Politics + Religion = NO NO

[DogStarMan]

First read (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=584&e=6&cid=584&u=/nm/20030404/pl_nm/iraq_bush_europe_dc), then discuss for my amusement.

Personally, I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed this, because, you know, the media makes me feel like I'm all alone in the world on my viewpoints.

[postfeminist]

i knew this administration would be like this when during Bush's inauguration we were all praying to Jesus....
which is ok for some folks, but i'm Jewish. :)

SEE ARTICLE BELOW:

Wednesday, January 24, 2001
Bush Starts Off by Defying the the Constitution
By ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ


The very first act of the new Bush administration was to have a Protestant Evangelist minister officially dedicate the inauguration to Jesus Christ, who he declared to be "our savior." Invoking "the Father, the Son, the Lord Jesus Christ" and "the Holy Spirit," Billy Graham's son, the man selected by President George W. Bush to bless his presidency, excluded the tens of millions of Americans who are Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Shintoists, Unitarians, agnostics and atheists from his blessing by his particularistic
and parochial language.

The plain message conveyed by the new administration is that George W. Bush's America is a Christian nation, and that non-Christians are welcome into the tent so long as they agree to accept their status as a tolerated minority rather than as fully equal citizens. In effect, Bush is saying: "This is our home, and in our home we pray to Jesus as our savior. If you want to be a guest in our home, you must accept the way we pray."

But the United States is neither a Christian nation nor the exclusive home of any particular religious group. Non-Christians are not guests. We are as much hosts as any Mayflower-descendant Protestant. It is our home as well as theirs. And in a home with so many owners, there can be no official sectarian prayer. That is what the 1st Amendment is all about, and the
first act by the new administration was in defiance of our Constitution.

This was surely not the first time in our long history that Jesus has been invoked at an official governmental assembly. But we are a different and more religiously diverse nation than we were in years past. There are now many more Muslims, Jews, Buddhists and others who do not accept Jesus as their savior. It is permissible in the U.S. to reject any particular theology. Indeed, that is part of our glorious diversity. What is not acceptable is for a presidential inauguration to exclude millions of
citizens from its opening ceremony by dedicating it to a particular
religious "savior."

Our first president, George Washington, wrote to the tiny Jewish community in Rhode Island that in this new nation, we will no longer speak of mere "toleration," because toleration implies that minorities enjoy their inherent rights "by the indulgence" of the majority. President Bush should read that letter and show it to the Rev. Franklin Graham, who told the media on the day before the inauguration that his prayer "will be for unity"; instead, it was for the Trinity. Uniting for Jesus may be Graham's definition of unity, but it is as un-American as if a rabbi giving the official prayer had prayed for the arrival of the "true Messiah," thus
insulting the millions of Christians who believe Jesus is the true Messiah.

Inaugurations are not the appropriate setting for theological proclamations of who is, and who is not, the true Messiah. Perhaps at Bob Jones University it is appropriate for an honorary degree recipient to declare Jesus to be the only king of the United States, but the steps of the Capitol should not be confused with the lectern of a denominational church.

The inauguration ended with another Protestant minister inviting all who agree that Jesus is "the Christ" to say, "Amen" (ironically, a word that originated in Jewish prayer or, alternatively, originally a Jewish acronym for "God, the King, forever.") Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.), along with many others who do not believe that Jesus is the Messiah, was put in the position of either denying his own faith or remaining silent while others around him all said, "Amen." This is precisely the position in which young
public school students are placed when "voluntary" prayer is conducted at school events. If they join in prayer that is inconsistent with their religious beliefs, they have been coerced into violating their conscience. If they leave or refuse to join, they stand out as different among their peers. No student should be put in that position by their public schools at an assembly, just as no public official should be placed in that situation by their government at an inauguration.

If George W. Bush wants all Americans to accept him as their president, he made an inauspicious beginning by sandwiching his unity speech between two divisive, sectarian and inappropriate prayers.


Alan M. Dershowitz Is a Professor at Harvard Law School




WORD. what he said.

[dcXhc]

For I have sworn before you and Almighty God the same solemn oath our forbears prescribed

For man holds in his mortal hands the power

Let the word go forth

the dark powers of destruction unleashed by science

We dare not tempt them with weakness

Let both sides unite to heed in all corners of the earth the command of Isaiah--to "undo the heavy burdens . . . (and) let the oppressed go free."

"rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation"--

The energy, the faith, the devotion which we bring to this endeavor will light our country and all who serve it

let us go forth to lead the land we love

His blessing and His help

here on earth God's work must truly be our own.

Scary shit. And all that is from just one short speech:

http://www.emergosociety.org/Speeches/jfkspeeche1.htm

[Sovrana]

I too noticed this early on. I think that is why each time the terms "muslim extremists" is used I always cringe. Ever since 9/11 we have used Christianity as a weapon to denounce others.

