"There followed a long decline. Wars, on and off, with the crusaders of Europe raiding into the Middle East. Various rulers of Arabic and Persian and Turkish dynasties competing for domination of the Islamic world. A gradual eclipse as the nations of Europe set about building their empires"
Thats not the reason why Arab science didn't progress into becoming self sustaining science. Also, the reasons you gave, are not the ones for which it did in the western world.
Think about it. If Arabs fighting amongst themselves while competing for domination and invasions from foreign powers, were what caused their science to stagnate. Then how would Europe have been any different? Europe's empires were built through war and there were plenty of foreign invaders also.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof",
The fact that that statement is, in its entirety, regarding the same subject matter. Not even as two separate sentences, but merely separated by a comma. But more importantly, that the 2nd part clearly reveals the writer's "defense" of religion. Is what reveals that the intent in saying "no law respecting an establishment", was to ensure 1 of 2 things.
Either it means that Congress can't force the citizens to deny their religion for a single, national religion, established by the state. Thus protecting the freedom "for" the religions practiced by citizens. Not elimination of religion from all public institutions.
Or, it means that Congress will make "NO" law!!!
Regarding(respecting) an establishment of religion. Such as a law prohibiting the establishment of the citizens religion.
I makes sense. Congress can't prohibit the establishment of a religion, "or prohibit the free exercise thereof"! It makes even more sense when one adds the reason for the pilgrimage from England of the persecuted(prohibited) original settlers. Also, the fact that during the Revolutionary War, Congress, were nicknamed "The Bible Congress".
"Separation of church and state", has also been misinterpreted. It was amended in the 1800's as a result of the massive waves of Catholic immigrants from Europe at the time. The predominantly Protestant population in America, knowing the history of Europe. In which every time a nations rulers were Catholic, it was in fact, the Vatican who truly ruled that country.
The amendment's intention was to prevent a repetition of that history. Otherwise, it makes no sense that a religious majority(by far) populations' representatives. Would amend something equivalent to "shooting themselves in the foot". This would be highly unlikely, since Protestants' history, is one of placing an emphasis on being a learned people. It was the Romans who outlawed reading!
Besides, the notion of that "ID" science is somehow the promotion of some religion, is absurd. It does two things. It reveals the scientific data discovered, which exposes evolution as the hoax that it is. Since if they don't, who will?
Evolutionary scientists are the ones whom have, numerous times, morphologically evolved their theory to accommodate the new, damning, empirical data. The theory, is the only thing that has evolved by extensive mutation. Appropriately enough!
Also, ID science reveals the often times found in nature, extremely improbable, if not impossible. Particularly configured existence of many things, if intelligent design were absent.
The "very real" science which ID'ers have drawn attention to in recent years. Is science of which its validity is made evidential, from the fact that its the reason why Dawkins went on a religion intolerance, hating rampage. That when science is obviously burying evolution, the strategy was to attempt to first bury evo's only real competition. Thus, evo would gain indirect, pseudo validation.
Even the existence of Atheism can't escape the truth of Gods existence and couldn't exist without him. For if he didn't, what would there be to attach the "A" to?
Slashdot Mirror
"There followed a long decline. Wars, on and off, with the crusaders of Europe raiding into the Middle East. Various rulers of Arabic and Persian and Turkish dynasties competing for domination of the Islamic world. A gradual eclipse as the nations of Europe set about building their empires" Thats not the reason why Arab science didn't progress into becoming self sustaining science. Also, the reasons you gave, are not the ones for which it did in the western world. Think about it. If Arabs fighting amongst themselves while competing for domination and invasions from foreign powers, were what caused their science to stagnate. Then how would Europe have been any different? Europe's empires were built through war and there were plenty of foreign invaders also.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof", The fact that that statement is, in its entirety, regarding the same subject matter. Not even as two separate sentences, but merely separated by a comma. But more importantly, that the 2nd part clearly reveals the writer's "defense" of religion. Is what reveals that the intent in saying "no law respecting an establishment", was to ensure 1 of 2 things. Either it means that Congress can't force the citizens to deny their religion for a single, national religion, established by the state. Thus protecting the freedom "for" the religions practiced by citizens. Not elimination of religion from all public institutions. Or, it means that Congress will make "NO" law!!! Regarding(respecting) an establishment of religion. Such as a law prohibiting the establishment of the citizens religion. I makes sense. Congress can't prohibit the establishment of a religion, "or prohibit the free exercise thereof"! It makes even more sense when one adds the reason for the pilgrimage from England of the persecuted(prohibited) original settlers. Also, the fact that during the Revolutionary War, Congress, were nicknamed "The Bible Congress". "Separation of church and state", has also been misinterpreted. It was amended in the 1800's as a result of the massive waves of Catholic immigrants from Europe at the time. The predominantly Protestant population in America, knowing the history of Europe. In which every time a nations rulers were Catholic, it was in fact, the Vatican who truly ruled that country. The amendment's intention was to prevent a repetition of that history. Otherwise, it makes no sense that a religious majority(by far) populations' representatives. Would amend something equivalent to "shooting themselves in the foot". This would be highly unlikely, since Protestants' history, is one of placing an emphasis on being a learned people. It was the Romans who outlawed reading! Besides, the notion of that "ID" science is somehow the promotion of some religion, is absurd. It does two things. It reveals the scientific data discovered, which exposes evolution as the hoax that it is. Since if they don't, who will? Evolutionary scientists are the ones whom have, numerous times, morphologically evolved their theory to accommodate the new, damning, empirical data. The theory, is the only thing that has evolved by extensive mutation. Appropriately enough! Also, ID science reveals the often times found in nature, extremely improbable, if not impossible. Particularly configured existence of many things, if intelligent design were absent. The "very real" science which ID'ers have drawn attention to in recent years. Is science of which its validity is made evidential, from the fact that its the reason why Dawkins went on a religion intolerance, hating rampage. That when science is obviously burying evolution, the strategy was to attempt to first bury evo's only real competition. Thus, evo would gain indirect, pseudo validation. Even the existence of Atheism can't escape the truth of Gods existence and couldn't exist without him. For if he didn't, what would there be to attach the "A" to?