There are a couple of interesting stories on the continued struggle over teaching evolution in public schools. In Louisiana, the state has approved special rules allowing teachers to challenge the basis of the theory of evolution. In California, a court ruled that a history teacher’s criticism of creationism violated the Constitution.
Louisiana, which has long had some of the lowest achievement levels in public education, will now have teachers challenging the basis of evolution. The alternative is obviously a belief in creationism. This will allow the use of supplemental materials, presumably including “intelligent design” material.
For the full story, click here.
While you can criticize evolution in Louisiana, you cannot criticize creationism in California. A court found that European history teacher, James Corbett, 62, violated by Constitution by referring to creationism as “superstitious nonsense”.
Chad Farnan, a devout Christian studying at California’s Capistrano Valley high school, had originally sued over a series of comments made by his teacher. It appears that Farnan spent many months collecting a dossier of material against Corbett before bringing the action.
The court threw out all but the last comment.
He is represented by Jennifer Monk, who works for a not-for-profit Christian law firm, Advocates for Faith and Freedom. She still claimed victory in establishing that the comment was actionable. I think she is right that it was a considerable victory. While the Court recently ruled that her client could not recover damages from the teacher, it still established the principle that a teacher cannot criticize creationism. It just shows that, if you want to argue for creationism, find a Monk.
What is interesting is that the basis for the ruling is that creationism is a religious belief. However, creationists have been advancing the same views under the label “intelligent design” and insist that this is not teaching religion. Thus, in places like Louisiana, they are likely to be calling for intelligent design material to be used in class. Does that mean if Corbett said “intelligent design is “superstitious nonsense”, it would not violate the Constitution?
Judge James Selna’s decision draws a curious line. He found that it does not violate the establishment clause for Corbett to say such things as “when you put on your Jesus glasses, you can’t see the truth” because this statement was made in a historical context. He also ruled that it was not a violation to say “conservatives don’t want women to avoid pregnancies — that’s interfering with God’s work” and that there was as much evidence that God created the world “as there is that there is a gigantic spaghetti monster living behind the moon who did it”.
Ok, I am now confused. Selna insists that “there was no legitimate secular purpose to the statement and it constituted ‘improper disapproval of religion in violation of the establishment clause.’” The big spaghetti monster didn’t raise the same issue?
It sounds to me that Corbett went a bit far and should be a bit more circumspect. However, teaching evolution necessarily rejects the concept that a divine being simply created all of nature in a few days — just a few thousand years ago. While politicians still insist that carbon dating is a myth and the Earth was relatively recently created, teachers teach facts not faith. Evolution is a fact.
The other issue is the fact that this is a high school class. I would be very concerned about such comments in an elementary or middle school. However, in high school, teachers will often try to challenge their students and engage them in spirited debate. That is usually a matter for internal review at the school as opposed to fully fledge litigation.
Selna did rule in favor of Corbett on the issue of “qualified immunity,” holding “Corbett is shielded from liability – not because he did not violate the Constitution, but because of the balance which must be struck to allow public officials to perform their duties.”
For the earlier story, click here
For the latest story, click here.
and this is exactly why Jefferson wrote the Virginia Statute for Establishing Religious Freedom.
The state has no business telling people what they can and cannot teach. Teach them both and let people make up their own minds.
This is why the state should not be in the business of education.
Byron, the state plays an active role in education. Elementary school through the state colleges and public universities and communitiy colleges, they have there hand in almost all the educational pie. This is good, this works. This is how the masses get educated and wise.
It has become embarrassing to be be an American. Every time I think the race for our country to become more stupid (generally under color of ‘religious freedom’) has bottomed out I am presented an example of further excavation. Embarrassing.
Byron:
“Teach them both and let people make up their own minds.
This is why the state should not be in the business of education.”
*************
Ok, Byron, I want you to teach the “Stork Theory” of human reproduction; the “Santa Claus Theory” of Christmas presents for kids; and the “I can see Russia from my window” Theory of International Relations. Get that curriculum going now!
Like it or not the state is and always will be in “education”. All facets of public education from K-1, thru the public university system, are beholdin’ to the state. This is a reality, unless you plan to attend private schools, or home school your kids, then have them matriculate to only private postsecondary education. Unless you choose this path, you are in the system baby….
“Teach them both and let people make up their own minds.”
Byron,
You are setting up a false equivalency. Evolution is a scientific theory that at least has some proof to back it up.
“Creationism” is a Christian belief in how the Universe came about based on a false interpretation of the Jewish Torah. It is irrelevant to me if someone chooses to believe that the world is 6,000 years old and that Genesis is a true explanation of the Universe’s creation. It becomes relevant when people want to have this taught in our schools alongside evolution. There is simply no evidence of any kind, other than faith that the universe was created as stated in Genesis, therefore it has no place being taught in public schools.
