Posted on 08/24/2008 2:16:12 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
...In February, the Florida Department of Education modified its standards to explicitly require, for the first time, the state’s public schools to teach evolution, calling it “the organizing principle of life science.” Spurred in part by legal rulings against school districts seeking to favor religious versions of natural history, over a dozen other states have also given more emphasis in recent years to what has long been the scientific consensus: that all of the diverse life forms on Earth descended from a common ancestor, through a process of mutation and natural selection, over billions of years.
But in a nation where evangelical Protestantism and other religious traditions stress a literal reading of the biblical description of God’s individually creating each species, students often arrive at school fearing that evolution, and perhaps science itself, is hostile to their faith.
Some come armed with “Ten questions to ask your biology teacher about evolution,” a document circulated on the Internet that highlights supposed weaknesses in evolutionary theory. Others scrawl their opposition on homework assignments. Many just tune out.
(Click link for full article)
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Does the Theory of Evolution help? Use it!
Does religion help? Use it!
Did you know the Nazis used electric lights to help them shoot down Allied bombers? Where's your screed against Thomas Edison?
You still haven't figured out "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" is a logical fallacy?
When all else fails, resort to a smear campaign.
PRECISELY MY POINT...so posting a belt buckle of nazis using religion, has exactly what to do with all the holes in evolution and people being censored into silence for so much as applying a sticker on a book explaining ToE is “THEORY”?
www.dissentfromdarwin.org
SO it’s incomplete too? That’s your opinion. Scientists disagree with your opinion, just like they disagree with each other about the best meds for hypertension.
What is it about ID that is so threatening that it must be silenced?
This is a valid point that you are making. Religiously neutral does not mean atheistic necessarily. For instance a song can be religious neutral. A painting can be religiously neutral. Neither are atheistic or anti-God or anti-religion.
However...The term "religiously neutral" can never be applied to the education of children. Why? Answer: It is impossible to have a religiously neutral overall education. This is axiomatic.
The two are different- a school taking a religion-neutral position means it does not discuss religion during school-hours.
I must disagree with you here. Not discussing religion during class hours teaches a powerful anti-religious and anti-God lesson.
For example, let's compare and contrast my Catholic school education with a government education in which God or religion is not discussed.
Yes, there was the daily half hour spent learning about Catholic doctrine, but the religious influence permeated every minute of every day. We prayed every hour for God's blessing on the next subject to be taught. When an ambulance or fire truck passed the school we stopped the class and ask God to please help the people involved. As we grew older, when we studied literature and social studies we looked for which Commandments had been broken and the consequences of sin. Often the teachings of Church leaders were used to illustrate points and emphasize moral and ethical values found in the topic.
Throughout my Catholic education we were explicitly an implicitly taught that God ( our Creator) was a **rational** God. It was possible and even a duty to learn as much as possible about the inner workings of God's creations.
Obviously, the above is **NOT** religiously neutral in content or consequences.
Ok...So let's compare the above to a "god-free" compulsory government education.
When the child does not have formal religious instruction in his government school, he is taught by the example of powerful role models ( his government teachers and principal)that the government and society in general does value his religious traditions or consider them important enough to mention in class. If his parents take time at home to teach these religious lessons the child pays in the form of lost playtime and time for relaxation. ( The "god-less" government school is teaching a powerful non-neutral religious lesson to this child by its action.)
If the teachers in the "god-less" government school fail to bless each hour and ask God's blessing on the next topic, the government teaches the child that looking to God for help and guidance in his daily tasks is utterly unimportant. ( This is **not** a religiously neutral lesson.)
If the teachers fail to pray when the ambulance passes the school, the children are taught by the government that it is not important to ask for God's blessings on others in their time of need. The government also misses an important opportunity to teach the children to feel compassion for others.
If the government teachers fail to identify and point out the consequences of sin and the outcome of breaking the Ten Commandments within the context of its curriculum, the children are not given the opportunity to identify and recognize sin or its consequences. If his scriptures, religious teachings, and the words of his churches leaders are ignored when evaluating literature and the social sciences, he is taught by the government that society does not value his religious beliefs and considers them unimportant. ( This is **not** a religiously neutral lesson.)
This is the only proper and Constitutional approach.
A "god-less" approach to education is **not** religiously neutral and is **not** constitutional. ( Please see above examples.) Also, it is impossible to have religiously neutral education.
