retired_babygirlgiggles

No separation of Church and School in the US?

Do especially take a look at the last line of the article.

retired_lapepe

Thank you Giziar, that was the case I was referring to. As I understand it this will be a fight in the coming years. Creationism, which ID is just a euphemism for, hasn't entered the school yet en masse. But time and the courts will tell whether that happen or not. As mentioned Bush is all in favour of this to appease to his right-wing extremist voters.

If I came across as saying creationism or ID has a central role in the US education system right now, that wasn't intended. But I'm pretty sure that if people and teachers don't stand up here, it will be in the future. As mentioned before this has absolutely nothing to do with science, but a lot to do with religion. As we know the right-wing christians have a lot of money and hence lobbyists to help push this through. Unless people take this fight now, it will be in the education system within years.

On the separation of Church and state. Take every single speach a high-standing US official make for instance. It always ends with "and let God continue to bless America" or something similar. Then take that christianity, like in Europe, has a superior role in the schools compared to other religions. Or the courts, you have to take an oath on the bible to tell the truth. It may well be separated in the laws etc, but when practice from area after area indicates it isn't separated, one could certainly argue about it. Religion doesn't belong in schools at all. Schools are supposed to be serious institutions for learning, not indoctrination to extremist philosophy, whether that be christianity, islam, judaism, or any other religion.

Religion is a very powerful tool used to control populations and set populations up against each other. Divide and conquer. If today's world isn't the best proof of that, I don't know what is.

retired_jmeshew

In all fairness, Pangaea, ANY ideology can be a tool to control people and divide them. As far as religion goes, it happens to be a very important part of the lives of millions, if not billions, of people. You belong to a group that obviously doesn't feel that way, but then saying what you say about religion is its own ideology. Many (most, all, even?) nations simply cannot, without dire consequences, disregard the feelings of a large percentage of its population, whether they be Norway, the U.S., or India. You consider it indoctrination, and the counter argument is that your case against religion is also indoctrination. The challenge is not to wipe out all references to religion in a state- it can't be done- but to show adequate respect to divergent viewpoints. The atheists or areligious people who argue vehemently that their rights are being violated by religious references in public spaces are basically asking for no tolerance for anyone but those of their particular viewpoint.

As regards ID, it may or may not be a valid scientific theory. A round earth, solar orbit, and a host of other things we take for granted were once belittled, minority positions. Macroevolution, for as much press as it has gotten, is also only a theory, not a set of provable facts at this point. It's just too early to tell, and to be honest, the debate has gone way past science- it's politicized possibly beyond repair on both sides, as this discussion as highlighted so aptly. Should it get past court challenges, it still remains to be seen whether it in fact teaches religion, or simply another way of viewing the origins of life on earth. Honest education, inquiry, and learning presents ideas, and allows the student to make the choice about what to believe. If ID is really such bad science as its detractors claim, then what is the fear? I should think that the two views (and maybe three or four if they come along) presented side by side in a basic science textbook ought ought to be good enough, as long as its done fairly and responsibly.

retired_jmeshew

Yes, Giz, but that's all Bush can do. It's a court decision, and one that I hope gets decided on the rule of law and not emotion. Separation of church and state here has NEVER meant that public officials cannot openly express their personal beliefs or support for issues and ideas that accord with those beliefs (and acknowledge the source of their principles). It's part of freedom of speech, and should never be restricted, because it's just like player-naming in LLM. What if had said the exact opposite- something like what Panagaea has expressed? Would that be better? I say it amounts to the same thing.

KingsbayYHPE

Oi! No, I won't have that!

You can aspire to World domination, you can invade countries at a whim, you can steal all the oil and other fossil fuels that the Earth possesses, you can pollute the atmosphere with your emissions in direct conflict with environmental groups and the Kyoto agreement and you can jail Arabs for life without a shred of evidence and hold them without charge, evidence, trial or sentence at Guantanamo, but you will not compare any facet of LLM with the Great Satan.

Consider yourself warned

retired_babygirlgiggles

Since when is teaching some phony believe from some phony book in school considered freedom of speach?

It can be just me but all that belongs in school is facts, facts, facts (also known as science sometimes).
NO religion in school, thank you.

retired_babygirlgiggles

edit: abovementioned post is in no way meant to make fun of someone's relegion. Just try to understand that there are ppl out there with another relegion or fullscale atheists who can see it that way.

retired_lapepe

That is of course true. My point is that there is no proof for the existence of God or Allah or whatever the name, so why have it in an institution that is supposed to teach the truth based on scientific research? Atheism is basically this. It doesn't make any sense to think that humans and animals were placed on this earth by some divine creator, that also doesn't seem to care one tidbit that we are destroying his/her work. Especially in light of the mountains of evidence against this view, I don't see how being supportive of this mountain of evidence can be seen as an ideology. Religion doesn't make any rational sense, it is based on irrationality and emotions. Every time the Church is faced with new evidence of the huge errors in the bible or Christianity, they stand on their hind legs as long as possible, and usually longer too. IIRC they admitted the earth was round around 1900.

I'm not talking about disallowing having religions a la Stalin or anything, just to get them out of the education system, where they don't belong. The prime reason for having religion in the schools is to get at kids early when they are incable of rational thought for themselves. Get to them early and the chances for success is greatly increased. Same reason advertising is aimed at kids during the early hour cartoons and whatnot. It's basically a truism. The earlier you put an idea into a kid's mind, the greater the chance of that idea staying in there.

Some guy in the US made up his own religion based on basically the same stuff as in Christianity, but with a different twist. When torn out of the normal discourse it shows how fantastically irrational religion really is. He called it Churhc of the Spaghetti Monster. It's is quite funny. Think the basis for it was the ID debate in the US. If ID should enter as an alternative to evolution, so should also his religion.

retired_berrysale

Religions will exist no matter what people do to try to stamp them out.

The only way forward would to be an inclusive society where understanding of different spiritual beliefs is encouraged.

retired_jmeshew

What you are missing here is that by removing anytrhing that even hints at the belief in religion you are doing the exact same thing. Get at the kids early so they will grow up to reject religion as irrational and counter-intellectual. What's the difference? What it comes down to is what the people who live in a place want, and beyond that, coming to a sensible compromise with those that believe differently. It just doesn't have to be an either/or issue as you are presenting it. The greatest challenge for any democratic nation is to satisfy the majority while acknowledging and respecting the minority. Just as you are free to believe religion is fanatastically irrational, others are free to believe atheism is the same. So what we need is to have a way that shows respect to both points of view. That is the point I am making regarding ID. A great many people feel it is rubbish. A great many do not. Whether you are completely right or not, to show that level of disrespect to those who believe otherwise is perpetuating the exact problem you claim to want to resolve.

I agree with Pete's post btw, and that is what is at the heart of the ID debate. Not whether the science is correct or not. Atheism, and a devotion to the evolutionary view is a religion whether you want to admit it or not- it is a set of values and beliefs concerning the nature of the world and the universe that inform your perspective and govern your actions. So if you want respect for your religion, then you need to be prepared to allow for respect for others.