"Freedom of religion": there is a concept we can all stand behind. And yet lines are increasingly being drawn here at BTM, between evangelical Christians and everyone else. In my opinion, which side of the line you are on depends entirely on which of the two words "freedom" and "religion" is most important to you.
Evangelicals believe that freedom of religion serves Christianity, which is their highest value. They understand, rightly, that without the freedom to choose, there can be no Christian, because Christianity is only meaningful if it is freely chosen. They are also concerned about the state actively discouraging the practice of Christianity and actively undermining Christian institutions, which is why they want to limit the power of the state. So far, so good.
What happens, though, when freedom of religion does not serve Christianity? What happens when it is interpreted to mean that no religion is exempt from criticism? Those for whom the "freedom" half of the concept is the more important of the two understand that "freedom of religion" also means freedom FROM religion. They feel that what is enshrined in the Constitution is the protection of every individual from the imposition of any religion. If every individual has the right to practice any religion, it also means that no religion is above criticism, does it not? Christians are perfectly entitled to profess that Jews only get half the story, and Jews are likewise free to claim that Christians are heretics. As long as each is allowed to speak out, it's a beautifully free system we have here. Nothing wrong with it.
Outspoken atheists are just following the principle of freedom of religion when they assert their right to criticize all religion, and to defend in public their claim that there is no God. They accept that they will be criticized in turn by people of various religions, and do not demand special protection for their views either from the state or from the court of public opinion. In fact they welcome debate.
Of course no one who believes in freedom, whether they are evangelical or atheist, would advocate the state promoting religion and discouraging atheism. I think we can all agree that the state has no right to coerce people one way or the other. The issue here is do we at BTM advocate that any particular religion, or that religion in general should enjoy some special protection from criticism? We criticize other belief systems here, such as Socialism, Communism, racism, imperialism, etc... I can't speak for the others, but I am quite happy for evangelicals to go ahead and criticize atheism to their heart's content. I love debates of that nature. Come on, freedom lovering Christians, what are you worried about? If yours is the truth, what harm does atheism really pose?
Subscribe to this thread- Flag as offensive
- Login or register to post comments
- 1005 reads
>>>>>"Freedom of religion": there is a concept we can all stand behind. And yet lines are increasingly being drawn here at BTM, between evangelical Christians and everyone else. In my opinion, which side of the line you are on depends entirely on which of the two words "freedom" and "religion" is most important to you.<<<<
First you've got to define "religion". My "American Heritage" has 4 meanings listed only one of which refers to the supernatural. If you are truly referring to all religion then you aren't going to be allowing the viewpoints of a large percentage of people. Furthermore, you will have people simply denying their worldviews are "religious" to support their veracity and to be allowed explression, as we are seeing with the rise of various paganisms that simply do not own up to what they are. They simply assert that their worldview is obviously true, "proven" or "scientific" when they are frequently just as faith based as the supernatural religions. This is simply the assertion that the materialist worldview is self-evidently true. The Marxist philosophy that prevails in the government schools is able to do that through its atheism, by denying it is a religion. The reality of the situation is that it has the superficial hallmarks of religion: morality (relative), true believers, indoctrination, insistence that only it is just or true (intolerance). It has doctrine that supports it (the origin of life and diversity of species as random chance mutations and natural selection, man is nothing but more evolved animal), centralization and collectivism that are required to secure moral and material outcomes determined by other man-animals, the ends justify the means.
>>>>>What happens, though, when freedom of religion does not serve Christianity? What happens when it is interpreted to mean that no religion is exempt from criticism? Those for whom the "freedom" half of the concept is the more important of the two understand that "freedom of religion" also means freedom FROM religion. They feel that what is enshrined in the Constitution is the protection of every individual from the imposition of any religion. If every individual has the right to practice any religion, it also means that no religion is above criticism, does it not? Christians are perfectly entitled to profess that Jews only get half the story, and Jews are likewise free to claim that Christians are heretics. As long as each is allowed to speak out, it's a beautifully free system we have here. Nothing wrong with it.<<<
There are fanatics in all religions. We currently have Marxists and science worshippers denying the right of Christians to have their children taught Christian doctrine (some even here!) because in their eyes it is "false". There is no difference.
>>>>Outspoken atheists are just following the principle of freedom of religion when they assert their right to criticize all religion, and to defend in public their claim that there is no God. They accept that they will be criticized in turn by people of various religions, and do not demand special protection for their views either from the state or from the court of public opinion. In fact they welcome debate.<<<<
"Outspoken atheists are just following the principle of freedom of religion"!!! I absolutely agree!!
