Posted on 06/01/2005 9:24:53 AM PDT by Fester Chugabrew
It's a common claim of libertarians, liberals, atheists and skeptics that religious conservatives use the public schools to promote creationism. I believe that claim is incorrect. The truth is that libertarians, liberals, atheists and skeptics use the public schools to promote atheism. Public schools are bad of course, and all schools should be private. But if there are going to be public schools anyway, they should be for all people, for evolutionists and creationists, for atheists and theists. Public schools should teach both evolution and creationism, and students should be given the choice which of those courses they want to take. It's the libertarians, liberals, atheists and skeptics that want to take away people's free choice, in the name of religious freedom, so as to make sure that everybody is forced to learn scientific truth and nobody gets exposed to pseudo-scientific heresy. That idea is based on a mistaken view of what separation between Church and State means.
Separation between Church and State means, or at least should mean, that government will not takes sides promoting one religion over the other. Or religion over nonreligion. Or nonreligion over religion. Forbidding creationism in public schools is itself an attack on the separation between Church and State. It means the the State promotes education the way atheists want it and hampers eduction the way theists want it. My opponents will counter that public schools do not promote atheism. They're supposedly neutral and teach only science, while they teach neither atheism nor theism. Nonsense. What a school teaches is never neutral and can never be neutral. Every choice a school makes on what courses to give and how is a value jugdement on what is good. Therefore, the conflicts public schools create about what to teach can never be solved. They're inherent in the very idea of a public school and can only be solved by privatizing all public schools. The best public schools can do for now is cater to as many needs as possible, especially needs carried by large proportions of students. Not doing that, for example by teaching evolution and not creationism, is not a neutral choice.
If one interprets the Separation between Church and State more strictly, so as to mean government must not even have any indirect connection to religion, then one might indeed argue that public schools should not teach creationism. (One might then even be able to argue that people on welfare should be forbidden to spend their welfare money on religious goods or services.) But such a strict interpretation would be unfair as long as there is no Separation between School and State. For if there is this kind of a separation between Church and State, while there is no general separation between School and State, religious education is put at a severe disadvantage to any kind of other education. Why should all schools of thought about what kind of education is appropriate get a say in the public school system, except if there is a religious connection? Separation between School and State is a great idea, which would depolitisize education, via privatization. But a very strictly interpreted separation between Church and State is simply not possible or desirable, as long as government controls public schools. If they control public schools they should try to cater equally to all education needs and education philosophies, whether they be scientific, atheist, religious, or whatever.
In this regard it's the religious right that stands on the side of freedom of religion and free scientific inquiry. They fully respect the rights of atheists to teach evolution in public schools, even though they think it incorrect. Their opponents, on the other hand, do no respect the rights of theist to teach creationism in public schools, because they think it incorrect. It may be that strictly speaking evolution is not atheism while creationism is theism. That doesn't remove the unfairness of the public schools in that they do teach what many atheist want taught (evolution) while they do not teach what many theist want taught (creationism). One might argue that the principle involved is that public schools should teach science and that therefore evolution is an appropriate subject to teach while creationism is not. There are two problems with that view:
1. Many creationists believe creationism is scientific.
2. It's not true that public schools only teach science.
As to 1, I agree that creationism is bad science, or nonscience, while evolution is good science. But it's not appropriate for government to make judgements about what is science or not science. For government to do that is a violation of well established principes of free scientific inquiry. The fact that evolution is true and creationism is false is besides the point. Government shouldn't decide what scientific truth is and tell people what to do or learn based on that judgement. Using government power against religious scientism is just as bad as when the Church used force against Galileo's secular science, and this is so for the same reasons. Therefore, the most neutral position to take is that everything should be taught in public schools if there is a big enough demand for it being taught.
As to 2. Most people think public schools should teach certain things other than science, such as physical education, moral education, sexual conduct, political ideas, social skills. Therefore one may not disallow the teaching of creationism on the grounds that it's not science, even putting aside the fact that not everybody agrees creationism isn't science. The same argument would disallow many things that are currently being taught in public schools. If we single out religion as something nonscientific that cannot be taught, while say political correctness can be taught, then we are using the first amendment in a way opposite to how it was intended. Instead of protecting religion now it's being used as a bias against religion.
