Confession Bear

How about when they took away being able to pray in school, the constant removal of things like the 10 Commandments from government buildings, and telling anyone that their religious beliefs are wrong because the beliefs say certain lifestyles are wrong. Not trying to say the country is only united when everyone believes in God, but when many of the principles this country was formed on were based and backed by religious context and now people are trying to change that, their actions are removing God from this country. There is more division in this country today (with talks of states succeeding, "this isn't my president", and finding any possible way to claim discrimination) then there was just 20 years ago.

With the removal of administration lead prayer, there have been times that all prayer was on the verge of being removed, student lead or otherwise. For nearly 200 years schools started the day with prayer, but then the minority got offended and it was removed. Regardless of what part of it was removed, it was still removed. With how easily people get offended today, how long before they put a stop to it altogether? How long before people start complaining about the law Truman made in 1952 for the National Day of Prayer and state that the law is unconstitutional and should be removed? In 2011, 65% of the population believes prayer should be brought back into schools.

"If those violate the First Amendment....". Well this goes right back to the concept of prayer in school. Why was there lead prayer in schools? To teach student how the founding fathers sought guidance for tough decisions, like how to form this nation. All that has to happen any more is someone state they are offended by it, declare it is unconstitutional in some way, and fight to remove it. Things like the 10 Commandments are items used by the founding fathers when forming this country. That very process is what is pushing God out of this country, slowly. Just in 9 years, the number of people who proclaim to be Christian has gone down by 5%. Believe it or not, it is happening.

I never said it has happened over the last year or under 1 specific politician. I stated it has happened over many years, but has increased in just the last 20 years. I just listed those three things as recent examples of the division we are seeing in the country.

Engel v. Vitale happened because a Jew saw how his son was praying in school and was offended because that was not how they (Jews) prayed. So it is about what offends people.

What if instead of saying it shouldn't be allowed, students had the option to opt out? Even with Engel v. Vitale, the prayer they were objecting to wasn't required but recommended. Like I said, it was a way to teach students what the founding fathers did. Shouldn't we be taught what some of our great leaders did instead of just getting half truths? Not all the founding fathers had the same religion, so it really isn't endorsing any one religion. And having an opt out option would allow those offended by all religions to participate in something else during that time.

It might be a good thing to have a Muslim teacher lead prayer and teach about their religion. Instead of students automatically thinking we should hate all Muslims because they are Muslims, teaching about the religion would also teach tolerance and acceptance.

It is more than just appealing to tradition. If something was used to form the constitution, why after 200 years does it then become unconstitutional? Because times change? Because someone decided it offended them? Or because people no longer understand the reason it was used in the first place? People trying to use the term unconstitutional to make it seem less offensive to remove something. It is much like same-sex marriage. Marriage was not created by the government, it was created by religion. The first recorded marriage would be that of Adam and Eve. The government saw the benefits married couples and their offspring provided to the communities, and that is when the government got involved and started giving benefits to married couples and couples with children. It wasn't that it was unconstitutional to not have same-sex marriage, it was that there was more paperwork involved for civil unions to have the same rights as a married couple. **Note: straight couples also joined together in civil unions, it wasn't just for same-sex couples.** Now the argument can be made that legalizing same-sex marriage at the federal level is unconstitutional, because states regulate traditional marriages and it is possible for one state to not recognize certain aspects of a traditional marriage from another state. However because of how same-sex marriage was legalized, all states have to accept the marriage no matter where it took place at.

Why did that happen? Because someone got offended. Like I said, it is not about what is unconstitutional, it is about what can I get offended by next.

As far as the last part of the comment, I will go back to something else that I stated. If an item was used, like a religious document, to form the constitution, what makes it unconstitutional today to use and display it in government buildings?

