Who needs science when you have religion?

EDMOND � The Oklahoma House of Representatives Education Committee has just approved House Bill 2211. The bill is expected to pass the full House, and then to go to the Senate. Its authors describe it as promoting freedom of religion in the public schools. In fact, it does the opposite.

HB 2211 is identical to bills widely introduced into state legislatures across the nation, where they have met various fates. Texas�s Legislature passed it, and Texas is experiencing serious problems as a result. Liberty Legal Institute of Plano, Texas, a group of fundamentalist Christian lawyers, drafted the bill and promoted to legislatures, including Oklahoma�s. It was not written by its Oklahoma legislative �authors.�

The bill requires public schools to guarantee students the right to express their religious viewpoints in a public forum, in class, in homework and in other ways without being penalized. If a student�s religious beliefs were in conflict with scientific theory, and the student chose to express those beliefs rather than explain the theory in response to an exam question, the student�s incorrect response would be deemed satisfactory, according to this bill.

The school would be required to reward the student with a good grade, or be considered in violation of the law. Even simple, factual information such as the age of the earth (4.65 billion years) would be subject to the student�s belief, and if the student answered 6,000 years based on his or her religious belief, the school would have to credit it as correct. Science education becomes absurd under such a situation.

full story: http://www.edmondsun.com/opinion/local_story_067125346.html

Sounds fair to me, since Darwin has had the market cornered for quite sometime.

Fair and balanced.

Sounds decidedly crack pot to me...

i dont know....if the test question asks you to explain Darwins Theory of Evolution and you go off on Creationism and dont touch the theory of evolution you got the question wrong.....if it asks to explain two types and yah throw up Darwins theory and the theory your religion has than your fine so long as you can prove your portion as its written in the Bible or what ever book of worship you use....the way i read the above in the first question if a student doesnt answer it and instead explains creationism than he gets it right.....

all for fair and balanced but from what i read of the above that aint it....

Oh no, the conservatives don't want to legislate their religion and force it on the rest of us. What, them? Why, I never...

(With apologies in advance to TRH for mangling his definition of Conservative....)

I suspect it will just mean that the exam boards will need to phrase the questions more carefully....

It will be interesting when the fist Muslim use the law to promote the Koran and their beliefs...

Pete, this is what these guys don't get (the ones pushing this stuff I mean).

It's a fargin' can of worms. You REALLY want to force schools to allow religion to trump reality in the classroom? REALLY? All religions? All classrooms? REALLY?

Answer is: nope. What they want is good wholesome Christianity to rule in the public schools. That's it. They would [bleep] a brick if their kid was forced to have some other religion imposed on them in a public school.

It really is mind-boggling that a "conservative" (TRH: note quotes) can say they are for freedom, and the Constitution, and then advocate this kind of crap.

I'm sorry I'm cussin' but this stuff really torques me.

We are about ready for a FSM thread around here. That would REALLY piss off the religious conservatives. Tod, what think you? Is it time?

I dunno, the education system has been dumbing down tests for years, otherwise remedial reading would not be so hard to get into in college.

Still, allowing incorrect answers based on matters of faith does no one any good. I want, no, demand, my kids know and understand all about evolution as well as Creation.

As for "facts" of how old the earth is, is it really 4.65 billion or 6.45, or 9.28 or 1.49? Without a "made on" stamp, I simply won't believe any of that nonsense. I can't muster nearly the faith required.

STUPID but they probably also subscribe to the mathematical theory that 2+2=5.

I just finished Dan Brown's new book "The Lost Symbol" about Masonic wisdom/enlightenment. I guess it's true what the Bible says, "...many are called but few are chosen."

I'll stay in my country (Montana), we aren't the religious fanatics that other countries are.

Well Jeff you step in the crap once again showing your libtard ways

You've spilled the beans on yourself too many times to ever sell anyone you were ever a conservative. You're as lefty as they come.

2+2 does equal 5. For very large values of 2.

Nope. And word to the wise: using the word "libtard" does not make the user look real bright.

Since you are here enlightening us, 17ackly, why don't you explain then how the example Tod quoted INCREASES freedom and INCREASES adherance to the Constitution?

What I see is an article of opinion, based on an athiest view of the actual bill.

When a child can backup what he believes and has been taught in a clear and concise manner that differs from the theories that scientist have came up with that are in complete opposition, then I don't see the problem.

If he simply pulls the religious card, but is obviously not well enough versed in the subject to form the opinion, nor back it up with fact, then he's at the mercy of the scientific point of view.

I still believe that any child should be able to absorb both lessons equally and decide for himself. I also believe that part of going to a school is simply memorizing the text of a book and learning little to nothing of the curriculum.
Like the rest of the kids, they should be required to endure the memorization of the useless crap and be graded accordingly.

Shakespear, Advanced Algebra, and 15th Century European History....

Does wonders if you're on Jeopardy, but past that, it's good for nothing.


After a few posts, I'm wondering how the TRH came along there Jeffy?

Freedom of self-expression and to learn. You should minimize the former and take heed of the latter.

It's funny how we westerners laugh at how backward some of the Islamic and other non-Christian countries are economically, scientifically and in general progress. The answer is right above. When religious dogma takes precedence over science, you get backwardness.

Easy way around that on exams. Rather than asking for the student's perception on say "evolution", the question could ask one to explain Darwin's perceptions.

1st Amendment allows freedom of religion. When a child has been brought up in a Christian home to except the bible as the truth, it is undermining that right if the teacher is not willing to at least present both sides of the argument, or at least acknowledge that the scientist may not have it figured out and tis only a theory.

Religion of any persuasion should not be forced on anyone, but either should athiest teachers who view their way as the only way.

I don't believe that any one person or religion necessarily has it figured out, but to be thorougly educated on the subject, you must be willing to listen to both sides of the argument.
To turn a blind eye to either side is equally destructive to a thorough education.

JOG,

So you advocate freedom of self-expression in the classroom, so much so that it trumps facts and reality? ALL self expression, or only Christian self-expression?

There's a world of self-expression out there.

Can you even imagine a teacher trying to ride herd on a classroom where the various religious people could answer whatever they wanted on anything? That's absurd on the face of it.

We Americans have the fundamental right, acknowedged (not granted) in our Constitution, to be free of a state religion. There are two ways to do that in our public institutions. One, is to make places like schools and courtrooms secular. The other, is to allow ANY RELIGION to do ANYTHING ANYWHERE.

You want Rastafarians smoking dope in the classroom? You want Muslims on their prayer rugs in your kids math class? You want someone sacrificing a goat in the cafeteria? You want wacko cult members able to do whatever it is they want to do? Nudity? Sex? Drugs? Native Americans hanging from strips of breast flesh in P.E. class?

All of those things and more are part of some religion or the other.

There are many ways to interpret a graph, Tod. You seem to have missed the correct one.

Matt,

I have no problem with religion in the schools- in a "Religion" class.

In fact I think that'd be great. It could use as it's textbook the seminal early book on the subject, Huston Smith's "The Religions of Man".

It's limited to the major religions, but it's a good book. It presents each religion in an unbiased form- lays out the major tenants of each, explains the reasons behind the things that, sometimes, seem goofy from the outside looking in.

One thing- an honest education in "Religion" would result in a lot more athiests and Buddhists. Just sayin'.

Depends on what you're talking about. 2+2=1 and I can prove it.

Mike

You're a fine one to talk about reality Jeff.....

Your "facts" are your athiest opinion, but I'm still waiting to see my first evolved animal.
Would you point that out for me?

I mean, we should be seeing some Bird Men, or Dog-Cat combos or something that would show the progression right?
How about something other than a human that is not adapted to live on the planet without clothing and shelter?

Show me some facts Jeffo

Cute chart, but complete BS.

Pigmaei gigantum humeris impositi plusquam ipsi gigantes vident.

The real work has been long since done. Your current flock of atheists don't have the intellectual capacity to even think of the good questions.

Excluding TRH definition of Conservative, a "conservative" HAS to a Christian fanatic. That's why neither Jeff nor I are "conservatives" any more because we are not Christian fanatics.

You mean that an athiest could teach religion in such a manner to skew the words well enough that no one would believe them....Yes, I'm sure you could conjure up such a character from the Liberal puke that you voted for.

Matt, gravity is only a theory. Most of science is theoretical to some extent based on our ability to test and disprove those theories.

The scientific method is not like religious dogma. It is a rigorous methodology that is independent of revealed religions. Evolution is not 'revealed'. It's science, and the proof for its 'likely' accuracy has advanced a long way since Darwin published 'Origin of Species' 150 years ago. Unfortunately, creationists don't seem to be able to grok that idea and ignore everything since.

Just for the benefit of those who don;t seem able to grasp the difference between religion and science, here's a handy graphic.

[img]http://sciencefun.files.wordpress.com/2007/03/2007-01-15-science-vs-faith.png?w=670&h=527[/img]

Jeff,

I�m a fundamental Christian who happens to believe in much of the evolution theory and certainly the old earth / old universe theory; which puts me at odds with many fundamental Christians.

Still, I don�t think conservatives are looking to force their religion on anyone. Now, I think this law is silly, but you need to look at it for what it is, rather than what you�re reading into it. Christians have been FORCED to be taught things that are in direct opposition to their beliefs (again, I�m not in the same group as these), and it�s deeply offensive to them; because believe it or not�Christianity isn�t just some silly bunch of rules, to many it�s as real as the sun rising. So being forced to learn something that stands in opposition to your beliefs is repugnant. This law isn�t about forcing Christianity on anyone, rather protection to those who have had things in opposition to their beliefs forced on them. Don�t forget that part; this all started with the MANDATORY teaching of evolution to all students, whether they liked it or not�never forget that point.

The theory of evolution, or the theory of creation is not something that our entire society hangs on. I agree it�s good science, but I�m not willing to force it down someone�s throat if they are offended by it on religious grounds. This is a wrong perpetrated on those who are believers that is way overdue to be righted. (not that I necessarily agree that this is the correct course of action)

Okay, now with that said, I really don�t like how this is being reported and I think it would be very interesting to see the actual legislation; because it sure sounds like this is giving students a license to pontificate their beliefs, which could be disruptive in class. I the better solution would be to simply dismiss students from evolutionary teaching on religious grounds.

With the exception of a few, this post drug out the usual kooks.

JM.

I don't think anyone here would accuse me of bein a Christian fanatic, and most Conservatives that I know are not.

Morals and ethics are taught within a church, which is why when you find good people that are well versed in those characteristics, they tend to be in the religion group.

Likewise, when you find whores, dopers, thieves, and dictators, they tend to lean towards athiest side.

I kind of like the group I fall in with.