>>>>Of course no one who believes in freedom, whether they are evangelical or atheist, would advocate the state promoting religion and discouraging atheism. I think we can all agree that the state has no right to coerce people one way or the other. <<<<
All well and good, but what we have are people of certain worldviews and religions having more freedom of expression and freedom to indoctrinate in government schools because they deny they are "religious" or are protected and taught as "ethnic heritage". This ensures the censoring of Christianity (and Christian influences in history have been censored from textbooks, except the most negative ones) and the promotion of other worldviews more compatible with statism. I agree that the state has no right to aggress, period.
>>>>>The issue here is do we at BTM advocate that any particular religion, or that religion in general should enjoy some special protection from criticism? We criticize other belief systems here, such as Socialism, Communism, racism, imperialism, etc... I can't speak for the others, but I am quite happy for evangelicals to go ahead and criticize atheism to their heart's content. I love debates of that nature. Come on, freedom lovering Christians, what are you worried about? If yours is the truth, what harm does atheism really pose?<<<<
Well, I am one Christian who says "criticize away"! Did someone here say you aren't allowed to criticize Christianity??
>>"Did someone here say you aren't allowed to criticize Christianity??"
Yes, we were debating whether the topic of religion should be off limits at BTM when I posted this thread a few weeks ago. There were several people who felt like these types of discussions should be strongly discouraged, if not censored altogether. I strongly disagree, for the reasons I stated above.
>>"We currently have Marxists and science worshipers denying the right of Christians to have their children taught Christian doctrine (some even here!) because in their eyes it is "false"."
I think we have been through this before, Gotit. Public education itself is a denial of EVERYONE"S right to use their resources as they see fit, whether it be to educate their on kids, give charitably to help educate someone else's, or gamble it all away in Vegas.
Beyond that, there is no coercion though. As far as I know it is legal to home-school your children or to send them to the parochial school of your choice, if you are willing to pay for it. Am I wrong about that? On the other hand I have read accounts of the state discriminating against atheist parents, as when religious parents are favored over non-believers in custody cases.
Don't believe me? Please check out this article:
http://atheism.about.com/b/2006/03/30/atheists-discriminated-against-in-...
>>>>>>"Did someone here say you aren't allowed to criticize Christianity??"
Yes, we were debating whether the topic of religion should be off limits at BTM when I posted this thread a few weeks ago. There were several people who felt like these types of discussions should be strongly discouraged, if not censored altogether. I strongly disagree, for the reasons I stated above.<<<
Well, I disagree. Criticize as much as you want.
>>"We currently have Marxists and science worshipers denying the right of Christians to have their children taught Christian doctrine (some even here!) because in their eyes it is "false"."
I think we have been through this before, Gotit. Public education itself is a denial of EVERYONE"S right to use their resources as they see fit, whether it be to educate their on kids, give charitably to help educate someone else's, or gamble it all away in Vegas.<<<<
Yes, we have been through this before. Your complaint about atheists and custody is simply a version of the reversal of THAT complaint. It is all state aggression and we are simply bickering back and forth over who should get to wield it.
>>>>>Beyond that, there is no coercion though. As far as I know it is legal to home-school your children or to send them to the parochial school of your choice, if you are willing to pay for it. Am I wrong about that? <<<<
Pretty much, although there would be a lot more leaving the govschools if they could have the tax loot they have to give them. Some don't feel qualified to homeschool but can't afford private. And there is still covert discrimination. The local districts in some states have a lot of power to harrass homeschoolers, it's no fun to be at the mercy of ahostile educrat ticked off because you dare to question their authority to decide how and what your kids should learn, in my district kids even have to get permits to work from district crats and answer a bunch of nosy questions. Some districts are very cooperative, on the other hand. But until people are no longer forced to fund the goernment school industry and jobs project spare me the nonsense about how it is not coercive. MY money is funding Marxist indoctrination. Granted, I got my kids out, but no, that doesn't mean that I should be happy with having to pay for state worship because I was granted the "freedom" to parole my kids.
>>>On the other hand I have read accounts of the state discriminating against atheist parents, as when religious parents are favored over non-believers in custody cases.
Don't believe me? Please check out this article:<<<
And I think we have been through THIS before. You're complaint is with the state discriminating, not Christians. Blaming Christianity because the state discriminates is falling into their trap. They want you to hate Christians for their own unfairnesses, it distracts from their own lack of authority to decide these things. It is simply pitting the people against each other. There is no reason parents can't hire a private arbitrator they both agree on to decide things they can't work out for themselves.
