How Much Longer Can They Sell Darwinism?

From Sea to Shining Sea ^ | 1/4/09 | Purple Mountains

[BroJoeK]

By the way, folks, for anyone interested in a good summary of The Faiths of the Founding Fathers, I highly recommend this little 2006 book by David L. Holmes:

It includes a serious discussion of the differences among trinitarianism, unitarianism and deism, along with which Founding Fathers & Mothers subscribed to each, and how serious they were in their religious committments.

I'll say again, I think those guys were quintessential Americans, whose views very much reflect (or should I say, "guide"?) my own.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for the book recommendation.

[YHAOS]

”Legal religions???? Jeepers, BroJoeK”

Jeepers, huh? I guess Jeepers! Leaping Lizards! too. And, there’s the catch; what trips up the insincere, if nothing else gets them first - terminology (choice of words).

In a circumstance where the United States were still a federation of republics, governed by a still respected constitution, it is true that religious conscience itself would remain superior to the laws of the state. But we have chosen to abandon (informally, if not formally) that respectable constitutional state in exchange for the questionable privilege of being ruled by the fancy of a national legislature, the whim of a president, and the caprice of a majority of nine black robes.

Being in the ignominious state we find ourselves, we certainly can expect nothing better from society’s secularists than what we’ve been getting the past forty years. While ignoring The Constitution at every turn where expedient, the Secularists have made it clear that their intention, nevertheless, is to use the First Amendment to drive Christian thought and activity from every public venue. Since such an ambitious project cannot be accomplished in one swell foop, the infamous Liberal practice of incrementalism can be expected, as it has in the past, to be continually in play.

Given that society has decided that government must be the ruling voice in everything we think and do, and given that religion must not become entwined with government (everything we think and do), we may soon be expecting to hear such phrases as ‘legal religions’ with increasing frequency, as we witness the irony of government dictating to religion what it may or may not do, or even if it may exist, all in the sacred name of keeping religion from becoming entangled in government. (This from the people who railed at the apocryphal Vietnam phrase, “we had to destroy the village to save it.”)

And to BroJoe. Since you have already vouchsafed that your views on religious issues very closely follow, nay even are guided by, the views of the Founding Fathers (and Mothers), perhaps you can give us your considered opinion on how the Founders would have viewed the five following propositions:

a) An association of Christian students holds regular club meetings after school, and is permitted to use school facilities for these meetings. Improper favoritism, or a practice of which our Founding Fathers (and Mothers) would approve?

b) Four separate Christian congregations have no place to hold their Sunday services, so county government permits them the use of its court house for a joint service, each denomination taking a week to lead the service. Improper favoritism, or a practice the Founding Fathers (and Mothers) would approve?

c) The Federal government permits church services to be held in some of its buildings, including the state department and in the capitol itself. Improper favoritism, or a practice in which the Founding Fathers (and Mothers) engaged?

d) The governing body of a state university decides that it will permit its students to hold morning devotionals before class, and to provide meeting places in the university’s lecture halls. Furthermore, the governing body also decides to permit any divinity schools located in the vicinity to use the same halls for Sunday services. Improper favoritism, or a practice in which the Founding Fathers (and Mothers) would engage?

Finally, in the context of the 1st Amendment, what, specifically, does the term establishment mean?

I’ve asked these questions before, or similar, but each time those asked ran away, presumably having suddenly remembered pressing business left undone. I know that you will not do that, so I look forward to your reply.

Thanks boop, for writing.

[YHAOS]

”So, if this scientists claims that "God is a scientific question," he is giving his personal opinion . . .”

Clearly, in the existing context he was giving his professional opinion. But, you can’t deal with that reality, so I understand. You’re like a little boy caught with your hand in the cookie jar, but insisting that it’s merely a matter of personal opinion whether or not those crumbs rolling down your shirtfront come from the cookie stuffed in your mouth.

”End of discussion, I would think, wouldn't you?”

Purely a matter of personal opinion, depending on how badly you want to run away and hide. You have a graceful exit yet available, but it’s existence is rapidly diminishing.

[YHAOS]

”Sorry YHAOS, I have no clue what you're talking about.”

Total mystification and studied incomprehension. Always a plausible retreat when you’re left with nothing else to plead.

Anyway, thanks for playing.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you oh so very much for your outstanding essay and the list of important question!

Being in the ignominious state we find ourselves, we certainly can expect nothing better from society’s secularists than what we’ve been getting the past forty years. While ignoring The Constitution at every turn where expedient, the Secularists have made it clear that their intention, nevertheless, is to use the First Amendment to drive Christian thought and activity from every public venue. Since such an ambitious project cannot be accomplished in one swell foop, the infamous Liberal practice of incrementalism can be expected, as it has in the past, to be continually in play.