I wonder how long until this will apply to other subjects - I know what I know; don't confuse me with facts.

i like to see it done without resorting to the 'perjorative calculus'

Try proving 1+1 =2.

Whitehead and Russell did it in 'Pricipia Mathematica' and it pretty much broke Russell.

AND PAGANS!!!!!

And that's what Christians are afraid of.

Gravity was a good one for you to home in on, since you dropped the ball pretty bad with that reply.

Still waiting on my Dog-Cat or Man-Bird or the other critter besides a human who need shelter and clothing. Better yet, where's the critter that is half-way between needing clothing and not?

Keep in mind, I'm looking at it from both sides, without saying science has it all wrong. Somewhere in the middle is likely, though no one on this planet isn't guessing and that is the facts.

Matt,

Show me a God.

It might very well be that humans, or even life, are the result of some sort of intervention by some being of some sort. In fact, I would suspect we may be. But that's more science fiction than religion.

I'm not qualified to speak on evolution other than to say it's a darn decent scientific theory. If you understand what a scientific theory is and is not, that says a lot. If you don't... then you'll run with that statement. Have at it.

But your fundamental misunderstanding of, well, the universe is that somehow complexity begets the necessity of a God; a cop who polices the complexity. It isn't so. Extremely complex systems can just be what they are. Randomness and chaos and meaninglessness are reality. Some sort of imposed order, some system that makes you sleep better at night know how very special you are, and that there's a Daddy watching over you, is just wishful thinking... and for YOU to say that MY CHILD should have your childish, nonsensical religious beliefs, or ANY OTHER childish, nonsensical religious beliefs imposed upon them in a public classroom is wrong, and it's un-American.

God didn't create man, man created God. It was a brilliant realization then, and it still is today. Open your mind, join the modern era, and REALIZE!

Classrooms are for learning what is, not what someone made up in a mystical fantasy thousands of years ago when they thought the world was flat and people went into the clouds when they die...

Nope.

You can be hard to follow as you dash from one ultimatum to another. Based on the original post, no one is forcing anyone to do anything.

What I advocate is a classroom that develops how to think rather than what to think. I'd take a well-executed paper dedicated to atheism over an illegible scrawl on Christianity.

I take issue with that. Mathematics, much of it considerably more advanced than so-called Advanced Algebra, is the quantitative language of engineering and the hard sciences. I'm not saying it's for everybody, but you made a rather broad statement.

Well , I don't know what that "perjorative calculus" stuff is , but I know for a fact that if ya got 2 slices of bread + 2 slices of bologna then that would = 1 bologna sandwich and that is without entering mayo or mustard into the equation.

Mike

You're dodging the question again JOBAMA......

You're real quick to say what is fact and what isn't, but you cannot backup your athiest theory.

You want me to show you God, but you can't prove that's he doesn't exist, yet you fail to explain why we don't see the evidence of evolution caught in midstream.

Like I said before, I think somewhere in the middle lies the answer, but absolutely no one knows for sure, especially you, regardless of your opinions you call facts.

No, hell no. The government should not require it nor should they deny it.

Have you actually read Darwin? Do you understand the theory of natural selection. It takes tens or hundreds or even millions of year to see new species emerge. But we can see the gradual changes in species through the forces of natural selection.

The facts are there for anyone who wants to make the most casual investigation. But creationists don't want to bother, because science is hard. It means analyzing facts, thinking, researching and having a broad underlying education to understand the significance of data obtained. Some of that data will be incomplete or even misleading, and theories will evolve and change over time as a new and better understanding is obtained.

With religion, all you have to do is accept the dogma of the faith, and reject anything that doesn't agree with with it.

There is a simple and revealing test about the different approaches to science, faith and religion.

If you ask an atheist what proofs they would consider which would convince them of the existence of a god, most can give a list

Ask a theist a similar question about what would convince the that their God doesn't exist, or even that their particular religion is is wrong, and they will say that there is nothing that would convince them.

I have no doubt that were I to provide you with literally reams of data supporting evolutionary theory - facts if you will - that you would remain unconvinced.

Those who deny evolution remind me of holocaust deniers. They won't be swayed by any amount of evidence.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Human evolution has been moving at breakneck speed in the past several thousand years, far from plodding along as some scientists had thought, researchers said on Monday.

In fact, people today are genetically more different from people living 5,000 years ago than those humans were different from the Neanderthals who vanished 30,000 years ago, according to anthropologist John Hawks of the University of Wisconsin.

The genetic changes have related to numerous different human characteristics, the researchers said.

Many of the recent genetic changes reflect differences in the human diet brought on by agriculture, as well as resistance to epidemic diseases that became mass killers following the growth of human civilizations, the researchers said.

For example, Africans have new genes providing resistance to malaria. In Europeans, there is a gene that makes them better able to digest milk as adults. In Asians, there is a gene that makes ear wax more dry.

The changes have been driven by the colossal growth in the human population -- from a few million to 6.5 billion in the past 10,000 years -- with people moving into new environments to which they needed to adapt, added Henry Harpending, a University of Utah anthropologist.

"The central finding is that human evolution is happening very fast -- faster than any of us thought," Harpending said in a telephone interview.

"Most of the acceleration is in the last 10,000 years, basically corresponding to population growth after agriculture is invented," Hawks said in a telephone interview.

The research appears in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

FAVORABLE GENE MUTATIONS

The researchers looked for the appearance of favorable gene mutations over the past 80,000 years of human history by analyzing voluminous DNA information on 270 people from different populations worldwide.

Data from this International HapMap Project, short for haplotype mapping, offered essentially a catalogue of genetic differences and similarities in people alive today.

Looking at such data, scientists can ascertain how recently a given genetic change appeared in the genome and then can plot the pace of such change into the distant past.

Beneficial genetic changes have appeared at a rate roughly 100 times higher in the past 5,000 years than at any previous period of human evolution, the researchers determined. They added that about 7 percent of human genes are undergoing rapid, relatively recent evolution.

Even with these changes, however, human DNA remains more than 99 percent identical, the researchers noted.

Harpending said the genetic evidence shows that people worldwide have been getting less similar rather than more similar due to the relatively recent genetic changes.

Genes have evolved relatively quickly in Africa, Asia and Europe but almost all of the changes have been unique to their corner of the world. This is the case, he said, because since humans dispersed from Africa to other parts of the world about 40,000 years ago, there has not been much flow of genes between the regions.

Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSN1043228620071210

Wow, after reading that, I�m really sorry I responded to your first post. It�s clear to me now that you really don�t have the first hint of understanding of either side of the issue. But rather you stuff magnum loads of unfounded opinion in your six-shooter, wade in and start blasting away.

That's a good point. Science and religion are different ways of "knowing" the world around you. In some cases thay agree and in others their ideas are opposed.

What OK has done is wrong. It's like giving a cooking recipe for a history test answer.

For some, science IS a religion. It's then a pseudo-science, IMO. And because science sometimes conflicts with religious beliefs, some in the faith camp discount a lot of scientific findings that they should not.

Trust me, I use math everyday and Algebra in its basic form, along with Geometry, Trig, and the basics of add, subtract, etc. are the basis of our world.
Once you step above that level of math, less than 1%, which is being generous, is going to make use of it in the real world.
Saving that type of curriculum for college is better suited, though most school systems will push the advanced Alegbra before they'll teach the kids Trig. Very assbackwards IMO.

Math is everything and the language of all, but timing on exposure can have a lot to do with the ability for children to absorb it. Not only that, but teachers rarely are able to provide real world uses for it, so it goes in one ear and out the other.

Kevin,

Nice post.

The problem is, the Christians hold the majority in our country by a long shot. It's for just that reason that a classroom needs to be secular. It's simply unworkable to think that it's possible to teach, say, biology or science if 2/3 of the class can just basically spout whatever their Bible says on the subject and get an "A"! Right? What's the point of even having the class?

The fact is that evolution is a darn decent theory; a darned decent explanation for what we know scientifically. It is worth presenting as such- the best theory we have for the FACTS at hand.

All of the various religions have their ideas about how it all started, but, they are just made-up fantasies based on nothing. Nothing! How do you teach that? On what grounds? I mean hey, teach it in church all you want; I don't care. But how is a teacher supposed to stand there in science class and teach about the history of the world AND include how every religion thinks it happened? For one thing, they are completely contradictory. That's on top of being completely unsupported by reality.

I need to get to work but someone who is getting PAID to sit here dinking around on the internet, and you know most of you are, please go Google up all the various Creation myths of all the religions and present them here. It'll be a hoot.

OK, so there are fanatical scientists.

More to the point though... for some, religion IS a science.

A fanatic scientist is still peer-reviewed and must present facts and evidence to back things up, or they aren't a scientist very long.

A religious fanatic does not suffer that indignity. That's the problem here.

It is impossible to prove something doesn't exist.

Prove that the Flying Spaghetti Monster (blessed be his noodley appendage) does not exist.

We see evolution in mid-stream all over the place. Why do whales have a femur and pelvis? Why do humans have muscles that are only useful for walking on all fours? Why do we have a erector pilli? A coccyx? Wisdom teeth?

Tod, I understand the theory, and yes, like all children, was forced to learn it in school.

It is however a theory no more plausible than genesis.

Have I ruled it out? No, but with the average human using only about 30% of their brain capacity, and liberals using less, I doubt they've got all the answers yet.

Science has yet to disprove the bible, but it certainly has changed the way people should be interpreting it.
This kind of gets back to Ken's theory on Fact vs. Opinion. When does it cease to be a fact and becomes an opinion and how much evidence must one be exposed to in order to realize that something is indeed fact?

Nope, sorry.

It's just a simple fact that Matt cannot show us a God, nor can you or anyone else.

A scientist CAN show us a fossil.

One is a reality, the other is a philosophy.

And, humans are nothing if not wishful thinkers when it comes to wanting some sort of afterlife. We take great comfort in the idea that there is some sort of order, some sort of guide, some sort of map, some sort of SOMETHING. There may be- I don't know, neither do you. But it's not a provable, physical reality. It's not something that can be shown. You can believe it, you can love it, you can follow it's guidelines all you want- have at it man!

Just don't attempt to teach it in a Science class in a publically-funded classroom, and I have no beef with it. Keep it in the realm of what it is- faith.

By the way, I have my religious beliefs; I'm not immune to the wonder of the world.

FACTS which by your own admission, you really know nothing of. Seems to me your foundation in evolution is based more on faith.

But even FACTS to the contrary of evolution are not welcome in the US classroom; what do you say about that?