I also groan everytime I see a red, white, and blue sign or bumper sticker that says Pray for Peace" or the like.

Perhaps there never really was a true separation of church and state in this country but at least prior to this administration it was recognized as an ideal methodology and one that the government seemed to strive for. No longer is this the case.

[monkey neck]

Originally posted by Sovrana
Perhaps there never really was a true separation of church and state in this country but at least prior to this administration it was recognized as an ideal methodology and one that the government seemed to strive for. No longer is this the case.

Separation of church and state is what this country is mistakenly moving toward, but it's not what was originally intended.

http://www.noapathy.org/tracts/mythofseparation.html

Kind of a long read, but interesting nevertheless.

[DogStarMan]

Originally posted by monkey neck
Separation of church and state is what this country is mistakenly moving toward, but it's not what was originally intended.
Mmmmm....nope.

Your link was interesting...interesting the way stepping in dog crap is interesting maybe.

I'll take your link and raise you one of mine...click (http://www.nobeliefs.com/Tripoli.htm).

...and another. (http://atheismawareness.home.att.net/questions/xian_nation.htm)
...and another (http://www.atheism.org/~godlessheathen/Founders.html)
...and another (http://religion.aynrand.org/quotes.html)
...and another (http://www.geocities.com/anatheist2001/askfoundingfathers.htm)

The argument that America was founded on Christianity just doesn't hold.

[lawdog]

Moreover, neither does the argument that moving toward a separation of Church and State is "mistaken."

[matt]

If anything, we would be moving in the right direction by removing "...under God..." from the pledge of allegiance and currency. When you are sworn in to testify in court, you do not have to say "So help me God" to make it official. Now if we can get the rest of the circuit courts and Supreme court to follow suit:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0016423p.pdf

http://www.athensnewspapers.com/stories/070302/let_letter3.shtml

"We are not, nor have we ever been, one nation under God. We are more than a quarter billion different people, worshiping different Gods in different ways, and in many cases, no gods at all."http://www.davehitt.com/june02/undergods.html

===============================================

"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your common sense. - Buddha

[IPrayForSound]

Wow...checkmate. Good links DSM.

[monkey neck]

...like throwing raw meat into a lion's cage...


We'll believe what we want to, I guess.

[red embers]

I have no problem with Bush making his views public, regarding his faith or otherwise.

What we believe or don't believe at the core of our being ends up being reflected in our social and political views. Bush has never used his power to convert people to Christianity, but much of his beliefs end up being reflected in his policy, which is true for any political leader.

America was not started as a Christian nation in the sense that a country like Iran is an Islamic state, but was still founded largely upon Christian principles, and the vast majority, though not all, of those early leaders were still Christian.

I wonder if the meaning of the statement in the Treaty of Tripoli was just to say that America is not a Christian state (like modern day Iran is an Islamic state, to use that example again).

Even so, I thought that using a fairly obscure document like the Treaty of Tripoli, written by a relatively low level governmental official, as a foundational cornerstone to support the seperation of church and state was a little weak, IMO.

I do think it's incredible though, to live in a country where we can discuss both sides of the issues like this in complete freedom.

Monkey Neck - sometimes raw meat has been known to walk through a lion's den unscathed!

[Duemellon]

Every plus has a minus, every detrimental characteristic of Bush has a positive side.

Plain-talking... the phrase they'ved used to explain away Bush's inability to disguise his intents in "politic-ese", is also what will expose many of they hypocracies, lies, and sublte implications of sociopolitical standards.

through his inability to be "froo-froo" he has shown the obvious way we include the Christian religion in our actions as a nation. Through his unwillingness to disguise his motivations, it is clear he is strongly motivated by vengence in the guise of justice, for this war. There are other examples where his brutish approach reveals facets of society we have "wished away".

For that I thank him. He sparks concerns like this thread. Even though all the presidents before him did the same "actions" but not the same "fashions".

[Sovrana]

Originally posted by Duemellon
[There are other examples where his brutish approach reveals facets of society we have "wished away".


here's one:

Bush sitting at a baseball game with a female Yale graduate....when she asked him how he liked Yale he said, "it was much better when it was an all-male school."

[tobedawg]

If anything, we would be moving in the right direction by removing "...under God..." from the pledge of allegiance and currency. When you are sworn in to testify in court, you do not have to say "So help me God" to make it official. Now if we can get the rest of the circuit courts and Supreme court to follow suit:

I don't understand why we have "In God We Trust" on money. Seriously though, does this mean that people who are wealthy are wealthy because God intended them to be wealthy?

