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 ...
If we're talking about a private citizen, they have every right to advance their religion in public (with reasonable exceptions, of course). But that's different from a teacher or other public employee doing so in their official capacity. Of course, only a nut would consider saying "God bless you" after a sneeze, even by a teacher, as some form of religious preaching.
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”!
Again, a private company choosing what type of Christmas greeting to give is different from government decisions regarding religious expressions.
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?
If the inclusion of Under God in the pledge is unconstitutional, it doesn't matter whether only a minority object to it. But, AFAIK, the courts have not agreed with his position and neither do I.
How about the ALCU forcing a school board to remove the word Christmas from the school calendar?
I'm opposed to this- having Christmas on the calendar is simply a statement of fact, just like having July 4 listed as Independence Day.
Again, a private company choosing what type of Christmas greeting to give is different from government decisions regarding religious expressions.
>>>>>>They may indeed BE different of course but this has not stopped a “nut” as you say from suing or threatening lawsuit. A company often doesn’t know their rights. As do schools, individuals and the like. They buy into the absurd separation of church and state lies from the likes of the Michael Newdow’s (an attorney by trade, hijacking the law) who hijacks his own daughter who didn’t have a problem with God in the first place! They just want to be politically correct. Out of fear of lawsuit.
Apparently you agree it’s extreme to become offended if someone says ‘God Bless You’ when they sneeze, or to ban Merry Christmas greetings...etc. and it’s never offended me when I hear Happy Hannukah. I hear it evey season since I do alot of work in Jewish homes.
It's idiotic to be offended when someone wishes you a happy anything, in my opinion. Some people are angry and spiteful for no discernable reason.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Ok....Then describe a religiously neutral education. Please cover the following topics:
* Free speech: How do you allow a child to freely discuss his religion while at the same time protecting the other children from being influenced by it?
* Free press: How do you allow a child to freely publish and distribute material about his religion while at the same time protecting the other children from being religiously persuaded by it?
* Free practice of religious belief: How do you allow free practice of religion while at the same time protect other children from its influence?
* How do you resolve the conflict of allowing children to freely assembly with those of their worldview ( godless or God-centered) while having the government forceably assigning them to assemble with children not of their worldview? How do you keep the children from being proselytized by the other children into an opposing worldview either godless or God-centered?
* Holidays: Which cultural holidays of our highly diverse population will be honored with a day off? Which will merely be covered in the curriculum and will the religious origins and significance be thoroughly covered or ignored? Which holidays will be completely and totally ignored?
* Co-education or single sex: How does the government resolve the religious conflicts of either choice.? Is is possible to simultaneously have a single sex and coed school?
* Scheduling of events: Friday evening, Saturday, or Sunday. How does the government allow full opportunity for participation of all students from our diverse society without religious conflict?
* Foods: The younger the child the more abusive it is for the government to force them into an environment where they will be tempted by foods proscribed by their religion or family practices. This is especially true if they are tempted by the government employees or the government institution itself or by the other children with whom the government forces them to assemble.
*Dress: Are girls required to wear dresses with sleeves? Are slacks and shorts permitted. Are blouses sleeveless or with sleeves? Are some boys and girls forced by the government to assemble with students who tempt them to abandon family practices by wearing highly fashionable but proscribed clothing?
*Tattoos,certain jewelery, and hairstyles: Will children be forced by the government into assembly with children with skin or hair styles that tempt them to abandon their faith.
*Arts, theater: There are religions that abhor the depiction of animal or human form in art. Will your school both simultaneously allow and disallow this art? Is that possible? Which religious depictions will be allowed and how will you protect the other children from being religiously influenced by it? How can the government both allow full expression of religious belief in art and protect the other children from its influence?
*Music: What religious music be simultaneously allowed and disallowed? If allowed, and part of the curriculum, how do you protect the children from undue religious influence? Are the children permitted freedom of religious expression and allowed to sing religious songs and how do you protect the other children from being influenced by it? How do you resolve the free expression of religious belief through spoken and sung music with the protection of the other children from undue influence?
Curriculum: Will the curriculum both simultaneously acknowledge that God is the source of all that exists and have ( at the same time) promote a godless worldview?
