95 replies to this topic

[Nialla]

Ogami, on Dec 21 2005, 08:36 PM, said:

If they're going to teach religion in Biology class, then they should teach Calculus in Sunday School. Now that would be 'equal time'.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You're illustrating something that I think many religious conservatives don't realize -- the door goes both ways. If you get more religion into public schools, it's also very likely to allow more secular or religious-ideals-that-aren't-your-own into your church.

Seperation of church and state isn't just a way to keep religion out of the government, like the religious conservatives seem to think, it's also a way to keep government out of religion.

[The Oncoming Storm]

Nialla, on Dec 22 2005, 10:18 AM, said:

Seperation of church and state isn't just a way to keep religion out of the government, like the religious conservatives seem to think, it's also a way to keep government out of religion.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That was really the more concernin' aspect of it that the Foundin' Fathers wanted to deal with.  The British gov't had a habit of regulatin' preachers, what they could preach, and to whom they could preach it.  The business of gov't regulatin' religion had been a serious practice since the 1500's in most European countries, whether they were Protestant or Catholic.  Such things led to the blood-lettin' known as the Thirty Years War, involvin' more than a dozen major and minor countries, saw Cardinal Richalieu be incredibly duplicitious to his Catholic bretheren, and saw what is now modern Germany be so devistated that for nearly 50 years after it was still economically depressed.  (If I'm not mistaken, I think there were famines after the war in Germany that killed thousands.)  

However, I digress.  The English colonies in No. America had become fairly independent with a great degree of religious liberty (upon which several colonies were founded--MA, RI, CT, MD among them) that the interference of the Crown in religious affairs was anathema to them.  The Quebec Act of 1773 was one act, intended to ensure religious liberty for Canadian Catholics, that the Protestant colonists misconstrued as a door that would allow Papal interference (as they saw it) in the English colonial areas.  

Considerin' the track record of how gov'ts handled religion, I can understand why the Founders gave religious freedom serious thought.  But, they never intended for a man's personal beliefs to be divorced from who he was, no matter what office he held.  The phrase "separation of church and state" wasn't mentioned until much later in the life of the Republic.  Jefferson wrote the phrase in his letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, who were worried that the state legislature would meddle in the affairs of religion.  
Letter to Danbury Baptist Association

I think our Founders expected Americans, both public and private, to be people of faith and to act upon that faith.  They were most concerned with the past history of how govt's tended to interfere with religious affairs (which began with Constantine in 323 at Nicaea).

[Gefiltefishmon]

Quote

I think our Founders expected Americans, both public and private, to be people of faith and to act upon that faith. They were most concerned with the past history of how govt's tended to interfere with religious affairs (which began with Constantine in 323 at Nicaea).

I agree that the FF's thought we would all be people of faith, but I think you need to go back a LOT further than 323 to look at when Man began to meddle in matters of faith and politics - Honestly, knowing the psychology of fear and greed, which rules all human interactions, politics have been inseperable from religion ever since the first shaman realized that the people would do what he told them to, even if he wasn't high on peyote and chanelling the "Great Spirit". Thus the 'commandment' was born and the 'Words of the Gods', further isolating the laity from the priesthood and deepening the tendency to use religion for political expediency.

In most ancient cultures the governments WERE the church and the church was the government. Leaders were divine or real gods and the king and the living god were one and the same. Even to this day, the Emperor of Japan is referred to as "Divine" and "Celestial", though nobody believes that he is descended from a Dragon anymore.

"The first guy found God, the second guy found religion and asked the first one for a donation, then gave him commandments, pronounced him a sinner and took his possessions, excommunicated him, reformed him and finally made him an elder with a private chariot parking space, fancy robes and an allowance; and now the first guy is the second guys enforcer......" Ancient Catskills Joke

[Rhea]

I suspect that the Founding Fathers were all for keeping both government out of religion AND religion out of government. Too many of them had been the victims of religious persecution in their homeland and they didn't want to perpetuate those problems here.

They wisely chose not to recognize a state religion (which would have been hard considering how many different sects had emigrated to this country already) and to conduct the affairs of government without reference to religion.

That doesn't mean they expected people not to puruse their own beliefs. I imagine they would be staggered and somewhat awestruck if they could see this country today, with such an interesting blend of cultures and religious beliefs.