Indian Creation myths:

Indian Creation Myths


"The Day 1



The Crow, who now reigns from the top of the totem of the Haida nation, was the grandson of the Great Holy Chief who made the world.
When the crow cried, asking for the moon that hung from the wall of logs, his grandfather gave it to him. The crow threw it at the sky through the chimney hole; and again he cried, claiming the stars. When he got them, he distributed them around the moon.
Then he cried and kicked and screamed until his grandfather gave him the wrought wooden box in which he kept the light of day. The Great Holy Chief forbade him to take the box out of the house. He had decided that the world would live in darkness.
The crow played with the box, pretending to be inattentive, but observing from the corner of his eye the guardians who were watching him.
Taking advantage of a moment of carelessness, he escaped with the box in his beak. The tip of his beak broke as he passed through the chimney and his feathers were burnt, and stayed black forever.
The crow arrived at the islands off the coast of Canada. He heard human voices and asked for food. They refused him. He threatened to break open the wooden box:
�If the day escapes, which I hold here, the sky will never be turned off,� he warned. No one will be able to sleep, or keep secrets, and it will be known who are people, who is a bird and who is a beast of the forest.�
They laughed. The crow broke the box and the light erupted in the universe.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The Night 2




The sun never stopped shining and the Cashinahua Indians didn�t know the sweetness of rest.
Needing peace, exhausted by so much light, they asked the mouse to lend them the night.
It became dark, but the mouse�s night only lasted long enough to eat and smoke a while in front of the fire. Dawn arrived just as the Indians got comfortable in their hammocks.
Then they tried the night of the tapir. With the night of the tapir they were able to sleep soundly and enjoyed the long rest so long desired. But when they woke up so much time had passed that the underbrush of the forest had invaded their crops and squashed their homes.
After much seeking, they kept the night of the armadillo. They took it as a loan and never returned it. The armadillo, dispossessed of the night, sleeps during the day.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



The Stars 3



By playing the flute, love is declared or the return of the hunters is announced. With the sound of the flute the Waiwai Indians invite their guests. For the Tukanos the flute weeps; and for the Kalinas it speaks, because it�s the trumpet that yells.
On the banks of the Rio Negro the flute assures the power of the men. The sacred flutes are hidden, and the woman who shows herself there deserves to die.
In very ancient times, when the women possessed the sacred flutes, the men hauled the wood and the water and prepared the mandioca bread.
The men relate how the sun was indignant to see that the women reigned in the world. The sun came down to the forest and made a virgin pregnant by squeezing the juices of leaves between her legs. Thus was born Jurupari.
Jurupari stole the sacred flutes and gave them to the men. He taught them how to hide them and defend them and to celebrate sacred rituals without women. Also, he told them the secrets they were to transmit to the ears of their sons.
When Jurapari�s mother found the hiding place of the sacred flutes, he condemned her to die; and he made the stars in the sky from her pieces.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



The Milky Way 4



The worm, no bigger that a pinky, ate the hearts of birds. His father was the best hunter of the Mosetenes people.
The worm grew. Soon he was as big as an arm. He demanded more and more hearts. The hunter spent the whole day in the forest killing for his son.
When the serpent no longer fit in the hut, there were no birds left in the forest. The father, with well-aimed arrows, offered him jaguar hearts.
The serpent devoured and grew. There were already no jaguars left in the forest.
�I want human hearts,� the serpent said.
The hunter left his village and neighboring areas without people until one day, in a distant village, they surprised him on the branch of a tree and killed him.
Tormented by hunger and nostalgia, the serpent went looking for him.
He wound his body around the guilty village so nobody could escape. The villagers shot all their arrows at that gigantic ring which had put them under siege. Meanwhile the serpent never ceased to grow.
No one was saved. The serpent rescued its father�s body and grew upwards.
There he is seen, undulating, bristling with luminous arrows, passing through the night."

hindu Creation myths:

"The Hindus believe that a cobra was asleep in the ocean which had drowned the world. The serpent was guarding Vishnu under its coiled body, who lay asleep undisturbed by the silence. While the Lord was resting, he heard the resonance of 'Om', which woke him up. A purple lotus bloomed from Vishnu's navel which became his seat. A school of thought also believes that it was 'Dattatreya' who created the divine trinity of Lord Brahma, Vishnu And Shiva.

'Narad' praised the loyalty of 'Anusuya' towards her husband 'Atri' in front of the wives of the Brahma Vishnu and Shiva. Jealous, the wives asked the gods to challenge her loyalty. So the worshiped trio asked her to dress down and serve food. She agreed and won the challenge. The gods then transformed themselves into babies to be born and raised by the faithful Anusuya.

The world was formed as the divine trinity transcended into 'Avatars' or forms of being. Among the famous avatars known to the Hindu mythology, Vishnu is believed to have ten forms in 'Garuda Purana' and another ten forms in 'Bhagavata Purana'. 'Garuda Purana' is an epilogue of Vishnu's instructions, which he delivered to his carrier 'Garuda',who was the king of birds.

The world came into being through gradual stages, says the Hindu philosophy of 'Yugas' or eras. There are four stages that the cosmos will go through. The first 'Yug' was the 'Satya Yug', wherein the whole world was governed by the Gods, in absolute truth. The world was then an ideal manifestation of mankind. The Satya Yug lasted for 100, 000 years. This era saw the ten avatars of Lord Vishnu. The first form of Vishnu was 'Matsya', the fish, then 'Kruma', the tortoise, then 'Varaha' the boar and the last in this era was the 'Narasimha' who was half man and half lion. A bull named 'Dharma'- which literally means 'the righteous duty' one is born for- stood on four legs in Satya Yug. The next era was the 'Treta Yug' which symbolized perfect morality. This epoch making event in Hindu mythology saw the Vishnu's avatars in 'Vamana', the dwarf, 'Parashurama', Rama with an axe and 'Rama', the King of Ayodhya. The greatest epic of Ramayana was etched in the 'Treta Yug'. The bull, Dharma is shown to be standing on three legs in this era. The third cycle of the universe was the 'Dwapara Yug'. This age was symbolized by the bull standing on its two feet. It is believed that this Yug saw its end when Lord Krishna returned to his eternal home at 'Vaikuntha'. Bhagvan Vishnu took the avatars of 'Balarama' along with his brother 'Krishna'. The fourth 'Yug' known as 'Kali Yug' which translates to the age of vice. According to Hindus the world is presently in the 'Kali Yug'. The death of Krishna marked the beginning of this age. Followers of Hinduism believe that this stage of evolution will degenerate the world spiritually as people are moving away from the God in their mental make up. Thus the bull of morality, Dharma now stands on one leg.

Hindus believe in 'rebirth' or 'punarjanma' as there is an 'atman' or an eternal soul which transcends to another form, in the next life. As per the Hindus only the body dies and decays. The soul lives on forever, in some form or the other. Apparently, the idea of heaven or 'Swarga' and hell 'Narka' originated in the Hindu culture as a result of Western influence.

The Hindu philosophy believes that the universe was born out of 'Hiranyagarbha', the golden womb. The 'Upanishads', vedic scriptures, maintain that 'Hiranyagarbha' floated in an anti-matter before breaking into two-halves 'Prithvi', the Earth and 'Swarga', the Heaven. Hinduism acknowledged fourteen worlds of which seven were the higher worlds (heaven) and the remaining seven lower worlds(hells)."

Only to folks who accept things on faith. There much compelling evidence that sections of the bible are wrong, borrowed from other faiths, etc. And of course there's the question of which bible. Books have been added an removed over time.

That depends on the situation. In mathematics one often proves "something" doesn't exist by demonstrating its existence leads to consequences/results that are not true.

I am playing the Devil's advocate here a little, but I think it's ignorant on both sides to not accept some of each theories as to how we all got here.

Religion, taken out of context, without studying the average humans' sense of what was what at that timeframe, is just as bad as a scientist completly ignoring what was written in the bible because they believe it to be pure myth.

Science has all kinds of theories, yet they always come to a dead end at some point that they cannot explain. It doesn't mean that what they've concluded up to that point is wrong, but it might just mean that they've missed the other piece of the puzzle because of their hatred for religion.

Like I said earlier, somewhere in the middle is closer to big picture than either by itself.

Am I the only one that fails to see a conflict between evolution and creationism ? GOD is not a static being nor are his creations , over time things CHANGE or EVOLVE.


Mike

I don't see the conflict, IMO creation is continual and ongoing process.

Nope your not.........

JOBAMA and Tod would like everyone to learn only one way of thinking in school and that an alternative or addition to science is simply rubbish.

And they call Christians close-minded.

Matt, why the Bible and not some other revealed religion? There is just as much evidence for Amena-Ra as for Yaweh. Show me some independently verifiable proof for the existence of God. Something that can be weighed, measured and verified. Something that can pass scientific peer review. Then I'll gladly accept the notion of God, and all that goes with it.

The idea that something must exist because we can't prove it is ridiculous. Are you familiar with Russell's teapot?

Please note that the atheists argument is that there is probably no god, and lacking verifiable evidence for a gods existence, we assume it is non-existent. The same way you probably assume that the Easter Bunny is non-existent.

No. I think the role of educators is to teach facts and reality. If people want to believe in magical fairies that's there business.

If you are going to teach religion in school - let's say creationism - and use the argument that it's another theory, be prepared to teach every creation mythos because they are all equally valid from a scientific perspective.

Now if you can offer some peer reviewed scientific studies that support Creationism, I'd be interested.

Science classes are for science. Students should have a chance to learn the state of the science so they can understand what all the controversy is all about. Whether the science is or is not actually true does not really matter. It is very easy to hate what you do not understand. Many science teachers, however, are not very good at teaching the evolutionary theories and often try to pit science against religion. That just makes matters worse.

6mm, you are not alone.


edit: Tod, I went to school under the Scopes Law in Tennessee. They eventually said you could teach the evolutionary theories if you taught Creation. Several groups demanded that their versions also be taught. The legislators of Tennessee finally threw up their hands and made it legal to teach anything the teacher wanted.

Religion shouldn't be taught in a publicly funded school - any religion. Nor should it be attacked. It should be completely irrelevant to public learning.

When you start actually reading my posts and comprehending what I'm writing, we'll have something to discuss.

Until then, you and JOBAMA can snuggle up to each other and be content in your ignorance.

I could care less whether you believe any religion...Not my problem, but to adhere to our Founding Father's document, otherwise known as the Constitution, a person should at least be able to hear both sides of an argument, if their tax dollars are paying for it.

If we have to listen to your crap, at least listen to the rest of the story.
You're expecting everyone to lockstep with athiest in the name of science, but you're violating christian beliefs in the process. That is not freedom of religion, which is different from freedom from religion.

If you can interpret the constitution, I fail to see what you're whining about.

Since the actual text of the OK bill was not posted, mere opinion is all that this discussion was based on, not the actual bill, which like most bills, can vary greatly depending on who's telling the story.

Health Care Reform over the last several weeks should have taught you that.