[Duemellon]

IMHO the whole effort to remove God from currency, pledges, and things, is small potatoes. I understand these are a symptom in this, but I think efforts need to be taken towards defining our country's morality outside of religious traditions.

Of course, we are raised to believe morality is formed through religious traditions, so they are inseparable in our minds. So how can we use religion as a source for our morality and create laws "independent" of religion that appease our sense of morality?

That's the bigger, harder to fight, and more prevailent Politics/Govn't + Christianity thingy.

[yoshomon]

I say cram the god bullshit down people's throats until they don't believe it anymore. Perhaps religion will bring about the self-negation of religion. No it won't.

It doesn't matter folks. Removing religion won't do what you think it will. It won't 'cure' anything. The SPECTACLE is stronger than relgion. Turn on your tv. Take a look at all the billboards. Seperation of church and state my ass. Lets talk about seperation of church and society. Lets talk about why society is a church. The spectacle of modern capitalism is more numbing than any religious dogma.

"To call on people to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions." - Guy Debord

[yoshomon]

damn, I was actually expecting and looking forward to a response.

[Danosaur]

So do you have the answer? How should one govern society so that we will not fall to the church of society? Every gov't to date relied on social cohesion to some extent. How could we break that?

[Phreon]

Sometimes GWB's religious references rub me the wrong way, but if his beliefs bring him solice, more power to him. Though I may not understand it, I will never begrudge a man's belief if it guides him towards peace.

A state religion is patently wrong, but a state guided by religious precepts (..shalt not kill), isn't neccessarilly a bad thing (TM).


To my twisted psyche, religious is usless; faith, on the other hand, is vitally important. It's what makes the whole damn economy work, it's why we love our children when they do terrible things, it's what drives us.

Some people draw faith from a nebulous being in the sky, others from their fellow man, and yet others from the fantastic order and logic of the universe.

If you have faith in nothing, you are utterly lost.

Can't we all agree that the Illuminati run's everything?

Phreon.

[Duemellon]

A state religion is patently wrong, but a state guided by religious precepts (..shalt not kill), isn't neccessarilly a bad thing (TM).The part I can't stand about it, 'though, is when a state run by religious precepts which pretends it ISN'T run by those precepts. U'kno? I just want our govn't to admit that religion is in our laws, and that religion is Judeo-Christian for most part.If you have faith in nothing, you are utterly lost. In respect to THIS point I call "faith" hope, myself. But that's calling it crimson instead of red. Faith is a bit too religious for my tastes.Can't we all agree that the Illuminati run's everything? Only if you believe that fish people loyal to C'thu'lu live in Innsmouth.

[monkey neck]

Originally posted by yoshomon
damn, I was actually expecting and looking forward to a response.

OK, Yoshi, I'll indulge you if you insist...

*ahem*

I say cram this atheistic BS down everyone's throat til nobody believes that anymore (It could go that way, too). Granted, Creationism and Evolution are theories. Why don't we teach both in schools and let the students make up their own minds? If you teach evolution, doesn't it make sense to cover all other theories, too, like Creationism (or, at least intelligent design).

But back to the topic (sorry for the minor digression) about the founding fazha's...

You can't deny the influence religion had on them. I noticed the links that were given previously had "Atheism" emblazoned somewhere on them, so of course they're going to lean left (and they were interesing in the way falling into a pit of sewage is interesting). One attempted to immediately debunk the Declaration of Independence, but can you completely overlook that? It mentions God. Many of the founding fathers were prominent members of their churches. Some were members of Bible Societies and some even ministers or otherwise very active in church goings-on.

They did not want to be subjected to the oppressive and corrupt rule of the Church of the country they emigrated from, so they formed a freedom to worship how, and yes, in some cases IF, they desired.

Checkmate? Hardly...

Everyone's going to see things differently no matter what.

Proceed to berate me again, I can...take...it...

[IPrayForSound]

Originally posted by monkey neck
Granted, Creationism and Evolution are theories. Why don't we teach both in schools and let the students make up their own minds? If you teach evolution, doesn't it make sense to cover all other theories, too, like Creationism (or, at least intelligent design).
When would you teach creationism? Evolution is taught in science class because there is evidence of it. People have formulated theories, observed behavioral and generational differences in quickly reproducing species (flies mostly) when placed in environments vastly different than their natural habitats, and reworked hypotheses based on their findings. There is no evidence for creationism, only faith and speculation. Granted, theories generally start as speculation, but without data there is no science. You'd have to teach it in a different class, as it doesn't fit into any of the pre-fabricated choices in public schools. If you design a class specifically to house that line of thought, you would be sidestepping precedence in pretty much any state and would rightly be accused of establishing an "official" religion or set of beliefs for the school. I agree with almost every verdict of the supreme court on this one: it is not up to the school to define beliefs and morality. It is up to the parents, and if they choose so, the church.

