So do you want a merger of church and state?

No, no, no 6am discussions with out any sleep are the best and should be immune for deletion. Maybe nothing good happens after 2am but everything great happens after 6am with no sleep.

I took a class in high school that taught all the basic beliefs of religions around the world it wasn't like you should become this religion or that, it was just how the religion started, holidays or whatever you want to call them and stuff along that nature. Yes I went to a traditional public high school LOL

Directly from the PBS facts: Check number 11. Directly from your own source. Evolution does not disprove Creationism. In fact, in some ways it supports it. Science has not yet tackled the question of God. It only has addressed what might have happened with the process of human development. Yet, there are still so many flaws in Evolution that is impossible to separate the actual facts from fiction. (Many "so-called finds" of the "missing links" are in fact hoaxes. Presented in an era where Science could not disprove them.) According to theory, some of the "missing links" would still be living.

Evolution has parts of it that are proven such as Natural Selection and Bacterias ability to survive and live off of the one set of mutations that keep it alive hence why we are finding that penicillin the basis for most of our modern medicine is becoming less and less effective as super bugs are being created that have to have 100% Chemical medications to kill them. This is microevolution and so far we have yet to see the next step in evolution as for the missing gaps their are a few but as evolution covers the evolving nature of the entire living organisms on this planet. Bacteria so far haven't been able to make a new form of bacteria yet they have been mutations of the DNA of the Bacteria. The issue with creationism is NON of it can be proven. As Evolution doesn't cover the big bang that is an unrelated theory in a completely different arm of science. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/ http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/ Also Natural Selection is a Law meaning it has been proven to be true as well it doesn't really state much but the strongest survive which has always been the case. See bacteria dieing or the fact that Neanderthals don't still wander the earth. We most likely killed them. Creationism as I said before lacks any proof for it to become an even half attempt at a scientific theory the only evidence for it is a book(s) that are written by man and if we are going to start and allow non scientific community supported ideas to come into the class room of science maybe then we should allow the Middle Earth description and creation given by JRR Tolken to taught in science class. In science class (Biology) That the theory of Evolution is for the most part accepted by the majority of the scientific community and yes as of late they have made some changes to it as new information has come out on the ideas of how things happened. Science is always looking for both ways to prove itself right and also to prove itself wrong. Scientist don't care about proving itself right or wrong they care about the truth I tell you tomorrow if God came down from the Heavens and talked to a scientist or a group of them and was able to prove that this was indeed god. Then they would admit it.

For those that oppose the concept of separation of church and state they carefully avoid what they want in it's place or to what degree they want the church and state to intermingle. Speaking about Catholic candidates Christine O'Donnell is a Catholic. If anyone was going to have their vote dictated to by the Church it would be her. We already have problems with lawmakers being denied communion because they vote a certain way as you point out. If anyone is concern with Sharia law becoming to America the first line of defense against this type of law is the separation of church and state. It's kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy. They argue against separation of church and state then they worry about the a religious law coming to America. If they want to see a Nativity scene put it in front of their church why does it have to be in front of the court house or some other government building?

Can't you just picture Christine O'Donnell making a speech on the Senate floor about how some bill is in violation of HER religious faith? Of course, she didn't know the First Amendment and actually thought she'd "won" that point in her debate the other night. Great point about the Nativity scene. It always seems like people like Glenn Beck have to stir things up by talking about a "war on Christmas" so then people will decide they MUST have it in front of the court house. I think Glenn Beck has turned a lot of perfectly reasonable people into blooming idiots looking for a fight over nothing! Annie

"Can't you just picture Christine O'Donnell making a speech on the Senate floor about how some bill is in violation of HER religious faith?" Supposition. "Of course, she didn't know the First Amendment and actually thought she'd "won" that point in her debate the other night." Incorrect, the moderator did not know the first amendment, Odonnel was right. "Great point about the Nativity scene. It always seems like people like Glenn Beck have to stir things up by talking about a "war on Christmas" so then people will decide they MUST have it in front of the court house." I think you have that backwards. Someone wants a nativity scene, they are told some garbage about it being a first amendment violation and THEN there is a percieved war on Christmas **Special note on this. The first amendment guarantees that the free practice of religion, it doesn't put religious practice in the shadows and guaranty that a non christian won't get their eyes burnt out by having to look at a manger when they walk by the library.

Boy you are on a kick of calling everything a straw man now aren't you. In a way you are using a straw man by saying that I am say that Christian O'Donnell supports theocracy. Though what I am saying is that O'Donnell has displayed ignorance about matters of the Constitution when it comes to religion and the state as to when it comes to teaching creationism side by side evolution. My question was simple if you do not believe in a separation of church and state then it is safe to say that you want the church and the state not to be separated.

If it walks like a straw man (ok so straw men can't really walk) and it talks like a straw man (yeh, I know, they can't talk either) then it's probably a straw man. It's a common type of flawed argument. Many people do it with out even really realizing it. But I tell you what, I won't use the term again for a week. I just put a quarter jar on my computer desk for every time I slip up.

