Discussion Locked

Science vs. Republican Ignorance?

just_chilin · 2005-11-29T14:06:18.000Z

[b]Dinosaurs, evangelicals and the state[/b] [b]Should the views of the religious right, many of whom are Republican party supporters, be adopted by the US government? In Washington, Justin Webb considers the implications and asks whether politics and religion make a good mix. [/b] Check out this interesting articles on BBC at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/4469590.stm [b]Article Text Below:[/b] -------------------------------------------------- Should the views of the religious right, many of whom are Republican party supporters, be adopted by the US government? In Washington, Justin Webb considers the implications and asks whether politics and religion make a good mix. Should dinosaurs and religion mix? We are having dinner at the house of some friends who are supporters of President Bush. Their five-year-old son, a classmate of our children, takes me upstairs to see his collection of dinosaurs. Little Meade is a passionate palaeontologist and this is a land of plenty so the room heaves with prehistoric life. I am suitably impressed, but unknown to Meade I am not here to admire the bone structure of the dinosaurs. I am in this room on assignment, because in modern America Meade's dinosaurs are at the heart of the travails of a political party and I need to find out something about Meade's parents which will affect our relationship. I need to know what they told him about when the dinosaurs existed. Millions of Americans, most of them supporters of the Republican party, believe that the world was created only a few thousand years ago as per the account in Genesis and the dinosaurs can only date from then, so the Tyrannosaurus Rex romped around with Adam and Eve. In other words these Americans, heirs to every scientific advance in history, deny rational accounts of how the world came to exist. And Meade's parents - I know his mum teaches Sunday school - might be among them. I put the question to Meade: "When did the dinosaurs live?" According to some, the age of the Grand Canyon is open to debate There is an agonising pause as he considers it. American children are wonderfully earnest and Meade is not going to be rushed. Eventually he says it is in a book his Dad bought him. We hunt the tome, find it, open the page and behold a diagram which has been explained to Meade. It all floods back. The dinosaurs, he informs me with great authority and aplomb, are millions and millions and millions of years old. I could have hugged him and his parents; we are, after all, inhabiting the same mental planet. But many modern members of the Republican party, including some in positions of great power, do not seem to be living on that planet. [b]Central question [/b] As the nation recovers this weekend from the worldly pleasures of the wonderfully inclusive festival of Thanksgiving, a festival which can appeal equally to atheist and Bible-basher, it seems to me that the central political question facing everyone here, far more important than any to do with Iraq or the deficit or Guantanamo Bay, is whether or not the Republican party, after decades of flirting, has finally got into bed with an irrational sect. Describe an American as a Roman Catholic and you say nothing about his or her political and social beliefs. In the state of Kansas they have succeeded in getting the science syllabus altered so that teachers can tell their pupils that God made everything in its current form Left-wing flower-power Democrats can be Catholics, so can right-wing socially conservative Republicans. American Jews, Hindus, even Muslims are not politically defined by their faith. But evangelical Christians, operating inside the Republican party, have coalesced their energies and their resources around a set of beliefs on homosexuality, abortion and Darwinism which place them on the authoritarian right of every political question and at odds with science. They are campaigning, for instance, to tell visitors to the Grand Canyon that this wondrous sight is not millions of years old, which it is. [b]Backlash[/b] In the state of Kansas they have succeeded in getting the science syllabus altered so that teachers can tell their pupils that God made everything in its current form - a change the National Academy of Sciences said "would put the students of Kansas at a competitive disadvantage as they took their place in the world." This is serious stuff and Republicans who are not evangelical Christians have in recent weeks been organising a fight-back. They have noticed two things. Number one, that the zealots are spending more energy fighting Charles Darwin than cutting taxes, and number two - and this is much more important - that the zealots outside Kansas are not receiving the support of the nation at large. Did the board lose the election because they opposed evolution? In the town of Dover, Pennsylvania, the local school board managed this year to get warmed up, creationism infiltrated into biology classes, and here is what happened. A couple of weeks ago all eight members of the board who were up for re-election lost their seats. "If there is a disaster in your area," the tele-evangelist Pat Robertson told the people of Dover, "don't turn to God - you just rejected Him from your city." Mr Robertson is an important man: the former Attorney General John Ashcroft teaches at his university, and his views are sought on Supreme Court candidates and foreign affairs. [b]Republican doubts [/b] But should those views govern the Republican party? Many members think not, particularly since President Bush is himself in such dire trouble now. He famously told an interviewer that when deciding to go to war in Iraq he listened to the authority not of his dad but of a Higher Father. And, Republicans are daring to think, if not quite say, out loud: "Look where that got him." By Justin Webb BBC Washington correspondent