[lawdog]

Originally posted by monkey neck

I say cram this atheistic BS down everyone's throat til nobody believes that anymore (It could go that way, too). Granted, Creationism and Evolution are theories. Why don't we teach both in schools and let the students make up their own minds? If you teach evolution, doesn't it make sense to cover all other theories, too, like Creationism (or, at least intelligent design).


I think I speak for more than just myself when I say..."Huh?"

Creationism and Evolution are both theories? Um, sure. In support of the idea of evolution, we have a fossil record going back millions of years, anecdotal evidence derived from similarities between related organisms, and very good knowledge of the mechanism by which it occurs. In support of creationism, we have 12 or so pages of the book of Genesis. Great theory. Teaching creationism in schools would be like bringing back Flat Earth theory, or instructing medical students to affix leeches to very ill patients, in order to draw out the bad humours.

Intelligent Design Theory is just creationism dressed up in a tie and a pair of glasses to look smarter. Okay, that's a little harsh, but it is merely a contrived concept designed to reconcile what we know from biology and archelology with the idea that a little man in the sky made all this.

Sure, it's not inconceivable that there is some "design" to all this, but no Intelligent Design Theorist has ever postulated even the vaguest notion of how that design might be recorded or implemented. No one has ever given an intellectually sound reason for its acceptance. It's nowhere near to being the simplest explanation for our existence, and thus clearly violates the established scientific principle known as Ockham's Razor.

If people want to believe in creationism, or espouse the idea of Intelligent Design Theory, then fine. Just don't teach it in schools, please. Oddly enough, I find this idea to seem oddly "liberal." Although these curricula are typically pushed by conservatives, the notion that competing viewpoints and differing perspectives ought to be taught is usually considered a liberal concept. And differing perspectives certainly have a place in the humanities. The scientific method, however, does not strive toward diversity. Its end is to test and evaluate ideas, refining them and discarding those that do not comport with observation or experimentation, in an intellectual environment free of bias or preconceived conclusions. Creationism and IDT simply don't belong in that, as they do not hold when subjected to this examination.

(My apologies for the rant, especially if you were being sarcastic in suggesting that these ideas be taught)

[Duemellon]

Creationism/Intelligent Design are simply religious in nature and are presented in a fashion of scientific revelation. To display their faith-based conclusions in an imperical fashion does the scientific community a disservice by justifying leaps of faith and conclusions drawn from analogies instead of literal observations.

Oh... wait,... that's the same for evolution.

begin in depth "thinking out loud" skip to bottom for synopsis
I'm not too sure on that one. I mean we BELIEVE mankind evolved from the same anscestor as other primates, but until we trace them back with every step included similar to "Shem began Ham, and Ham beget Sebrak," then that jump from simian to human is an assumption based on analogies and faith that it "just had to be so".

The observation of survival of fittest is not an arguable law. I cannot see how anyone could knowingly and intelligently dismiss the law of survival of the fittest. The law of SotF somewhat implies evolution, but it could also imply intelligent design by suggesting what inspires/engineers evolutionary steps is a undefined sentient power.

Personally, I think intelligent design requires about 2 minutes of attention, not a whole class period, of an entire school year. To much of that theory is left up to undefinable indescribable influence from an unmentionable entity.

and in conclusion...
I guess the point of this post was to say that evolution is a theory with holes in it. Creationism/IntelDes is a further theory with BIGGER holes in it. I think both need to be constantly scrutinized.

[matt]

"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your common sense. - Buddha

When I saw this quote it made so much sense for me. I am not an atheist, because by definition, atheism supports the belief that there is no existence of a deity or a doctrine thereof. I do not believe in one God, Deity, or religion. I believe that religion exists, therefore I ackowledge it's existence no matter in what form. Turn on the TV. Obviously, whether it exists physically or spiritually, it exists, but that does not mean that you have to "believe" in it. By "it" I am referring to a higher being, a higher power or religion. And "it" has been the main reason for most of the strife in the world, as far back as written history goes. Who knows what happened before then. If anyone can show me one once of proof that a higher being exists, that a higher being created me and life before me, then I might change my mind. Sure I read books. Sure I can be influenced one way or another by the Koran, the Bible or The Four Noble Truths, but just because they "tell me so" doesn't mean that it "is so".