Slowly you're getting it Tod.......

Forcing Darwin on children in school, without the Christian alternative, which is all that this country was founded on, is an attack.....

That is the point.

I don't believe that public school should be bible study either, but blindly denouncing it has proven to be utter failure as well.

Look at what our society has become since the athiest movement has taken hold over the last 40 years. Can you really say that children these days are better mannered, crime is less, stealing is on the decline, and we are better off as a society for it?

Our nation is an utter failure and moving at a rapid rate of worse. Coincidently, there's been a serious movement amongst folks like yourselves to remove religion everywhere, not just in schools.

How serious are you about removing religion from your life Tod?

Are you going to start working on Sundays, rather than Mondays? Ohh wait, you'd best throw the calendar out the window, since that whole BC/AD thing is gonna cramp your style, to say nothing of the whole calendar.
What year is it anyway?
Christmas is gonna go downhill fast, as well as Easter. Don't be captilizing on any of those after-christmas sales either.
Your marriage is kind of null and void now too, but that's okay, since you can be an adulterer and it's fine. Go kill some conservatives while you're at it, since law means nothing, simply because its based on scripture.

Evolution is science. Not religion. It has facts to back it up.

Most of the founders were deists, as were many of our prominent citizens (back when espousing atheism was socially unacceptable, and even punishable.

I look at most Christians and all I see is hypocrisy. When was the last time you visited someone in prison? Gave someone your clothing? Fed them a meal? Or did you just flip off the bum on the corner holding up the sign that said 'hungry'?

Deut. 15:7. If there is a poor man among you, one of your brothers, in any of the towns of the land which the LORD your God is giving you, you shall not harden your heart, nor close your hand to your poor brother; but you shall freely open your hand to him, and generously lend him sufficient for his need in whatever he lacks.

Deut. 26:12. When you have finished paying the complete tithe of your increase in the third year, the year of tithing, then you shall give it to the Levite, to the stranger, to the orphan and the widow, that they may eat in your towns, and be satisfied.

Lev. 19:19ff. Now when you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap to the very corners of your field, neither shall you gather the gleanings of your harvest. Nor shall you glean your vineyard, nor shall you gather the fallen fruit of your vineyard; you shall leave them for the needy and for the stranger. I am the LORD your God.

Prov. 31:8ff. [Commandment to kings.] Open your mouth for the dumb, for the rights of all the unfortunate. Open your mouth, judge righteously, and defend the rights of the afflicted and needy.

Is. 58:66ff. Is this not the fast which I choose, to loosen the bonds of wickedness, to undo the bands of the yoke, and to let the oppressed go free, and break every yoke? Is it not to divide your bread with the hungry, and bring the homeless poor into the house; when you see the naked, to cover him, and not to hide yourself from your own flesh?

Jer. 22:3. Do justice and righteousness, and deliver the one who has been robbed from the power of his oppressor. Also do not mistreat or do violence to the stranger, the orphan, or the widow; and do not shed innocent blood in this place.

Luke 12:33. "Sell your possessions and give to charity; make yourselves purses which do not wear out, an unfailing treasure in heaven, where no thief comes near, nor moth destroys."

Luke 3:11. And [John the Baptist] would answer and say to them, "Let the man with two tunics share with him who has none, and let him who has food do likewise."

Mt. 5:42. Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you.



Have you given away all your possessions? Matt 19:21



I work on Sundays all the time. I often work Sundays for someone who wants to have the day off to go to church.

Calendar? It's already done: BCE and CE, although I don't use them



Christmas is a co-opting of the pagan holiday Saturnalia, and it bears more resemblance to that pagan celebration than to a man who preached non-materialism. Jesus, if he really existed, was probably born in September or possibly October. But pagans didn't want to give up their winter festival, so Christianity co-opted it



No. Marriages are civil ceremonies under law. A religious figure like a priest can marry someone, but that marriage is still sanctioned by the state. And plenty of people get married outside of the church



Religion is not required for law. Ever heard of ethics? And if religion really kept people from committing crimes, why are their so many Christians in prisons, and so few atheists.

I can't tell if you are serious or just plain silly

Good post. I agree with the first part- which I just deleted for brevity- that "liberalism" has had some real, negative consequences. When you remove structure, even flawed structure (as I believe Christianity to be), people are left in a void, potentially, and that's not good.

The second part of your post, above, brings up an interesting point though. You are saying that since law is based on scripture, therefore if you remove the scripture from public life the law then means nothing.

First, that's nonsensical. Whatever laws are based on- a Constitution, a Bible or Koran, or the ravings of a lunatic dictator- it's the enforcement of them that is important if you want them to be followed. Our laws will do just fine without being overtly bound to Scripture, and, in fact the rule of law would suffer greatly if BOUND to Scripture.

But more importantly your thoughts evade the topic at hand. It isn't whether we are a Judeo-Christian-based society; obviously, we are. It's whether teaching matters of faith in public schools makes any kind of sense. It doesn't. By way of illustration, read the references to Indian and Hindu creation myths I posted earlier. What some here are saying is this:

There are 10 different children in a science classroom. As it turns out, they are of 10 different religions. The teacher asks a question on the test. EACH of those children can answer a SCIENTIFIC QUESTION 10 different ways- according to their religion- and according to the law that Tod posted, the teacher has to give the a high grade for their answer. Why? Because they answered from their faith, and by golly we can't run the risk of offending anyone or implying that their religion, written by people thousands of years ago, might be factually WRONG on some matters.

Does anyone else see the hypocrisy of moaning about everything needing to be politically correct these days... complaining about falsly buttressing kid's "self esteem", but yet pandering to flat-world non-reality so as to not offend some religious zealots?

It seems that many here miss the point on both sides of the issue.
What part of "shall make no law" do you not understand?
If they tell us it is not allowed they have broken the law and violated our rights under the Constitution.
If they tell us we can they have broken the law and violated our rights under the Constitution.


Pat

so by teaching science it violates the rights of christians. but teaching the bible doesnt violate anyones rights, huh?
like any of the other few hundred relgions in this country?

I disagree. Religion should be taught, at the high school level or higher, in the same way you'd teach about other cultural, humanistic issues. Teach it as "History of Religion", or, "The Effects of Religion on Human History", or "An Overview of the Major Religions of the World".

As I said before, if religion was appropriatly taught there'd be a lot more people that'd be open-minded about it, and that's a good thing.

I don't mean, teach A religion. As you say, none of them are any more, or less, valid than any other. Teach kids (who want to take the class) about religionS. Help them see why religion is such a common denominator in human history. Show them how the mysteries of the world can be approached from many different angles, not just the Christian angle.

As a side benefit, at least some "indoctrinated" kids would see the light and realize that they'd been duped into believing in the Easter Bunny all these years.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

It needs to be spelled out in the full context.

If a public school is singling out a single religion for deferential treatment, it is 'establishing a religion'. If the school teaches every religion, or none at all, then there is no problem.

Since it seems impractical to teach every variation of the creation myth under the sun, teaching none at all appears to be the only Constitutional alternative.

What happens at home, or in privately funded schools is up to them.

The idea is equal protection under the law, regardless of race, religion, national origin or social class. That is one of the fundamental tenets of American culture.

Teaching a survey of religions wouldn't be a bad idea, I suppose. But I'm sure someone would eventually complain if their particular flavor didn't get represented the way they like. College seems like a better place.

That being said, I had 4 years of religion in high school, and another 4 in college. Of course it was a private Catholic school. And look how well that turned out.

In America, the problem is the Christians, so that's why I'll pick on them right now.

You are incorrect because if, for example, Christians want to put up the 10 Commandments in a courthouse, that is a tacit expression of a state religion.

It's not un-Constitutional to prevent that. It's un-Constitutional to attempt to put them up in the first place. Stopping that action is not making a law to establish a State religion, it's preventing a State religion from being established.

Likewise, in the schools. Kids in school are the ultimate captive audience. Captive to WHO? Ultimatly, captive to the State. Therefore, to introduce a religion is to impose a religion upon this captive audience. For the State to impost a religion upon them is un-Constitutional. For the State to impose ALL religions on them is unworkable.

"Our firm belief is that there are 2 types of people... those that love jesus and those that dont"
[video:youtube] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LACyLTsH4ac[/video]

Yeah, I've NEVER understood why religious people want to let the nose of the Government camel into their tent. The two seem toxic to each other. You want to create some athiests... teach a religion in the schools! Presto.

We accept that 2+2=5 and wonder why I can't find a decent US born engineer to hire out of college.

Nah, they would make something and just pray it was going to fit!

"Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has" ~ Martin Luther

'nuff said

When a person actually, deep down believes in God, then there is no belief about it. He or she actually KNOWS that God exists, and knows far beyond a belief.

People can say they believe anything, and many do, but actually knowing is so different from believing that the two words could be from different languages.

I don't have to believe God exists, or believe the Bible or believe in Jesus Christ.

I KNOW God exists, I KNOW the Bible is true, from the first word to the last, and I KNOW that Jesus Christ is real.

For a long time, I did believe, but now I KNOW.

Forgive the repeat.

Does anyone else see the hypocrisy of folks moaning about everything needing to be politically correct these days... complaining about falsly buttressing kid's "self esteem"... but yet pandering to flat-world non-reality so as to not offend some religious zealots?

Christians need to buck up! For Pete's sake, stop whining about this stuff. So your religion is in conflict with Science... so? Deal with it! The problem isn't the science, it's that you subscribe to nonsensical beliefs based on a document written thousands of years ago.

If I was gonna be Christian I would approach it in such a way as to accept the actual spiritual parts, which are beautiful and I really mean that, but see the silly fairy-tale stuff for what it was. And, in fact, I find that type of Christian to be admirable.

But the fundamentalist, literal, every-word-of-the-Bible-is-truth people? Puh-LEASE! Not gonna stand by and let them take over this country. They can go pair up with the Taliban in Pakistan if that's how they want to live. To pander to them is just plain obscene if you care about any kind of... of... reality.

Was that blunt enough?

Or we can just pussify our society pandering to everyone who doesn't like reality.

Trouble is out there somewhere there are several million Muslims who feel the same way about Allah, not to mention all the other faiths and religions and the default way of working out who is right and wrong seems to be to slaughter each other..

But getting back to the original thread...long and short of it is I don't want anybody teaching/or foisting their religion on my children while they are in school...Not teachers and not other kids...Keep religion to your home life and don't broad cast it around school...

ringworm----the best part of that video was the hot platinum blond at the end....thanks.

I think Paganism, Witchcraft, Wicca, Druidism, etc. should be taught in public schools, after all fair is fair.

In fairness it ain't about "teaching it" <religion> in schools...it's about allowing opposing theories to have an equally correct answer.

