BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Intelligent Design, Creationism, And Rightwing Social Memes

 
  

Page: 1(2)34

 
 
Quantum
13:51 / 01.10.05
Should schools teach based on Faith or Reason, robertrosen?
robertrosen: For me the answer to your question is a simple one. Schools should be teaching both Faith and Reason.

In fact what I asked was should schools teach *based on* Faith or Reason. But not to be pedantic, I completely disagree- schools should teach reason, churches should teach faith. Do you believe in the seperation of church and state? How about church and education?



Rosen: Is it possible that the brain of a radical right wing conservative and that of a radical left wing liberal are so different that they can never see eye to eye?
Quantum: No.
Rosen: To a certain extent, I disagree...Are Homosexuals born differently from others? Same thing, yes?
No. Are you suggesting that political views are innate? Genetically determined? If so that makes changing one's political allegiance impossible, and debate pointless...
There's a difference between sex and politics I feel.


Rosen: I believe that the key word is force.
Putting something on a curriculum forces teachers to teach it and students to learn it. What do *you* mean by force? Holding guns to kid's heads in class?


Making students aware of what a large % of people from all walks of life, regardless of geography, are thinking and therefore doing, makes sense to me.
Me too, we call it Religious Studies, and usually it involves Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, Shinto, etc etc etc. Because, y'know, there's a lot less Christians around the world than you might think. "When 70-80% of the world goes to church" then the world will be a very different place.

Forcing one kind of belief or mandating faith, as a fact of life would be outrageous! This I do not support!
Teaching Creationism is forcing one kind of belief (Christian fundamentalism) on children as a fact of life. This I do not support either.


You seem to be universalising Christianity. Here's a thought experiment- what if you lived somewhere and the local school taught that "Coatlique was first impregnated by an obsidian knife and gave birth to Coyolxanuhqui, goddess of the moon, and to a group of male offspring, who became the stars." (the Aztec creation) and that this was just as likely as evolution. Would you be happy about that being taught as truth?
 
 
robertrosen
15:32 / 04.10.05
Quantum: Do you believe in the separation of church and state? How about church and education?

Rosen: I believe that we need to reconsider separation of church and state. It doesn’t seem to be working well. Maybe by including faith and religion in education we can bridge the gap.

Quamtum: Are you suggesting that political views are innate? Genetically determined? If so that makes changing one's political allegiance impossible, and debate pointless...
There's a difference between sex and politics I feel.

Rosen: I am suggesting that physical differences in brain function may alter perception and therefore political attitude.

Quantum:Putting something on a curriculum forces teachers to teach it and students to learn it. What do *you* mean by force? Holding guns to kid's heads in class?

Rosen: When teaching theory, one must present alternatives that have had or continue to have great impact and influence on the world. This is America and Christianity does dominate. Believe me, I have no problem presenting other major religious influences in the world. Faith can be all encompassing and taught as a subject on it’s own. Teaching the religious rituals of the American Indian doesn’t mean I expect the student to believe them.


Quantum: Me too, we call it Religious Studies, and usually it involves Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, Shinto, etc etc etc. Because, y'know, there's a lot less Christians around the world than you might think. "When 70-80% of the world goes to church" then the world will be a very different place.

Rosen: This is America. I agree with the teaching of all major religions. I wish the church comment were true. So many go and leave the goodness behind.


Quantum:Teaching Creationism is forcing one kind of belief (Christian fundamentalism) on children as a fact of life. This I do not support either.


You seem to be universalising Christianity. Here's a thought experiment- what if you lived somewhere and the local school taught that "Coatlique was first impregnated by an obsidian knife and gave birth to Coyolxanuhqui, goddess of the moon, and to a group of male offspring, who became the stars." (the Aztec creation) and that this was just as likely as evolution. Would you be happy about that being taught as truth?

Rosen: Again, this is America, is it not? Were we not built on a Judeo Christian foundation with Judeo Christian values? As far as what to teach, it would be a matter of influence and of degree and open to debate. Why are you so scared of faith and religion and its influence? Much good and evil come from it. Many do not go to church. We need to understand all major religions if we are going to be able to deal with their impact on our country and our way of life.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
16:01 / 04.10.05
Were we not built on a Judeo Christian foundation with Judeo Christian values?