0 helpful

118 replies

by just_chilin Nov 29, 2005 last reply Dec 10, 2005

Closed to new repliesThis discussion is closed. It stays readable, but it takes no new replies.

This is page 2 of the discussion. Read the opening post

118 replies

by absolutely Dec 4, 2005

From what facility is removal desired? Was this being sold in a National Park Service book store? If so, its removal is mandated by the First Amendment's separation of church and state clause: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Since Congress is responsible for all appropriations of the federal budget, none of the federal budget may be spent in any way that respects an establishment of religion, including Christianity as well as Satanism.

by john.a.wills Dec 4, 2005

My choice of what God wants me to do is based on a variety of input, e.g. my knowledge, my marital status, my opportunities. Nevertheless it is a religious choice. Similarly, the Objectivist's choice of what to do is religious. And the Buddhist's choice, different from either the theist's or the Objectivist's, is also religious.

by absolutely Dec 5, 2005

What exactly does god tell you the word "religious" means?

"Similarly, the Objectivist's choice of what to do is religious."

What do you suppose the IRS would do if I claimed tax-exempt status for my "faith"?

by jdclyde Dec 5, 2005

you have freedom of choice. To believe in as much or as little as you wish. To not have someone MAKE you get on your knees and pray to something that you don't want to. It HAS been found to be within the guidelines of the Constitution that you can support religious activities as long as it serves a general good and you don't discriminate against different religions.

What Federally funded Christian indoctrination have you personally been subjected to? It is news to me.

Satanism. They still believe in God, just choose not to have him as the one that "saves" them.

This same freedom OF religion means that people like YOU have NO right to stop anyone else from practicing their religion. Freedom from religious persecution. You may have heard of it?

by absolutely Dec 5, 2005

Tax breaks for religious schools, or social programs that GWB called "faith-based initiatives", if enacted, would be examples of Congress making a law respecting an establishment of religion.

"This same freedom OF religion means that people like YOU have NO right to stop anyone else from practicing their religion."

I have never advocated limiting anybody's right to practice religion. I also expect you to pay the expenses associated with your free practice of religion the same way you ought to pay all expenses associated with your free pursuit of happiness: independently. No part of that is a violation of any of your rights.

by jdclyde Dec 5, 2005

they aren't cute enough for me to treat them the way I want to be treated!

Who is forcing their religious beliefs on you? You sound like your tormented on a daily basis by people trying to save your soul?

Question, do people that don't believe in religion believe in a soul? If so, what does it mean to you? Completely off topic, just curious. A random "thought".

by absolutely Dec 5, 2005

I've asked you here and on other threads in the past to justify your claim that the doctrine of "separation of church and state" is a contrivance. I say it is the exact meaning of the phrase "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". If you tell me how you conclude that there is no basis in the Constitution for the legal doctrine of separation of church and state. But I require that you answer respectfully and completely, explaining why the exact words quoted above are anything less than a requirement of absolute separation of church and state, including follow-up questions if necessary. Once you do that, I promise to indulge your inquiry with reciprocal respect.

by jdclyde Dec 5, 2005

[b]"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"[/b]

Convenent that most people chop off the second part of the sentence to suit their own views. Wouldn't you call that "taking out of context" if I provided you with only half of a ruling or law? Of course you would. You would even go so far as to accuse me of not thinking or trying to be deceptive maybe?

