Posted on 08/15/2005 9:18:06 AM PDT by hc87
Exactly eighty years after the Scopes "monkey trial" in Dayton, Tennessee, history is about to repeat itself. In a courtroom in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania in late September, scientists and creationists will square off about whether and how high school students in Dover, Pennsylvania will learn about biological evolution. One would have assumed that these battles were over, but that is to underestimate the fury (and the ingenuity) of creationists scorned.
The Scopes trial of our day--Kitzmiller, et al v. Dover Area School District et al--began innocuously...
(Excerpt) Read more at tnr.com ...
Look, this is ultimately about who gets the say on what gets taught in the classrooms. It's a battle to use government authority to teach (and not teach) things you disagree with. Let's take the battle out of that arena and put choice in the hands of the parents - that's the ONLY way to end the internal squabbling.
There are two sides to this, regardless of your opinion on one's validity. The point is that people pay to send their kids to these schools and ultimately should have the say on these things, and not just in a distant representative kind of way (though that's barely happening now).
How's this for fair: When the government makes church service mandatory, you can start asserting that Darwinism should be expounded from the pulpit.
You teach "science" in the science classes, not pseudo science. There is no "equal time" when it comes to science classes.
Whatever you say.
But when conservatives can no longer be elected because a plurality thinks they're owned by the fundamentalist Christian denominations, don't come crying on my shoulder.
If destroying the validity of science is your top, number 1 goal and you're willing to expend all our political capital on the effort. Fine.
But the effort is doomed to failure, and the attempt itself will preclude any other conservative measures for a generation.
Creationism is not only scientifically ignorant. It's politically ignorant as well.
Washington would shudder at your use of his name.
When trying to arrange for workmen in 1784 at Mount Vernon, Washington made clear that he would accept "Mohometans, Jews or Christians of any Sect, or they may be Atheists." Washington wrote Lafayette in 1787, "Being no bigot myself, I am disposed to indulge the professors of Christianity in the church that road to heaven which to them shall seem the most direct, plainest, easiest and least liable to exception."
VirginiaPlaces.org
Also referenced in the Mount Vernon website.
Madison would take issue with your assessment of his position.
We maintain therefore that in matters of Religion, no mans right is abridged by the institution of Civil Society and that Religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance. True it is, that no other rule exists, by which any question may divide a Society, can be ultimately determined, but the will of the majority; but it is also true that the majority may trespass on the rights of the minority.
--James Madison, A Memorial and Remonstrance, 1785
An alliance or coalition between Government and religion cannot be too carefully guarded against......Every new and successful example therefore of a PERFECT SEPARATION between ecclesiastical and civil matters is of importance........religion and government will exist in greater purity, without (rather) than with the aid of government.
--James Madison to Edward Livingston, 1822
Snopes report on references to Judeo-Christian tradition.
I could go on, but I don't think it will do much good.
So was Martin Luther an expert?
"People gave ear to an upstart astrologer who strove to show that the earth revolves, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun and the moon. Whoever wishes to appear clever must devise some new system, which of all systems is of course the very best. This fool [or 'man'] wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred Scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth." - Martin Luther
[The left is dying for something, anything, any argument they can win. And they can win this one, because they've got the facts. Conservatives are ignorant about science in general, and willfully blind about evolution. The left is all excited about this, because they're going to win it, and win big, making conservatives look like ignoramuses. Those of us on FR who have been arguing this issue for months and years have been trying to prevent this fight from escalating, because we can see the inevitable outcome. We may have reduced the eventual damage a bit, but there will be damage to the conservative cause over this issue.]
[Yep.]
ditto
It would be in the same context that it was historically... Such as Washington's Thanksgiving Day proclamation, the court room from 1800 that I referenced in an earlier post, and so forth.
Liberals have been hell bent on removing all vestiges of God, the Bible and Christianity from public life and now apparently evo's are trying to remove/separate God and Christianity from conservatism (which is impossible given history).
Yes...The Constitution protects against a federal establishment of a denomination. And yes...This was also the mindset of the founders.
But...Obviously, given history, the lawful protection against federal denominationalism, did not prevent/cease the adherence to, and communication of, God, the Bible and Christian principles...Not even in public schools (gasp! the Bible was formerly used in public schools).
In fact, a great case can be made, via historical primary source documentation, that denominationless Christianity has been imposed.
And given our country's great Christian heritage, it is quite laughable to have evo's claiming that adherence to God The Creator is destoying conservatism.
First of all, logic is not a science, it's a branch of philosophy. Second of all, how does evolution violate logic?