Thanks Ringworm.

This type of Christianity isn't any different than Islam. True these kids haven't strapped on bombs yet but give them time and they will.

It's falling on deaf ears........

Two idiots that hate religion won't understand the difference between opening your mind to possiblities and jamming religion down their throat.

They don't mind the systematic indoctrination of children into the communist manifesto, but they cringe at the thought of kids growing up to respect their parents, teachers, and not commiting crime.

They can't wrap their mind around the fact that many people who don't stand up and preach to them, give to those in need, both in monies, as well as food and clothing. They can't fathom that there are millions of people who help each other each and every day in their times of need, being bound simply by the common thread in the church.

I'd sure hate to end up on my death bed after years of following the likes of Tod and Jeff and realize that I had made a terrible mistake, but was too late to fix it.....
Must be hell being that right....(pun there)

Now I'm gonna let you boys have at it....I's done

Regardless or your religious beliefs, the Christian way of life is a good way to live your life.

If everyone, Christian or non Christian lived a Christian lifestye, there would be a lot less killing, rapes, murders, and any crime someone would care to describe.

To me, it would be nice to live in a crime free sociaty, where there was no need for body guards, concealed carry, locks and anti-theft devices.

As long as atheists have their way, in schools, governments, and everywhere else, it is not going to be that way. It is going to continue the way it is going when atheists gained a foot hold back in the 50s and 60s.

What's your post got to do with allowing kids to use creation to answer questions and getting a good grade for it.

I know Tod personally and he is a good man who does a lot of what you described. Jeff probably does too. I'm working at something that is based on goodness of heart. Why is it assumed that only Christians are capable of doing good works, that atheists, agnostics, Pagans, etc. are incapable of doing good works or have ethics. Talk about narrow mindedness.

But... but...

First of all, Christianity isn't a "theory".

Second, "equally correct answers"...?!

Tod, you are the one with a religious skool background. Please list some of the "equally correct answers" that are in the Bible. I would expect, there are any number of things in there contrary to science that are, apparantly, equally correct.

bump

If Christians actually lived a Christian way of life it would be great. I know more non-Christians who follow the precepts of Christianity as taught by Jesus. Barack and his wife are about the only ones on this board I can think of who are out there 'walking the walk' but I sure there are others.

If you approach Jesus' teachings as a moral philosophy, there is much to recommend it. Jefferson certainly thought so, as he prepared a version of the Bible without the miracles and other mummery and focused on the moral teachings (google Jefferson Bible).

But many Christians, particularly well represented right here are some of the most hateful, hypocritical and mean spirited people I have ever heard. Their morality certainly seems at odds with the spiritual leader the claim to try and emulate.

I've heard people posting in this thread talk about torturing others, killing those who don;t believe in their political philosophy and even advocating genocide. All of which seem to fly directly in the face of the teaching of Jesus.

Love you enemy. Feed the hungry. Clothe the naked. Help the poor. Reject materialism.

As far as atheism, it means only one thing - lack in the belief in a god. That is it and noting more. It doesn't mean rejecting moral precepts, doing evil whenever possible.

The difference between a Christian and an atheist is that the atheist believes in one fewer god than the Christian. Christians don't believe Wotan, or Diana or Ahuru-mazda or Baal. We just take it one step further.

Christianity is no different than all the other 'revealed' religions that Christians claim as false, except that Christians believe it. Their Bible is right, and all the other holy books are wrong. Why Because the bible says so.

Ironic, no?

As for those who make the argument of Pascal's wager, think about this. What if you Christians are wrong and Islam or some other religion is the right one.

What you call opening someone's mind I call telling fairy tales. As Ringworm noted, God is Santa Claus for adults. How about opening you mind to Islam? Or Buddhism? Or Asatru. Or Paganism?



Ah, the predictable ad hominem attack, favorite of the cornered Xian. Call the non-believer a communist, accuse them of evil. Don't discuss the issue at hand.

I've raised my children to respect there parents and others. I even teach them to respect people of other religions, however nutty they may be. I've reaised them to be ethical.

BTW, you never responded to my comment about why there are so few atheists in prison, versus Christians. Atheists make up 10-15% of the US population, but only about 2% of those in prison. Doesn't Christianity make you more likely to be good? I guess not. Your argument fails in the face of real world data.



I'm sure there are. But they seems to be a small minority of the religious. And you need to accept the fact that there are non-Christians including atheists who also help others. They don't even do it for some possible reward after death or because their holy book tells them to. They do it because it is the right thing to do.



What happens if you are wrong? What if you are worshipping the wrong god? What if the Muslims have it right.

Further, I'd like to suggest that the Christians - that is the 'faith alone' types - are the ones with no motivation to be good people. They believe that they are saved by faith alone, so there's really no need to actually do good. Whereas the non-believer has to measure their life by what they do in the near and now. And their legacy is with those that remain after they are gone.

Your characterizations of Christians is about as naively academic as categorizing bugs in a journal.

I thought you indicated you were done with the thread? You must have edited your post.

Anyway....

No, that was quoting Matt.

I'd say my characterizations of Christians was as accurate as Matt's characterizations of Atheists.

Atheism- a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity


That's the Merriam-Webster definition of "atheism".


That's why your "byline" is completely wrong. "Atheism" has become a "religion" in our society. It has become a firm belief (doctrine) that there is no God. A firm denial of his existence.

I consider myself an agnostic some days, a Deist on others. I refrain from running around denying God's existence completely. I can honestly say "I don't know". If he does exist. If he does, I follow the Deist approach which seems to think he has more of a "hands off" approach to how we live our lives here on Earth.

Tod, I have a hard time giving a darn about what you believe in your numerous anti-religious screeds here when you won't even accept the "accepted" meaning of "atheism" (as noted above), a DENIAL of the existence of God, not merely a LACK of belief in God (as you say).

First off, the idea that for one to believe the Bible, one must reject science is a great deception. It is an equal deception that to accept science one must reject the Bible. Those commonly held ideas make about as much sense as assuming because you know how to rebuild an engine you can't debate philosophy.

The Bible explains WHY we are here and what we should do. It makes no attempt to provide a detailed step-by-step account of HOW God created the earth. Those that attempt to do so are rejecting the principles of the Literal Method of Biblical Interpretation, and are reading into the text what they want to see to support their own view.

You can say the same thing about evolutionists who try to use evolution as proof that there is no God. You have to speculate WELL beyond the science to establish an opinion about God from the Theory of Evolution.



Actually a study of ancient religions shows otherwise. When many were worshipping trees and dirt and animals, and consider gods came from the earth and had human failings and weaknesses; the Gensis account describes a God that is above all else, creator of all, with no human failings or weaknesses. That just isn't the kind of diety people make up.

However, I am for allowing peaceful and respectful expression of all points of view. I firmly believe that Chriatianity bests all other philosophies and is a culmination of all truth. I am willing to let Christianity compete in the realm of ideas.

The problem is the anti-Christians know how powerful and effective Christianity is, so they are doing everything they can tp prevent it from even being heard, much less give it a fair hearing. I guess that is a typical tactic of chicken-schitts with little intellectual vigor................

One last thing. I am sick ond tired of non-Christians trying to tell Christians how the should behave and what the Bible says. That is as stupid as an anti-hunter trying tell an experienced elk hunter how to harvest a trophy elk....................

I am all for letting people make up their own minds about religion. I am not in favor of indoctrinating children in school using public funds. I wonder how many Christians there would be if they weren't raised in the faith before they were even able to think critically

As far as Christians in general, I admit that I am painting with a very wide brush. The reality is that I am addressing a distinct subset of literalist, anti-science, anti-reason religious zealots

Before I left the church, I was able to accept the idea of religion as a spiritual pursuit, existing in a different realm as science. The Thomistic proofs seems compelling for an uncaused causer. But that is very different from a revealed God, with miracles, intervention, ritual, etc. This is generally called Deism, and was popular with the Founding Fathers.

However I eventually recognized that this god is nothing more than the 'god of the gaps', a simple explanation of the unexplainable. A comfort god to fill in the unknown. Also, the acceptance of religion has a strong social aspect. To question faith or religion, let alone reject it is to be socially outcast. For many it is not an easy path.

Given what we know with the tools we have, I would only argue that there probably isn't a god. certainly there is no evidence to prove the existence of the biblical god, who even if he did exist is a capricious and downright evil being. But it is impossible to prove that a god or gods does not exist.

As far as Christianity have some unique perspective on the nature of God, I invite you to read Pagan Origins of the Christ Myth. You'll find some pretty compelling evidence that there is nothing unique about Christianity, and indeed that much of it is borrowed whole cloth from other religions.

http://www.pocm.info/

Of course it's powerful. All you have to do is believe (accept Jesus as your personal savior), and you will go to heaven after you die. Do next to nothing and live forever with Jesus. What's not to like?

Now if you had to live a particular kind of life, practice rituals and do certain works, that is to have to earn you way into heaven though positive action, including things that were hard or unpleasant, I think you'd find Christianity a lot less popular.

Imagine how popular Christianity would be if you actually had to live like a monk or nun, for example, in order to be saved.

I'm an evolutionist who believes in a Deity. There is definitely one of us out here.

The problem nowadays is the education system attempts to indoctrinate our children against Christianity. I would fully support an objective education system free from emotional bias for or against any belief system.



The same number that are Christians now.



I hate those guys too....................



Yes, the revealed God is very different than the kind of diety humans usually make up.



A "god of the gaps" is a human invention, and is not different that the gods ancient peoples made up to try and explain things. You are right to reject such a god. The only God worth serving is one that is the ultimate creator of time and existence; a God who exists both inside of and outside of time and existence. A God not worried about explaining Himself or what he does to any of us. A God that requies accountability to Him. A God that by His very nature is more worthy of worship and praise than we can hope to comprehend. This is the God I know and worship, and I'm sorry you missed Him. However don't confuse the imitation of god you rightly rejected with the real deal.




All the real Christians I know frequently ask the hard questions about their beliefs, and could care less about what is socially acceptable. It is much much easier to give into the pressure of rejecting real Christianity than it is to live it.



The problem is, we don't really know what we think we know, nor can we. We cannot come close to making an evaluation using our limited scientific tools as to the existence of God. The only way to answer that question, and it is purposely this way, is to develop a personal relationship with God.

In the same vein, we are simply not equipped to pass judgment on Ultimate Being both inside of and outside of time and existence. We cannot even comprehend such a Being, much less evaluate His actions.