I will not bore you with the posting of all details, so will take out the "meat" and link to the rest if you wish to read more.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause_of_the_First_Amendment
[i]"Originally, this has been interpreted as the prohibition of a preference for one religion over another. However, what has been glossed over for many years is the fact that the wording of the Clause both prevents Congress from establishing a religion and also prevents Congress from preventing the Establishment of religion by the any State or local government."

"In separationist interpretation, the clause, as historically understood, prohibits Congress from aiding religion in any way even if such aid is made without regard to denomination. While also preventing Congress from abolishing the State Religion of the State of Massachusetts at the time. Thomas Jefferson subscribed to this interpretation in his "wall of separation between church and state" view."[/i]
[b]
Supported in a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association, January 1, 1802 in support of them.[/b]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptists_in_the_history_of_separation_of_church_and_state
[i]""Our Sentiments are uniformly on the side of Religious Liberty ? That Religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals ? That no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious Opinions - That the legitimate Power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor.."[/i]

[b]The Jefferson letter[/b]
http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html.
[i]"Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties."[/i]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_voucher
[b]Vouchers ARE legal according to the Supreme Court - 2003[/b]

[i]"An education voucher, commonly called a school voucher, is a certificate by which parents are given the ability to pay for the education of their children at a school of their choice, rather than the public school to which they were assigned. These vouchers would be paid for using tax revenues."
Anti-school choice or anti-choice detractors state that such choice often results in the selection of a religious school, so that public funds are given to a religious institution, thus violating the separation of church and state (although a United States Supreme Court decision in 2003 invalidated this claim).[/i]

[b]And the only "PRO" site I will link to.[/b]
http://www.noapathy.org/tracts/mythofseparation.html

[b]Has a decent write-up on this issue.[/b]
[i]
"Jefferson wanted to remove all fears that the state would make dictates to the church."[/i]

http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html
[b]The Jefferson letter.

I have gone to reference points that are not of a bias one way or the other. If you can refute what they say based on another UNbiased site, please feel free.

by dmambo Dec 5, 2005

Vermont has a civil unions law that allows gay couples to receive all the legal state rights as married couples, such as right to list the partner as a dependent and to list the person as next of kin for medical decisions, inheritance, etc. I'm no lawyer, but that's my understanding.

From my perspective as a Vermonter, it's made no impact on my day-to-day life. I don't personally see the big deal. Perhaps employers are affected because they have to offer medical insuraance to civil union partners just as they do for spouses.

Massachusetts had (has) same-gender marriage, but I believe the court challenges are in progress.

by absolutely Dec 5, 2005

How might recognition of marriage between partners of the same gender [b]violate[/b] anybody's right to practice their beliefs, including their religious beliefs on monogamous, heterosexual sex?

by jdclyde Dec 5, 2005

were CHARITIES that serve the public at large, not just their own members.

The soup kitchens and homeless shelters that are run by religious organizations have a much lower expense ratio so they can help a lot more people that need it with less money. This is a bad thing how? Stupidity would dictate that we continue to throw more and more money at social programs that do not work, so SOMEONE has to try something.

I know, you are not in favor of social programs, and am not impling such. But I also know that the government is not going to just let all the "needy" people freeze/starve. This is an alternative to try to get people off the streets.

I expect generalized looks without knowing facts from jck, not you.

Tax breaks for ALL schools, regardless of their faith is right in line with the second part of the separation quote you like to throw around. To not prohibit.

People that send kids to private schools pay taxes too. People like you kick, cry, and scream if people of religion want a religion compatable education, yet you also kick, cry, and scream when they try to devert THEIR tax dollars to a school that WILL provide an education in line with their beliefs.

by absolutely Dec 5, 2005

["Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Convenient that most people chop off the second part of the sentence to suit their own views. Wouldn't you call that "taking out of context" if I provided you with only half of a ruling or law? Of course you would. You would even go so far as to accuse me of not thinking or trying to be deceptive maybe?]