...and to keep making the same assertions after they've already been shown to be false multiple times.
You mean this historical context:
There has been another deviation from the strict principle in the Executive Proclamations of fasts & festivals, so far, at least, as they have spoken the language of injunction, or have lost sight of the equality of all religious sects in the eye of the Constitution. Whilst I was honored with the Executive Trust I found it necessary on more than one occasion to follow the example of predecessors. But I was always careful to make the Proclamations absolutely indiscriminate, and merely recommendatory; or rather mere designations of a day, on which all who thought proper might unite in consecrating it to religious purposes, according to their own faith & forms.James Madison to Edward Livingston, 1822
In fact, a great case can be made, via historical primary source documentation, that denominationless Christianity has been imposed.
In spite of the principles and ideals of the authors of the Constitution:
Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects?[...]
[E]xperience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of Religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution. Enquire of the Teachers of Christianity for the ages in which it appeared in its greatest lustre; those of every sect, point to the ages prior to its incorporation with Civil policy. Propose a restoration of this primitive State in which its Teachers depended on the voluntary rewards of their flocks, many of them predict a downfall. On which Side ought their testimony to have greatest weight, when for or against their interest?
--James Madison, Memorial and Remonstrance, 1785WE, the General Assembly of Virginia, do enact that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.
--Thomas Jefferson, Draft of Bill to Establish Religious Freedom in Virginia, 1779
It seems that the more things change, the more they stay the same.
If we look back into history for the character of present sects in Christianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been persecutors, and complainers of persecution. The primitive Christians thought persecution extremely wrong in the Pagans, but practised it on one another. The first Protestants of the Church of England, blamed persecution in the Roman church, but practised it against the Puritans: these found it wrong in the Bishops, but fell into the same practice themselves both here and in New England. To account for this we should remember, that the doctrine of toleration was not then known, or had not prevailed in the world. Persecution was therefore not so much the fault of the sect as of the times. It was not in those days deemed wrong in itself. The general opinion was only, that those who are in error ought not to persecute the truth: But the possessors of truth were in the right to persecute error, in order to destroy it. Thus every sect believing itself possessed of all truth, and that every tenet differing from theirs was error, conceived that when the power was in their hands, persecution was a duty required of them by that God whom they supposed to be offended with heresy. By degrees more moderate and more modest sentiments have taken place in the Christian world; and among Protestants particularly all disclaim persecution, none vindicate it, and few practise it. We should then cease to reproach each other with what was done by our ancestors, but judge of the present character of sects or churches by their present conduct only.
--Benjamin Franklin to the London Packet, 1772
If the founding fathers believed it was okay to impose Christianity, why does the Constitution state that "no religious test shall be a requirement for holding office in the United States?"
Do NOT get me started on Jack "demons are my obsession" Hayford. What a JOKE that guy is.
"The longer I am a Christian, the more I become convinced that Calvin had a point (or five...).
Martin Luther agreed with you. He was "a Calvinist", before Calvin was. LOL
Double Or Nothing: Martin Luther's Doctrine of Predestination 1997 | Brian G. Mattson
When they're boiled down to their essence, There are only two religions in the whole world
And that includes the thousands and thousands of the man-centered religions, including "Atheism".
I can guess that the two religions are the false one and yours. Correct?
This can't be said too many times. Creationism in the schools is doing for conservatism what DU is doing for the democrats.
It really worrys me that one of the main critics of global warming has weighed in on the creationist side. If conservatives make fools of themsselves on two important science issues, it will be another fourty years in the wilderness for conservatism.
Dimensio: "You're a known liar. Everything you say can be disregarded because you've established quite clearly that you're willing to fabricate any claims you want to support your position."
Me and who else? LOL
Unfortunately for you and your friends here (and at infidels.org, et.al.), the "LIAR" mantra you ALL use against everyone who disagrees with your blind-faith religion (Evolutionism/Scientism/Humanism/Atheisism) - is a matter of record. Your liar mantra is a source for many laughs, not just here, but all over the web.
For instance:
6-21-05:
Dimensio : "Why should anything that you, a known liar, says be trusted?"
Matchett-PI: They're laughing at you "liar, liar " parrots over here:
You might be a "fundamentalist atheist" if...:[Excerpts]:
[12] You insist that "the burden of proof is on he that alleges/accuses", and "it's impossible to prove a negative", then state "That's what Christians do. They lie. Their most common lie is that they were once atheists." When reminded about the burden of proof bit, you reply with, "Well, prove Christians don't lie!"