Actually, no. I mean, there was certainly a lot of Christians about at the time of the establishment of the US, but the people who put together the constitution were to a great extent highly educated reformists with revolutionary and rationalist leanings. I doubt that they would recognise the idea of teaching something utterly at odds with and unsupported by the best available science as a worthwhile use of time, much less a worthwhile pursuit of religion.
 
 
Ulysses Lazarus
19:41 / 04.10.05
I find the "intelligent design" theory just one prong of the greater fundamentalist attack on the freedom of the human brain. To this end I submit The Earth Does Not Move! as evidence. Heinlein's predictions of theocracy in the US seem ever more relevant.

PS: If the idea of a fixed earth being taught in public schools seems far off I suggest you consider how foolish teaching evolution in public schools would have sounded X number of years ago...
 
 
ibis the being
01:07 / 05.10.05
We need to understand all major religions if we are going to be able to deal with their impact on our country and our way of life.

Fair enough. But how and why does this mean we should teach a religious theory in biology class?

Just to provide some context, the whole Dover case centers around whether or not "Intelligent Design" is a religious or a scientific idea. If it is proven to be the former, the School Board loses the case. The prosecution (parents) have been calling both scientists and theologists to the stand to testify that Intelligent Design is essentially Creationism with a new name, and Creationism is a religious doctrine, NOT science.

I'm curious about why Christians even want Intelligent Design to be labeled "science." Is that important to the religion, that this be a scientific theory, or is something being sacrificed in order to shoehorn Creationism into science classes?

I was raised to believe that evolution was BS, but the way my parents saw things - the way most Christians saw things before the religion became so politicized, I would venture to offer - is that science was so profoundly futile as to be irrelevant to Truth. It wouldn't make sense to worry about the specifics of any given lesson plan in biology class, because the lot of it was mainly silly guesswork as far as they were concerned - so great and complex was the work of God, that humans could never hope to understand it. This is not my view of science now, but it makes a certain kind of sense to me nevertheless - a lot more sense than trying to ham-handedly shove "Intelligent Design" into a curriculum of scientific methodologies and theories.
 
 
Quantum
09:37 / 05.10.05
In philosophy of course this is known as a Teleological Fallacy, the false attribution of intentionality.

Here's a link to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy which has an excellently concise destruction of Teleological notions in biology;

"Teleological notions were commonly associated with the pre-Darwinian view that the biological realm provides evidence of conscious design by a supernatural creator. Even after creationist viewpoints were rejected by most biologists there remained various grounds for concern about the role of teleology in biology, including whether such terms are:

-vitalistic (positing some special "life-force");
-requiring backwards causation (because future outcomes explain present traits);
-incompatible with mechanistic explanation (because of 1 and 2);
-mentalistic (attributing the action of mind where there is none);
-empirically untestable (for all the above reasons)"



Here's another handy refutation-
"Darwin's theory of natural selection offered an alternative, non-teleological account of biological adaptations. In addition, anyone who accepts this line of argument but acknowledges the presence of imperfection in the natural order is faced with the problem of evil. Nevertheless, reasoning of this sort remains a popular pastime among convinced theists."
extract from philosophypages


Excuse my link-heavy response, but I'd be interested to hear how intelligent design escapes these difficulties- the problem of evil, the problem of reversed causation, the problem of the pepper moth (industrial melanism). How could you justify teaching it in school as science when most scientists find it laughable?

I especially like the use of the adjective Mentalistic above, makes me think of Alan Partridge.
 
 
Quantum
09:43 / 05.10.05
Heinlein's predictions of theocracy in the US seem ever more relevant.
Not surprising really from the man who predicted microwave ovens. Soon we'll have the power armour from Starship Troopers and the shipstone, and one American Godking ruling the world. Yay.

I love the advice from the fixed earth link-

Take your time.
Check it all out.
Decide for yourself.