I can even take this one step further to show God being pushed out of this country. Big Bang, Abiogenesis (or other similar hypothesis), and Evolution are taught as incomplete theories. By this I mean all we know about them is what is observed, but the beginning stages and many stages inbetween are unknown, but yet the theories are taught as fact. It is inconceivable to even suggest teaching things like hydroplate theory or creationism as alternative theories. Why? Because even though there is scientific evidence that backs them, since they coincide with religions they are completely dismissed and considered a violation of church and state. However only teaching the other theories promotes athiesm, which should be considered a violation of church and state as well. If you want to turn a blind eye to the pushing of God out of this country, but I choose not to. I see what is happening and I see how it is hurting this country.

"Teaching evolution and the Big Bang theory don't promote atheism, because neither theory says anything about the existence of God, one way or the other." It doesn't have to because they rely completely on zero outside intelligent influence. The theories themselves can be put in basic form as saying they are 100% pure chaotic random chance. They try to teach that God isn't necessary, even though they cannot provide evidence for hypotheses on what started each process. But yet if they were willing to accept the possibility of God and that what they observed from each of these theories is the results of the work God did for creation. What about the theory that human "evolution" started in Africa from a single tribe? Evolution at the point of diversification within the family classification is proven and works with creation theories. If it is possible that human "evolution" did start from that single tribe in Africa, diversification as they dispersed over the planet would explain the multitude of different people/races/color/ect. that we have today. Then there is the Hydroplate theory which involves the global flood. Evidence have been discovered all over the world of the possibility of a flood. The biggest piece of evidence I can give you for the Hydroplate theory is the only working model of Pangaea in which no continent has to be changed or rotated and they all fit together perfectly. The only model that has formed this way came from the studies of the Hydroplate theory, using the mid oceanic ridge like a baseball seam. "The fountains of the deep" as described in the Bible originated from this ridge. Chambers of water have been discovered below the earth's crust that actually have a higher salt count than that of the ocean. Studies have been done to show that it was possible to erupt from those chambers, get sent into space, be brought back to the earth by the gravitational pull, and be able to flood the entire planet. To understand the possibility of this, you have to be willing to accept that mountains have not formed yet. This actually came during the time period of the flood, as Pangaea separated into the continents we have today. The study shows how friction from the earth's crust at the points where it meets the ocean floor caused the crust to compress in a way to create the mountains and valleys we have today. There is much more it explains if you was to take the time to study it. All dismissed because it also involves religion.

"Opting out wouldn't solve the problem. You would still have a blatant gov't endorsement of religion, which isn't allowed." If all religions were given the opportunity, there would not be endorsement of any 1 religion. That is what the first amendment is all about, the government not mandating any 1 religion. So allowing each religion the opportunity and allowing those who don't follow any religion to opt out, there wouldn't be a problem.

"Teaching about Islam is fine. Having a Muslim teacher lead students in a Muslim prayer is not. The same goes for Christianity, Hinduism and all other religions." Only allowing 1 can be a problem. Allowing all shouldn't be considered a problem, as mentioned above, would not endorse any 1 religion.

"Because the Constitution prohibits Congress from endorsing religion. Prayer is an endorsement of religion over non-religion, and that's prohibited as well." What about the National Day of Prayer that was made into law? It is endorsed by the government, so what should we now ban it because it endorses religion?

"I don't believe that Adam and Eve were real people who existed in history, nor do I believe that religion created marriage. I'm sure marriages existed long before any organized religious systems formally developed." You might believe that, but not everyone does. You have no evidence to show that they weren't real people and that religion didn't create marriage.

"I don't see why ruling all anti-gay marriage laws unconstitutional would be any different." You completely missed everything I stated about same-sex marriage.

"but the fact remains that the gov't of the United States is a secular gov't, and it is prohibited from endorsing religion." I think you misunderstand what separation of church and state is actually all about. First off, it was not in place when the country was formed or any document was ever created. The intent was not to keep the church out of state affairs but to keep the state out of church affairs. If the government is so secular, why swear in the president on the Bible, make into law a National Day of Prayer, and why is there a chaplain for the Senate and House?

"There is overwhelming evidence to support them" But they are incomplete. What if I told you those theories can coincide with creation and the Bible? You say there is no scientific evidence for creation, but that is only because you haven't fully studied it. Creation studies are more than just reading the Bible.