We cannot scientifically prove the existence of a God, nor can we convince someone else of the existence of a God. Miracles are not proof, because we can choose to define a miraculous occurance any way we want. We become convinced of the existence of God when we come too know Him personally. Since I know God personally, telling me He doesn't exists is as nonsensical as a coworker me my own wife doesn't exist just becasue he hasn't seen her.[/quote]




POCM misses the main point, which is not suprising. Christianity did not begin with Christ's appearance on earth. The ancient peoples with whom God interacted existed several thousand years before Christ became a man, well before religions POCM cits as being influential to Christianity. In fcat, it was most likely the other way around.

And the idea that sharing some common elements with other ancient belief systems somehow makes Christianity not unique reflects an unthinking, but sadly common, view of Christianity. Some think the Bible teaches that all truth is ONLY found in Christianity. They consider that either Christianity is right and everything else is wrong, or everything else is right and the Christianty is wrong. I much prefer CS Lewis' approach to the issue.

Lewis saw all belief systems as being on a continuim, starting with paganism (which is not the formalized paganism Tim believes in) and culminating in Christianity. Informal paganism contains some truth, and each step along the continuim finds more and more truth until truth culminates in Christianity. As such, there is bound to be some truth found in every belief system.

Blaine, the poetry in what you describe is undeniable.

But, it still doesn't belong in the public schools.

I'm for thinking that somewhere in one of the major religions there's flying pigs or the equivelant. This thread started out being about a new law in Oklahoma allowing kids to make any statement they like, according to their religion, and the teacher would have to give them a high grade. Do pigs fly?

It's just absurd, injecting fundamentalist, literal, religion into a publically funded classroom like that.

It also amounts to child abuse if taken to an extreme. I'm sorry; there's just physical reality, things like "the Earth is older than 6000 years", and "pigs don't fly" and so on, and that truth is not trumped by some religous belief. It would be WRONG to let kids say factually absurd things, but just give them an "A" and just pretend everything was OK!

I'm guessing you agree, Blaine.

Just wondering if the proposed law would protect a person using an answer in a religious (private?) school regarding who the first man was. If they answered their belief is that "Austalopithecus" or "Ardipithicus" or "insert name of latest discovery" is considered to be the first human, would the school have to accept this as a satisfactory answer if the subject being tested was religious studies?
Alternately, there are many cultures that are relatively obscure, and whilst their contact in this situation is unlikely, would a fundamentally Christian school accept an answer based on an upbringing/belief that is alternative to the word of the Bible?
Just curious, as protection laws really have to cut all ways I guess.

"I'm guessing you agree, Blaine. "

doubt that.

You'd have gotten your lights punched out, mouthing off
where we've behaved like American Riflemen,just shooting, and scoring one another.

You GLOAT,....your "Boy" won

Sicko,......you.

an EASY read.

I'd avoid NRA and other Sanctioned events, .....with that mouth on you.

just sayin'

GTC

"The bill requires public schools to guarantee students the right to express their religious viewpoints in a public forum, in class, in homework and in other ways without being penalized."
-------------

Nothing wrong with that first part. But the remainder is just stupid. Kids can learn the answers, too. Nothing wrong with learning how current scientific beliefs have things sliced and diced. It's when any one thing is jammed down kid's throats as fact and all other views/ideas/theories are dismissed, or even outlawed, that I'll step up to the plate.

A little thing called the Bill of Rights is supposed to see to it your beliefs and the expression thereof are safeguarded. And a little thing called common sense is supposed to see to it that wrong answers to questions are graded as wrong answers.

Duh. I'm damn near an idiot and I can figure that one out.(see tag line below)

you exactly right.
I dont HATE much but i do HATE religion. religion has tried to replace GOD.
Your petty little comic book rendition of GOD is nothing more than a weak, spiteful, confused and incompetent diety.
He/ they are not GOD, I assure you.
Only without religion will mankind ever be free.
Only without religion will amnkind ever find peace.
Only without religion will mankind ever know GOD.

http://mainstreambaptist.blogspot.com/2008/03/mob-press-release-opposing-ok-hb-2211.html

This is not new. Note the date...

I was wondering how long it would take for someone to mention the original post allows students the freedom to express religion, and has nothing to do with what is taught.





The atheist clown car is in full motion.

"Only without religion will mankind ever be free.
Only without religion will amnkind ever find peace.
Only without religion will mankind ever know GOD."


Hear, hear!

I have a question for Tod and Jeff...Do you think it's okay to force children to learn something that is in direct conflict to their religious beliefs?

i'll answer that. ONLY if thier relgious beliefs are contrary to fact.
should evangelical christian kids who believe the earth is 10 thousand years old and that dinosaur fossils are the devils trick to confuse man be deprived of scientific fact as it relates to the world?
should we usher them from the classroom when the "theory" that natural selection exists comes up?
what would you require of a teacher?

Lets just have the parents sign a waiver that allows the school to have all the fundamentalist moved to the gym during science class so they can hold hands and pray, perhaps discuss such subjects as how much jesus loves little babies and "sing this little light of mine".
that work for you?

I seldom read what you past because of the hate. However, I find I am starting to understand some of your views. This may surprise you and many others here but you and I agree on the above quote. I just refuse to hate anything.

In a publically funded school- yes.

See my "pigs fly" post as to why I would think that, because I'll admit it does sound harsh.

So the subject of evolution is so important, that we have to teach this in grade school? Can you tell me one thing that evolutionary process knowledge changes for a person functioning in society?

How 'bout teaching science, exclusive of evolution in k-12, and then make evolutionary science an elective in either high school, or college? Why is this subject so important that it's mandatory training for every human being in the US?

Now understand, I'm a believer in evolution. But it really hasn't changed my life one bit. I don't think about it on a daily basis, and it doesn't affect ANYTHING in my life, or the life of anyone I know.

Yet you say it's so important that we must violate someone's right to religious freedom, or freedom of speech, at an early age, and then continue to do so for as long as they are in a public school. You're saying that evolution is THAT important?

Would love to, but I have no idea where it is

Nevermind, found it; irrelevant to my question.

I'm coming from a different angle.

Evolution is important because it affects our lives from the day we are born to the day we die. It affects in our work, play, and most important of our relationships. You know when one hears the wife say we have grown apart meaning she has evolved and you haven't.

I wish somebody would start telling us when we are having "serious problems". I hate hearing about it at the beauty shop. Never heard of it.

well, first, Tod....that's an editorial from the Edmund paper, it isn't a news story, and the hypothetical is the writer's opinion, not what the statute says.

that ain't the way it's been in this country, for a long time

the ACLU isn't spending millions of dollars keeping Mohammed out of the classroom, pard

Well maybe not millions, but, from that left wing, pro Islamic group Jihad Watch:

The American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota said it will file suit today against a publicly funded charter school, alleging that it is promoting the Muslim religion and that it is leasing school space from a religious organization, the Muslim American Society of Minnesota, without following state law.

The suit was to be filed this afternoon in U.S. District Court against Tarek ibn Ziyad Academy, known as TIZA, and the Minnesota Department of Education, which the ACLU says is at fault for failing to uncover and stop the alleged transgressions. The suit names the department and Alice Seagren, the state education commissioner, as co-defendants.

From Campus Watch:

The lawsuit contends TiZA endorses Muslim religious practices by:

Permitting prayer sessions during school hours and having teacher-sanctioned religious material posted on classroom bulletin boards.
Allowing students and teachers to gather for 30 minutes of communal prayer every Friday.
Giving preference to Muslim clothing rules. Girls, but not boys, are prohibited from wearing short sleeves. Girls also must wear skirts or pants of a certain length, depending on their grade level. Female teachers must be covered from neck to wrist and ankle.
The lawsuit also accuses the state Education Department of giving the school public money despite repeated violations of state law.

Chas Anderson, the department's deputy commissioner, said in a written statement that state law requires charter schools to remain nonsectarian and state education officials take that requirement seriously.

"The department is in the process of carefully reviewing the ACLU lawsuit and will thoroughly respond through the legal process," Anderson said.

that's one.....when they file about a thousand more we'll call it even

That's a great question, and a tricky one. First I'll ask a question, then I'll try and reply.

Is it OK to force parents to give their children medical attention if it is against their religious beliefs? If so, why?

No to attempt an answer to your question, and this is off the cuff.

Our society has recognized that children are not able to make rational decisions themselves. Under that concept, a minor can be forced to be taught (you can't force someone to learn) something that conflicts with their religious beliefs. However, that does not mean the parents cannot act for their child.

Of course we can apply a reductio ad absurdum argument and ask what you mean by 'something' and 'religion'. The point being discussed is typically an argument of Christian faith versus scientific understanding, but if you extend the logic, if someone belonged to a religion that only advocated theocracy, could you teach them democratic civics? Can you teach a child not to abuse women if their religion advocates that women are lesser beings that should be beaten as needed?

Ultimately, I think the response is that while we recognize a person's right to freedom of religion, we are a secular nation. And parents have the right to opt out of sending their children to publicly funded schools. That's what my patents did, so that I might obtain a proper religious education.

I am snipping a great and well reasoned reply, which I invite everyone to read.


I enjoy reading Lewis very much, but the argument really relies on faith and nothing more. For those of us without such faith, these appeals mean nothing. I appreciate you view, and I wish more believers had it. Unfortunately, most seems to have a very narrow view that their particular revealed religion is the only true one. To the point where they even resort to killing competing faiths over the most trivial differences.

One thing I have never understood is the need in some people to worship something - nor the idea of an all powerful being that still requires the worship of such insignificant life forms as us humans, the merest speck in the universe.



This rationale is so circular as to be meaningless. Now we are arguing metaphysics.

Even so, it is a huge leap to go from the concept of an uncaused causer to the Christian God who demands prayers, rites, rituals, etc.

All I can say is that based on what we can prove scientifically, there probably isn't a God, at least there is no clear evidence of one. And in the absence of objective fact, we assume the negative until proven otherwise. Just like Bigfoot. He probably doesn't exist. However, should evidence come to light that proves his existence, then we must accept that he does.

Give me scientifically valid, verifiable proof for the existence of God and I'll believe it. Until then, i must operate from the assumption that like all the other deities, he exists only in the imagination of some humans. And in that realm, one god is much like any other.

All hail great Cthulhu

Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn

It is circular if you assume that the only things that can be real are things we can comprehend. I have never understood how people that try so hard to carefully apply logic everywhere else will immediately resort to an argument from personal incredulity when it comes to God. (I.E., I just can't imagine how a God could exist so therefore there must not be a God.)



It is not logically possible to prove God exists via the scientific method.

If we could scientifically prove that God existed, it would establish that science is the ultimate purveyor of truth. This would show that science is greater than God. Well, if science is greater than God, then by definition there is no God............which means science loses the status of "ultimate purveyor of truth" by proving He existed when He didn't.

It'd probably be better if folks just tried to find God the way He says they need to find Him................

I want is the same freedom for the expression of Christian ideas as there is for humanistic ideas.