Implying that after careful reflection and weighing up the facts, you'll plump for the fixed earth view. Riiiiight....
 
 
robertrosen
17:54 / 05.10.05
The old mill Haus:

Were we not built on a Judeo Christian foundation with Judeo Christian values?

Actually, no. I mean, there was certainly a lot of Christians about at the time of the establishment of the US, but the people who put together the constitution were to a great extent highly educated reformists with revolutionary and rationalist leanings. I doubt that they would recognise the idea of teaching something utterly at odds with and unsupported by the best available science as a worthwhile use of time, much less a worthwhile pursuit of religion.

Rosen Ans: While many may squabble over who among the founding fathers was a Christian, no knowledgeable historian of early American history can deny the fact that the concept of a Creator God who endowed His creation with "unalienable rights" was an essential underpinning of the American experiment. These rights were derived not from a government that was transitory, but from a Governor who was eternal. It was the role of government to defend these rights and not dilute or remove them.

The revisionists extend their influence outside the classroom as well into nearly every segment of American life. Descriptions and tours of the nation's capitol fail to point out that the Ten Commandments are inscribed in the marble of the United States Supreme Court, that there is a beautiful stained glass window in the U.S. Capitol depicting President George Washington kneeling in prayer, and that at the top of the Washington Monument - the highest point in the nation's capital is embedded a plaque which boldly proclaims in Latin, "Praise Be Unto God."
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
18:32 / 05.10.05
And none of that has anything to do with biology or the teaching of biology, now, does it? Because the leaders of the Revolution were also men of science, who would not have wished the scientific education of the children of America to put them at a profound disadvantage by teaching them theories with no basis in science.

Speaking of science, could you take a look at the Wiki/FAQ on how to bold text - it makes following a post much easier.
 
 
robertrosen
20:28 / 05.10.05
Ibis in furs:

We need to understand all major religions if we are going to be able to deal with their impact on our country and our way of life.

Fair enough. But how and why does this mean we should teach a religious theory in biology class?

Just to provide some context, the whole Dover case centers around whether or not "Intelligent Design" is a religious or a scientific idea. If it is proven to be the former, the School Board loses the case. The prosecution (parents) have been calling both scientists and theologists to the stand to testify that Intelligent Design is essentially Creationism with a new name, and Creationism is a religious doctrine, NOT science.

I'm curious about why Christians even want Intelligent Design to be labeled "science." Is that important to the religion, that this be a scientific theory, or is something being sacrificed in order to shoehorn Creationism into science classes?

I was raised to believe that evolution was BS, but the way my parents saw things - the way most Christians saw things before the religion became so politicized, I would venture to offer - is that science was so profoundly futile as to be irrelevant to Truth. It wouldn't make sense to worry about the specifics of any given lesson plan in biology class, because the lot of it was mainly silly guesswork as far as they were concerned - so great and complex was the work of God, that humans could never hope to understand it. This is not my view of science now, but it makes a certain kind of sense to me nevertheless - a lot more sense than trying to ham-handedly shove "Intelligent Design" into a curriculum of scientific methodologies and theories.

Rosen Answer: Some very interesting thoughts ibis in furs. First, let me say that I believe ID is an obvious attempt to shoehorn Creationism into science classes. Although I don’t agree with the methodology, I may be happy with the result and what it may accomplish over time. Second, I would like to offer this thought: God may be the ultimate science. With absolute knowledge, whatever God could do or would do is or will be part of the law of some science. We are supposedly made in His image. To me this means that we are a small piece of what He is. Obviously, He has never communicated to me His thoughts on the subject, but I do know that He is. He hears me. He sometimes answers. Sometimes He answers in miraculous ways. He touches us all, but if we are not looking we cannot see. I don’t understand why certain believers try to separate science and faith. I believe science is part of the plan, His plan.
 
 
robertrosen
20:53 / 05.10.05
Quantum: Let me address The Problem of Evil. I am a simple person with a simple mind. So excuse my simple uneducated response.

