There are already many examples where legislation or administration (e.g., school boards) have attempted to get biblical creation taught in science classes.
"Creation science" was booted by the US Supreme Court in the late 1980s. This led to the famous Wedge Strategy by the Discovery Institute.
Since then we have had several cases decided by the courts, each affirming that creationism or ID are not science and should not be taught in science classes (Dover and the recent "sticker" decision come to mind).
These cases came to the courts because fundamentalists attempted to use the power of government to spread their religious beliefs.
Do I believe that fundamentalists have attempt to use the power of government to spread their religious beliefs. Yes, this is clear from the court records.
I also believe that if fundamentalists of a like belief were more numerous in government, or more powerful politically, that they would be trying even harder, and perhaps would be more successful in promoting their religious belief through the power of the state.
You seem to doubt this, but its there for all to see in Dover and a lot of other communities.
And its here on FR as well. How many times have those who support science been condemned to hell? How many times have scientists been told that we are no better than communists or Nazis?
No, I would not like to live under a theocracy run by such folks, nor would I like to try to do any of the sciences I mentioned upthread at the whim of such folks.
You are banging your head against the wall arguing with the theocons.
Thankfully, reason and logic is still winning in the case of the creationists, and what you see here is not a representational sample.
Of course, the average American knows jack squat about any real science, but that is OK, India and China still teach their kids.
Yes, I do doubt it. Equating a sticker in a textbook or notifying students that some scientists disagree with Darwin's theory with a theocracy is nutty (although the ACLU would agree with you). Secondly, Darwinists regularly use the power of government to veto duly elected representatives of the people. Unless, of course, you don't think the courts are part of government.
I also believe that if fundamentalists of a like belief were more numerous in government, or more powerful politically, that they would be trying even harder, and perhaps would be more successful in promoting their religious belief through the power of the state.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Would you support private school voucher or tax credits? Would you support getting government out of the business of trampling freedom of conscience in its government schools?
Interesting grey area there.
No, seriously, hear me out.
It is not from the "top down" at the national level; school boards represent local authority, and can often be chosen or influenced at the grass roots level.
The societal questions which come up are--(in no particular order)--
1) Do people have the right to enact annoying statutes?
2) At what point does our government as a "representative republic come in and overrule the statutes, in the name of common sense, accuracy, pluralism, or not-establishment of a religion?
3) How far down the totem pole should the central government's reach be? And when does it cross the line to conflict with the "free exercise" clause? Does it extend to removing the Ten Commandments from monuments or classrooms? Does it extend to forbidding voluntary prayer groups to meet on their own time, using as much of the school's resources as a chess club?
Another question that comes up is how much would today be called a "theocracy" which was just common consent xyz number of years ago, because common Christianity was pretty much taken for granted (or at least external lip service to it). With the multicultural and Marxist infiltration since the 60's, the consensus has been lost.
Cheers!
It just seems that you are putting ALL 'fundamentalists' into the same category.
Remember, there are...
Creation,
Evolution,
Fundamentals...
And there are...
CreationISM,
EvolutionISM,
FundamentalISM..
vastly different things.
Let's worry about Pelosi and HER group...
THEY are the REAL enemy!
Like it used to be in this country before the Scopes Trial and other court cases brought by the ACLU and other liberal, America-hating groups when this country was something to be proud of? It's been with the decline of religious expression in this country and the eroding of laws that are supported by the Christian in this country that society has seen it's moral and ethical deterioration.
These cases came to the courts because fundamentalists evolutionists attempted to use have used the power of government to spread their religious evolutionist beliefs.
Like the Scopes trials.
I also believe that if fundamentalists of a like belief were more numerous in government, or more powerful politically, that they would be trying even harder, and perhaps would be more successful in promoting their religious belief through the power of the state.
Not hard data.
You question my distrust of religious fundamentalists, and my belief that they would establish a theocracy if they could?
Yup, I question it, too, because you still have not provided any examples to answer the questions that were asked of you.
The closest thing I've seen to a *theocracy* in this country by any group of people is the Amish and their decision not to avail themselves of technology for every day life is a choice. OK, now tell us how oppressive living a peaceful, loving, forgiving lifestyle would be and how bad it would be for this country.
There are already many examples where legislation or administration (e.g., school boards) have attempted to get biblical creation taught in science classes.
How the origins of life and man are taught have profound religious consequences for the all the children in the class. How the origins of man is presented to these children effects all the children within in the school, since they are forced to socialize with each other.
There is no way for any school board to dictate an approach to teaching about the origins of man. No matter what it does it will offend the religious sensibilities of someone.
