Thanks to JE.
Palin’s Churches and the Third WavePart 1: http://www.talk2action.org/story/2008/9/5/0244/84583Part 2: http://www.talk2action.org/story/2008/9/5/03830/11602 Scary video in the second part:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5K_1Eit0pxM&eurl=http://www.talk2action.org/story/2008/9/5/03830/11602With links to other scary videos:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQ4WOOceGishttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVIPF_PmHuQ&feature=relatedhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpKR0REYrnY&feature=relatedhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7n3h0fCAYkhttp://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=964′Arming’ for ArmageddonMilitant Joel’s Army Followers Seek Theocracy By Casey Sanchez Photography by Lowell Handler Intelligence Report Fall 2008
DVan,
You may mistakenly believe that we are at war of ideals. I disagree.
My point was, if you have a purist science class, teaching the big bang and evolution as fact in the classroom, which is perfectly viable if creationism was some dying idea fading in the horizon, but, its not. You teach what you want, but, their parents are going to carry them off to church where they will be drilled yet again that science is the deception of Satan. You lose.
This scenario has been playing for decades, and your plan is still losing. Americans are still electing politicians for their religious right values. I’m saying, stop losing, face your enemy on his own ground. They have to be in school, let them use the time to put their blind faith to the test of reason. Using separation of church and state as a reason to censor the confrontation has been a miserable failure. Just look at the polls for McBush. Censorship does not work for either side of the question. Head on confrontation with the facts always does.
NeoWolfe
Neowolf,
I’m not sure sure how adding to the time children are exposed to religious concepts will somehow force them into critically examining them. They are already being forced to do so (i.e. parent and time in church vs., public school education). Most are torn between the two and most choose some level of cognitive dissidence. When one looks at America as a whole, we are not made up of mostly Christian fundamentalists. They just happen to be some of the most vocal.
And as a whole, the religious have not been winning. Not even close. Science has been putting the proverbial “smack down” on religion for the last 400 years and we’ve come a long way ? though we still have a long way to go obviously. And as for the U.S., judging America based on our current state of politics, although justified, shows somewhat a narrow view. Upswings in the religiousness of Americans is cyclical. And after each cycle, it gives more and more footing away to secularism.
I don’t believe allowing religious concepts into a public school forum will have any other effect than giving religion more credibility in the eyes of the religious. Most of us on this site are a shining example that we don’t need to debate religious concepts against scientific ones in the public school system to change minds. Many of us went to public school, had religious upbringing, and still didn’t buy the B.S.
And this isn’t censorship. Public school isn’t a democracy. All ideas are not created equal and shouldn’t be given the distinction of being so unless they can prove their merit before being introduced into a child’s education by publicly paid officials.
I agree with the notion of confronting the religious head-on. I disagree the public school system is the appropriate forum in which to do it.
Neowolfe,
In an ideal world you could be right but your stance would only be realistic if creationism were taught be neutral teachers. since 80% of the population is xtian that is not going to happen and the teaching will be slanted to creationism. the xtians know this and that is why they are pushing for it. evolution would never get a fair shake. besides who would police the fairness of the teachings?
DVW is right on this. if it ain’t science it doesn’t belong in the science class. if we cave on this we lose.
Hey, nothing like a little competition with the religious fundies!
DVW
I am just saying that both you and Neo made good points. From a strategic sense, with the goal being putting to rest creationism once and for all, Neo’s point has merit. But, like you, I wouldn’t want to take the chance on its success. Also, as you stated, it is simply ridiculous to teach non-science in a science class – better to teach creation myths in a mythology class.
You all may be exactly right. But, when you go to church, you hear one side of the story, and you may or may not admit that something has been withheld, been censored. It seems to me, and again, that to present one side of the story in school, it seems something is being censored. But, we have nothing to fear from the other side of the story. And in a controlled forum, where the merits of both are fairly presented, reason must win out.
But, that’s in a perfect world, and maybe it would be giving ground to the religious right. But, the point that we were raised in the brainwash and broke free just makes us one of the unchosen few. Others may be broken free with help by presenting proofs that the bible, and all other religions are myth. I may be wrong.
NeoWolfe
Neo
What’s being “censored” is the countless creation myths. What’s being “censored” is mythology in a science class.
The majority of Americans don’t think that creationism is mythology though. That is science teachers need to address that matter and explain why it is bad science.
NeoWolfe,
I do understand your point, and on a certain level, I can sympathize. I love seeing creation mythology obliterated when scientific process is applied.
Some of my favorites are posts by DNAUnion and Escher absolutely destroying half-baked arguments by creationists on this very blog. Go here for one of the better threads: http://tinyurl.com/5w435g
Q_F, science teachers don’t need to address it at all. Not only is it not “bad science”, it isn’t science in any way, shape, or form.
DVW
Exactly! A hypothesis that can not be tested is of less value than one that is tested and found to be wrong. Only testable hypotheses fall within the realm of science.
Do untestable hypotheses have value? Power hungry controllers of the ignorant masses find them very useful.
Believers can make up any B.S. they like and never be faced with the possibility of their delusions…oops, I mean hypotheses, being falsified. Now that’s value!
I have a question for all of those evangelical xians who are supporting Palin: how can you reconcile her unwed teen daughters pregnancy with the teachings of Jesus that adultery is a sin and the fact that adultery is forbidden by one of the Ten Commandments? could you support Palin if her daughter were a 1esbian who was married to another woman? Jesus never spoke about homosexuality and it is not forbidden in the Ten Commandents. How can you explain this becasue I sure dont get it.
DVW
Ch-ching!
Godless
Those are good questions.
You have challenged their delusion. What will follow is your incorporation into their delusion as Satan’s little helper.
Try confronting a schizophrenic about one of their delusions. There are plenty schizophrenics on the streets thanks to the way our barbaric society treats people with mental illness. They will simply avoid the confrontation or incorporate you into it. Sound familiar?
I may have conceded the debate, but not on the basis of admission that what I was saying didn’t follow reason, that is, the head on debate for hearts and minds in front of our children between rediculous mythology and real science. It happens nowhere else. Religions publish their books about how evolution is a wild theory and that selected facts and opinions prove that creation is real. When the children are in school, in science class, we teach that the present state of life on our planet is a result of evolution. Any person who has even a basic knowledge of early life on this planet knows that the mechanism of evolution is built into lifeforms, and has no doubt of it. But, I conceded the debate, because Dvan was right. It’s not about opportunities to debate the issues in front of the hearts and minds we wish to win, its about setting an incredibly dangerous precedent of letting religion in the front door, because then we have to figure out how to make them leave. I was wrong.
NeoWolfe
Oh my god…. I am afraid for this country. Can you believe that people are taking her seriously… that women voters have gone from supporting Hillary to supporting this hockey mom jesus freak? I am afraid.
DiArtemis
Hillary will go after the beauty queen like nobody else can. Poor Sarah. Oh well, one shouldn’t bring a curling iron to a gunfight.
Now that’s what I like about NeoWolfe.
DiArtemis,
When McBush announced his pick for running mate I thought he had for sure tripped on his dick, but, when I heard her speak, I instantly knew this is one dangerous bitch.
Another member speculated that Hillary supporters would never support her. I urged caution, that not all Hillary supporters were hardcore Democrats. Some voted for her because she was the first woman with a realistic shot at the whitehouse, and some voted for her because she wasn’t black.
It’s a new ballgame folks. Hold on to your seats.
NeoWolfe