The presence of evil in the world poses a special difficulty for traditional theists, as both Epicurus and Hume pointed out. Since an omniscient god must be aware of evil, an omnipotent god could prevent evil, and a benevolent god would not tolerate evil, it should follow that there is no evil. Yet there is evil, from which atheists conclude that there is no omniscient, omnipotent, and benevolent god. The most common theistic defense against the problem, propounded (in different forms) by both Augustine and Leibniz, is to deny the reality of evil by claiming that apparent cases of evil are merely parts of a larger whole that embodies greater good. More recently, some have questioned whether the traditional notions of omnipotence and omniscience are coherent.

Rosen Answer: Is it not possible that God knew/decided that life without stress could not be sustained and evolve to new levels, that in order for goodness to exist there must be evil, that without low points we can not experience the joy of new high points? Is not cancer just another step in the evolutionary process forcing us to adapt to our environment to survive? If this is so, is cancer evil? Is it not possible that the form of life that God chose for us, and all living creatures, was a choice of an omnipotent God? If it was a choice, and I believe it was, then obviously He could have gone another route. If He did, our definition of life could have and would have been very different.
 
 
robertrosen
21:15 / 05.10.05

The old mill Haus:

And none of that has anything to do with biology or the teaching of biology, now, does it? Because the leaders of the Revolution were also men of science, who would not have wished the scientific education of the children of America to put them at a profound disadvantage by teaching them theories with no basis in science.

Speaking of science, could you take a look at the Wiki/FAQ on how to bold text - it makes following a post much easier.

Rosen Response: Science does deal with past phenomena, as found in the historical sciences of cosmology, geology, paleontology, paleoanthropology, and archaeology. There are experimental sciences and historical sciences, using different methodologies but equal in their ability to understand causality, and evolutionary biology is a valid and legitimate historical science. If your statement was true and we abided by it, much of science, not just evolutionary theory, would be sterile.

Sorry about the format. I will attempt to bold in the future.
 
 
robertrosen
22:21 / 05.10.05
To me, God and evolutionary biology fit just fine.
 
 
Mr Tricks
23:15 / 05.10.05
To me this means that we are a small piece of what He is. Obviously, He has never communicated to me His thoughts on the subject, but I do know that He is. He hears me. He sometimes answers. Sometimes He answers in miraculous ways. He touches us all, but if we are not looking we cannot see. I don’t understand why certain believers try to separate science and faith. I believe science is part of the plan, His plan.

but you can't prove any of that Scientificly. Isn't that the point?

On a personal level it's fine for to believe whatever one want's, but this discourse seems more focused in the institution of public schooling. Your arguement does not seem to answer why (outside of "because a bunch of us say so")the Intelligent Design myth is any more valid than a giant spaghetti monster myth or why it would be on equal intellectual footing as the theory of evolution.
 
 
robertrosen
23:37 / 05.10.05
Mr. Tricks, should we not try to understand why so many people throughout history are so drawn to the concept of a God? If government is supposed to be representative of the people and a large percentage of adults in this nation are telling their children that there is an alternative possibility to evolution or an adjunct to evolution, should that possibility not be presented to them in a public arena? I am not advocating force-feeding. I am not saying teach it the way we teach evolution. Present it as it is today in society. Present it as a debate with various prospective. Part of the problem is that it cannot legally be taught as a class on religion or faith, thus the disguise. Separation of Church and State prohibit the direct teaching, which is causing believers to go through the only door available.
 
 
*
02:07 / 06.10.05
You mean to church?
 
 
All Acting Regiment
09:08 / 06.10.05
Mr. Tricks, should we not try to understand why so many people throughout history are so drawn to the concept of a God?

Fear, lack of knowledge and desire for security.

Robertrosen, could you perhaps explain to us how you would like the world to be w/relation to the treaching of creationism/imtelligent design, and provide a timeline showing us how this world would come to be?
 
 
Quantum
12:36 / 06.10.05
should we not try to understand why so many people throughout history are so drawn to the concept of a God? r.rosen

That's really anthropology wouldn't you say? Or, perhaps, RELIGIOUS STUDIES. Also note most cultures have had a polytheist pantheon of Gods before becoming monotheist, and that the worship of a Mother Goddess is more prevalent (subsumed into Mary in Christianity I believe) than a male trinity.