Creationism is just one of many subjects that could be taught by public schools. And if that's what many people want taught, it should be taught, at least as an optional subject. Allowing creationism taught does not require any law which would respect an establishment of religion nor does it prohibit the free exercise of religion, and so there's no first amendment conflict. Quite the opposite. Taxing people to pay for public schools, and then forbidding them to teach religion, limits people's funds and options for exercising religion. Precisely a law forbidding creationism in public schools prohibits to some extent, or at least hampers, the free exercise of religion.
Let me be clear that I don't think it's good that schools teach creationism, intelligent design, or other pseudoscience such as astrology, withchraft, ESP, etc. If I were to create or fund or support a school, I would argue against it doing those things. So it's not that I think it's appropriate for schools to teach falsehoods and pseudoscience. My point is that it is not for me to judge what is appropriate or not for other people. When I own my own private school, it's my own business to make those judgements. But when it's a public school, the school should serve the purposes of everybody. Not only should it serve the purposes of both those in favour of pseudoscience and those in favour of science. But, more importantly, it should recognize that not everybody will agree on what is science and what is pseudoscience. In a free society everybody is allowed to make his own judgement on that. For goverment to make that judgement for people is authoritarian. Therefore, governments should not forbid subjects being tought based on the fact that they are pseudoscience. If you give government the power to forbid something because it's pseudoscience, then they are bound also to forbid something genuinely scientific and true at some point, on the arguement that it is pseudoscience. We are all fallible, and so is the government. Power given to government to protect us against illness, unhapiness and bad ideas, even with the best of intentions, will eventually turn against us and control us.
The state is used to supply education the way atheists want it, while it cannot be used to supply education the way theists want it, but they do pay part of the taxes. The reason this is done is not because atheists value religious freedom. I'm not saying atheists don't value religious freedom. I assume they do, I'm saying that's not the reason they control the public schools in this manner. Atheists do this for the same reason that in Islamic states all education is religious. They do it because they want to force people to live wholesome lives and do and learn what is good for them. Science is good, religion is bad, ergo people must learn science and the teaching of religion must be made difficult. Every group uses state power to enforce their way of life on others. This will be so as long as there is a state. Only the theists are more honest about it. These conflicts can never be solved except by privatization of schools. But as long as there are public schools any special restrictions on any kind of teaching, whether such teachings are defended on religious, scientific, cultural or moral grounds, is inappropriate and in conflict with the spirit of the first amendment. I'm an atheist, by the way.
Amazing what one can learn without reading a book, too. Not only so, but it is amazing how many books misrepresent the facts. Who ever reads a book and accepts its declarative statements as true without verifying the propositions lives by faith that the propositions are true.
A child's story begins with the words "There once was an ugly duckling." Is that statement one of fact, or one of fiction, or both? How do we know for sure which answer is best rooted in reality?
"Not only so, but it is amazing how many books misrepresent the facts. Who ever reads a book and accepts its declarative statements as true without verifying the propositions lives by faith that the propositions are true."
So you have personally verified the declarative statements of the Bible, including the creation stories of Genesis, the Ark, Flood, and so on? Please tell us of your personal observations in these matters.
And please give us ANY evidence that the earth is hollow.
> I can use sense
Good! Now, excercise that skill.
This story's on Christian websites all over the net. It's at best incomplete. Here's a nicely researched piece .(Scroll down to 'TIMELINE').
What actually happened: a three-man committee advanced a resolution to recommend the purchase. Congress voted narrowly (7-6) to approve a resolution directing another Committee to purchase the bibles, but apparently never acted on it, being busy, as the link says, 'prosecuting a war of some sort'.
There are more ways than you might realize I am on your side. Given the general population one may well wonder whether public schools represent the sum of ignorance. I happen to think the things we contend over - between you and me - can be a part of general education without either of us accusing the other of preaching the "lunacy of freaks." At the same time, it is not lost on me that a certain "lunacy of freaks" is out there, among whom are willing participants flying passenger aircraft into populated skyscrapers for their cause.
A tone of civility must attend those occasions where science and theology appear to be at odds. We happen to live in a country where civil contemplation over ideas is welcomed. Although the propositions of the proponents of intelligent design may appear preposterous from your point of view (which point of view I am not not willing to dismiss arbitrarily, even as a young earth creationist who appears to you as one who champions ignorance), they are worth sounding out into the reason and senses of all interested observers in order that they might be evaluated on their own merits.