The **only** proper and religiously neutral approach it to begin the process of getting government out of the education business. It is **impossible** to have a religiously neutral education. This is axiomatic.
An atheistic approach would mean the school actively taking the position that no gods exist, which would be unconstitutional.
I **agree** with you! An atheistic education teaches children that no god or gods exist. It is evident! This is **NOT** religiously neutral. This indeed would be unconstitutional.
But...A "god-less" education that ignores God and the child's **specific** religion teaches the child that God is unimportant and irrelevant in evaluating his many daily concerns. This is not religiously neutral either!
Please remember: It is impossible to have a religious neutral education! It is axiomatic!
If you teach Christianity in certain public schools, then you have to allow Islam to be taught in others, if the local community wants it to be taught. Give that some thought.
My Jewish friends, whose families have been here about as long as mine have, would prefer not to think they live in “their” culture and society—they love this country and think they live in “our” culture and society.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
One solution is to have the most minimal government possible. Having a minimal government reduces the opportunity for church and state conflicts.
Beginning the process of privatizing universal education is one very major way to get government church and state conflicts out of out lives.
So, unless people are constantly mentioning God in every context imaginable, that equals being anti-God? Nonsense. You want the public schools to affirm your religious choices for you- that's not their job, that's your job as a parent.
If the teachers fail to pray when the ambulance passes the school, the children are taught by the government that it is not important to ask for God's blessings on others in their time of need.
This is even more loopy. You want teachers to drop what they're doing in order to make some religious point for you? What if the teachers are members of some other faith, or atheists? Should they be forced to pray in order to make your religious point for you?
If the government teachers fail to identify and point out the consequences of sin and the outcome of breaking the Ten Commandments within the context of its curriculum, the children are not given the opportunity to identify and recognize sin or its consequences.
Why the Ten Commandments? Why not the rules of some other religion? Why do you need the public schools to do your religious instruction for you?
A "god-less" approach to education is **not** religiously neutral and is **not** constitutional. ( Please see above examples.)
So, a religiously-neutral approach to education is unconstitutional while constantly advancing one religion in schools is? That's certainly a novel view of 1st Amendment law (which is 180 degrees from decades of SCOTUS decisions).
But...A "god-less" education that ignores God and the child's **specific** religion teaches the child that God is unimportant and irrelevant in evaluating his many daily concerns. This is not religiously neutral either!
Basically, you want the schools to teach your religion for you.
It is axiomatic!
You keep using that word, but I don't think it means what you think it means.
But where does this stop? If you get on public transit and the bus driver fails to ask God's protection on your journey, is that the government teaching your child that it's not important to ask God to watch over you? When you register your car and the DMV doesn't bless your stickers, is that a lesson that God is unimportant? Our government should not be in the teaching-about-God business, in school or anywhere else.
Please read post #325. It addresses some of the points you are making.
Also...The odds are against Christian parents who send their kids to government schools. Odds are in favor of those who use Christian private schools and especially favor those who homeschool. Parents who hand their kids over to Caesar's schools should **not** be surprised when they get Romans back. ( Yes, I have links)
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:kY4WNVux_NIJ:www.exodusmandate.org/20070503-resolution/2007-letter-to-committee-members.doc+Barna+Shortt+Christian+high+school+88%25+faith+homeschool&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us
o The Nehemiah Institute’s worldview testing shows that students in Christian schools reject moral relativism at a rate 500% higher than Christian children attending public schools. The same worldview surveys also show that children receiving a Christian education do better on worldview issues overall than their public school counterparts, with outstanding results typically coming from Christian schools that incorporate worldview materials in their curriculum and homeschooled children.
o Children attending Christian schools or who are homeschooled demonstrate on average significantly higher levels of academic achievement than their public school counterparts.
o In a recent academic study, homeschooled children were found to be significantly less likely than conventionally schooled children to watch MTV; use drugs; lie to a parent, teacher, or other older person; attempt suicide; drink enough alcohol to be legally drunk; or gamble. Homeschoolers were also significantly less likely to describe themselves as too busy, stressed out, angry with life, confused, or always tired.
o Research by Dr. Brian Ray, founder of NHERI, found that 94% of all homeschooled children retained their faith into adulthood.