>>"There is no reason parents can't hire a private arbitrator they both agree on to decide things they can't work out for themselves."
What if one parent doesn't agree to that? What if the dad keeps the kids away from the mom? What if he hides them somewhere, or holes up in his house with a gun and threatens to shoot the mom if she tries to take the children? In your ideal world, people just "work these things out" for themselves, and at no time is the state allowed to interfere, right? (I am going by some of your other posts here. Please correct me if I am wrong.)
Hebrews 5:12
"For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat."
Hebrews 5:14
"But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil."
[ie.]
"For, indeed, although YOU ought to be teachers in view of the time, YOU again need someone to teach YOU from the beginning the elementary things of the sacred pronouncements of God; and YOU have become such as need milk, not solid food.
But, solid food belongs to mature people, to those who [hu] through use have their perceptive powers trained to distinguish both right and wrong."
Zero tolerance for BS, [.]
All books come with knowledge. Some good some bad. I am still amazed how much religion is debated amongst our community of educated masses. Expression of spirituality through Religion is just another form of relaying knowledge as so all linguistics are. Spirit is all around us and within but to define that by such a simple meaning of such complex world is easier to swallow for some than others.
"..where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty." 2 Corinthians 3:17
you know what would be really funny. if you would, by mistake, give a different quote from the bible, you know, like when you are required to stone a woman to death.
I think one of the biggest issues that athiests have with the constitutional protection of freedom of religion is the words "Under God" appearing in the pledge of allegiance. That was actually established through a law passed by Congress, and I think it clearly respects an establishment of religion.
I wan't to hear some Christians' opinion on this; I mean, It's so obviously unconstitutional, Right?
Also, who here has seen part 1 of the movie zeitgeist?
Of course no one who believes in freedom, whether they are evangelical or atheist, would advocate the state promoting religion and discouraging atheism.
I think this is a bit of a tricky argument. Most people opposed to others' rights are good at convincing themselves that they are just protecting liberty. A recent public discourse in Bakersfield, CA centered on whether or not atheists should be excluded from public office. The supporters of such a move maintained that atheists are a security threat because they are incapable of being loyal citizens (according to the Christians). This viewpoint found a surprising level of public support: and I'm sure that those who supported it believed that they were protecting the country, and thus their own view of liberty.
Oh, and DeltaRho, the above also illustrates what harm evangelical Christians' "Spirituality" poses to me. And I'm not even an atheist.
-SG
"Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.
The Grackle's Nest
It is perfectly fine if many of the citizens of Bakersfield do not think that athiests are capable of holding public office. They can "protect the country" by refusing to vote for them. If most of the people of Bakersfield agree, then atheists will not be able to hold public office because of their religious beliefs. Is this a violation of the constitution?
>>"It is perfectly fine if many of the citizens of Bakersfield do not think that atheists are capable of holding public office. They can "protect the country" by refusing to vote for them."
The important thing is that they do not have the right to prevent any person from running for public office on the basis of that person's religious beliefs.
>>"If most of the people of Bakersfield agree, then atheists will not be able to hold public office because of their religious beliefs. Is this a violation of the constitution?"
It is everyone's right to vote for the candidate they prefer, for whatever reason. But people who do not care about a candidate's religious beliefs should have the right to vote for the candidate they think is best. That is why the religious zealots in Bakersfield can't deny atheists the right to run for public office: it would infringe not only on the liberty of the atheist candidates but also on the liberty of every individual voter.
Personally I think the people we need now in Washington are libertarians who will reduce the power of government and restore our liberty to pursue our lives as we see fit. If there are such candidates who happen to be atheists, anyone who believes in freedom but would allow his religious prejudice to interfere with his better judgment is doing himself (and, IMHO, everyone else in America) a grave disservice.
>>"A recent public discourse in Bakersfield, CA centered on whether or not atheists should be excluded from public office."
It is unconstitutional to exclude anyone from public office on the basis of their religious belief. Period. I think our constitution guarantees our freedoms pretty well. If we really follow it, I don't think we will go to far astray. My point when I made that comment was that people who want freedom in the way most of us here at BTM do, essentially want freedom from coercion. They want the government to leave them alone. They want to be considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law (something the proponents of the move to exclude atheists from office clearly didn't understand)
But what if we don't really follow it?