It pains me to see the force of law brought to bear on what ought, or ought not, be spoken out for individuals to consider for themselves. I do not want the voice of dogmatic evolutionists silenced, but I would certainly hope for an atmosphere in which it could be challenged without the interference of judges and legislatures.
Based on past history, however, I am given to believe that a kind of mob spirit would squelch any serious dialogue between either party. At any rate, despite my own belief, it would be less than charitable of me to blurt out that any and every dogmatic evolutionist is a "lunacy freak." Deception and pride do not advertise themselves as such. Moon Bats are the last to realize they don't quite fit into the scheme of normalcy. That's okay. They have something to say, and it might just be the absolute truth.
No more than you have personally verified and proven the heliocentric theory of the solar system. But I have fairly well verified there exist the heavens and the earth, and that these demonstrate an order and arrangement far above my capacities as an intelligent being.
Ever heard of "caves"? You know, the "cavemen" and all that? That's more evidence for a hollow earth than you'll ever give as evidence that there are neither heavens nor earth, and that either of the above could arise completely apart from intelligence or design. What evidence do you have that you are a product of nothing that entails intelligence or design? I don't see it. You we're able to type an intelligent post to me and I understood it. I even know you are human. How did nature make that happen without the use of any intelligence or design? Evidence, please.
Do you have a link for that assertion or are you lying and just making stuff up?
Looks like you're lying because here are the crime rates from 1960-2002.
The rates have been trending up prior to 1963 but there is no where near the big jump you describe (Notice murder & rape rates didn't change at all from 1962-1963 )
There was also a dramatic drop in SAT scores, sending a once steady 965-980 national average through the floor, dropping for over fifteen years,
Link please!!!
Here are the average SAT scores from 1966-2002
finally ending at 890.
The lowest ever was in 1980 at 994 so you are just making stats up
Child abuse shot through the roof; from being unknown to involving nearly five percent of the population, and decades later, it is still on its tremendous rise.
Link please!!
Most likely child abuse has always been a problem but in the past it was never reported.
Why such an incredible drop in national morality?
2 Words - Baby Boomers
In the court case Engle v. Vitale(1962), school prayer was removed.......Our nation is in trouble. As Washington said in his presidential speech, "The propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected upon a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained."
Then explain the following real (not made up like yours) statistics
From 1991 to 2001, The Number of the non-religious doubled in number while at the same time the number calling themselves Christians declined by 10% this decline in Christianity is especially seen in young people.
Yet the even though the younger generations are the most unchristian violent crime rate has declined through this period, as well as The pregnancy rate for unmarried women has continuously declined through the 1990s and the abortion rate dropped by about 25 percent for both married and unmarried women through the 1990s , The teen Pregnancy Rate Reached a Record Low, More Teenagers are saying no to sex and Drug use by teenagers continues to decline.
Now if being force fed religion had anything to do with being moral, As the country (especially the young) turns more & more secular wouldn't the trends be going in the opposite direction.
Here is two articles for ya' on how the morailty of young people in our country is improving greatly
Rush Limbaugh on the Next Generation and It's the Morning after in America
You will notice 1 thing missing from both articles, Religion.
Sorry but Christianity doesn't equal morals and if it vanishes from America it will have no bearing on the morals of our country.
Religion shouldn't be taught in our public schools....Do you want your kids being taught the Koran? While I agree Evolution is a theory it has basis in scientific fact. Creationism is a religious belief. It should be mentioned but if you start teaching creationism in school you open the door wide for every religion. That's what religious schooling, churches and home influences are for. Keep religous teachings out of the school because, God forbid, some Mullah gets his claws into your kids' developing mind. There would be no end to that slippery slope.
These are exactly the things that should NOT be taught in our public schools. How about "reading, writing and 'rithmatic", instead? It's when we strayed from these programs that we got ourselves into an objectivist, post-modern nightmare. Today, we turn out functional illiterates because we don't teach things that are grounded in fact. This guys case for teaching religion in school is just mindbogglingly dumb and his arguments are completely lacking in scholarship.