[130] You address Christians as "liar","sheepherder", or "looney toon".
[203] ...And if they say they don't see the logic in that question, they MUST be lying!
[207] When you say "I don't know" you are being brave and honest. When a theist says "I don't know" they are being dishonest and are trying to dodge the question. ..etc.
*
6-5-05:
Dimensio: "Why do I never get an answer to these questions? "
Elsie: "Uh... Perhaps because you only sing one tune: ---- You're A Liar!
86 posted on 06/05/2005 3:10:04 PM EDT by Elsie
*
6-21-05:
Dimensio: ""Can you quote a post from me where I made a demonstratably false claim..?"
Matchett-PI: "I can think of four just off the top of my head - maybe others will have some free "play time" to add to the list:
[1] You said you weren't offended and infuriated by the term "village atheist."
[2] You said that just because you preface your responses to Christians with the word "LIAR" doesn't mean that you think it makes your argument more believable.
[3] You said you don't believe that all rational scientists - including agnostics and atheists believe in God.
[4] You deny that you only know the tune to one song, ie: "You're a Liar"
RightWingNilla: "So was Martin Luther an expert? "People gave ear to an upstart astrologer who strove to show that the earth revolves, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun and the moon. Whoever wishes to appear clever must devise some new system, which of all systems is of course the very best. This fool [or 'man'] wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred Scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth." - Martin Luther"
As you know (or maybe you don't), Martin Luther was a Roman Catholic priest whose church was relying on a different "upstart" for its understanding of "science". Since he wasn't a trained scientist, he wasn't aware that that was another erronious teaching that should have also been on the list that he nailed on the church door. LOL
In my reply here #384, I directed you to my profile page. If you had taken my advice, you wouldn't have embarrassed yourself by asking that question. LOL to wit:
On My profile page you would have found this entry, "..In many ways, the historic controversy of creation vs. evolution has been similar to Galileo's conflict, only with a reversal of roles..."
It links to this commentary:
[1] HERE -- Excerpts: "...Ironically, the traditional beliefs that Galileo opposed ultimately belonged to Aristotle, not to biblical exegesis. Pagan philosophy had become interwoven with traditional Catholic teachings during the time of Augustine. Therefore, the Church's dogmatic retention of tradition was the major seat of controversy, not the Bible. ....In reality, the majority of persecution seemed to come from intellectual scientists whose monopoly of educational authority had been threatened. During Galileo's time, education was primarily dominated by Jesuit and Dominican priests. ...."
One of the most important aspects of Galileo's "threat" to education is that he published his writings in Italian, rather than Latin, which was the official language of scholarship. Galileo was attempting to have his ideas accepted by common people, hoping that they would eventually filter into the educational institutions. Thus, Galileo was regarded as an enemy of the established scientific authorities and experienced the full weight of their influence and persecution. .....
The lesson to be learned from Galileo, it appears, is not that the Church held too tightly to biblical truths; but rather that it did not hold tightly enough. It allowed Greek philosophy to influence its theology and held to tradition rather than to the teachings of the Bible. ..." [Click link for complete commentary]
And you would have found this entry:
[2] What were Galileo Galilei's conflicts with the Roman Catholic Church? --- MAJOR excerpts:
"It was not a simple conflict between science and religion, as usually portrayed. Rather it was a conflict between Copernican science and Aristotelian science which had become Church tradition. Galileo expressed his scientific views supporting Copernicus as well as his biblical views in a 1615 letter to the Grand Duchess of Tuscany which became the basis of his first Church trial and censure. A major work published in 1632 resulted in Galileo's conviction on suspicion of heresy and a lifetime house arrest. The Galileo affair provides important lessons and applications to the Church and to science today.
Background
Aristotle (384-322 B.C.) believed the universe is finite and spherical with a stationary earth at its center. Enclosing the whole universe is the sphere of the Prime Motion turned by the First Unmoved Mover. Inside that were transparent spheres containing fixed and unchanging stars, planets, moon and sun.[1] Aristotle was also a renowned philosopher.