Indeed.

[BroJoeK]

from 1,683 YHAOS:"And to BroJoe. Since you have already vouchsafed that your views on religious issues very closely follow, nay even are guided by, the views of the Founding Fathers (and Mothers), perhaps you can give us your considered opinion on how the Founders would have viewed the five following propositions:"

First of all, I much appreciate your civil tone. Of course, I noticed the sharpness of your questions, but that's just fine, no problems with that...

Second, you hugely misunderstand me if you imagine I'm going to argue against you on these particular points. Of course I agree with you, and I recognize some (all?) of these items as being events which happened during the time our our Founders, indeed, some of them sanctioned by none other than MR. WALL OF SEPARATION himself, President Jefferson!

Of course I totally agree with the absolute absurdity of the current situation. Our Founders' views on these matters are clearly seen, as early as the Constitutional Convention itself (1787), when MR. DEISTIC SCIENTIST himself, old Ben Franklin proposed that perhaps it would help overcome the rancor of disagreement amongst the various delegates, if they would begin each session with a prayer? As usual, old Franklin was right, so they did and it did.

So the very idea that our Founders would condone scouring the government to make sure no vestiges of Christianity were hiding ANYWHERE is far too ridiculous to even contemplate.

[BroJoeK]

from 1,684 YHAOS: "Clearly, in the existing context he was giving his professional opinion."

Opinion is opinion -- personal, professional it's still opinion.

Furthermore, what does "professional opinion" even mean in this context? It means that some scientist, whose profession is studying the natural realm has declared his "professional opinion" that God is a natural being! Well that's absurd, ridiculous and utter nonsense. That's not a "professional opinion," that's just some scientist telling the world, "I am a babbling idiot!"

Look, scientists have the same rights as the rest of us do to make fools of ourselves, and when they do, we have every right to laugh at them.

So I'd say, it's you, YHAOS, who's got your hand on the proverbial cookie, and you're desperately trying to make some point out of it, but, as cookies naturally do, it just keeps crumbling away from you! Too bad... ;-)

[BroJoeK]

from 1,685 YHAOS:"Total mystification and studied incomprehension. Always a plausible retreat when you’re left with nothing else to plead."

I see you've enjoyed yourself mocking and insulting me, so now, let me tell you the truth about yourself, YHAOS:

• First and most important, you are only half as smart as you think you are. This leads you to say a lot of foolishness which you no doubt imagine is brilliant.
• Because you think so much of yourself, you are way too quick to substitute insults for actual arguments. Indeed, on a scale of one to ten for "good listener," you score in the negative range.
• When you do finally get around to making an argument, you often tie up the logic in knots that can make it sound the opposite of what you intend. Indeed your real intention is often impossible to discern.
• This is especially true in "trick questions" which you obviously enjoy.

Bottom line, your "tricks" along with arrogance and mocking make you one of the less attractive posters on Free Republic, imho. So here's my advice: lighten up, loosen up, and if you don't really enjoy this, then go find something else to do. ;-)

[BroJoeK]

from 1,683 YHAOS:"Finally, in the context of the 1st Amendment, what, specifically, does the term establishment mean?

I’ve asked these questions before, or similar, but each time those asked ran away, presumably having suddenly remembered pressing business left undone. I know that you will not do that, so I look forward to your reply."

"Establishment" means just what it sounds like -- an official government religion, such as they had (have?) in most European countries.

In recent decades this term has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to cover ANY suggestion of religious content in any government activity -- to the extent of allowing Frosty the Snow Man but not the baby Jesus in government Christmas decorations!

So what does any of this have to do with evolution versus ID-Creationism? Well, the same law which wants to take Jesus out of government Christmas decorations also prevents Creationism being taught in government science classes.

Of course, I mock the former, but defend the latter -- and no doubt you will mock me for that, but here's the reason:

Christmas is Christmas (not "winter break") a holiday (holy day) to celebrate the birth of our Lord. To suggest otherwise is an unacceptable mockery of Christianity.

Science is science (not metaphysics or theology) a study of the natural processes in the natural realms. To suggest otherwise -- to insert religion as if it were science into government science classes -- is an unacceptable mockery of science.

Of course, for someone like you YHAOS, who lives to mock and mocks to live, that may not be such a problem. But I want to see science in science classes just as much as I want Christ in Christmas. ;-)

By the way, for what it's worth: I'd have no problem whatever with possibly explaining ID-Creationism in a government science class, so long as it is properly labeled as being theology or metaphysics and not science.

Indeed, why not begin science classes by explaining to the little Johnnys & Marys that there are whole realms of reality beyond science, which cannot be taught in government classes, but which can be learned at their family's church!

