The Enlightened One
Contrarian
I think it was by design but I have no proof for this
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Remove Abraham Lincoln from the history books
- Thread starter lostwanderingsoul
- Start date
What's wrong with this post is that it's author fails to mention that Lincoln was quoting the Declaration of Independence written by Thomas Jefferson, when talking about "all men are created equal" and "endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights" and that these rights are "self evident", those where not his own original words.
The Enlightened One
Contrarian
As to the OP - I see a big difference between teaching about a historical figure who was religious, and endorsing the actural religion.
Wirey
Fartist
Actural? Ha ha! You made a typo, and since this is the internet, I get to make fgun of you!
Aw, dammit!
The Enlightened One
Contrarian
Yersterday I mispelled it as acutal X.x
FollowerOfTheLord
Member
And evolution isn't?
FollowerOfTheLord
Member
It makes more sense...
Evolution = we came from nothing.
Creationism = we came from God.
The Enlightened One
Contrarian
No, there is no model of creation that demonstrates, explains, and predicts. Most peole get confused with the specifics, when it's the actual process that is being recognized as non-speculative.
Evolution doesn't say we come from nothing, this is abiogenesis.
Creationism doesn't imply that we came from "God".
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
Evolution = we came from nature.
Creationism = we came from dirt, mud, dust.
Straw-manning at its very finest (or very worst, depending on how you look at it).
Just a quibble, since others have pretty much taken on the rest of this post (and I haven't read all of the posts in the thread, so I may be repeating someone else), but presuming you mean the Gettysburg Address as Lincoln's "most famous" speech, he does say that the nation was founded on the principle that all men are created equal. He does not however, say anything about self-evident rights endowed by their creator--that was Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence, which is what Lincoln was referring to.
McBell
Unbound
Creationism can be taught in schools.
Just not in a science class.
Why?
Because creationism/ID is not science.
McBell
Unbound
If your goal is to make yourself look like a complete idiot you are succeeding.
If we remove someone from history books because he or she said something that certain people disagreed with, there would be no one left in any history books at all.
Wirey
Fartist
Except for Ray Jay Johnson. That guy was hilarious!
"You can call me Ray, or you can call me Jay, or.." Gold!
Of course, for some presidential candidates, that's just fine; they don't want anyone to learn history anyway...
Marisa
Well-Known Member
I'm confused. Are you talking about the Gettysburg Address or the Declaration of Independence? Because it wasn't Lincoln who penned those things you mention, they are actually to be found in the Declaration of Independence; however Lincoln refers to these concepts from the DOI in the GA.
Founding atheist influences: you mean like Thomas Paine? You might want to study up on this thing called The Enlightenment. I think you'll find it . . . enlightening.
As a former little atheist child now raising a little atheist child of my own, I'd like to take this opportunity to extend to you an offer to RESPECTFULLY ask me any question about what I find offensive you'd like. One of the top items on my list is little religious people who think they know my mind better than I do. They are so pedantic.
I'm sorry, it's a bit difficult to take you seriously when you are so obviously ignorant of US history.
It's a theory (or series of theories) in the true scientific meaning of the word 'theory'.
You'd suggest scientific theory is inappropriate content in a SCIENCE class? I'm missing something here, right?
It's akin to me suggesting Jesus should be taken out of religious classes, because, ya know, we can't scientifically prove he existed.
Science class content should be science based.
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
"It is as though they [fossils] were just planted there, without any evolutionary history" Dawkins
"Even though we have no direct evidence for smooth transitions, can we invent a reasonable sequence of intermediate forms.." Gould
it sure ain't evidence based... blind faith is faith which does not recognize itself.