Univ. of Kansas Takes Up Creation Debate

That letter has got some juicy goodness in it, Kiloran.

Jefferson was a smart man.

 

Ok, I'll bite.
Under what subject category do you think it be taught in school? Religion?

 

As long as it isn't taught from the percpective of a specific religion and it's not called science there's no issue. Perhaps as part of a comparative religion class.

 

Funny, Tripp, that's just what we were discussing in my vanpool the other night. A friend of mine who went to a Jesuit high school had a very good one (that lasted two years), and sounded facinating.

It would make an interesting elective course (there was one in college, but I chose American History instead.)

I have to wonder, though, what the reaction of a comparative religion course would be to a lot of parents -- particularly the ones with very strong religious views.

 

Are you saying this is a fundamental freedom, the right to ignore reality?

 

I would agree with him -- i.e., you can take a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. But you don't serve him ice water and fan his head because of his stubborness.

 

Exactly. The life will ultimately give you a severe kick in the arse if you're too far out of tune with reality. That's a concept that I think Taoism gets across better than most other religious philosophies.

Freedom of thought (doesn't mean the thoughts are rational or intelligent) is a fundamental freedom. Except in North Korea and various other places where Big Brother does your thinking for you.

 

Among our many freedoms, the freedom of religion and the freedom of speech are the two that represent freedom of thought. So yes, not only is it a fundamental right to disagree with you about what reality is, but its one granted by the Creator, and not by any government (in other words, it is inviolable).

It is only the most dictatorial despots that believe they can interfere with the God-given rights. You might not like, but you do indeed have to live with it.

 

Its interesting who the letter is to ... IIRC, it was the Danbury Baptist Church, who were concerned that Jefferson would implement some support for other religious groups to their detriment. They weren't worried about it when a high church member was President (Washington), nor were they concerned when a like-minded conservative Christian was President (Adams). But the more liberal, probably Unitarian and possibly agnostic Jefferson scared them to death. He was the one most likely, in their view, to reinstate a state sponsored religion!

The conservative Christian position has actually flipped since the 18th century, to where now some conservative Christians think a state sponsored or "encouraged" aspect to religion would be a good thing. Too bad we have forgotten already the lessons learned by the men who founded our country.

 

I suppose there should be a link to the Flat Earth Society in here somewhere.

 

In Philosophy of Science, way back when in university, I learned that reality is reality, regardless of what we think it is. There's reality, and then there's our perceptions of reality. We can argue about our perceptions, and we can still be wrong even if we are certain.

Does freedom of religion include freedom from religion? Do people have the right to say they don't believe in god(s), without being told they're nihilistic, evil, or headed straight for hell?

 

Atheism is a faith. You're covered. Everyone deserves to be spared from the biggoted views of others concerning their faith (or in my case lack there of, I'm agnostic, not an atheist). Hell, even people who fervently believe in a god are guilty of the evil, straight to hell accusations. Calvin had a lot of blood on his hands because he couldn't tolerate other people's view. He certain wasn't/isn't alone. The same can be said for those who sought to stamp out religion through torture and murder. Joe Stalin comes to mind. I suppose the latter crowd is a more recent phenomenon but no less despicable.

 

Agnosticism, however, isn't a faith. Are agnostics covered too?
(I expect so.)

 

Actually I know nothing about Nature, but it sounds like it is a good journal. Just because it is a good journal doesn't mean it is perfect. Case in point. Journal of
Experimental Psychology (and it's accompanying subjournals) are the most pretigious and hardest journal to publish in, yet there are still articles published in it that are not the best and are even bad.

I think you misread what my post. I didn't say Time and Newsweek is where I got my scientific information, but that the vast majority of the public do not get their information from scientific journals.

As far as taking someone's word for it, you dont' just take someone's word for it in science. You expect them to provide enough information for you to be sure that they did the experiment and have the data behind it. A researcher says here is data from my experiment, scientists are going to ask what they did, how they did, all the specifics. Not taking their word for it doesn't mean BTW, I never said that my belief in a higher power was scientific, I never called it science.

I wasn't using that poll in support of ID, just to point out that that they believe in some higher power. It may or may not matter what God it is the person believes, because they are many different interpretations. You missed my entire point that, if the people who do believe in a higher power don't think that evolution leaves room for this God, (however it is conceptualized) then you can see why many people are looking for other explanations. Again it wasn't used as an argument for ID as it proves nothing about the veracity of ID's claims only at who it is trying to reach.

 

We better be covered dammit!

 

Speaking as an agnostic, I like to think of it as "securing your investments through diversification". :lol:

 

Sociology...human studies...Religion (why not, schools already have teachings about so called foreign religion...Buddhism, Muslim). In fact, I suspect the reason why these religions are "OK" in the schools is that most Americans don't think there is much of a chance of children converting...but, if children hear about Christ...THAT could result in conversion...we CAN'T have that! And most Americans have some sense of CHristianity and it's take on sinful behavior. It would be kind of hard for parents to be wallowing in bad behavior when their kids would be talking to them about Biblical issues from school.

Tripp, I agree 110%.

Ya' know....following the teachings of Christ ( not some fanatics interpretation) never HURT anyone. Warning...if you give me passages from the bible, be prepared to give the context and whether or not it is a New Testament Christ teaching.

 

Seems like He got pretty beat up following them.

 

That is true, we are warned that we will be reviled in "His" name. We are considered a "peculiar" people.

Maybe I should be glad of the quote that "Many are called, but few are chosen" :lol:

 

It's not fear. It's respect. When one religion is emphasized over others, it shows disrespect for other religions. In order to respect everyone's freedom of religion, religion is kept separate from the state and from the school.