look at the Declaration of Independence. It mentions "Creator" and "God" several times.
-Look at the United States Constitution. It is signed "...in the year of our LORD..." which directly references Jesus Christ.
-Church services used to be held in the Capital Building.
-The "New England Primer", containing Biblical and Christian references, and the Bible were the accepted reading and teaching books at schools.
What further evidence do you need? Or do you dismiss historical fact because it's not Politically Correct?
Anon 653,
Yawn.
6:53AM - I was referring to the avoidance of unnecessary disputes and confrontations at public meetings, etc. Of course 200+ years ago most people in the American colonies were Christian or from a Christian culture.
"The US is a democracy (representative/republican) "
Fundamentally wrong. the US is a republic which happens to have a somewhat democratic process at current to decide who the people in power should be.
How is that comment "fundamentally wrong"? You have also just described a representative democracy, and "republican" describes a republic. I think you are just nit-picking for the sake of it.
Anon 6:04, America is a (republic) with a (democratic) form of government. Well, that's what it used to be anyway.
That's what he said - duh!
Atheism really is just as much a religion as Christianity, Wicca, or Islam. Its position is simply "counter" to the others. And the fact remains that when you break down science and reason, fundamentally they both ultimately rely on faith.
"when you break down science and reason, fundamentally they both ultimately rely on faith."
Only morons would think that. Did you fail all your science classes, bozo?
Anon 1:06 needs to do more studying.
What caused the universe to come into existence?
What are the requirements for even the simplest first cell to form? What are the odds of that happening?
What must be true for life to even be possible?
Why are the missing links still missing?
How does naturalism explain the Cambrian explosion?
2:07 AM So what is your *scientific* explanation for all those questions, and how do you relate it to what the majority of accredited scientists have published on those topics ?????
Btw. I suspect you misunderstand the meaning of "explosion" in the 'Cambrian explosion' - it actually took place over an extremely long period, but periods are relative in geological history, so it just seems like an "explosion".
More wackiness from the vatican. From the Guardian:
The Vatican today made the “attempted ordination” of women one of the gravest crimes under church law, putting it in the same category as clerical sex abuse of minors, heresy and schism.
Women might interfer with the big gay circle jerk in the Vatican!
Prayer does not work. Look here.
Anon 3:10, Oh those crazy men in dresses and funny hats! Yeah, we you you guys seriously.
"I suspect you misunderstand the meaning of "explosion" in the 'Cambrian explosion'"
—Anon 2:27
"In any case, this initial period of both internal and external flexibility yielded a range of invertebrate anatomies that may have exceeded (in just a few million years of production) the full scope of animal form in all the earth's environments today (after more than 500 million years of additional time for further expansion). Scientists are divided on this question. Some claim that the anatomical range of this initial explosion exceeded that of modern life, as many early experiments died out and no new phyla have ever arisen. But scientists most strongly opposed to this view allow that Cambrian diversity at least equaled the modern range - so even the most cautious opinion holds that 500 million subsequent years of opportunity have not expanded the Cambrian range, achieved in just five million years. The Cambrian explosion was the most remarkable and puzzling event in the history of life."
—Stephen Jay Gould, Paleontologist
Richard Dawkins described the appearance of invertebrates in the Cambrian period this way:
"It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history."
—The Blind Watchmaker, pg. 229
Atheism is not a holy cause.
Luke are you dishonestly not completing that quote from Dawkins?
Rather like the creationists who quote just the first part of Darwin's comment on the eye and leave out the rest which makes a different conclusion - Í guess morality doesn't always come with religion!
Apparently you are dishonestly forgetting the point: that the Cambrian Explosion was a sudden (in evolutionary terms) appearance of every basic body type. The point was that even Dawkins recognizes that. (Which the short quote is sufficient to establish.)
Here's the full quote:
"For example the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists."
Then he continues on to attempt to explain this away…
[picking up in the next sentence] "Evolutionists of all stripes believe, however, that this really does not represent a very large gap in the fossil record, a gap that is simply due to the fact that, for some reason, very few fossils have lasted from periods before about 600 million years ago. One good reason might be that many of these animals had only soft parts to their bodies: no shells or bones to fossilize. If you are a creationist you may think this is special pleading."
So here, he admits that there are no "precursor" fossils in the pre-Cambrian strata. Thus the "sudden appearance" of the Cambrian explosion.
In fact, there is not a "gap" between the Cambrian period and some earlier period any more than there is a "gap" before the first page of a book. The fossils prior to the Cambrian period are primarily single-celled organisms. There aren't any signs of precursor (as in evolving) creatures leading up to the Cambrian period.
(Still think I'm mischaracterizing/misunderstanding the "Cambrian Explosion"?)
So that demands a theory for why there are no precursor fossils. Dawkins' theory (soft bodies didn't fossilize) makes sense, until you learn that fossils of some soft bodied creatures do appear in the pre-Cambrian strata, including very, very delicate creatures such as sponge embryos.
Luke - just what are you trying to prove - that the Bible is right - that in the pre-Cambrian era there was a 6-day divine creation by the Jewish God Yaweh? If so please give some more specific scientific evidence of that "fact".
You claimed Christianity is anti-science. But here you are debating scientific evidence. I thought you said that wasn't possible?
The theory of natural evolution posits ever increasing complexity in the biological world. The Cambrian Explosion contradicts that theory. Stephen Jay Gould suggested a theory of punctuated equilibrium to explain such sudden changes in the fossil record, but that has apparently also been falsified.