Thankfully, we live in a part of the world that lets us say, do and think as we want, albeit it with laws and rules. I look at Tariq Aziz and think "how can that man call himself a Christian as Sadam Hussein's right-hand man"? If, for whatever reason, his way of thinking makes sense to him, then more power to him. Obviously, he has managed to survive as a (if not the only) Christian in a tyrranical, damn-near anti-Christian militant Islamic regime that oppresses anyone for speaking out against their own beliefs. Sticking to his beliefs and reasoning has elevated him to that level of respect among his Iraqi peers, and for that reason, he has the absolute smallest amount of respect from me. Anyone else that maintains that amount of belief in themselves also has a certain amount of my respect, but that does not make you right.

If believng that God punishes sinners causes you to strive to be a better person and you are a better person for it, fine. If believing in the essentials of Buddhism gives you compassion and you are a better person for it, fine. If whatever you believe agrees with your own reason and your own common sense, then fine.

[Sovrana]

I'm not sure why I am including myself in this discussion but here it goes:


Evolution is a theory in that it can be dispoven
Creationism is not....it is a belief system and cannot be tested.

I don't know why some groups continue to try to PROVE creationism....if you believe in it then go ahead and believe in it.

Evolution is not something to believe in but something that is to be tested by scientific method.


Some of you may have alluded to this...just making sure the language was clear....to me as much as anyone else.

[Phreon]

I'm constanly confounded by how religious types feel the need to define God. God mad Adam out of clay, blah, blah, blah. Heaven forbid they think for even one momemt that if God, the ultimate supreme being created everything, he/she/it did it in an infinitely more complex way than saying "let there be light". How 'bout "Let there be BIG BANG". I want a bible that says, "And in the third nanosecond of creation, God said, Let the laws of quantam physics be set in motion!" and "God created an infinitely complex universe for his subjects so that they may never be bored".

How can so many people accept the rantings of pseudo-luddites right after they eat their electromechanically cooled and radio frequency cooked food and drive their computer controlled, airbag assisted, internal combustion engine vehicles to church?

Sadly, most religions exist only to settle down the sheeple.

Phreon

[Danosaur]

"when would you teach creationism?"

History History History, Sociology Sociology Sociology

[yoshomon]

Originally posted by Danosaur
"when would you teach creationism?"

In religion class at a Christian or Catholic school.

[yoshomon]

Originally posted by Phreon
Sometimes GWB's religious references rub me the wrong way, but if his beliefs bring him solice, more power to him. Though I may not understand it, I will never begrudge a man's belief if it guides him towards peace.

Towards peace? ummm

[yoshomon]

Originally posted by Phreon
If you have faith in nothing, you are utterly lost.

"Faith means not wanting to know what is true"

Utterly lost from what?

[Danosaur]

Well class we were going to learn about the Scopes Monkey trial today but it's only appropriate for me to speak about creationism in private religious schools.

[RichmondVA]

Originally posted by monkey neck

I say cram this atheistic BS down everyone's throat til nobody believes that anymore (It could go that way, too). Granted, Creationism and Evolution are theories. Why don't we teach both in schools and let the students make up their own minds? If you teach evolution, doesn't it make sense to cover all other theories, too, like Creationism (or, at least intelligent design).


Sure. And I'm sure you would have no problem with teaching every other religion's theory of creation, as communisim, socialism, and environmentalism. Those are all theories. And let's toss history of homosexuality as a social course. If you got no problems with those things being taught, then I got no problem with Creationism.


You can't deny the influence religion had on them. I noticed the links that were given previously had "Atheism" emblazoned somewhere on them, so of course they're going to lean left (and they were interesing in the way falling into a pit of sewage is interesting). One attempted to immediately debunk the Declaration of Independence, but can you completely overlook that? It mentions God. Many of the founding fathers were prominent members of their churches. Some were members of Bible Societies and some even ministers or otherwise very active in church goings-on.

And they all had slaves, too. And none of the women voted. You wanna go back to those days?

[monkey neck]

Originally posted by RichmondVA
And they all had slaves, too. And none of the women voted. You wanna go back to those days?

Yeah, because I said that, right? Nice attempt to put words in my mouth. Twa! I spit on you!

[IPrayForSound]

Originally posted by Danosaur
"when would you teach creationism?"

History History History, Sociology Sociology Sociology
If you were to simply state that certain historical figures believed in creationism (as an extention of their religion), and that the religion that encapsulated that belief was their motivation, I would agree with the history aspect. However, there would be no justification for teaching the theory itself.

If you were to teach possible ways that people who believe in creationism might react or interact differently than those who don't in certain situations, I would agree with the sociology aspect. And if it could actually further the understanding of why they behave that way, I could even agree with explaining the theory.

[Danosaur]

What are you so afraid of? You’re speaking about censorship. Students have a right to knowledge. They have the right to understand the most predominant religion in American history/society. They have a right to learn about voodoo and it's historical presence in the south. They have a right to learn about atheism, and many other ideas. This is America for Christ’s sake. Freedom of information! I do not have the right to pressure students into believing any religion, but I do have the right to pressure students to uphold the ideals of democracy and freedom.

