Posted on 02/12/2006 10:32:27 AM PST by PatrickHenry
I have no objection to the private funding of Evolutionist teaching.
Have you any objection to the Abolition of Government Schooling?
I think you're being a bit naive, but mythologies can lull to sleep.
That's big of you.
Yes, I do. If we abolish public education, large numbers of children will not be educated. It's an unfortunate fact that a significant fraction of parents would not cater to this basic need if they were forced to pay for it out of pocket. And their kids, not they, would suffer. While I tend toward libertarianism in most things, I don't think society has progressed to the point where we can totally privatize K-12.
I'm sorry but atheism = contra theism.
It is contra theism.
For example, if you will, explain to me how you see God and evolution fitting together.
I *meant* that -- in trying to lecture me on being "UnChristian" -- you have about as much knowledge of my "transgressions" against Orthodox Presbyterianism, as I have knowledge regarding your personal life.
It was an illustration -- not of a claim, but of our mutual lacking for any claim.
On the other hand, if you want to believe that I was claiming to have followed you around taking snapshots of your nocturnal activities -- well, believe what you like. If you don't get my point -- whatever, it's a free country (shrug).
The issue of whether government schools should be abolished (they should) is moot because IT ISN'T GOING TO HAPPEN any time soon. Most people will be educated in government schools for decades at least. As someone who cares about the scientific literacy of this country, it is a moral treason to lie to children and say that evolution isn't the best scientific theory about the diversity of life we have.
Sorry. I'm unwilling to debate Policy, without addressing the underlying Philosophy thereof.
It is both short-sightedness and intellectual cowardice to wrangle about what is, without considering what ought.
True, or False?
Considering that the very notion of "K-12" is a modern invention: I would ask why you think it is "progress" for society to "advance" to the notion that a Government Bureaucrat is, on balance, a superior arbiter of a child's educational needs than his own parents -- and that the same Government Bureaucrat should be supported, by coerced tax-dollars, in his one-size-fits-all determinations, generally taken in excessive proportion from the most productive members of society (who are therefore the best-equipped, intellectually and financially, to provide their own children with superior Free-Market tutors)?
Humph.
No, that would be antitheism. The alpha privative a- (or an-) is simply a negation.
Somebody shoot me, I'm about to post on ANOTHER crevo thread! What am I nuts? Anywhere, here goes....
This is a post I made a while back on this thread, and I think it fits in nicely here.
Someone posted to me, One of those [universal elements of Christianity], accepted by ALL Christian traditions for the past 2000 years is that sin entered the world through the fall of the man Adam and thus the restoration from sin required the sacrifice of Christ.
And I replied thusly: Yes, however I don't see how believing in the evolution of the human body negates this. I'm not denying the universal element you described. I do not believe that Adam is a "metaphorical construct" totally separate from reality. I simply don't believe it's important to know exactly how his body was formed to understand and accept the message of salvation.
I don't know if you're a Catholic or not, and it doesn't really matter for this conversation, but one perfectly valid way (in my opinion) of viewing our nature is as Pope Pius XII stated regarding evolution:
"...the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God" (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36).
So whether the human body was specially created or developed, we are required to hold as a matter of Catholic faith that the human soul is specially created; it did not evolve, and it is not inherited from our parents, as our bodies are. source
So what's this saying? Basically it's saying that it's the soul of man ultimately responsible for our nature. Our soul is that which defines us, not merely our bodies (although, being created by God, the body is a part of us, but it's not what defines us ultimately).
Thus, our bodies very well could have developed through the process we call "evolution" today, (even though this is, I believe, of course a process guided by God, but that doesn't really change whether or not evolution as a process is real), but our soul has never and is never "evolved"; the soul is created.
So did Adam, the actual person live? I believe so yes. But how did Adam's body come into being? Does that really matter? That's the question. I submit it doesn't really matter what you believe. It doesn't really matter if you believe that Adam's body evolved from a common ancestor with apes, or if you believe that his body was literally formed from the dust of the earth. It doesn't really matter because our salvation is not linked to our body, but rather what we do with our soul.
Now again, you may disagree with this, and that's fine. I'm saying it's perfectly fine to believe that Adam was literally created from dust. I don't see why other Christians though seem to insist upon forcing such a literal interpretation on others? (and that seems to be the reason these crevo threads keep popping up, because if we just had a "live and let live" philosophy on this issue, then we wouldn't have the crevo threads, much less the recent brouhaha in Kansas, or Pennsylvannia)
So, if you still remain unconvinced, if you still believe there should be only a strict interpretation of Genesis, then that returns us to the (my) original point, which is, "Why should we take Genesis literally? Why is your [or any creationist's/IDer's] opinion of Scripture any more superior to mine, or to Pope Pius XII'ths or, ...........etc?"
No, I didn't.
I said that there is a United States Appellate Court ruling, which (as the next-highest level) stands as United States Legal Precedent unless overturned by the USSC (as usual, however, the Appellate Court cites the USSC in its Decision).
Do you have a name for that case?
Decided August 19, 2005
"...The Supreme Court has recognized atheism as equivalent to a “religion” for purposes of the First Amendment on numerous occasions, most recently in McCreary County, Ky.v. American Civil Liberties Union of Ky., 125 S.Ct. 2722(2005).... Atheism is, among other things, a school of thought that takes a position on religion, the existence and importance of a supreme being, and a code of ethics. As such, we are satisfied that it qualifies as Kaufman’s religion for purposes of the First Amendment claims he is attempting to raise." (etc.)
True, or False?
Because some of the parents are crack-heads, drunks, compulsive gamblers, etc? For your sake, I'll leave out 'religious nuts'. But in any case, many, many parents are not fit to raise their own kids. Surely you don't dispute this? And it's really not the kids' fault.
I had my kids in public schools. I was perfectly free to select courses from a wide range of choices (which the kids wouldn't have had at the local Catholic or Christain high schools). They got a good education and high placement scores; one is in grad. school and one will be going next year. I'm proud of and happy with our school district.
most productive members of society (who are therefore the best-equipped, intellectually and financially, to provide their own children with superior Free-Market tutors)?
Well-off, concerned parents will raise their kids well regardless. They don't concern me. What concerns me is raising a generation that contains even more unschooled, unproductive, unsocialized thugs than the current one.
Libertarianism is a goal and an ideal, not a practical political reality for early 21st century America.
Gotta go, gang. I'll be back.
The Sup Ct case you say they rely on is here: McCREARY COUNTY, KENTUCKY, et al., PETI- TIONERS v. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF KENTUCKY et al..
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.