HaHaThat'sVeryLogical you may choose to ignore these questions, or even insist that it is possible to resolve the impossible in a religiously neutral manner,...but....thoughtful readers will see that is it self evident. It is impossible to have a religiously neutral education!
Thankfully, the concept that education is **never** religiously neutral is now widely accepted among the conservatives who support free market education. Free market education is the **ONLY** possible way to resolve the many conflicts concerning government schools that are **continually** before the courts.
Government schools are fundamentally a freedom of conscience and First Amendment abomination!!! The solution is to begin the process of privatizing universal K-12 education.
If private schools are available the parent is forced to pay “FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE” tax in the form of private tuition or extra homeschooling expenses. I call it ransom.
Government imposed ransom or Freedom of Conscience Taxes as a means to escape the government godless indoctrination are **NOT** religiously neutral.
And...Having the government force citizens to pay for the establishment and promotion of a godless religious worldview in its government schools is **NOT** religiously neutral.
It is impossible for you to favor a religiously neutral education since a religiously neutral education is **IMPOSSIBLE**! It is axiomatic.
When the government attempts to proscribe a God-centered worldview it automatically promotes at godless worldview. There is not neutral position. A religiously neutral education is impossible! It is either God-centered or godless and neither is religiously neutral.
Likewise, you claim disenchantment with other uses of taxpayer money in schools, perhaps to an even greater degree than you do with Christianity. As in, for instance? However wonderful or terrible the education, the teaching of values is an inevitable accouterment. So, if you’re looking for just the right values that suit you, expect a constant roiling of your emotions as long as you are willing to submit yourself to the vagaries of public policy with respect to education. I would remind you that Christianity is not, and has not been anytime in the recent past, an influence in public schools, so you need to search elsewhere for the source of your discontent. Your dilemma should bring a solution to mind, but it appears that you wouldn’t touch that proposition even with Red Skelton’s proverbial ten-foot pole.
How are you coming along with your contemplation of the etymology of “diverse”?
1. A religiously neutral education ("education" meaning the instruction delivered by the agent of the government, i.e. the teacher) does not require preventing a child from discussing his religion with his fellow students, or "protecting" them from being influenced by it.
2. It's not the responsibility of the government to prevent your children from associating with other people you might not approve of, or from enforcing stricter rules than safety and the prevailing social norms require. If you're worried that associating with people with tattoos is going to tempt your child to abandon his faith, you'd better not let them ride the bus or go to the mall either.
3. If the "free practice of your religion" requires you to interfere with others' pursuits--if it requires you to disrupt a classroom or start preaching on a bus or shout Bible verses during "immoral" movies--you should stay home.
4. Some issues, like those around holidays, will require sensitive negotiation among people of good will, and the answers will probably vary from place to place.
Your questions make it seem like you think that if the government doesn't enforce your rules, it is actively working to undermine them. So I still wonder if you expect that in other areas of your interaction with public agencies. Do you expect the police to keep the tattooed, shorts-wearing public away from your kids in the town square? Do you expect the courthouse to drape the statue of Justice when you have jury duty?
I remember it very well, it was in response to one of yours.
Wasn’t it the ‘Gott Mitt Uns’ belt buckle? If it wasn’t then it was a mistake...
or wait, was it something about “if this were 400 years ago...”
Click on the link, dumbass.
You nailed it here. That's what wintertime's views come down to, in a nutshell. She considers it a violation of 1st Amendment rights if schools allow other kids to be different from her kids and if they refuse her kids the right to stand on top of a desk during math class and preach about their religion.
I did that dipstick...but what was your point?
I mean other than the quite PAINFULLY obvious fact that the godless hijack religion as well as science, law, the Constitution, politics, journalism, history...
==In either case it appears WHO and NIH are right to prepare for H5N51 evolving into a Human variant.
Don’t believe the hype:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/089ntygt.asp
Yes, YHAOS, that would seem to be the case….