o In 2002 the SBC’s Council on Family Life reported that roughly 88% of our children leave the church within 2 years after graduating from high school. It is reported by LifeWay’s Zan Tyler that Josh McDowell Ministries pegs the number who leave at 92%.3
o Barna Research points out that while 86% of teens claim to be Christian and many are involved in church activities, the teens’ professions of Christianity and church attendance are deceiving. When the actual beliefs of our teens were surveyed, Barna research found, for example, that 60% believe salvation can be earned through good works, 53% (including 40% of evangelical teens) believe that Jesus sinned while he was on earth, only 1/3 said they were absolutely committed to Christianity, and only 9% of born again teens believe that there is any such thing as absolute moral truth. Should it be surprising, then, that Barna also finds that, based on survey data, only 4% of teens are actually evangelical Christians?
o Based on many years of worldview testing of evangelical teens, the Nehemiah Institute has found that at most only about 15% of evangelical teens attending public schools clearly reject moral relativism and believe that absolute moral truth exists.
o The results from the largest survey of teen religious attitudes and beliefs, the National Survey of Youth and Religion, have been written up in Soul Searching by the lead researcher, Dr. Christian Smith, a sociologist at the University of North Carolina. Dr. Smith points out that most teens profess whatever religion their parents claim, which, of course, means that the overwhelming majority of teens claim to be Christian. Nevertheless, the research also shows that, whatever they may claim to be, the overwhelming majority of “Christian” teens is absolutely incapable of articulating anything resembling the fundamental tenets of Christianity. According to Dr. Smith: “Many teenagers know abundant details about the lives of favorite musicians and television stars or about what it takes to get into a good college, but most turn out to be not very clear on who Moses and Jesus were.” For example, when asked what God is like, one typical teenager responded: “Um…Good. Powerful.” When asked if there was anything else, she responded: “Tall.” The book uses many examples like these from the study’s teen interviews to illustrate why they concluded that teens are unable to articulate even a simple account of Christianity or whatever else they may profess to believe. In fact, the researchers conclude that the actual “faith” of the vast majority of teens is something that Dr. Smith characterizes as “Moralistic Therapeutic Deism.” This is a creed that conceives of God as something of a “cosmic butler” who exists to get people out of problems and who has, perhaps, one commandment: “Be nice.” The researchers also found that many parents of the teens appear to hold to a similar faith, even though they may profess Christianity. Further, in the appendix to Soul Searching, Dr. Smith points out that his research shows churches and pastors barely register in terms of the forces that shape and influence the beliefs and values of children.
o In light of the foregoing, perhaps it isn’t surprising that Dr. Thom Rainer has estimated that nearly 50% of the members of SBC churches may not be Christians. Obviously, our multigenerational lack of faithfulness in the education of children has created a multigenerational problem in our churches.
Not silenced, just concidered of little usefullness.
ID appears to be obsessed with one potential factoid that doesn’t nicely align with the known forces affecting the Model (Evolution) over time. As if somehow that was an important detail.
Yet I have not seen an ID school of Medicin take a substantially differnt form resulting from using ID in place of Evo and more importantly have obtained significanly better results because of it. Probably because even the Anti-Darwin groups admit it’s the right model for changes going forward. It’s only the extension of it to the Past, specifically Darwins “Oragin of the Species” which is being argued.
I propose beginning the process of getting government **out** of the education business.
Basically, you want the schools to teach your religion for you.
In invite you to re-read my post. You will see that I do not want government to promote any person's religious worldview ( god-less, atheistic, or God-centered). The solution is to begin the process of privatizing education. Let parents and principals decide these matters privately in the private setting of **FREELY CHOSEN** **PRIVATE** schools!
And...AGAIN...A religiously neutral education is **impossible**. I plainly explained why this is so, and gave examples. If you refuse to acknowledge this then I will classify you with those with fingers in their ears yelling "LA, LA, LA!"
If you persist in insisting that government schools can be religiously neutral then I invite you to describe one. I will have great fun pointing out the many, many, ways in which they are not. It goes far, far beyond curriculum and includes holidays celebrated and ignored, weekend days scheduled for events, foods allowed and disallowed, attire permitted and forbidden, jewelery, tattoos, hairstyles, co-education or single sex, music chosen and forbidden, art on the walls that is allowed or forbidden,..etc.
There is only one possible constitutional solution to the constant battles over the government schools. Answer: Begin the process of privatizing education. You can send your children to schools that are indifferent to God, and others can send their children to schools that uphold the religious traditions taught in the home.