"In a way you are using a straw man by saying that I am say that Christian O'Donnell supports theocracy" Lol, Touche'! See? It's an easy thing to do with out realizing it.

Look. Up. Scientific. Theory. Seriously, the lack of scientific knowledge people present is astonishing. Are you even conscious of the amount evidence it takes for something to become a scientific theory? To suggest that creationism is on the same scientific level as evolution is ridiculous. (Hint: "Theory" in the colloquial sense ? Scientific Theory")

With all of the holes in Evolution it is sad that schools are treating it as a fact and not the theory that it still is. Thus, if you are going to teach any theory, you should teach about the flaws and what Science has yet to explain. Moreover, it is prudent to explain other theories however irrelevant to achieve the ultimate balance in Scientific exploration. Yet, evolution is still more of a belief than a theory. Science has "proven" UFOs too.

Creationism isn't a theory and the only one that is close to it is intelligent Design but that has a massive hole in it. How are you going to prove their is a Designer is one the other is sense we have mapped the Human DNA and knows what each pair does for the most part we have found in our DNA and that of other Plants and animals that their is indeed Junk Code in their which would go to prove evolution that pieces of the code for some reason has indeed become inactive. Also they have found through genitive mutation that you can cause a chicken to regress to an earlier form of itself remember seeing it on the Science Channel a few years ago. As for the Aliens thing it would be the same as the Creationism/ Intelligent design which hasn't gained any real backing as it has the big holes of Junk DNA Code and Can't prove a creator and in science if you can prove even the slight hint of it being their it most likely isn't yet. As well we didn't believe that things could go faster than light but have reason to believe through Math that indeed such things exist called Quanta which make up Quantum Theory which is another subject Theoretical Physics. So since Creationism isn't a theory it doesn't belong in a science class they could teach the theory of Intelligent Design which sounds like creationism without god created the universe in 7 days. Because well in order to do that either our time is really slow or god is moving at really fast speeds which at least according to the Quran apparently God moves at the speed of light which would mean Gods mass is infinite and assuming some of you on here would have little to know what that means. If space and time is a fabric that is stretched out to where it is flat and you put a weight in the middle it would make the fabric around the mass to go down bending space and time around it. Well if you have a mass big enough you can break space and time. Maybe even being able to bend it so much that it touches and you can travel massive distances (One end of universe to other )in seconds or jump back in time. Or in this case create the Universe in a merely 7 days our time. on your list Evolution is the only one to have some basis in science as Natural Selection is proven and for the most part so is "micro evolution" which isn't actually a term used by scientist it is used by Young Earth Creationist to avoid the provability of Evolution if they deem "micro evolution" to be something different. When it isn't.

Okay I will accept that Cryus the Great was the originator of freedom of religion and looking it up you are right.

Didn't know that I would like to see a link or I guess I could look it up myself. Hey anyway I learned something new.

Just go to Wikipedia and type in Cyrus the Great it has a lot of info on him.

Well I am glad to hear of an evangelical Christian that thinks the way that you think.

As mentioned in an earlier response creationism can be taught in a philosophy class, and probably it should be taught as long as every religious creation narrative is discussed too. My problem is it has no place in a science classroom and yet there is a vocal minority that wants to force creationism in the science classroom.

I found it funny that you brought up that Muslims believe in the creation theory which isn't a theory at all but that is neither here nor there. Teaching religion at the local level is not a basic libertarian stance. If you think that is libertarianism then you need to examine libertarianism a little bit closer. Now I will grant you than teach religion through a taxpayer funded schools might be a conservative stance but it is not a libertarian stance. As to there rest of your response about how you were deprived of being able to sing about your Christ but you learned song from other religions, I am sorry that is why religion should not exist in any school funded by taxpayers.

I didn't mean to be funny, I just like to point out that it isn't just some Christians who might hold to a literal interpretation of religious explanations of Creation. I didn't say that teaching religion at any level was a libertarian stance. A libertarian perspective is maximum personal liberty and definitely a de-centralizing of much of what the federal gov't now thinks is within its scope and is not meant to be constitutionally speaking. I contend that a local school district could make its own rules if they are agreed upon by a majority of the residents of the community. After all, they would be the taxpayers in question. I didn't say I was deprived or that I didn't learn songs about Christ. Did you learn to skim in a speed reading course? My point is that you cannot exclude only one or two religions and include others and call it separation of church and state - you have to exclude ALL religion. They don't do this. Despite what you might perceive to be my views, the truth is that it is of no consequence to me whether they allow prayer in school or sing Nativity songs - my faith is not challenged by this.

I don't want anyone denied the right to worship or not worship how ever they please, well I guess there should be some exception, animal and human sacrifices. That is why a separation of church and state is necessary.

You got to keep'em separated, isn't that a song?