But it seems to me this “admitting Christians to the table” construct has got it just exactly backwards. At least in terms of the commonly-shared (i.e., cultural) American experience, which (1) has profound roots in the historical and cultural experience of Jerusalem (the salvation history of Judeo-Christianity), Athens (the rational foundation of human thought), and Rome (practical political philosophy and all the ways it can go wrong); and (2) the "radical" American experience developed from these sources, which is lawfully based in a Constitution to which We the People have given and continue to give our assent.
Were that assent to be withdrawn, the United States would instantly cease to exist. Radical progressives of every stripe — from Marx, Lenin, Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, et al., to such more modern luminaries as Bin Laden, William Ayers, and even conceivably Barack Obama himself (folks who do not wish our nation as presently constituted well for whatever reason) — are already well aware of this fact and I daresay clearly focus on it in the conduct of their daily activities.
For one thing, this “persons of Judeo-Christian cum classical culture/heritage may be unqualified to sit at the table of contemporary American public discourse" premise spits on the First Amendment of the federal Constitution — Article I of the Bill of Rights [which guarantees the exercise of the natural, i.e., God-given power of “We the People” to speak among and govern ourselves in a rational manner conducive to social well-being in a peaceful and prosperous civil order achieved through consensus and consent, under the principle of the equality of citizens under the rule of Law, with the Law itself understood as ultimately inspired by, and under the judgment of divine Justice.]
This is the reason WHY the First Amendment stipulates that Congress may not tamper, restrain, or otherwise interfere in any way with, FIRST, freedom of religion (conscience); THEN with freedom of the press, and of peaceable assembly, and by implication, academic freedom — freedom of thought itself.
Sigh…. How do you get people to “play ball with you,” if they refuse to recognize “the rules of the game?”
Thank you so much for writing, dear YHAOS!
I mean other than the quite PAINFULLY obvious fact that the godless hijack religion as well as science, law, the Constitution, politics, journalism, history...
You clicked on the link? Really? It wasn't clear from this post:
To: GumlegsI remember it very well, it was in response to one of yours.
Wasn’t it the ‘Gott Mitt Uns’ belt buckle? If it wasn’t then it was a mistake...
or wait, was it something about “if this were 400 years ago...”
349 posted on Wednesday, August 27, 2008 10:05:15 PM by tpanther
Because if you believed when you posted the above, that “the godless(sic) hijack religion as well as science …” you post was quite pointless. You appeared to be confused as to what it was your own comment was about. If you don’t know, any guess of mine is just a shot in the dark. But I believe – correct me if I’m wrong – your snit started with this post of mine:
To: js1138I think you demonstate the point of the article. Kids come to school steeped in creationism and carrying creation talking points written by Moonies. That side of the “controversy” is well taken care of.
It's not just the moonies who are supplying ammunition and training in the Great Leap Backwards. Creationists can also count radical Islamists as their bedmates.
The tenth century was very inclusive ... and may be again.
173 posted on Monday, August 25, 2008 12:47:31 PM by Gumlegs
Let it be noted that the tenth century was more than four hundred years ago (for those of us who accept modern mathematics, anyway). But I don’t see what your problem is. You complain that “the godless hijack religion.” Okay. Fine. That takes care of Hitler and Stalin, both of whom you brought up. Like I said, you’ve dismissed your own argument.
I’m not sure about listing radical Islamists under the “Godless” rubric. They don’t conform to your version of your religion, of course, but then, most of the population of the United States probably doesn’t, either. Radical Islamists certainly seem to be quite fervent in their religion. One of them, Harun Yahya, whose website I’ve linked to, above, actively attacks evolution. He does it because he wants to promote radical Islam.
He’s been quoted, approvingly, right here on FR.
I find that appalling.
That’s what my comment to js1138 was about. But as long as you appear to be interested, here’s the question: Do you join the radical Muslims in their war on science?
Interesting...have YOU clicked on your link....????
When I do all I get was my first comment...it didn’t show to what it responded to...at the time, I was responding to multiple posts to multiple threads...so that was my fault, I apologize.
....and now I don’t even recall reading that post of yours to js AT ALL.
in fact I’m beginning to think something’s going on here because with the myriad complaints about slow loading (in one case someone even saying on broadband...) and the holes and missing familiarity, I’m hopelessly lost now. And tired from ObamaNation fatigue just now.