I find all of this very interesting with out anyone really
getting down to basics. If one studies history you would
be aware that in earlier years Islam brought us early mathematics, art, construction
and poetry, but then went a stray. Just look at old 6-800
old buildings and see the work.
Many peoples fled to the US to escape and practice Religion with
out hindrance, I think they were expecting to bring their children up as they believed.
Those that can have chose to home school their children and get hassled by public school boards the same is experienced by
reglious schools with much more testing than is required in the public schools, I wonder why.
In the past few years universities have been actively and
deliberately recuiting home school students as they have a more
successful passing rate. Also students from most religious schools
have a much higher rate (percentage wise) of scholarships.
I am wondering how all of these things can be explained in
light of the general dumbing down that goes on in the public schools for the past 50 yrs. Oh yes I can a dumber public is
easier to control just look at the way the country is going and I think you have your answers.
Some will want to flame me, but I ask you to stop and really
consider what I have said. Cheers NC

The study of evolution is about as far away from a life and death issue as you can get. You can live your entire life in modern society without the faintest knowledge of evolution and life a long, happy and productive life.

I submit to you, that this issue would be better served at the college level.

So you can violate someone's religious convictions under the right circumstances? What exactly are those circumstances?

"For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?" ~Mark 8:36

If you believe in an afterlife, in God's plan and that God can perform miracles like healing, why would you force someone to violate their religious beliefs and go against the will of God by obtaining medical care contrary to their religious beliefs?

The situation may be different, but the principle is the same.

Blaine, I just wanted to say I am very much enjoying your well thought out and though provoking reasoning. And an argument delivered without rancor.

With respect to the metaphysical argument, if we start talking about truth absent some objective standard like science, we can come up with all sorts of wild concepts.

For example, I can decide that I am God. You and the rest of the perceived world may be nothing more that the creation of my 'mind', if I can no longer rely on my senses. What I think is 'real' may only be a creation of my imagination, and since I am the creator of all, control everything, decide what cam,e before and what happens after, that in essence makes me God.

Note that I am not claiming this to be true. At some point we have to accept that there is some reality unless we want to get mired down in and endless metaphysical debate. Some of we relay on defining what is real by what we can perceive, test, weight and measure, science is about all we can rely on to make that determination and have a common frame of reference that is outside our own personal perception.



Of course here is where we get into the debate over 'what is truth', and also demonstrate that a logical point can be argued that has nothing to do with reality.

As noted, my argument is that there is probably no God, and that the inability to prove that God doesn't exist does not prove his existence. Most of us operate from the principle that if something isn't proved to be true, it is suspect - except ion the case of God.

If I told you I was able to raise the dead, you would undoubtable question such a claim and demand proof of same. You would not merely accept it as true (unless highly gullible).

If I claimed to have created the universe yesterday and filled you mind with memories over your entire life, and everything you've experienced, you'd call such a claim into question.

If I told you you were a disembodied brain plugged into a computer and everything you know about the world was fed to you through some wires, you'd probably have your doubts, without some sort of proof.

But any of these scenarios has the same supporting evidence as a mighty sky father. And yet some consider accepting the existence of a God without question as reasonable, while the other option would be held in ridicule.

Curios, no?

If you want to look at the creation of the universe and call that God, I can accept that. It's just a name for an event and a process. But if you want to believe in some supernatural power that guides and intervenes in human existence. That demands prayers in return for some afterlife reward. That wants us to go to a special building on a certain day and recite scribbling of some long dead sheep herders.

Well, let's just say I have a hard time buying that in the absence of some objective measure.

It is not for me to pass judgment on what one believes. I will only say we all have the right to make up our owen minds and not be degrated or belittled for our beleafs. I do not believe that public schools have the time or need to address religion it should be delt with at home according to each families own beleafs. I also do not feel a child who wants to pray at school before a meal or any other reasone should be told it is not O.K. religion is a freedom not a privilage. The school should not be required accept the wrong answer on a test. The seperation of church and state at times go's to far to take IN GOD WE TRUST out of a country based on faith is not O.K. IMO and thats it we all have the right to opinion repsect that and get along.

Big Papa, that is one of the best posts on this subject I have seen. You and I are on the same page.

Nevermind, it's quite apparent you have a religious axe to grind. I was trying to have a civil discussion and you're trying to turn it into a circus of religion bashing. I wasn't bashing your beliefs, so please don't make a mockery of mine...I'm out.

Well Kevin I've asked myself the same question that Tod asked. I wish somebody could answer it for me.

derby_dude when you are talking about wifie saying we have
grown a part I take that to mean that emotionally or knowledge
wise things have changed. To me to evolve means that something
in the basic structure has changed i.e the brain has actually grown larger not that we have just learned to use it better or
more completely. That is what Darwin was speaking of a physical
change in response to an outside stimuli, There fore in response to those that say we must teach evolution in schools (lower grades) I ask why? last year of high school or college would be fine, I see a place for evolution in the scheme of
things but whats the rush? Please continue just my 2 cents.
Cheers NC

For those who truely seek such answers, they are certainly out there. But an internet forum is not the place to find them. The structure of the forum is very short answers which are immediately blurred by someone asking something else. Such answers are best discussed in a sincere verbal dialogue.

I thought it an appropriate answer and no bashing was intended. I am only trying to follow the argument to its logical end. I was not trying to 'bash', but only point out what seems to be a disconnect in reasoning.

Please - evolution is not just Darwin. Darwin published his magnum opus 150 years ago. There has been 150 years of progress in the study of evolutionary biology since then and the vast majority of it supports natural selection.

Darwin's postulate was an explanation of the mechanism of evolution through natural selection. He wasn't the first to come up with the idea of evolution. What he did was identify the method through which it occurs.

Even if evolutionary theory is wrong - it does not then follow that creationism is right. The one most promising argument in favor of intelligent design - irreducible complexity - turns out to be wrong. It has been demonstrated numerous time that process that are given to irreducibly complex aren't, and that complex systems can rise from simple ones.

The argument against teaching creationism in school isn't about being balanced, because the creationism being advocated is the Christian creationism. If you want to teach religious perspective without establishing a state preference for a single religion, then you must teach u]every single[/u] religious perspective, not just the Christian one, or you are establishing a state religion, in clear violation of the Constitution.

As for the legend 'In God We Trust', you should not that is a fairly recent innovation on public documents like money. Would you be OK with 'In Allah We Trust' or 'In Satan We Trust'. You are in favor of the dominant sensibility because you are part of it. Look at all the people who got worked up over the US Post Office issuing the eid stamp.

I have been reading through these posts and I have made a couple of comments.

There is one question I want to try to answer. Several people have commented about teaching God in school, and others have been against it, one reason being that if they try to teach Christianity, then someone is going to try for Islam or some of the other religions and cults popular today.

The reason I would go with Christianity is because the Christian people are the only ones who worship a true and living God. The other cults and religions worship idols, figures, symbols, all sorts of different things.

Jesus died and was resurrected, and He is alive and well now. God lives, and he always has and always will. None of the other objects of worship are living, and most, the idols, have never lived.

This country was founded by Christian people with Christian beliefs and that is what should be taught in public schools.

Why should we compromise with groups who only want to worship a wooden post or a man made idol or symbol?

There is a lot of difference between worshipping and believing in a true and living God and worshipping an idol or symbol.

God created man in His image. He did not create man in the image of monkeys, as Darwin tries to point out.

Evolution, like idol worship, is a cult, and even scientist agree that evolution is a theory, and never proven and will never be proven. Worshiping a true and living God is factual and not based on theory.

Worshiping God and Jesus is fact, real, and truthful, not imigination. Those who seek Him and find Him will have no doubt when once they do believe. They will know for sure.

Who says? To those who worship something else we think Christianity is the false religion and Jesus is the false God.

I'd just ask the poster what evidence he has for Christianity being the worship of the true and living God. I think Great Cthulhu is the true God. Not living, obviously, because we know "In his house at R'lyeh dead Cthulhu waits dreaming"

Gravity is a theory.

Darwinian evolution is the theory of how evolution - an observed process - occurs. Darwin came up with the idea of evolution through natural selection. In scientific circles is accepted as fact the same way the theory of gravity is fact.

Can evolution via natural selection be proved 100%. No. But the preponderance of evidence supports evolution through natural selection. 150 years of scientific inquiry since Darwin continue to support evolutionary theory. Evolution is a myth the way the holocaust is a myth. Some people will not accept it when it conflicts with their preconceived notions.

In science very few things are considered 100% proven for all time. That is the difference between science and dogma. Scientific theories are constantly tested and when falsified (i.e. proven wrong) a new theory will be proposed and tested. It's a constant process of testing and refining based on new knowledge and tool.

When Democritus and Leucippus conceived of the concept of the atom, they had no way to confirm it. They certainly had no idea about subatomic particles.

The widely held geocentric model of the universe taught that the earth was at it's center until Copernicus published De revolutionibus orbium coelestium. Galileo was eventually denounced to the Inquisition for publicly championing heliocentrism, and the Church held that heliocentrism was "false and contrary to Scripture" in February 1616.

Does anyone seriously still think the sun is the center of the universe?

Scientific theory advances and changes over time. Deespite the attempts of religion to stop it from doing so. It is the triumph of reason over dogma that has advanced the state of human existence.

This thread is a great example of the kind of discussion that is possible around here when the bomb-throwers stay out. My hat is off to everyone involved (at least recently) for their civility. KevinGibson, while I hear you about how these things are difficult to discuss in this format, another way to look at it is that we are, in essence, pioneers. We are on the leading edge of a new era of connectivity, of instant transmission of ideas and concepts and yeah, arguments... so it isn't perfect, and God only knows where it takes us, but this new level of connectivity that the internet provides is such a HUGE social experiment that, I submit, we are blind to just how huge it is! Warts and all. The warts can be frustrating but look what we are doing, here!

Anyway. I've always had a chip on my shoulder about a smug, entitled majority telling a persecuted minority about how they should feel about the situation. Whatever rancor people might feel in my posts on this subject comes from being the son of a philosophy/history professor; I was exposed to the major religions at a very young age as philosophical concepts, and had many discussions about it and so on... but this was in the context of being a racial minority in a very Catholic little town in the middle of nowhere. At some point in my young life, I decided that Buddhism- not the practice, but the general philosophy ("I am not a God"- Buddha) was what appealed most to me. You can imagine how THAT went over on the playground.

I'm an expert at saying things the "long way". What I just said, the long way, is that in a primarily Christian country, it's not appropriate or even very meaningful for the Christians to tell the secular minority what they should and should not be upset or concerned about. Same way that it's mighty disingenious for whites to tell subjucated minorities what to be mad about, or not to be mad at all... it's just a continuation of the power structure, it's attempting to maintain a status quo.