[BroJoeK]

from 1,683 betty boop:"”Legal religions???? Jeepers, BroJoeK”

YHAOS:"Jeepers, huh? I guess Jeepers! Leaping Lizards! too. And, there’s the catch; what trips up the insincere, if nothing else gets them first - terminology (choice of words)."

The correct term here is "legal religions," and it refers to the fact that at no time in American history have illegal activities in the name of some religion or other ever been condoned. I've already mentioned, for example, hideous ancient religions, but a much more recent example (not to be compared with those others in any way) was the polygamy of the Mormons.

Regardless of the Constitution's guarantee of "free exercise" of religion, the Mormons were required to outlaw their biblically based polygamy. Indeed, splinter groups from the Mormons are even today sometimes prosecuted for the "free exercise" of their religion.

Does anyone disagree with me on this?

[BroJoeK]

from 1,682 Alamo-Girl: "Thank you for the book recommendation."

Many of our Founders along with nearly all of their wives and daughters could be classified as "committed orthodox Christians" by anyone's strictest standards. Those included:

• Samuel Adams ("father of the revolution")
• Patrick Henry ("give me liberty or give me death")
• Elias Boudinot (president of the Continental Congress)
• John Jay (President of the Continental Congress, Minister to Spain, negotiator along with Franklin & John Adams of the Treaty of Paris, first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Governor of New York!)

But most Founders (as are most Americans) were far less religious.

• George Washington is usually counted a sincere Christian, because he was a leader in his home church, and did often attend services elsewhere. But he was never confirmed and is not known to have ever taken communion. He was also, along with many other Founders, a Freemason, and Freemasons, among other things were (are?) Deists. Washington's many correspondences often speak of Providence or the Great Architect, but NEVER of Jesus Christ or a Redeemer.

• John & Abigail Adams were both Unitarians in the old sense, not in today's sense of that word. John Adams has been described as a "Christian Deist," though I'm not certain where the precise line dividing old style Unitarianism and Deism should be placed.

• Jefferson and Adams were long close friends, then for years bitter political enemies, then in the end, very friendly. I find Jefferson's religious views hard to distinguish from Adams' though Jefferson's Bible is something so remarkable, it stands alone in history, really.

• Ben Franklin, of course, was just a bit too irreverant to take any religion very seriously, though he contributed money to help build every new church in Philadelphia. I personally have no doubt that old Ben was accepted into the Pearly Gates, if for no other reason than this epitaph he wrote for himself as a young printer:

The body of B. Franklin, Printer;
(like the cover of an old book,
Its contents worn out,
and stripped of its lettering and gilding)
Lies here, food for worms.
But the work shall not be lost:
For it will, (as he believed) appear once more,
In a new and more elegant edition,
Revised and corrected
By the Author.

[YHAOS]

"Establishment" means just what it sounds like . . .”

From little acorns such as this, mighty constitutional horrors grow.

”Science is science (not metaphysics or theology) a study of the natural processes in the natural realms. To suggest otherwise -- to insert religion as if it were science into government science classes -- is an unacceptable mockery of science.”

Yet you seemed to indicate to boop (post #1680) your agreement (“Bingo!”) that education was not a fit endeavor in which government should engage. True? Or merely smoke and window dressing?

I quite agree that metaphysics or theology, as subjects per se, are not fit objects to insert into science. Let us also understand that education, on any level, can not take place in a values judgment vacuum. In every venue, someone’s values will be embedded in the subject matter. Additionally, it is a rule with no exception, that government will ultimately do what is best for government (read ‘government’ to mean bureaucrats, or politicians, or unionized teachers and other government “workers,” or any of the panoply of other vested interests who have their talons sunk deep in government). So, if government decides that what’s best for government is to insert values into the schools that are inimical to the majority of its patrons then that is what government will do (and The Constitution be damned).

So . . . Government education or No?

[YHAOS]

”let me tell you the truth about yourself”

Boy, BroJoe, that really hurt. [sniff – lip trembling]

[YHAOS]

”Opinion is opinion -- personal, professional it's still opinion.”

So if a scientist were to deliver of himself the opinion that God doesn’t exist, you might call him a ‘babbling idiot!’? But, not a liar. Never, a liar. And, if another person (say, this time, not a scientist) were to deliver of himself the opinion that the Theory of Evolution was a load of hogwash (or perhaps merely that it suffers serious deficiencies), you would call him a . . . what? (Surely, a babbling idiot, but not a liar? Never a liar?)

”So I'd say, it's you . . .”

More smoke. You’ve still not figured out that I’m not going to go galloping down one of your sidetracks and get lost in an argument over whose hand is in the cookie jar? It’s not that your learning curve is shallow. You don’t have a learning curve.