When you have evidence of occurrences which violate natural laws, what possible causes are there?
Human error and undiscovered facts.
So those possibilities fundamentally distort the entire field of paleontology? And for all of the past 150 years?
New facts modify current models and modes of thinking. You don't need to be overly dramatic here.
Albert Einstein did not overturn Newtonian physics. He added details. Why would you expect any science to be different?
The fact is that paleontologists have been looking for missing links for more than a century. The fact is that they've dug below where the fossils stop. The fact is that the species complexity curve discovered in the Cambrian layers are the exact opposite of the curve predicted by Darwinian evolution.
These are not small, peripheral facts. They are central to the question of when did the various life forms appear, and what intermediate steps were there (or not).
Paleontologists aren't simply scratching the surface of fossils anymore. They've completed 80 to 90% of the puzzle. While they're still filling in around the edges, the places where transitional forms should be do not contain such fossils. They've already looked. There is no "there" there.
You sound like a guy praying for a last minute reprieve from a governor who has already promised to dance on your grave.
We've been debating a single area of all the areas of scientific inquiry I mentioned. Can you answer my questions in the other areas?
So, you are ready to discount all new facts because the current results suits your world view? Science and models evolve. Evidently, you don't. You are still being quite dramatic with all of the BOLD text.
Whoo…
So BOLD IS SCARY AND CAUSES AN ARGUMENT TO BE INVALID? Wow! Who knew?
Such sound "reasoning"… NOT!
Tell me, do you understand the difference between "new information that refines what has been discovered to date" and "new information which fundamentally replaces everything discovered to date"? The former is the normal pace of science. The latter happens occasionally, but only in the very earliest days of proper inquiry.
For example, in the early days of astronomy, the earth was thought to be the center of the universe. But as telescopes began to improve, they discovered problems with that theory, eventually leading to the realization that the sun is actually the center of the solar system. Then it was thought that the planets' orbits were circular, until it was discovered that they're elliptical. But notice that once the central fact of a heliocentric solar system was established, additional facts did not replace that fact, merely added information to what had been established.
At this point, if you were to suggest to an astronomer that there may be some other, yet to be discovered facts that could overturn the heliocentric model of the solar system, they would wonder what drugs you've been taking. The simple fact is that once the central premise was discovered, additional facts not only adjusted the model slightly, but strengthened the reliability of the central theory.
Paleontology is a younger discipline than astronomy, but it's still more than 150 years old. Even when Darwin wrote his famous books, he mentions that there was already a visible pattern appearing of species showing up in the fossil record without any transitional forms. But he fully expected transitional forms to appear which would validate his theory. At that time, in the early days of paleontology, that was a reasonable possibility.
Since then, there has been 150 years of focused efforts to try to locate those transitional forms by thousands of scientists who are absolutely convinced that evolution is true. Yet all they've found is distinct species with no transitional forms. It's no longer the early days of fossil research. The odds of finding something to completely overturn a pattern which has been developing for more than 150 years are slim to none, and slim is on the train out of town.
So which one of us knows the science? Which one is operating on blind faith? You're the one hoping for radical new facts to appear in a mature science.
Faith does not have to be blind. You can put your faith in someone you've never met before. Or you can put it in someone you've known well for decades. One is blind faith, the other is based in knowledge. I much prefer the latter. How about you?
All I said earlier, "New facts modify current models and modes of thinking."
You extrapolated from there in your own dramatic way. Where did I say that new facts -replace- current models?
The point is that in order for the fossil evidence to not contradict Darwinism, the new facts would have to essentially replace what has been discovered so far.
Creationists think that by trying to pick holes in various sources of current scientific thinking ( though they seem quite happy to misrepresent it either deliberately or through ignorance)- they seem to think that by default they are proving their 6-day creation by the Israelites' war-god, Yahweh. However,they never of course present a scientific case for that miraculous creation, much less one that's been published in a reputable scientific journal.
"they never of course present a scientific case for that miraculous creation,"
The Blackwell Companion on Natural Theology
From page 1:
"Natural theology is the practice of philosophically reflecting on the existence and nature of God independent of real or apparent divine revelation or scripture. Traditionally, natural theology involves weighing arguments for and against God's existence, and it is contrasted with revealed theology, which may be carried out within the context of ostensible revelation or scripture. … Natural theology, on the other hand, develops arguments about God based on the existence of the cosmos, the very concept of God, and different views of the nature of the cosmos, such as its ostensible order and value."
In short, natural theology studies the question of the existence of God based solely on science.
A search on Amazon for "natural theology" found 1,785 books. I assume that most of them are not actually about natural theology (Amazon's search errs on the inclusive side) but the first several pages of books are on the topic. Natural theology is a subset of apologetics which is an evidential approach to examining the validity of the Bible and Christianity. A search for "apologetics" on Amazon turned up 6,932.
Your claim doesn't bear up under the evidence. In fact, it's simply ludicrous.
"much less one that's been published in a reputable scientific journal."
That turns out to be circular reasoning. Evolutionists refuse to allow intelligent design articles to be published using the claim that they're "not scientific", regardless of how solid the science in the article is. Then that's used to claim the theories are "not scientific" because they haven't published.
For example, look at what happened to Richard Sternberg when he allowed a pro-intelligent design article (which passed peer review) to be printed in the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington.
“It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes … for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”
—Richard Lewontin, New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997
Thought so - no scientific evidence - just "philosophy" and theological argumentation = woffle.
Post a Comment