[dcXhc]

Originally posted by Danosaur
This is America for Christ’s sake.

That just struck me as funny.....

[Danosaur]

Yeah, I know, but it's the way I talk. I thought about taking it out.

[Phreon]

Originally posted by yoshomon


"Faith means not wanting to know what is true"

Utterly lost from what?

Not wanting to know what is true implies that you already know what is true and are denying it.

Faith n. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.

"Faith" does not automatically imply religion. Cosmologists have faith that Einstein's theory of special relativity is probably correct. I have faith in my friends. You (probably) have faith that people will stop at red lights.

I stand by my assertion that if you have no faith, you are lost.



Phreon

[yoshomon]

Originally posted by Phreon
I stand by my assertion that if you have no faith, you are lost.

And perhaps by being lost one is able to be free.

And perhaps we are all 'lost'.

The entire concept of some kind of path that people are able to 'stray' from is interesting.

The existence of god can be argued. The origins and value of morality can be argued. But the entire concept of being 'lost' opens up the door of "the meaning of life".

I would say that life is essentially meaningless. Most people would say otherwise. Not something that can be argued about online.

[yoshomon]

Originally posted by Danosaur
What are you so afraid of? You’re speaking about censorship. Students have a right to knowledge. They have the right to understand the most predominant religion in American history/society. They have a right to learn about voodoo and it's historical presence in the south. They have a right to learn about atheism, and many other ideas. This is America for Christ’s sake. Freedom of information! I do not have the right to pressure students into believing any religion, but I do have the right to pressure students to uphold the ideals of democracy and freedom.

they should teach the kids about ancient hawaiian religions
they should teach the kids about satanism
they should teach the kids about the philosophy of the unabomber
they should teach the kids about whatever the Waco crazies believed.

give me a break.
schools shouldn't teach every piece of bullshit that has ever been written down
creationism only belongs in studies of mythology (and it is taught there)

And if you actually believe that freedom of information will exist in America's public schools...

[Danosaur]

Life may be meaningless, but one can create a direction or "path" they want their life to follow. Being a teacher for instance comes with a direction, a moral base, and a belief in the power of education. This path can be strayed from. Even futilitarianism is a belief statement.

[Danosaur]

One doesn't have to believe that American schools will ever have true freedom of information to believe in freedom of information. Creationism might be mystic crap but it's mystic crap that has had an intense power in American culture and thus cannot be ignored.

[yoshomon]

Originally posted by Danosaur
Life may be meaningless, but one can create a direction or "path" they want their life to follow. Being a teacher for instance comes with a direction, a moral base, and a belief in the power of education. This path can be strayed from. Even futilitarianism is a belief statement.

So is your job your life?

You work therefore you are?

[Duemellon]

Creationism might be mystic crap but it's mystic crap that has had an intense power in American culture and thus cannot be ignored.That is a very good point. In order to fully participate as part of this society you will have to accept that "mystic crap" is part of this society.

People like Yosh, and myself, (I do beleive) feel this shouldn't even be part of the society. Yah, it's clear it's here, but if it wasn't this would be a place it shouldn't be either. U'kno?

But where to start? It's kinda like racism: Start with society? the individuals? media? religion? or what part do you fix that won't immediately be influenced "back in line" by the other unfixed parts? It's like you have to do it all in one fell swoop. U'kno?

[Danosaur]

Almost, teaching is just one of those careers that won't leave you alone. That wasn't my point though Yosh. I believe there will most likely be nothing when I die. I will be fertilizer, that's it. But there is hope of a better life than the one I lead now.

I try hard not to make teaching my life. I hate teachers who think they're all great and saviors for the world. The extent to which my job follows me is the extent to which I try to be real at work.

[Danosaur]

I hear your point. I currently work with an Assembly of God preacher, and I can tell you that the Christians would rather murder thousands than let you throw out creationism. I feel that teaching creationism in detail will expose its flaws.

[tobedawg]

I agree with Yosh and Due's points.. If you are going to teach "Creationism" in the classroom, you might as well teach every other religion as well..

Danosaur was right about how Christians would rather murder thousands of people than throw out creationism. Right now in Iraq there are Christian leaders waiting to get in and tell the Iraqi people about God and convert them to Christianity.

ONE WORLD = ONE GOD.

[Danosaur]

While Christianity is waning in the U.S. it is growing in leaps and bounds in other third world countries.