Obviously they should teach children about religion, there should be a whole subject for it. That subject isn't biology. 'Then God created Mitochondria...'
 
 
robertrosen
13:16 / 06.10.05
We are now in agreement Quantum.
 
 
Mr Tricks
16:39 / 06.10.05
should we not try to understand why so many people throughout history are so drawn to the concept of a God?

Who's the "we" being refered to here?

If "we" is You an Me, as individuals, I'd say certainly. I would also stress that such a seeking for understanding must come from a genuine desire; reached at an individual's own pace.

If the "we" being referred to is American Society (or more specificly the school system) then no. The concept of god and one's individual relationship to it has no place with-in a governmental system and throughout history has done more harm than good when combined.
 
 
robertrosen
16:57 / 06.10.05
I disagree. I believe we have no choice today. I believe we need to understand the impact of religion on society in order to survive as a free nation. We must start this process at home, in church and in our schools. Ignorance on these issues will only hasten or defeat.
 
 
Quantum
17:38 / 06.10.05
The Impact of Religion and Contemporary Society

How Americans view various religions

The Journal of Religion and Society


@ rrosen- So we're in agreement that Intelligent Design is not a suitable subject for study in Biology class, and efforts to teach it as a plausible scientific theory should be opposed? Sweet.

Check out Yezidi religion and society for a religion demonised by Christianity, an example of other religious beliefs.
 
 
Mr Tricks
19:46 / 06.10.05
In order to survive AS a free society we MUST minimize the impact of religion upon it. Religion by its appariant nature will limit freedoms so as to elevate its administrators and priest class.

Having an understanding of religions would be healthy with-in the context of anthropology, cosmology and perhaps politics but in a grade school science class? absurd.
 
 
robertrosen
20:32 / 06.10.05
We shall see what you say when Islam controls our world! That is their mission, a mission that has been quite successful.

I wonder what age they begin to teach religion in Muslim nations?

If one were old enough to be taught evolution and history, I would venture to say that one could learn the impact of religion on one's life starting around middle school.

I also believe that many terrible things have been done in the name of religion. This is why we must fight ignorance with education. We don't have the luxury of time.
 
 
robertrosen
20:37 / 06.10.05
Forgive me for not being very clear. I care not in what class we teach Religion, only that we teach it. The science class concept is an attempt at getting around the current law. I don't approve of the deceit, but I understand the motive.
 
 
Mr Tricks
21:37 / 06.10.05
We shall see what you say when Islam controls our world! That is their mission, a mission that has been quite successful.

So you're one of those types who think Islam is evil and moving to dominate the world like some evil empire?

Their mission is succeeding?

WOW you lost allot of credibility with those . . .

By the way... how are you measuring that success?

%
You are aware that the religion of Capitalism behaves in a fashion much more similar to those characterizations?/%


I wonder what age they begin to teach religion in Muslim nations?

I'm sure the education begins at home, but how is that in any way related to teaching creationism in public schools here in the U.S.?


Parents are (still) free to enroll their children and any religious education they choose FlyingSpaghettiMonsterism for example. Still, the all too little funding supplied by our taxes should not be eaten up by that type of education. The creationist cosmology seems to foster MORE ignorance than offer any solutions to it.

So how about this. would you be willing to pay an extra tax specific to such an education?

Since it's based on a specific religion how about a tax on that religion?

%it'll at least pay for the sucking of reasoning skills out of the brains of our impressionable youth/%
 
 
*
22:11 / 06.10.05
It seems to me that when schools teach religion, churches suffer. Is it your intention, RR, to weaken churches in the US?
 
 
robertrosen
22:19 / 06.10.05
QUANTUM, this quote is exactly why I believe we need to educate people in our country to be more tolerant of other religions:

George Barna, president of Barna Research commented: "While many Americans are not practicing Christians, they retain some identity with the Christian faith and remain protective of it. They are suspicious of other faith groups because they are unknown but different—and we are generally uncomfortable with those who are not just like us..."