I never claimed that you have come to whatever beliefs you have by apart from either reason or evaluating evidence. Evaluating evidence is not the same as direct observation. How many people claim to know the earth revolves the sun, when in fact they have no evidence except what is written in scholarly books?
"But I have fairly well verified there exist the heavens and the earth, and that these demonstrate an order and arrangement far above my capacities as an intelligent being." . . . How did you verify this? And how does this verify ANYTHING in the Bible, a book whose events you have never witnessed firsthand yet you believe anyway. . . .
With respect to the first set of knowlege, I verified these things the same way you verified you were born with a brain that enables you to reason. I didn't have to read about it in a book. Some things appear to be self-evident and are capable of direct observation. The presence of earth and sky happen to be two examples. The condition of the center of the earth has never been the subject of direct observation on my part, though I am told orionblamblam has visited the place. My reason tends to reject his report as fictitious.
With respect to the second set of knowledge, namely those things written in the canonical scriptures, I believe them for four reasons. 1.) They have been delivered to me after a history of careful preservation (thus indicating they are not intended as a Dr. Suess book, and 2.) I have yet to find any of their statements to be wholly contrary to possibility. There are other reasons, but I'd rather be short on the math since, in some intelligent circles, 1 + 1 = 4.
Ironic isn't it?
Congress, state legislatures and public referenda have statutorily determined polygamous, pederast, homosexual, and incestuous marriages are unlawful. No Constitutional Amendment restricting marriage is required to regulate "practice" according to the Reynolds decision.
Marriage is a religious "rite," not a civil "right;" a secular standard of human reproductive biology united with the Judaic Adam and Eve model of monogamy in creationist belief. Two homosexuals cannot be "monogamous" because the word denotes a biological procreation they are not capable of together; human reproductive biology is an obvious secular standard.
All adults have privilege to marry one consenting adult of opposite gender; therefore, Fourteenth Amendment "equal protection" argument about "privileges and immunities" for homosexual marriage is invalid. Driving, marriage, legal and medical practices are not enumerated rights; they are privileged practices that require statutory license. Nothing that requires a license is a right.
Homosexual monogamy advocates are a cult of perversion seeking ceremonious sanctification for voluntary deviancy with anatomical function and desperately pursuing esoteric absolution to justify their guilt-ridden egos. This has no secular standard; it is an idolatrous fetish. Why not properly apply the adjudicated Reynolds 'separation of church and state' here?
No person can logically say that carnal practices engaged by homosexuals are consistent with human anatomical function. It is obvious, and an impervious secular argument to say that biology is a standard by which we can measure. The hormonal drive to mate is biologically heterosexual.
Morality and all of its associated concepts are from the belief that some higher power is defining the correctness of human behavior. It is apparent some people still worship idols in this day and age. Should we really be canonizing special societal privileges in the law based on a person's idolatrous fetishes? Whatever happened to the ‘separation of church and state’? Perhaps homosexual monogamy advocates could conclave to enshrine their own phantasmal state religion and consecrate Michael Jackson as its first Pope!
Today, "morals" are a religious pagan philosophy of esoteric hobgoblins. Transfiguration is a pantheon of fantasies as the medium of infinitization. Others get derision for having an unwavering Judaic belief in Yahweh or Yeshua, although their critics and enemies will evangelize insertion of phantasmagoric fetishisms into secular law.
Was Freudian psychoanalytic theory of sexual stages in psychological development more accurate than accredited? The Michael Jackson Complex is fixation on mutilation of and deviance with human anatomy in the media. It is a social psychosis catering to the lowest common denominator and generated with Pavlovian behavioral conditioning in popular culture.
It is certainly not the only guide, but it serves as a foundational one. All science operates with givens, and those givens are, to the observer, self-evident.
The fact that something (the bible) is old does not mean it is right.
You are correct. The age of a document is not a singular indication of its veracity, but it may be considered as one of many evidences to consider it worthy of acceptance intellectually.
The point was that you ridiculed someone for reading books when they could not personally verify what was in them . . .
I would be remiss if I ridiculed someone just for believing what they read in books. My point is that we should not kid ourselves concerning the indirect nature of much of the evidence presented to our reason and senses. If science is unwilling to claim for itself the ability to determine absolute facts or truth, then it must assume the mantle of faith alongside all human observers.
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.