[Ogami]

Nialla wrote:

You're illustrating something that I think many religious conservatives don't realize -- the door goes both ways. If you get more religion into public schools, it's also very likely to allow more secular or religious-ideals-that-aren't-your-own into your church.

The largest problem with 'intelligent design', at least for the Christians, is the fact that it simply opens up public schools to every other religious belief. It wouldn't just be Christianity, every other religion would demand their own equal time. There is no limit to the number of Creation myths that schools would have to accomodate. Are they going to teach that the earth is a giant egg balanced on the shell of a tortoise? They would if they allow intelligent design.

Personally I'm curious what intelligent designers think is happening whenever a new flu virus evolves and starts killing people. That's evolution in action right there. And what about fossils? Did God plant them in the ground to confound people's faith in intelligent design?

Intelligent design is an oxymoron anyway, as a truly intelligent design would be to design an evolving universe that does not require a dullard Creator to hand craft every bird and bug, eternal and unchanging.

-Ogami

[Ogami]

Rhea wrote:

They wisely chose not to recognize a state religion (which would have been hard considering how many different sects had emigrated to this country already) and to conduct the affairs of government without reference to religion.

Quite right, and intelligent design, despite its attempts at vagueness, would be a state-approved religion, Christianity.

[waterpanther]

Teaching calculus in Sunday School class would be regarded by some as pre-emptive damnation. . ..  

[Ogami]

The only thing I studied in Sunday school was my female classmates...

[waterpanther]

Now there's something we can agree on!  

[BklnScott]

ogami said:

Personally I'm curious what intelligent designers think is happening whenever a new flu virus evolves and starts killing people. That's evolution in action right there.

From my conversations with the anti-science crowd, they tend to claim that the "lower lifeforms" *do* evolve, but mankind doesn't.  We're *special*.  Which, of course, is a steaming pile of horse puckey.

Quote

And what about fossils? Did God plant them in the ground to confound people's faith in intelligent design?

I have also heard THIS claimed by the Bible Thumpers without a trace of irony.  But they also attack carbon-dating.  There's a skit on "The Creation Network" where an egg-head picks up a fossil and--in a high-falutin, faux-British accent, exclaims, "This fossil must be at least ONE HUNDRED MILLION YEARS OLD!"  Whereupon an Indiana Jones-type adventurer swings in, tips his stetson, and says, "I wouldn't say it's that old... Maybe six thousand years or so."  And he winks at the kids in the audience.  

VOMIT!!!  To think, there's a whole generation of Bible Thumping Kids being brought up on this drivel.  I fear for our future as a high-tech nation.  

BTW, they also claim Noah took "dino-babies" on the Ark.  (And that the Biblical Flood created The Grand Canyon in a matter of 40 days and nights... Uh-hem).

[tennyson]

Ah, the wonders of what was cutting edge scientific thought circa 1600.  
But seriously the most common thought was in the Rennaissance that fossils were a "sport of nature" a kind of plastic construct created by the Earth that just happened to resemble a living thing but then the prevailing theory of mineral lode formation at the time had it that valuable mineral lodes formed in the Earth like eggs growing in womb.

[Nonny]

waterpanther, on Dec 26 2005, 01:54 PM, said:

Teaching calculus in Sunday School class would be regarded by some as pre-emptive damnation. . ..   

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

    

[Delvo]

_ph, on Dec 26 2005, 09:05 PM, said:

From my conversations with the anti-science crowd, they tend to claim that the "lower lifeforms" *do* evolve, but mankind doesn't.  We're *special*.  Which, of course, is a steaming pile of horse puckey.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Did you ask them why we have separate races then?

[Nonny]

_ph, on Dec 26 2005, 06:05 PM, said:

There's a skit on "The Creation Network" where an egg-head picks up a fossil and--in a high-falutin, faux-British accent, exclaims, "This fossil must be at least ONE HUNDRED MILLION YEARS OLD!"  Whereupon an Indiana Jones-type adventurer swings in, tips his stetson, and says, "I wouldn't say it's that old... Maybe six thousand years or so."  And he winks at the kids in the audience. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

    

[Ogami]

_Ph wrote:

From my conversations with the anti-science crowd, they tend to claim that the "lower lifeforms" *do* evolve, but mankind doesn't. We're *special*.

Right. But that implies God cares for us more than bees or slugs, something I would question immediately. Wouldn't He be equally proud of his other creations?