"The government should be afraid of its people, not the other way around".
"So Scott, how again do MY personal beliefs that guide MY life dictate YOUR reality? I thought not".
Ummm, that's easy. Bush claims God told Bush to invade Iraq (according to Bush). Therefore , the "belief" in god resulted in my having to pay more for bread in the store.
Also, my lesbian carpenter friend who wants to marry and gain the avantages thereof, is forbidden to because the "belief" that the bible holds moral definitions is dead set against her. Therefore, when she cries and wonders why the world is full of ugly bigots, I have to console her and tell her it is mostly due to the bible that the bigotry exists against her.
I could type these in all day, there are so many examples, but you get the gist...
>>>Also, my lesbian carpenter friend who wants to marry and gain the avantages thereof, is forbidden to because the "belief" that the bible holds moral definitions is dead set against her. Therefore, when she cries and wonders why the world is full of ugly bigots, I have to console her and tell her it is mostly due to the bible that the bigotry exists against her.<<<<
If you're referring to government benefits, then your friends beef is against the state for discriminating. There are plenty of churches that cater to lesbians, I'm sure you're friend could find one willing to "marry" her. Better to keep the state out of our lives, keep our money associate with whom we want, when we want. You are blaming the states discrimination on people who simply do not want to finance activities they believe are sinful and who are working within the dialectic to try to keep their own worldview prevailing. Just like eco-worshippers do not want taxes subsidizing lumber harvesting in National forests, etc. and try to lobby for their interests to prevail, and just like the gay activists are pushing for the gay lifestyle to be taught in government elementary schools. It is a trap to blame "the Bible", it is very shortsighted. You are playing the game as the state wants it played, bickering with people who are pitted against you. The state forces us to fight amongst ourselves for the crumbs of freedom and money they divvie up. Take the state out of the picture and let everyone live as they wish as long as they don't aggress against others.
Not to mention the idiots who think only belief in God can tell one that murder is wrong.
"The government should be afraid of its people, not the other way around".
"Stop rooting for it until you are open minded enough to consider anything other than that which the mainstream media has fed into your brain -- even then, don't seek your answers from any person roaming this earth - because it is an inner-personal belief for Claire and for Claire only to discover for herself".
Ummmm, No. You don't discover "truth" inside yourself. You discover "belief". Belief IS NOT TRUTH and never has been truth. The media is actually prone to promote religiousity, btw...
Things are either true or they are not. You cannot decide "for yourself" what is factual about the world and what is not. The facts do not change because you hold them to be different than they actually are.
The reason so many people are actively opposing this notion you have that reality is subject to your personal whims, is because your personal whims have gone political and are, in fact, screwing things up.
George Bush became president because of an alignment with personal whims-- Christians en masse voted for him because he believed in the same nonsense they believed, regardless of the facts.
THE MASS DELUSIONAL aspect of these beliefs led to a hugely delusional administration.
Those who haven't swallowed the religiousity pill are trying to bring the country back to reality and rationality and sanity.
There is no god that tells you which brown people to kill, for example. There really isn't.
We who have not been brainwashed feel a duty to at least remind the brainwashed that reason and rationality and sanity still exist, and are still options-- if you have a mind open to such things...
George Bush became president because of an alignment with personal whims-- Christians en masse voted for him because he believed in the same nonsense they believed, regardless of the facts.
Actually I belive they mostly fell for the Narcissist because he pulled the wool over their eyes. When you say Christians en masse you must be including those who call themselves Christian because their mother was or because someone said they were ????
Here is the CIA World Facts Tally for you ....
UNITED STATES :
Protestant 51.3%, Roman Catholic 23.9%, Mormon 1.7%, other Christian 1.6%, Jewish 1.7%, Buddhist 0.7%, Muslim 0.6%, other or unspecified 2.5%, unaffiliated 12.1%, none 4% (2007 est.)
It wasn't just Christians who voted for the man ! So that kind of blows that out of the water huh ?
Yeah, yeah Scott... I know your stance. Quit lying to your kids... blah, blah, blah... How's that Santa Clause thing working for you there mate?
Clue in. I never suggested reality is subject to my personal whims. MY reality is subject to MY personal beliefs. It's a point I have made tirelessly and without compromise - unlike you who seems to like to point out how Christians lie to their kids and are bad for it, yet, condone parents lying to their kids about Santa Clause, the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny, and whatever else... So Scott, how again do MY personal beliefs that guide MY life dictate YOUR reality? I thought not.