[pathogen.b]

what's the average life span of a major religion, before something else becomes more in vogue - 2000 years? so how long will it be before the Koran can be found in every hotel/motel in the county? or is the massive influx of immigrants going to keep Jesus around for awhile. i really hope not, the ten commandments are really boring and totally unimaginative. i mean, if i had been in power thousands of years ago and wanted the poor and oppressed to not !@#$ w/me or be remotely concerned with my power/wealth, i would have pushed some holy rules on them as well... but c'mon kids, we can come up with something better than worshipping an egotistical god that creates something in its own image and will send you to an eternal spooky fire pit if you don't worship it... or you're gay. please. (and what happens to folks of other beliefs that don't follow the same rules? do they burn? or do they also get to chill in the eternal McHappyland b/c they didn't know any better? are there tacos in heaven? how is that supposed to work, anyway? seriously, i've never understood that part.)

i always favored a more primitive religious belief based on the environment. a lightning god sounds like a bad mofo that doesn't give a squirt about what you do to your neighbor or whether you're legally married before hittin dat ass!! what would Jesus do? i don't know, but i'm pretty sure he wouldn't piddle his $$$ and time away on stupid !@#$ like who has the biggest SUV, newest PDA, fastest PC, cell phone with the most useless gadgets, or the perfect lawn. imagine that.

i've never understood why so many claim to know the desires of an all-powerful, all-knowing being, but then turn around and kill, cheat, and condem everyone they don't agree with. like me! yeah, Jesus told me last night that i rule and you should all worship moonpies now. he's so weird like that! a building burns down, two people live thanks to the "grace of God", but the other ten thousand die b/c "it was just heir time". word.

cool, time to go home now. umm, yeah, and something about politics, too... and stuff. sorry, i was bored.

[yoshomon]

The human species doesn't need an imaginary friend in the sky.

"Hello class, today we're going to learn about how something we can't prove, see, explain. or touch created the universe! And for those kids who say that this is unscientific, well it was written in the Bible, so that means it has to be legit!"

[Danosaur]

You can hate Christianity all you want Yosh, your sentiments won't be falling on deaf ears, but you still can't deny it's significance in American History/culture. If you teach students about it, you teach it with the premise that it's not proven but based on a faith belief. It should not be taught to convert but to inform. We would all be better prepared to defend ourselves against Christian rhetoric if we understood the religion better. You seem to want to minimize the religion by saying it's not based in fact or science. Fine, but I warn you that you will be the one minimized by the large number of followers that exist in the power structures of our society.

[Duemellon]

If you teach students about it, you teach it with the premise that it's not proven but based on a faith belief. It should not be taught to convert but to inform.interesting proposition. I find that acceptible. But...

how do u teach Christianity as a beleif system, note it's effect on our social structure, and not endorse it in the process?

"Our moral basis is founded on this belief here which is, quite possibly, strictly myth. You can chose to disbelieve it if you like, but the morals you are to live by are the same."

odd situation?

[yoshomon]

You have the kids read Nietzsche's The Anti-Christ and tell them to go home and burn their Bibles.

It's all about what books they have you read in school. Replace the moralistic christian shit (I mean 'literature') with books that make the kids think and question, ie. books you won't laugh at once you're out of high school - if you ever progress intellectually outside of high school that is. And no more books that give "we should all love each other" as a solution to racial prejudice and socioeconomic divisions.

Why wait til college?

[Sovrana]

Originally posted by Duemellon
interesting proposition. I find that acceptible. But...

how do u teach Christianity as a beleif system, note it's effect on our social structure, and not endorse it in the process?

"Our moral basis is founded on this belief here which is, quite possibly, strictly myth. You can chose to disbelieve it if you like, but the morals you are to live by are the same."

odd situation?

The situation is not that odd. I teach art history and cannot teach much of it without discussing the importance of religions. How does one understand Michelangelo's Pieta without knowing the religious significance? And one cannot really understand Counter-Reformation art without knowing what the Counter-Reformation is. It's as integral to the works as knowing the different mythological gods and goddesses.

There...I managed to rid a few "buts" and "ifs" that litter nearly all of Due's posts.

:cool:

[Duemellon]

ok, the question was how do you teach it without endorsing it?

but the question isn't as simple as it looks...

by saying we based our morality on this religion, and then saying this society is the basic inalieable rights (implying: just, wise, equal, undeniable, unquestionable), that implies the morality it was based on was an inalieable right (implying the same).

so how do you teach it without endorsing it? Can the fledgling minds in the school system looking for direction and standards make the distinction between the religion and the society?

I understand the need for context, especially when trying to comprehend origins and significance. Can a junior-high mind make that objective demarkation between origin, result, and final importance/correctness?

[Sovrana]

I think the junior high and the grade school student can make the distinction.

Seems as though you, Due are the only one having this problem.


(of course I know you just like troll the debate: "but" "if" "if' "but" etc.)