[YHAOS]

”The correct term here is "legal religions,"”

Like boop, I’ve not heard of “legal religions.” I have heard of impermissible religious practices, like killing chickens, or sacrificing goats. The ultimate of that would be human sacrifice.

I don’t know if you count that as disagreement or not.

[YHAOS]

” . . . you hugely misunderstand me if you imagine I'm going to argue against you on these particular points.”

Oh good. I would simply be crushed if I were to be accused of being uncivil even just one more time.

”Of course I agree with you, and I recognize some (all?) of these items as being events which happened during the time our [sic] our Founders”

Nearly all. The first one is similar to real events, but has an element of arguableness in it.

[BroJoeK]

"Yet you seemed to indicate to boop (post #1680) your agreement (“Bingo!”) that education was not a fit endeavor in which government should engage. True? Or merely smoke and window dressing?"

First, let's remember that in 18th century America, there were no government run schools, and so any issues of what should or should not be taught in those mostly religious schools was strictly a private matter -- as it mostly still is today, in private schools.

In the 19th century, "public schools" meant the little red school house paid for by townships and counties. Of course, the term "community standards" was not current back then, but that's just what they practiced, including Bible readings and prayers -- which btw, we still had when I was a young boy.

Post World War II, we begin to get the "constitutional horrors" you speak of, with a determined effort to drive all references to religion out of public schools.

Actually, that's not exactly right -- most schools practice some form of "multiculturalism," meaning it's OK to put up your Christmas decorations, as long as every other religion gets to put up their decorations too.

Now, in answer to your question, we must first answer: should children's education be required and enforced by law? If your answer to that is "no," then we are into a very different discussion -- and no doubt fruitless in terms of practical political possibilities.

But as long as your answer is "yes," then I think we are dealing with how to best use taxpayer monies.

My solution is, I'm pretty sure, the standard conservative answer: some combination of tax breaks and/or vouchers so that parents can chose the most appropriate schools for their little Johnnys & Marys.

And I would also allow teaching religion in public schools, provided it's clearly identified, voluntary and uses appropriate instructors. For example, I see no reason why a Catholic priest shouldn't teach a voluntary course on Catholicism, especially if it were other than normal school hours. Of course, I'd not want a unionized secular government instructor teaching such a course! Then again, wouldn't it be more appropriate to let the kids receive such instruction from the priest in his own church? Answer: of course, but my point is not to FORBID such things in a public school.

Short answer to your short question: in practical political terms, you are not going to shut down all the public schools. The real issue is, how much choice should parents have in where to send their children? Answer: as much choice as possible.

[BroJoeK]

from 1,695 BroJoeK:"”Opinion is opinion -- personal, professional it's still opinion.”

YHAOS:"So if a scientist were to deliver of himself the opinion that God doesn’t exist, you might call him a ‘babbling idiot!’? But, not a liar. Never, a liar. And, if another person (say, this time, not a scientist) were to deliver of himself the opinion that the Theory of Evolution was a load of hogwash (or perhaps merely that it suffers serious deficiencies), you would call him a . . . what? (Surely, a babbling idiot, but not a liar? Never a liar?)"

This is not so difficult -- if you wanted to understand, you easily could have, long ago.

Everyone is entitled to their religious opinions, whether they believe in God or don't, and most considered opinions deserve a certain normal respect.

No one is entitled to pretend their religious opinions are some kind of scientific fact or theory. Such pretense, by definition is a lie.

In this particular case, we have a scientist opining that "God" is an appropriate subject for scientific study. Well, that's his opinion, but it's also a lie, because by definition it's not.

On the other side, we have religiously motivated ID-Creationists claiming their "theory" is somehow scientific. Again, that's their opinion, but it's also a lie, because by definition it's not.

The definition which removes God from scientific study says: science only concerns natural causes for natural occurrances. Since God is not a "natural cause," He cannot be studied by science.

The definition which removes ID-Creationism from science says: to be considered good, as opposed to "junk science," ideas must pass the test of peer-reviewed articles in recognized scientific journals. This is a very high standard, but I have no doubt that if ID-Creation "science," has any real validity, some genius researcher will eventually find a way to legitimately meet the standard. Possibly, as Darwin did, he or she will take 20 years to get published.

[BroJoeK]

from 1,695 YHAOS:"You’ve still not figured out that I’m not going to go galloping down one of your sidetracks and get lost in an argument over whose hand is in the cookie jar? It’s not that your learning curve is shallow. You don’t have a learning curve. "

YHAOS, you are way too too too much! You love to invent little metaphors to insult me with, but you hate it when I turn your own metaphor on its head and smack you with it, don't you? ;-)