Watching the COSMOS television series was a real treat as an impressionable child. I watched in wonder as Carl Sagan delved into the very concept of evolution. First he acknowledged that all life could be created by the direct hand of God. Then he smiled and said, "There is another explanation". That's all, he left it to you to decide for yourself.

VOMIT!!! To think, there's a whole generation of Bible Thumping Kids being brought up on this drivel. I fear for our future as a high-tech nation.

If evolution threatens your religion, then the religion needs re-examined. (Unless one really believes Noah crammed every species on earth onto his boat.)

_________________________

Tennyson wrote:

But seriously the most common thought was in the Rennaissance that fossils were a "sport of nature" a kind of plastic construct created by the Earth that just happened to resemble a living thing but then the prevailing theory of mineral lode formation at the time had it that valuable mineral lodes formed in the Earth like eggs growing in womb.

Yes. And let's not forget the very word "Antediluvian", meaning "predating the Flood". At the time of Darwin, the entire scientific establishment was Christian, and the overwhelming view was that fossils were simply creatures swept away by Noah's Flood. After the Origin of Species, the establishment slowly changed to the evolutionary view. Not because the scientists liked it more, but because it was testable and could be confirmed through the scientific method.

Thus it would be kind of silly to go back to the Creationism that Darwin himself faced in his time.

-Ogami

[Elara]

Ogami, on Dec 26 2005, 11:54 PM, said:

Right. But that implies God cares for us more than bees or slugs, something I would question immediately. Wouldn't He be equally proud of his other creations?

~.~ I was always told they had no souls and could not get into heaven, so my guess is that He has no pride where His other creations are concerned.

Quote

If evolution threatens your religion, then the religion needs re-examined. (Unless one really believes Noah crammed every species on earth onto his boat.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

~.~ That is what I do not understand. If one is sure of their beliefs, then nothing can shake that belief, so why this overwhelming fear that has cropped up fairly recently?
As for Noah's boat? That was one darn big boat, I mean, huge! so why can't we find it?    

[Rhiannonjk]

Ogami, on Dec 27 2005, 12:54 AM, said:

But that implies God cares for us more than bees or slugs, something I would question immediately. Wouldn't He be equally proud of his other creations?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The response I have gotten to this question is that we were created in in his own image which makes us extra-specially special.  In fact, that's the biggest reason the people I know that don't believe in evolution fight the idea of evolution in humans - if God created us in his own image, he surely isn't a monkey (as in my limited group of friends that believe this way, they always word it) and they sure as heck didn't evolve from some monkey.

[QueenTiye]

Strange - the "he isn't a monkey" idea.

Maybe God looks like this:

 DNA.jpg   21.59K   42 downloads

(http://www.psc.edu/~...l/NIH/B-DNA.gif)

Quote

28:12 And he dreamed, and behold a ladder set up on the earth, and the top of it reached to heaven: and behold the angels of God ascending and descending on it.

28:13 And, behold, the LORD stood above it, and said, I am the LORD God of Abraham thy father, and the God of Isaac: the land whereon thou liest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed; 28:14 And thy seed shall be as the dust of the earth, and thou shalt spread abroad to the west, and to the east, and to the north, and to the south: and in thee and in thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed.

(King James Bible, Genesis)

Just a thought that might be helpful (or might not... )

QT

Edited by QueenTiye, 27 December 2005 - 10:53 AM.

[Schmokie_Dragon]

Quote

It wouldn't just be Christianity, every other religion would demand their own equal time

Ever heard of the Church of the Flying Spagetti Monster?
A "church" created to rival the intelligent design view by demanding that ALL alternate theories were taught.

[SparkyCola]

Interesting idea QT

Quote

Or better yet, have them teach that the Earth and other planets revolve around the Sun.

What Church teaches that the Earth doesn't revolve around the sun? They could make a very Gaardner-esque metaphor about the sun representing God too or maybe the sun as the son, the universe as the father and the moon as the holy spirit...but I digress.

This reminds me of a VERY Catholic person in my school. It is so cringe-enducing when she says things like "I mean come on, descended from *monkeys* - I don't THINK so!!"

*cringe*

No offence intended to those who agree with said person- I'm glad not everyone thinks the same, but the concept of evolution is so firmly implanted in my mind i cannot possibly see how the Catholic argument can hold any weight. I believe that Science and Religion do not disagree with one another, so what can i say - very good news long overdue!

Is it true that some states won't allow the teaching of the theory of Evolution?

Sparky