But who knows. Now I’m certain I’ll never know.
As to your question...I think we both know radical Islam has little interest in genuine science. And I’m not sold even a person of no religious persuasion accepts that they have a handle on religion, with a “God” that recommends not only enemies, but even their own women submit to the will of “Islamic culture” or suffer decapitation or slit throats via “honor killings” and the like.
Seems like a very monstrous idea of a God to me!
More like worshipping Satan, but I digress.
I’ve got no problems with evolution being in text books etc. My argument all along has been no more censorship and allow evolution to stand on it’s own (often feeble) two feet to ANY competing “theory”.
Even though I believe in a Supreme God/Creator my two primary interests are indeed the science of origins as well as UN-American censorship to obtain “truth” and/or accepted theory for all students.
I don’t think ID opponents fully understand their problem with saying they want it to be about strictly the science and not injecting religion while at the same time the ONLY way they know to ensure their so-called objectivity and making sure it’s ‘strictly about the science’ is to enforce their worldview via censorship or suing opponents into silence.
Let the scientists debate and promote their theories over time and let the results come out in the wash in a TRUE strictly scientific arena, NOT decided by either religion OR lawsuits.
It’s a little disingenuous particulary when taken into consideration and within the context of the incessant anti-Christian agenda as seen in politics, education, law and everywhere else in public. There’s truly too much evidence to suggest we’re not engaged in a bit of a culture war right now. Towns being sued for their logos, santa and nativity bans, “Christmas” stricken from school calendars, and so on.
And since we have more believers in a God figure than not, I think this is going to eventually become a culture war between western civilization vs. most likely Islam.
I forget the numbers, but it’s in the billions of believers...Christians, as many if not more muslims, buddhists, hindus, etc. etc. etc.
And lest we forget, we didn’t develop into some kind of “Theocracy” that shut down and shut out evolution when kids were not only thinking openly in terms of a creator but actually indeed PRAYED to Him in school!
You don't. This is a one-way street with these people."
You may recall that some time ago, when we were discussing the natural rights of man and a government run by the consent of the governed, I observed these concepts have become so distorted and misapplied that I feared no restoration of the concepts was possible short of a second revolution (I do not claim sole authorship of this idea – any number of us has expressed the same or similar thoughts). Your present comments suggest this same theme.
When a Republican President walks into the White House, is there anyone so foolish as to assume that our State Department immediately dedicates itself to the faithful execution of the foreign policies of the new administration? Not hardly. State is rife with One-World devotees, who would like nothing better than see the dissolution of the US and to then use our wealth and military might to effect a world-wide Socialist/Marxist government. There is only one way in which they can achieve that end – the betrayal of the American People.
One has to think no other department of the government is any less dedicated to the destruction of our republic, with the exception of the military, which seems to have remained largely free of the vermin that infests the rest. And, the vermin are too deeply embedded to ever be rooted out. We will end only one of two ways; with a bang or a whimper – either by civil war or a quiet strangulation.
Cheerful, aren’t I.
This is the reason WHY the First Amendment stipulates that Congress may not tamper, restrain, or otherwise interfere in any way with, FIRST, freedom of religion (conscience); THEN with freedom of the press, and of peaceable assembly, and by implication, academic freedom — freedom of thought itself.
Thank you for your beautiful essay-post, dearest sister in Christ!
How very well said...follow the madness to the logical conclusion: veterans standing guard at Arlington National Cemetery to prevent lunatics from removing crosses! Quite probably up against police or even armed U.S. troops!
See Mt. Soledad to sadly see how far this madness actually has been allowed to succeed!
I truly think the SCOTUS will indeed be forced to once and for all quell the separation of church and state lies and confusion that the likes of the Michael Newdows have spread.
Which SHOULD send a chill up everyone’s spine, when it comes to our next president and his probable SCOTUS appointment(s) and Hillary talking about a 5-4 FAR right stranglehold on the SCOTUS and taking this country BACK?
Shocking how such a godless liberal agenda sees their worldview delusions as reality.
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.