Clement and Origen (185-254 A.D.), both of Alexandria, sought to reconcile Greek wisdom (Aristotle's thoughts in philosophy and sciences) with scriptural wisdom. Origen imagined separate literal, moral, and spiritual senses of Bible passages (expanded to five senses in Concordism today).[2]
Van Bebber says, "This allegorical interpretation gave birth to a new brand of Christianity. Augustine (354-430 A.D.), although not as extreme as Clement or Origen, accepted this new approach. Through Augustine the mixing of philosophy, culture, and theology became inter-twined. And, since Catholic theology recognizes the traditions of the Church as equal in authority with written scripture, changing this trend became impossible. Eventually, the roots planted in Augustine took full bloom in Thomas Aquinas" (1224-1274 A.D.).[3] The Renaissance Period (1300-1600 A.D.), the rebirth of Greek philosophy, reinforced Aristotle's philosophy and science, already embedded in Roman Catholic theology and tradition. The most serious scientific error was acceptance of an earth-centered cosmos. ...
Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543 A.D.) was a Renaissance man educated in the classics, law, theology, mathematics, metaphysics, languages, and astronomy. Copernicus developed a cosmology with the sun at the center, the earth rotating about a polar axis, and the earth and planets circling the sun, essentially as we know it today.[4]
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642 A.D.) received a broad Renaissance education. Until 1610, when Galileo built his first telescope at age 46, he focused mainly on physics, not astronomy. He soon made discoveries which shook the foundations of the Aristotelian cosmos..........No longer could scientists say that heavenly bodies revolve exclusively around the earth. .....
Response to these discoveries ranged from enthusiastic to very hostile. Never fearing a fight, Galileo actively defended his evidence which supported the Copernican cosmos. Hummel states, '........ His goal was to promote as well as develop a new scientific world view."[5]
Johnston, a Catholic defending the Church, wrote that Galileo was intent on ramming Copernicus down the throat of Christendom. Johnston claims that Galileo's position and manner had alienated many and left the Church authorities no room to maneuver. While there is some truth in Johnston's assertion, it was a minor factor in the conflict.
The primary problem, as introduced earlier, was that Aristotle's science was going out of style; but the church was still attached to him. It could not make a distinction between Aristotle and Christian teachings; and in that era, there was no distinguishment or separation of science from philosophy. For the Church, if Aristotle was wrong, Christianity was wrong.[6]
Another background factor in Galileo's conflict with the Church was the influence of the Reformation. Because Martin Luther (1483-1546 A.D.) and the Protestant reformation (1517 A.D.) questioned Church authority, the Roman Church lost significant power and influence. It reacted with a list of literature forbidden to Catholics. Included were any writings challenging traditional Scripture interpretation.[7]
Letter to Madame Christina
In 1615 Galileo wrote a letter outlining his views to Madame Christina of Lorraine, the Grand Duchess of Tuscany, "Concerning the Use of Biblical Quotations in Matters of Science."[8] The tribunal used this letter against him in his first trial in 1616. They directed Galileo to relinquish Copernicanism and to abstain altogether from teaching or defending this opinion and doctrine, and even from discussing it.[9]
Excerpts from the letter to Madame Christina help to reveal Galileo's view of Scripture and that of his predecessors. He writes, "I think in the first place that it is very pious to say and prudent to affirm that the Holy Bible can never speak untruth -- whenever its true meaning is understood."[10]
He cited Copernicus in the same vein: "He [Copernicus] did not ignore the Bible, but he knew very well that if his doctrine were proved, then it could not contradict the Scripture when they were rightly understood".[11] He quotes Augustine relating true reason to Scriptural truth:
"And in St. Augustine [in the seventh letter to Marcellinus] we read: 'If anyone shall set the authority of Holy Writ against clear and manifest reason, he who does this knows not what he has undertaken; for he opposes to the truth not the meaning of the Bible, which is beyond his comprehension, but rather his own interpretation; not what is in the Bible, but what he has found in himself and imagines to be there'"[12]
The Church had no problem with these solid orthodox views. Galileo was a man of faith as well as science.