[Duemellon]

wow, that was an interesting thing...

u said that I was having a problem separating the origins of our laws and their implied endorsement of a particular religion.

Doesn't sound like I have the problem, sounds like I'm talking about one.

Murder is illegal in our society. That is a rule set out by our govn't based on the moralities they had which derived from bliblical definitions of murder. Therefore, we are raised to believe "murder is evil". We act according to those laws and are therefore acting "Christian" indirectly.

We are raised to believe "marriage is righteous". We act according to those laws and social presures, and are therefore acting "Christian" indirectly.

When someone deviates from those beliefs they are considered outside the standards.

If you went down the streets and asked people "Do you believe premarital sex is wrong." You'll get a lot more "yes's" than you would in native Hawaiin culture.

How much of what you believe is "just and moral" is based on this society's standards? If this society's standards were based on Western interpretation of Christianity, aren't your morals indirectly based on them?

Nevermind, you'd rather attempt to trivialize my point. It's not about the derivative social structure, its' about the separation of church and state.

I'm asking how can you separate the derivative from the origin and say it is a clean distinction?

"The US is a righteous and just place to be. We based our righteous social laws on the Bible. Because of our laws, I can't tell you if the Bible itself is good and great, but by building our society based on it we're the best!"

[Danosaur]

Due, a teacher can ask questions too. A teacher can inform about the Christian religion and then pose the very questions you are asking. Yosh, you're being obnoxious. If the power structure ran this country the way you purport it should be run, we would be under just as an oppressive of a society as you claim our current one to be. I would be fired and all my "pro-Christian" (as defined by you) media would be burned. C'mon!

[Duemellon]

A teacher can inform about the Christian religion and then pose the very questions you are asking. I understand they CAN. Heck, you can raise a child to be cynical of the government before they learn their ABC's!

What I'm trying to highlight is that we are taught that the US is good. Heck, i find myself believing that every now and then. We are trained through school, media, and the government, that we are the best, the idyllic, the epitome, of what a society should be.

And when we say we are based on Christianity, that endorses Christianity.

This thread was started because we were getting some "religion bug in our government soup". It was always there, from the get-go. How can we imagine making a separation like that this far down the line?

the point being: we have Christianity as the DNA for our society's structure. With that noted, and how it implies Chrisitianity is correct, how can someone believe there is a separation between church and state?

[Phreon]

Originally posted by Duemellon


What I'm trying to highlight is that we are taught that the US is good. Heck, i find myself believing that every now and then. We are trained through school, media, and the government, that we are the best, the idyllic, the epitome, of what a society should be.

I have to disagree. Until recently, schools and media have been decidedly anti-government. I'll be the first to say more government is a bad thing (TM), but It's as if we've taken The X-Files a little to close to heart.

Rampant jingoism isn't the answer, but neither is unchecked cynicism. Guarded skepticism seems to be the healthy balance.


the point being: we have Christianity as the DNA for our society's structure. With that noted, and how it implies Chrisitianity is correct, how can someone believe there is a separation between church and state?

Our society may be built on Christian precepts, but most of them are hardly exclusive. Attitudes about murder, theft, adultry,honor, etc. are generally similar between most religions.

Congress shall make now laws abridging religious freedoms, but there is no, nor should there be, any restrictions on public figures using what they've been taught, religous or otherwise, in their decision making processes. If you don't like their moral/religious bent, vote for someone else.

A public schoolteacher can't require prayer in school, nor can he/she deny it. Seperation of church in state is working perfectly in this case.

Now I must take Nyquil,


Phreon

[Duemellon]

Our society may be built on Christian precepts, but most of them are hardly exclusive. Attitudes about murder, theft, adultry,honor, etc. are generally similar between most religions. they aren't exclusive, but the discussion i'd like to have about the origins of religion and the evolutionary deviations we've seen is a different subject.

I'll dissagree with you with the point that the interpretation of those items is what makes the religions unique.

Many buddists believe any killing, at all, is murder. Hinus believe killiing certain animals is murder. Whereas we call "murder" something different to.

I mean, we currently believe that having multiple wives (simultaneously) is a form of adultry.

our specific designation of what makes it "murder" vs. self-defense, eating, police-action, military action, etc. is what Christianity* helped us define.

* West Civ interpretation of Christianity, after all there are more flavors of that religion than Baskin Robbins has

[Duemellon]

Don't kill, steal, rape, etc. These are not solely American ideals. But I think I get your point...I'm probably generalizing.read post immediately above this one.

I think, however, you conceded that with the "probably generalizing" bit.

[yoshomon]

American liberal 'democracy' is just playing out the ideals of the enlightenment.

And the enlightenment was just the secularizing of Xian morality, etc.

[matt]

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/04/30/justice.pledge/index.html