This is why it's sometimes so damn maddening to people like me, when the religious right makes attempts to force religion into public places (publically funded I mean), and then does the whole, "who, ME?" thing... the whole "but this is a Christian country!" thing. The simple fact is, this is a country governed by a Constitution which explicitly says that as far as the governing is to be concerned, it's to be secular. And so it falls on people like me or Tod to have to sound like aggressors, picking on the nice well-intentioned Christians, when the reality, the nice well-intentioned Christians are attempting something that threatens the very fabric of our country!

Anyway, just a little back story. Carry on, folks!

the fabric of this country was woven by Christians, not Muslims...whose only form of government is tribal despotisms, not Buddhists...there weren't any here. And the founders would be appalled at the level of unassimilated foreigners making demands on the government and people for concessions to their delicate sensibilities.

a minority must bend to the majority, not the other way around. If somebody's going to be offended, let it be the smallest possible number. and the first amendment doesn't guarantee a secular state, only a neutral one.

and finally, Jeffie boy, there is no right not to be offended. I get offended daily.....often by your posts But that doesn't mean I can or would shut you up. So, telling the hypersensitive to get over it and get a life seems like a good solution to the problem.

Ok, little Steven. (You aren't offended, right?)

You are factually incorrect. In a free country, under the rule of law, it is not necessary for a minority to bend to a majority. Not on Constitutional matters at least.

I don't claim a right not to be offended. I offered what I did because often, Christians seem bewildered at how anyone could possibly be upset that little ol' them just wants to let the nose of their particular camel into places it isn't supposed to be. THEY get offended when people like me dare to oppose them.

So, stop being hypersensitive and get over it!

Dictatorship of the masses? The whole idea of the republic is the rule of law, and that the law sometimes supersedes the will of the majority. If the majority were determined to eliminate the right of free speech that would be OK? Or the private ownership of guns?

no, the bill of rights limits the rights of the majority.

but I don't see no freaking right to not have your delicate little feelings hurt due to being one of a tiny minority which tries but fails to impose its will on the rest of the society. maybe I missed it.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

I have no feelings.

Interesting thread, for certain.

Hypothetical question from the 'cheap seats': Where do you think our freedoms would be today if the founding fathers had been Islamic?

Irrelevant, since the founder were very much for a secular government. Keep in mind that Americans had dealt with Christians oppressing other Christians, which was why they had emigrated in the first place. They wanted freedom to worship how they pleased, and wanted government to stay out of religion all together.

Would a Pentacostal feel any better to live in a country where the state religion was Catholicism? True, Islam today has a well deserved reputation for intolerance and barbarity but to paint every muslim with the same brush is to suggest that all Christians support the Inquisition.

Stevie boy: I don't either! But this isn't about that, is it.

Thanks for conceding the factual correction, by the way. Rare around here.

Hello Tim,

Not real relevant; we would have started out with a whole other country... impossible to say.

I will say, I would much, MUCH rather live in an arguably secular society like ours, than an Islamic one. I have no love for Islam.

But more to the point- would I rather live in a strict fundamentalist Christian society, versus a strict fundamentalist Islamic society? Not a whole lot of difference, really.

Jeff,
Can't quite agree with your last statement as far as Fundy Islamic and Christian societies go.

However, I do agree that a secular society is preferable to any strict religious society.

Does that surprise you, coming from a conservative Christian?

Nope... well, maybe in general. But not from you. You seem like a pretty rational sort!

I'm guessing that your attitude comes as much from not wanting government intrusion into your religion as vice versa? The two intrusions would go hand in hand, which is what always surprises me when Christians want to move our government that way... an unhealthy thing for both institutions, I would think.

that wasn't a factual correction...I assumed in my prior post that people are aware of the provisions of the bill of rights and also aware that it doesn't have a "hurt feelings" provision.

In America, when it comes to fundamental rights, a minority does not have to "bow to" a majority.

We agree on that, at least. This is why Tod, myself, and others are willing to stand here and get "Jeffy Boy'd" or worse by you guys. Because sometimes, even Constitution-luvin' Conservatives (sic) such as yourself need to be reminded of that.

Hey Steve- get that scope ordered yet?

I thought I would come back to this argument and address it. Rather than reinvent the wheel, here is a response to the 'just a theory' argument from notjustatheory.com:

You've been told that "evolution is just a theory", a guess, a hunch, and not a fact, not proven. You've been misled. Keep reading, and in less than two minutes from now you'll know that you've been misinformed. We're not going to try and change your mind about evolution. We just want to point out that "it's just a theory" is not a valid argument.

The Theory of Evolution is a theory, but guess what? When scientists use the word theory, it has a different meaning to normal everyday use. That's right, it all comes down to the multiple meanings of the word theory. If you said to a scientist that you didn't believe in evolution because it was "just a theory", they'd probably be a bit puzzled.

In everyday use, theory means a guess or a hunch, something that maybe needs proof. In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch. It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations. It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions. In science, theory is the ultimate goal, the explanation. It's as close to proven as anything in science can be.

Some people think that in science, you have a theory, and once it's proven, it becomes a law. That's not how it works. In science, we collect facts, or observations, we use laws to describe them, and a theory to explain them. You don't promote a theory to a law by proving it. A theory never becomes a law.

This bears repeating. A theory never becomes a law. In fact, if there was a hierarchy of science, theories would be higher than laws. There is nothing higher, or better, than a theory. Laws describe things, theories explain them. An example will help you to understand this. There's a law of gravity, which is the description of gravity. It basically says that if you let go of something it'll fall. It doesn't say why. Then there's the theory of gravity, which is an attempt to explain why. Actually, Newton's Theory of Gravity did a pretty good job, but Einstein's Theory of Relativity does a better job of explaining it. These explanations are called theories, and will always be theories. They can't be changed into laws, because laws are different things. Laws describe, and theories explain.

Just because it's called a theory of gravity, doesn't mean that it's just a guess. It's been tested. All our observations are supported by it, as well as its predictions that we've tested. Also, gravity is real! You can observe it for yourself. Just because it's real doesn't mean that the explanation is a law. The explanation, in scientific terms, is called a theory.

Evolution is the same. There's the fact of evolution. Evolution (genetic change over generations) happens, just like gravity does. Don't take my word for it. Ask your science teacher, or google it. But that's not the issue we are addressing here. The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is our best explanation for the fact of evolution. It has been tested and scrutinised for over 150 years, and is supported by all the relevant observations.

Next time someone tries to tell you that evolution is just a theory, as a way of dismissing it, as if it's just something someone guessed at, remember that they're using the non-scientific meaning of the word. If that person is a teacher, or minister, or some other figure of authority, they should know better. In fact, they probably do, and are trying to mislead you.

Evolution is not just a theory, it's triumphantly a theory!


Source: http://www.notjustatheory.com/index.html

Just to retrospectively reiterate that notion.

The major scientific disciplines each have a major over riding theory: theory of evolution in biology; theory of plate tectonics in geology; theory of quantum mechanics in physics; and theory of the periodic table in chemistry.

Iron,........can't call out much but Geology,.....ain't THAT one Hell of thing to say in one's "Golden Years"

Skimmed this thread,.........sure would like to see a head count on how many's read Immanuel Velikovsky.

JMHO ,.....that old boy had his chit wrapped tight.

GTC

Interesting reading up on Immanuel Velikovsky. Thanks for the reference. Interesting stuff, but the criticism of his work look pretty damning.

criticism (from wikipedia)

Velikovsky's ideas have been almost entirely rejected by mainstream academia (often vociferously so) and his work is generally regarded as erroneous in all its detailed conclusions. Moreover, scholars view his unorthodox methodology (for example, using comparative mythology to derive scenarios in celestial mechanics) as an unacceptable way to arrive at conclusions. Stephen Jay Gould offers a synopsis of the mainstream response to Velikovsky, writing, "Velikovsky is neither crank nor charlatan � although to state my opinion and to quote one of my colleagues, he is at least gloriously wrong ... Velikovsky would rebuild the science of celestial mechanics to save the literal accuracy of ancient legends."

Velikovsky's bestselling and consequently most-criticized book is Worlds in Collision. Astronomer Harlow Shapley, along with others such as Cecilia Payne-Gaposchkin, were highly critical of Macmillan's decision to publish the work. The fundamental criticism against this book from the astronomy community was that its celestial mechanics were physically impossible, requiring planetary orbits which do not conform with the laws of conservation of energy and conservation of angular momentum.

Velikovsky tried to protect himself from criticism of his celestial mechanics by removing the original Appendix on the subject from Worlds in Collision, hoping that the merit of his ideas would be evaluated on the basis of his comparative mythology and use of literary sources alone. However this strategy did not protect him: the appendix was an expanded version of the Cosmos Without Gravitation monograph, which he had already distributed to Shapley and others in the late 1940s � and they had regarded the physics within it as absurd.

By 1974, the controversy surrounding Velikovsky's work had permeated US society to the point where the American Association for the Advancement of Science felt obliged to address the situation, as they had previously done in relation to UFOs, and devoted a scientific session to Velikovsky, featuring (among others) Velikovsky himself and Professor Carl Sagan. Sagan gave a critique of Velikovsky's ideas (the book version of Sagan's critique is much longer than that presented in the talk; see below). His criticisms are available in Scientists Confront Velikovsky and as a corrected and revised version in the book Broca's Brain: Reflections on the Romance of Science. Sagan's arguments were aimed at a popular audience and he did not bother to remain to debate Velikovsky in person, facts that were used by Velikovsky's followers to attempt to discredit his analysis. Sagan rebutted these charges, and further attacked Velikovsky's ideas in his PBS television series Cosmos, though not without reprimanding scientists who attempted to suppress Velikovsky's ideas.

It was not until the 1980s that a very detailed critique of Worlds in Collision was made in terms of its use of mythical and literary sources, when Bob Forrest published a highly critical examination of them. Earlier in 1974, James Fitton published a brief critique of Velikovsky's interpretation of myth that was ignored by Velikovsky and his defenders whose indictment began: "In at least three important ways Velikovsky's use of mythology is unsound. The first of these is his proclivity to treat all myths as having independent value; the second is the tendency to treat only such material as is consistent with his thesis; and the third is his very unsystematic method." short analysis of the position of arguments in the late 20th century is given by Dr Velikovsky's ex-associate, and Kronos editor, C. Leroy Ellenberger, in his A Lesson from Velikovsky.

More recently, the absence of supporting material in ice-core studies (such as the Greenland Dye-3 and Vostok cores) have removed any basis for the proposition of a global catastrophe of the proposed dimension within the later Holocene period.

no, but I've got to decide soon...the stock got to Mickey this week