If you defend the continued existence of compulsory government education that I accuse **you** of wanting government to indoctrinate the nation's children with **YOUR** anointed religious worldview and to **establish** YOUR religious worldview.
There is no such thing as compulsory public education in this country. enrollment in an education program is required for children under a certain age, but this requirement can be met through public, private or homeschooling.
that I accuse **you** of wanting government to indoctrinate the nation's children with **YOUR** anointed religious worldview and to **establish** YOUR religious worldview.
And what religious worldview would that be? The view that math class should teach math, rather than religious dogma?
However...Your post very clearly illustrates how atheists or those advocating a god-less worldview use the government to finance and impose their worldview on Christians.
What if the tables were turned and Christians did to them what is done by the “godless” to Christian children in the government schools? They wouldn't be happy about it. ( I am not advocating that though) I **am** pushing for complete separation of school and state.
Government education is **compulsory** ( police enforced) for **ALL** children who parents can not ransom them from the government choke hold. The extra paid by parents in the form of private or home school expenses ( in addition to taxes paid to support the religiously NON-NEUTRAL government schools) is ransom.
And what religious worldview would that be? The view that math class should teach math, rather than religious dogma?
It seems that you strongly favor the compulsory, police enforced, government schools and the religious worldview promoted in them. I would assume that the religious worldview promoted by the government has much in common with your religious worldview?
Personally, in my homeschool I taught my children that math was a reflection of and example of a rational God. I taught them that is was our duty and responsibility to learn as much about this rational God's creations and his works as possible.
My 3 homeschoolers entered college at the ages of 13, 12, and 13. Each finished Calculus III and all college general courses by the age of 15. The two younger children finished a B.S. degree in mathematics by the ages of 18. The oldest of these two earned a masters in math at the age of 20. The youngest is currently working on a chemical engineering degree.
In any case, I think you're wrong about the inability to have a religiously neutral education, but at least your solution is not hypocritical. I don't agree that your point is "axiomatic" (the fact that I disagree sort of proves it isn't), but I don't expect to convince you or to be convinced, so I think I'll bow out while the discussion is still pleasant.
So, it's compulsory, unless the parents decide otherwise. Gotcha.
It seems that you strongly favor the compulsory, police enforced, government schools and the religious worldview promoted in them.
I'm ambivalent when it comes to public schools. Some are good, some aren't. But, yes, I favor a religously neutral education (which is what I received in Toronto public and private schools) and that is what I want my kids to get.
I would assume that the religious worldview promoted by the government has much in common with your religious worldview?
What religious worldview is the government promoting?
Personally, in my homeschool I taught my children that math was a reflection of and example of a rational God. I taught them that is was our duty and responsibility to learn as much about this rational God's creations and his works as possible.
As is your right. But public schools are Constitutionally enjoined from promoting religion and have to remain neutral on the subject.
Not silenced, just concidered of little usefullness.
>>>>Once again, your opinion. There are too many scientists now that disagree.
ID appears to be obsessed with one potential factoid that doesn’t nicely align with the known forces affecting the Model (Evolution) over time. As if somehow that was an important detail.
Yet I have not seen an ID school of Medicin take a substantially differnt form resulting from using ID in place of Evo and more importantly have obtained significanly better results because of it. Probably because even the Anti-Darwin groups admit it’s the right model for changes going forward. It’s only the extension of it to the Past, specifically Darwins “Oragin of the Species” which is being argued.
That’s not true of all scientific disciplines but even if it was, what’s your point? ToE and origins is primarily what I’m interested in.
Godless liberals haven’t been objective about:
journalism
politics
education in general
science (as we now see with banning stickers on books)
law
etc. etc. etc.
But the Constitution is not supposed to be interpreted through opinion polls. Whether or not it is Constitutional to use public resources to advance religion is not an issue that is decided at the ballot box (unless through a Constitutional amendment).
>>>>>>Hijacking the law to censor Christians is nowhere in the Constitution either. Just because we say God Bless you in public doesn’t mean we’re “advancing our religion” on the public.
One might think this is funny or stupid but we’ve seen stores bend to the political correct “hppy holidays” in fear of “offending” someone because they said “Merry Christmas”!
Let me ask you:
Do you favor the minority few like say Michael Newdow to impose his godless views on society to remove Under God in the pledge to suit HIS own worldview?
How about the ALCU forcing a school board to remove the word Christmas from the school calendar?
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.