The US is a very young and prosperous nation. The rate of ascension to incredible power and prosperity has taken its toll on our society. Like the poor young athlete awarded unfathomable wealth upon graduation, the US is immature, spoiled, powerful, and dangerous to others and to itself.

There are so many variables that determine attitude and behavior that I am hesitant to believe in any study that attempts to correlate belief in a Creator with any related outcome. How do we define belief? How many High School graduates go to University because it is expected, the next thing to do. How many people attend religious services because their parents attended or because it is expected of them? When someone says they believe in a Creator, to what degree? Do they believe enough to alter behavior? Is it not a matter of degree, if we are attempting to determine behavioral outcomes, especially when the study group is so large? As the terrorists have displayed so effectively, one highly motivated individual can alter large outcomes more effectively than many individuals with substantially less motivation. This is obviously a matter of degree in ones belief.

I submit to you that the Nation of Israel could not be prospering today without the special attention and protection of the Lord our God! Absurd? Maybe. Insane? Maybe. Yet the probability that they would still not only exist as a nation, but also prosper when surrounded by their enemies, on all sides, is astronomical. Find a study that explains Israel’s longevity and success.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
23:46 / 06.10.05
Actually, the special attention and protection of the US, in money and military equipment, may also be a factor. But what this has to do with Intelligent Design I know not, and would request that you stick to something resembling the topic at hand, if possible.

So, if ID is not to be taught in science classes, but shoudl be taught in some sort of secualr Religious Studies class, as something which some Christians believe in, as we in the UK study other religions, then is that OK - its presentation as a religious doctrine unrelated to scientific fact?
 
 
robertrosen
00:01 / 07.10.05
Excuse me. Correction! Radical Islam.

Also, churches have no problem with expanding faith anywhere and every way possible within reason.

I can think of many things that are less important than Creation/Religion/Faith in our schools that we can replace. Regardless, I would be happy to increase my federal and state tax if that would help get this done.

You need to understand that I want all faiths represented including Islam and Radical Islam in our schools. It is the study and understanding that is important to me. Whether people choose to believe, in any of it, is not my choice. I am only advocating that we teach them and debate them. They are so important and impact us immensely. Not to study them and understand them makes no sense to me.

Of course I would love for all humanity to worship my God, but I understand this is outrageous.

Please understand. I am not an evil person. I understand that people with good intention have caused much pain and trouble. Believe me, I have seen it first hand. If you believe in evolution, as I do, then you most likely also believe in survival of the fittest. Being fit, in today’s environment of Radical Islam, requires that we take extreme measures. I struggle with my beliefs in the teachings of Jesus and that of my logical and human desire to defend self and country against evil. I find it difficult to turn the other cheek. Teaching faith/religion/creation and their implications are a necessity to survival. Many do not attend religious services. Who better to teach than our teachers? I am not advocating that they support any one religion over any other or that they even teach or preach that God exists. I care not in which class that it is taught. Granted, I personally believe that science and Creation are basically inseparable.

My problem is obvious. All I have is my word that God does answer my prayers. His answers are so clear and specific; to me there is no doubt! Is my mind defective? Am I insane? Maybe so!!!!!!!!!!! He both exists and is in contact with me or I am physically different or mentally impaired. Obviously, I prefer to believe He exists!
 
 
robertrosen
00:05 / 07.10.05
Sorry Haus! My enthusiasm gets me off base.

US military strength is obviously a factor, but seriously not a reasonable explanation as to Israel’s continued existence in the face of amazing odds.
 
 
*
02:27 / 07.10.05
Okay. In order to be fair and equitable, a public school would have to teach about every religion, without teaching that one was true and correct, to allow the kids and their families to make up their minds together. Are we in agreement about this, RR, or do I have to explain why this is so?