Two examples from Galileo's letter help to illustrate his interpretation of Scripture dealing with science. Some say he should have left Scripture alone and just stuck to science, but he was in a "no-win situation" whatever he did, for the Roman Catholic Church's Aristotelian views were being challenged. ....." [snipped examples]
A New Book and a Second Trial
In 1632, Galileo completed his Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems --Ptolemaic & Copernican. This publication, a twelve year effort, presented all the arguments for and against the two great world systems--the Copernican (sun centered) and the Aristotelian or Ptolemaic (earth centered). Galileo also warned the Church of a trap they were walking into:
"Take note, theologians, that in your desire to make matters of faith out of propositions relating to the fixity of sun and earth you run the risk of eventually having to condemn as heretics those who would declare the earth to stand still and the sun to change position--eventually, I say, at such a time as it might be physically or logically proved that the earth moves and the sun stands still."[16]
The Roman Catholic hierarchy and their Aristotlean-Ptolemaic advisors did not heed this advice. The Roman Curia promptly banned and confiscated Galileo's monumental work; and it became the basis for his second trial, censure, and lifetime house arrest by the Holy Office of the Inquisition in 1633. The Roman Catholic Church convicted him of breaking his agreement of 1616 and of teaching the Copernican theory as a truth and not a hypothesis. They suspected him of holding heretical opinions condemned by the Church, which they ordered him to abjure [abandon a false opinion]. Seven of the ten Cardinals presiding signed his condemnation.[17]
The Holy Tribunal in Galileo's condemnation states: "The proposition that the sun is the center of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to the Holy Scripture. The proposition that the earth is not the center of the world and immovable, but that it moves, and also with a diurnal motion, is equally absurd and false philosophically, and theologically considered, at least erroneous in faith."[18]
Historical Aftermath of the Galileo Affair:
As new observations poured in, evidence grew supporting a Copernican view. The Roman Catholic Church leadership looked like fools, opening a wedge between science and religion that has increasingly widened to today. As Johnston put it, "To the popular mind, the Galileo affair is prima facie evidence that the free pursuit of truth became possible only after science 'Liberated' itself from the theological shackles of the Middle Ages. ...the Galileo case is one of the historic bludgeons that are used to beat on the Church -- the other two being the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition."[19]
Applications and Lessons Today:
Application to Science
Today, Science views Galileo's conflict with Church hierarchy as a great triumph of science over religion. Today Science is king, Nature is the Creator, and God (if He exists) is irrelevant. Galileo would not have viewed it thus, for his faith in the truth of God's Word remained strong. He recognized that God is King and Creator, not Nature.
Misapplication by Theistic Evolutionists and Progressive Creationists
Theistic evolutionists and Progressive Creationists often use a "Two Book" concept to reconcile or compromise the Bible with Science. They claim both the "Book of Nature" and the "Book of Scripture" are true or applicable in their own realm.
But today, Science is always put first. Thus, religion must bow to scientific findings. The "Book of Scripture" must yield to and accommodate the "Book of Nature".
Theologians must reinterpret or compromise Scripture to accommodate whatever today's Science says is true. When new scientific theories come along, Biblical interpretations must change accordingly.
The Two-Book concept was encouraged by Galileo's view that scientific descriptions in the Bible were not important, for the common man could not understand them. Galileo used the same terminology. For example, Galileo said, "The Book of Nature is written in (clearly-understood) mathematics."[20] Galileo cited Cardinal Baronius (1598) for the statement, "The Bible was written to show us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go."[21]
Lessons to Religious Authority:
The Roman Curia, the religious authorities, imposed Aristotle's view upon the Bible, allowing Greek philosophy to influence its theology. They steadfastly maintained their traditions and erroneous interpretations of Scripture[22] above increasing scientific observations to the contrary. Galileo's published works remained on the Roman Church's Index of Prohibited Books until 1835. Not until 1981 did the Roman Catholic Church officially forgive Galileo.[23]
Van Bebber aptly states, "The Bible is the only infallible, inspired revelation of God. Motivated by a love for the Creator and His word, the believer must carefully weigh his every thought against the standard of the Bible. Those ideas which oppose sound Biblical teachings must be abandoned. Had this been achieved during the days of Galileo, a peaceful and reasonable solution would have helped to strip the Catholic Church of traditional, non-Christian philosophies which proved to hinder its effectiveness."[24]
Lesson to All:
A final lesson and warning applies to the Church, Science, and the modern Creationist movement today.
Beware of holding steadfastly to a particular interpretation of Scripture and/or a scientific model, which may be in error.
For instance, there are various scientific challenges to the Young-Earth Creationist position.
We should hold many of our scientific views and their corresponding Biblical interpretations loosely.
For we will never have all the right answers this side of heaven. ...." [snip] *
Another item you would have found on my profile page(which does tell you something about "me", but as you can see is not "about" me): "He has made everything beautiful in its time. Also he has put eternity in their hearts, except that no one can find out the work that God does from beginning to end.” Ecclesiastes 3:11 Also see: The Origin and Meaning of Time
bttt
The two religions:
[1] God is sovereign - He wears the crown.
[2] Man is sovereign - he wears the crown.
Everyone belongs to one or the other religion.
Thank you for posting this information.It clears up some things I have seen twisted in the past.
You haven't even scratched the surface of possibilities. The most basic problem with your formulation is that you have attempted to hide your assumptions about what God is and does. The fact that God exists does not demonstrate He has the attributes you ascribe.
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.