I believe I did omit the second half of the freedom of religion clause myself recently, but not to hide from you or anybody else the fact that it exists. I omitted the part that says that the government has no right to prohibit the practice of your religion because I do not dispute that clause. I know the government has no right to prohibit you from practicing your religion. What I'm arguing is that the government also does not have the right to support the establishment of your religion, or anybody else's.

I've now read all your links to TJ, and I'm unimpressed. I already knew that Jefferson appreciated the importance of separating church from state, and I already knew that some religious organizations do not. Before I answer your question about the meaning of the word soul, tell me what you believe the words "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof" mean?

by absolutely Dec 8, 2005

I am not Jonathan Swift, and that is not satire. People have the right to what they earn. No more and no less. Civilization has been able to develop because people were confident in their legal right to own what they earn. It will not last long without legal recognition of that inalienable right.

Only one person has the right to what I earn: me. No bum has the right to acquire it by mugging, even if it's called taxation, and even if some "holy institution" declares its willingness to play middle man. The action is still theft.

by montgomery gator Dec 8, 2005

there will be Nazis on dinosaurs in the streets. (from "Drawn Together" in case you don't watch Comedy Central) :-)

by montgomery gator Dec 8, 2005

We have that in order to get Absolutely's knickers in a twist, because it is hilarious to see him throw a fit. :-)

Whats so evil about Christianity? By definition, it is good. "Love the LORD your God" and "Love your neighbor as yourself" are excellent commandments to live by. I see nothing evil about freely accepting the free gift of redemption from our sins for those who choose to accept it, and living by Christian principles. Sure beats the alternative.

Of course, forced conversions are useless, since they are not true conversions of the heart, so it is counterproductive to engage in activities like the Spanish Inquisition in an attempt to get people to see the truth. (You were not expecting the Spanish Inquisition!!!)

Satanism is a "religion" followed by rebellious twits who think it is fun to shock people, and do not realize the danger of getting involved with ultimate Evil.

Atheism is another religion followed by people with a rebellious nature who do not recognize the truth when they see it. (Unlike Satanists, they are not twits, just have let their logical processes draw them to the wrong conclusions).

(now watch Absolutely throw another hissy fit) :-)

by absolutely Dec 9, 2005

"Whats so evil about Christianity? By definition, it is good."

Use of the state's power to support an establishment of religion is evil, not "freely accepting the free gift of redemption from our sins for those who choose to accept it..." blah, blah, blah.

"Satanism is a "religion" followed by rebellious twits who think it is fun to shock people, and do not realize the danger of getting involved with ultimate Evil.

Stereotyping and name-calling are the last resorts of people who have no intelligent argument to offer for their position.

by maxwell edison Dec 9, 2005

.
What an absolutely silly thing to say. "Freedom OF religion *means* freedom FROM religion", or so you say?

Sorry, I disagree -- and so do the people who WROTE the documents you cite. It doesn't mean any such thing, and no matter how much you claim to the contrary, it doesn't make you correct.

Moreover, when you went on to say, "The freedom OF religion (clause of the constitution) that permits the practice of Christianity...." PERMITS? IT PERMITS? Sorry again, but that bird won't fly. The constitution doesn't PERMIT anything. The citizenry permits powers to the government, not the other way around.

Sorry, dude, but I certainly don't but into your interpretation of the constitution. And your "interpretation of convenience" shows a lack of consistency in your arguments. I'll agree, instead, with Jefferson, Adams, Madison, Washington, et al.

by absolutely Dec 10, 2005

Or are you able to practice one religion without being free of all other religions? If so, how?

https://www.techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=8&threadID=185132&messageID=1892205

This discussion is closed to new replies.

118 replies

Trending Community archive posts

RE: LibreOffice vs WPS Office: Which Is Really Free and What Costs Extra

how can i save my gmail data as pdf for offline access

What makes a simple web tool actually useful

When Your Business Outgrows Its Server Room What Would You Do Next

Digital Tools for Workplace Safety and Compliance