If a public school is teaching about all religions, then they have to explain to kids that the Jews (speaking generally) believe they are God's chosen people and the Messiah is yet to come, the Christians (speaking generally) believe they are saved and Jesus the Savior and the only Son of God, and the Muslims (speaking generally) believe that Jesus was a prophet and so was Mohammed, and the Qu'ran, the word of God's last prophet, is vital if you hope to be obedient to God's will. They will also, because the Scientologists have the most expensive lawyers anywhere in the world, have to explain that the Scientologists believe that all gods are manifestations of the evil alien Xenu, that evil aliens called Thetans are implanted in our bodies and cause us to have religious experiences, and that humans evolved directly from clams. (If you find primate evolution hard to believe try that one on for size.)

Now, are you going to trust a secular institution— let's be honest, schools are not going to become religious institutions overnight— to give kids a fair and accurate representation of the word of God as understood by Christianity in a class like that? Moreover, which do you think kids are going to find more attractive— sex before marriage is sinful and you have to avoid sinning, or anything bad you do is caused by aliens which can be removed from your body with magic cans if you pay enough money and then also you will get psychic powers?

Religion as revealed truth is best taught in a church or other religious organization. Religion as a subject for study can be taught in a secular setting, but it is not going to give people an idea what it's like to live as a believer of that religion. You could have high school students do what college religion students are sometimes required to do, which is spend a month or so attending the services of some religious group they weren't raised in, and I think that's ideal. Conservative Christians, generally speaking, will think that's temptation into the paths of the devil. So do you want the people who were specially trained in ministry to be teaching your kids your religion, or do you want a bored teacher who is barely certified to teach English and probably resents having to do this anyway teaching all kids a sad misrepresentation of every religion? (Excuse me for projecting my knowledge of the American public school system onto this exercise. Some of my best friends teach in Florida.)
 
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
13:28 / 07.10.05
SOrry if this is slightly OT, but I have a question for robertrosen:

Descriptions and tours of the nation's capitol fail to point out that the Ten Commandments are inscribed in the marble of the United States Supreme Court

"Thou shalt not kill..." - that's definitely in there, right? I mean, forget the stuff about oxen and cleanliness in the real 12 commandements that Moses brought down from the mountain, lets go witrh the Roman Catholicised version taught in schools, for now. Thou shalt not kill. Jesus, also, was pretty hung up on this point. Don't kill folks. Do as you would be done by. Or rather, more accurately, do not do as you would not be done by (the first version being the Talmudic version, the second closer to Jesus', though I'm paraphrasing).

So : DO NOT KILL.

Referring back to your point about tours of the Supreme Court ("Supreme" Court, gotta love that hubris)...I wonder if this is because the United States Government sanction the murder of more people under the auspices of their "temporary govern[ing]" rule of law than all the other nations of the Earth put together? Even - *Gasp!* Shock! Horror! The nations where Radical Islam has the strongest and most widely disperesed foothold.

What do you think?
 
 
Quantum
13:31 / 07.10.05
We shall see what you say when Islam controls our world! That is their mission, a mission that has been quite successful.
I wonder what age they begin to teach religion in Muslim nations?


I am simultaneously appalled and entertained by this post. I love the way you go from scaremongering about Teh Muslim Menace, to proposing that the US adopt their tactics to control the world, without missing a beat. And then go on almost immediately to another massive footshooting-

I also believe that many terrible things have been done in the name of religion. This is why we must fight ignorance with education. We don't have the luxury of time.

Teaching Intelligent Design is doing a terrible thing in the name of religion. This why we must fight ignorance with education. We don't have the luxury of time.

robertrosen, how can you quote the importance of tolerance from that link, just two hours after warning of the 'dangers of Islam'? and go straight on to imply that Israel is the chosen land of God? Do feel free to respond to this in the 'The Role of the Church in Modern Society' thread I am about to start, as you've made it clear you are opposed to teaching ID in science class.
 
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
17:18 / 07.10.05
Sorry, another question for robertrosen:

I can think of many things that are less important than Creation/Religion/Faith in our schools that we can replace.

Could you clarify this with concrete examples, please? (Preferably after sharing your thoughts on the apparent dissonance between the alleged founding principles of the American Project and its current manifestation as Chief State Murderer of the planet).

Otherwise this has the ring of "I know a secret...but I can't tell you."
 
  

Page: 1(2)34

 
  
Add Your Reply