The solution:
Begin the process of privatizing universal K-12 education. Let parents, teachers, and principals decide if the origins of life will be taught in a God-free manner, one that accepts evolution but acknowledges God's role, or ignores evolution entirely. ( There is plenty of science to be learned without having to teach evolution.)
Since then we have had several cases decided by the courts, each affirming that creationism or ID are not science and should not be taught in science classes (Dover and the recent "sticker" decision come to mind).
The courts have never ( to my knowledge) been asked to rule on the religious neutrality and consequences of evolution. They have never been asked whether government should be in the business of forcing children into compulsory schools and they working to undermine their most preciously religious traditions. This not only applies to evolution or ID, but to HUNDREDS of other curriculum and policy issues.
And its here on FR as well. How many times have those who support science been condemned to hell? How many times have scientists been told that we are no better than communists or Nazis?
Anyone who would recommend that government take children from their parents by threat of FORCE, and subjecting them to a government curriculum that destroys their family's most treasured religious beliefs DESERVES to be called a Nazi or a communist.
This is true for the secular-humanist-atheist-evolutionist, or the crevo-ID-religious-freak. It is true for the evolutionist-creationist-ID tug of war over hearts and souls of children, and it is true for HUNDREDS of other unresolvable freedom of conscience issues.
There are already many examples where legislation or administration (e.g., school boards) have attempted to get biblical creation taught in science classes.
How the origins of life and man are taught have profound religious consequences for the all the children in the class. How the origins of man is presented to these children effects all the children within in the school, since they are forced to socialize with each other.
There is no way for any school board to dictate an approach to teaching about the origins of man. No matter what it does it will offend the religious sensibilities of someone.
The solution:
Begin the process of privatizing universal K-12 education. Let parents, teachers, and principals decide if the origins of life will be taught in a God-free manner, one that accepts evolution but acknowledges God's role, or ignores evolution entirely. ( There is plenty of science to be learned without having to teach evolution.)
Since then we have had several cases decided by the courts, each affirming that creationism or ID are not science and should not be taught in science classes (Dover and the recent "sticker" decision come to mind).
The courts have never ( to my knowledge) been asked to rule on the religious neutrality and consequences of evolution. They have never been asked whether government should be in the business of forcing children into compulsory schools and they working to undermine their most preciously religious traditions. This not only applies to evolution or ID, but to HUNDREDS of other curriculum and policy issues.
And its here on FR as well. How many times have those who support science been condemned to hell? How many times have scientists been told that we are no better than communists or Nazis?
Anyone who would recommend that government take children from their parents by threat of FORCE, and subjecting them to a government curriculum that destroys their family's most treasured religious beliefs DESERVES to be called a Nazi or a communist.
This is true for the secular-humanist-atheist-evolutionist, or the crevo-ID-religious-freak. It is true for the evolutionist-creationist-ID tug of war over hearts and souls of children, and it is true for HUNDREDS of other unresolvable freedom of conscience issues.
You question my distrust of religious fundamentalists, and my belief that they would establish a theocracy if they could?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Well,,,,atheists and Secular Humanists would establish their theocracy if they could, and they are doing a very good job of shoving it down the throats of resisted children in our government schools.
Solution: Begin the process of privatizing universal K-12 education. Let the evolutionists and Secular Humanists have their schools, and let those who believe in God have theirs.
Oh, then you are ready to admit that Madalyn Murray O'Hair was trying to force all Americans to become atheists when she brought her school prayer case? Claiming that a sticker in a textbook is the same as trying to establish a theocracy makes about as much sense. Heck, claiming that Dover indicates a wish for theocracy is like claiming a guy is a proven anti-Semite because you set him up with a Jewish girl and he never called her for a second date.
What's especially funny is you're claiming theocracy using a case where elected people took an action--an action that did not force a single act of worship, give any power to any religion, or stop a single act of scientific research or teaching--and were thrown out of office at the first opportunity. Like I said, we can all speculate what kind of country we'll have if OJ Simpson becomes President, but it's better to live in the real world.
So here's the bottom line: We are discussing an article about atheists who say that scientists should make it their top priority to stamp out religion. You counter by saying Christians will establish theocracy and ban certain lines of scientific inquiry. You offer as evidence stickers in a book and a non-political statement of faith. And you also will not answer whether you agree with Dawkins' call for scientists to work on eliminating religion.
Are you planning on presenting some evidence to support your paranoid assetions? Are you planning on answering the question: Do you agree scientists should work on eliminating religion or not?