"Come on, freedom lovering Christians, what are you worried about? If yours is the truth, what harm does atheism really pose?"
I suppose the question could be just as easily flipped around... Come on, freedom lovering [sic] Atheists, what are you worried about? If you don't believe in the same thing I believe in, then what harm does my Spirituality really pose?
You see, the main issue I take with you Claire, Cynical, Scott, and the others is that you automatically assume that just because someone believes in creationism, they automatically don't believe in evolution or science and that they are stupid for having their system of beliefs... When it's quite simple really.
Just shut up about it, accept that which you do and don't believe, and let others enjoy those same freedoms... No, instead, you (along with the others) continue to try to find answers from peole who believe in something that can't be proved based on scientific principles. In essence, you are asking them to lose their faith, drop their principles, and abandon what they choose to believe - to accept a submissive posture on an argument they can't win. That's not only unfair, but just plain stupid on the part of every one of you who choose to engage in such debate (Christians and Atheists alike).
Claire, there is a distinct difference between this: "What happens, though, when freedom of religion does not serve Christianity?" and what is actually happening, which is this: "What happens, though, when freedom of religion does serve other religions while neglecting or otherwise abandoning Christianity?"
You hit on a lot of different points of contention, but the bottom line is this... Why do you and the other Atheists continue to try to find proof of God from Christians? It makes no difference to anyone who is spiritual whether or not you do or accept our beliefs. It hase ZERO impact on our lives. I can't speak for some of the "thumping" style Christians, but I personally won't ever engage you and ask you to accept my beliefs... I don't care... And for the record, as I've said before, I believe in a lot of science (including a lot of what evolutin discusses - and I think it has a long way to go in its proof... but it is accepted scientific standard so I'm fine with that.
Why do you all insist on forcefully finding scientific evidence to proove or disprove the existence of God? Newsflash - WE DON'T HAVE ANY... Quit seeking it. If you choose to not believe, then great. Good luck with that. Quit pitting science and religion against each other. As a spiritual believer in and one who has accepted Jesus Christ as my savior, I would assert to you that I believe God created science and the thought that allows man to make scientific discoveries. Notice I didn't say you had to believe or even accept that because it is MY BELIEF.
What you are doing with this thread is exactly the kind of tripe that BTM has "claimed" to want to stamp out. And I don't mean Christianity over Atheism or vice versa... I mean the suppression of ideas and beliefs on either side of debate. You have already dismissed any views but your own, so it's pointless. Get over yourself Claire. Move on to another subject already... Here - I'll help you along -- Are we still winning the war on terror?!?
>>"Just shut up about it, accept that which you do and don't believe, and let others enjoy those same freedoms."
Why should I shut up?
>>"What you are doing with this thread is exactly the kind of tripe that BTM has "claimed" to want to stamp out. And I don't mean Christianity over Atheism or vice versa... I mean the suppression of ideas and beliefs on either side of debate."
You are the one telling people to shut up, DeltaRho.
>>"You have already dismissed any views but your own"
I invite anyone who disagrees with me to defend their views. I'm not "dismissing" anyone.
"Lovering" was a typo, by the way... Happens to me a lot. My apologies.
"You are the one telling people to shut up, DeltaRho."
Way to go Claire - take it out of context and twist it to suit your needs... It's exactly what I expected anyhow.
"I invite anyone who disagrees with me to defend their views. I'm not "dismissing" anyone."
Wrong Claire - because you refuse to accept any defense. You will argue with a brick wall until you get the response you seek...
Claire - I believe God exists but I can't prove it using science, geography, or history. I accept most of the points of evolution - but there are other points that I question because science has not yet provided evidence to support such claims - but I am willing to accept something that is presented as a scientifically accepted theory unless something else comes along to disprove it. I believe God exists.
Now, unless I can provide the scientific proof you seek, then you will immediately dismiss it. As soon as I said "I can't prove it", the flag was raised for you to completely dismiss every word thereafter. It doesn't matter that I prefaced it with I believe. You interpret that as being me trying to get you to believe - which is simply not the case. Otherwise, like I originally asked, and you conveniently dismissed (imagine that), why bother creating this kind of topic that creates a distinct divisive split between those who choose to believe and those who do not?
""Lovering" was a typo, by the way... Happens to me a lot. My apologies."
No need to apologize. That's why I applied the "[sic]". I didn't comment on the typo (I'm worse than you about them). It's just proper procedure when quoting... Sorry if you found offense in that.
>>"why bother creating this kind of topic that creates a distinct divisive split between those who choose to believe and those who do not?"
I created this forum to comment on the unreasonable demands of some people here at BTM that questions of religion should be granted a special status which protects them from scrutiny. My point is that I don't think religion should be off limits as a matter of debate, any more than politics or philosophy. If I have an idea about a certain political system being better than another one, I may hold that belief very close to my heart and I may not be able to prove it scientifically. Does that mean that other people must respect my belief and must not challenge it? I can't use my personal and emotional connection to that belief, or its lack of scientific justification, as an excuse to shut off debate about it, and neither should the religious person use those things to protect or prop us his religious beliefs. Can you see my point?
I might well be tempted to leave the matter alone, were it not for the fact that some religious people want to take their belief a step further, from the realm of the spiritual into claims about material reality. Do you think those claims should go unchallenged as well? Some creationists are making very definite claims about the material origins of life. Are these views to be sheltered from debate because they are associated with religious beliefs? Denise would have me pay, among other things, for the promotion of Christianity in public schools. Were that ever to happen, it would be religious coercion, as far as I am concerned, and anyone who pushes that point of view can expect me to push back.
As I said in my post, I think the only solution to these disputes is to limit the power and scope of government so that the desires of the mob don't end up infringing on individual liberty. If we make all schools private, parents will be in charge of how their education dollars get spent, and there will be schools for creationists and schools for evolutionists as well. No more scrapping over what is the best way to educate our children. What could be better than that?
I'm just fine with that (I am also a Christian-so is Ron Paul). I do seek the truth in every area, and am willing to hear a person's reasons for believing or thinking something before disagreeing. As a part of a group that has often been both perceived as and behaved as judgemental know-it-alls, I would like to apologize for anytime I have come across that way, and also apologize for my brothers and sisters- We Christians often do a great job of reminding others they are sinners, while not always acknowledging our own sinfulness. Faith is a heart and head issue, and often we get so caught up in proving we are right, that we are not open-minded to the reasons others don't hold to our view. I, for example, have no issue with micro-evolution, I think it is very plausable. The issue with macro-evolution is another matter, however. Michael Behe makes a good scientific arguement for Intellegent Design in his book "Darwin's Black Box". As a homeschooling parent, I intend on teaching my children both(evolution and Intellegent Design), and they can determine, hopefully, a position that can reconcile their faith with scientific discovery.
Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone; and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.--John Quincy Adams
Thank you for your perspective. I have often considered homeschooling our two kids, and we may yet do it, depending on our circumstances.
Just curious: when you teach your children about evolution, will you be limiting the discussion to micro-evolution, or will you teach them the full theory of evolution (as the origin of the diversity of the species) that most scientists agree on? If your children prefer the theory of evolution and lose their belief in creationism, that is if they grow to believe that the many species we know today did not suddenly appear on Earth fully formed but instead descended from simpler and more primitive forms of life, how will you advise them?
scientific evidence, not for philosophical reasons.. My advice is to seek the truth, even if it leads to unexpected or unpopular conclusions. And I may even change my own position. I prefer to teach both the theory of evolution(in full) and creation, with side information concerning the theory of Intellegent Design.
Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone; and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.--John Quincy Adams
"The bottom line is that the Federal Government has no right to keep Creationism out of the public schools because the second they do so they are violating the First Amendment (not that anybody really gives a crap about that anymore).
What exactly, IS creationism? Is it science? Or is it simply superstition?
Where should it be taught in public schools? In science? Or in a math class?
What does it actually teach?
The only thing it can teach is that god created everything.
There. Class over. It has no evidence. There is no science to be done. It simply makes an assertion and that's all.
It doesn't even tell you HOW god created everything. In fact, it doesn't teach you anything or DO anything but sit there as an empty statement.
I bet even I could get an A in a creationist class.
"God created everything"...
"Very good Scotty... That's an A for you!"
> What exactly, IS creationism? Is it science? Or is it simply superstition?
< creationism is simply a critique of evolution, nothing more. as you've put it in your comment, it is an empty statement: god created everything. there is nothing to 'teach', however insert the theory of evolution into the equation and you have a full semester of idiotic arguments against it. so in a nutshell, "creationists" want to be able to have a venue to lie about evolution to children.
Thanks man, couldnt've said it better myself.
However, the government shouldn't stop creationism from being taught, whether it's a religion, or a crackpot joke, just as long as it's not considered a scientifically sound alternative (in short, theory).
"The government should be afraid of its people, not the other way around".