My religion for instance believes that eating pork and shellfish are “abominations” in God’s eyes. Should that be taught in biology classes when discussing the food groups? A line has to be drawn between religious dogma and actual science. I admit that evolution is not a perfect theory, but there is a lot of evidence that supports it. On the other hand, just answer who were the women that Adam and Eve’s sons married and you arrive at the creationist dilemma. Genesis is internally illogical as a creation story and thus has no business being taught in any place but religious settings.
Its not the teachers job to interject his opinion. Its one thing to spark debate between students, its another to degrade ones beliefs.
Here, here, Chris…..
mespo:
I am working on it.
the Vlasic pickle stork is my model. He brings pickles as well as babies so you kill 2 birds with one stone.
To Mike and Mespo:
While I don’t believe in biblical creation, the bible is one of the foundational books of western culture. I would think if you teach creationism and evolution the preponderance of evidence pointing to evolution would sway most any rational person to the theory of evolution.
Secondarily, if a person is against creationism and it is being taught in schools does he not have the right to fundamentally disagree with how his tax dollars are being spent? Likewise for a christian who believes in creation. As Jefferson said it is up to the conscience of the individual as to how he worships or does not worship.
Maybe the answer is to not teach either one.
As a Catholic, I have no anxiety believing in evolution. I believe this is a system that God implemented, allowing creatures and all living organisms to form over eons of time. As a Catholic, I am not forbidden to believe this. I also don’t have problems with people believing literally in the story of creation. I personally believe that modern man has an immortal soul, once man could respond to the call of his Creator, and love Him freely, this I believe is “us” modern man, Adam and Eve, if you will. Adam in Hebrew means “man”…
To Byron:
The answer is to teach evolution in science classes
and to teach creationism in comparative religion classes.
Without challenge and verification of facts and testing of hypothesis one cannot have science. If your faith is so weak, it cannot either coexist with science or withstand the scrutiny of science, you should keep it in your home instead of sending your children to school ill-equipped to learn what they are SUPPOSED to be teaching in schools which is critical thinking and logic.
See how far the English are willing to go in stopping your right to question facts . . . http://jonathanturley.org/2009/09/12/homeowner-convicted-for-beating-armed-robber-faces-tort-liability/#comment-79351 And that’s just libel law. You’re talking about allowing children to assert their religion over learning the skills required not just for them to succeed in life, but for this country to succeed. When you raise people incapable of exercising rational thought and critical reasoning skills because it hurts their feelings about their “beliefs”, you raise a nation of dullards and barbarians.
Well whaddaya know . . .
Religion is for your home and the building you go to once a week to compare wardrobes with your neighbors. It has no place in the classroom where rational inquiry is taught. It is a “belief” and is therefore antithetical to teaching critical thinking and logic. Even the Jesuits know this. That’s why their schools offer courses in both science and comparative religion.
But you can still discuss good and evil in a scholastic and theologically neutral manner in schools. It’s called “ethics”. So instead of raising your children to be unthinking religious reactionaries, you know, like the Taliban, how about sending them to school with an open mind? Teach them to be ethical first and religious second. At home if you want to wear hair shirts, knock yourself out, but you’re not doing a favor to your children teaching them that their religion should trump any other concern on Earth. It’s stupid and it’s dangerous and it makes for bad citizens.
Right on, John Puma!!
Mike:
there were good reasons 5,000 years ago to not eat pork and shellfish.
I recently read an article in SA about a research program that is checking the mitochondrial (maternal) DNA to determine human migration and they can take it back [so far] to one woman in Africa. There are probably others but this woman is the matriarch of a good portion of the human family.
There is much information yet to discover and while we have discovered a great deal through rational scientific process there is still an entire universe of knowledge yet to be discovered.
Is evolution as understood 100% correct? Probably not and in 50 years people will look back and say wow those people were foolish to believe in natural selection.
How do you know that “creation” of species isn’t actually closer to how species of animals were created rather than evolution? I am not talking God creation here.
Anyway it is just a thought.
Cogently presented buddha..
I’m Dr. Corbett. Here’s my statement:
Yesterday Judge Selna ruled in my favor on the last of the 22 “counts” against me. He has found that neither I, nor the CUSD are liable for any damages. At the same time, he left standing his opinion that my characterization of John Peloza’s teaching of creation science as “superstitious religious nonsense” violated Chad’s rights. Even though the judge found no liability, I am unhappy that his opinion damages my reputation in the minds of those who do not know the truth. The “Advocates for Faith and Freedom” have made it clear that they plan to appeal. That appeal should give me the opportunity to reverse the decision on the Peloza statement, so I welcome the “Advocates” efforts.
The biggest question yet to be decided is whether the “Advocates” will be required to pay all the expenses associated with my defense. The decision to go after that money is one that the school board must approve. I hope they do so, it would be a shame for the CUSD to pay anything for this travesty.
The following is a statement I released to the press after the decision:
After twenty years of teaching at the university level including stints at Stephens College (a women’s college) in Missouri, Lincoln University which is a black land grant school, and Beirut University College in Lebanon, among others, I realized that my joy came from teaching, not from doing research. With a Ph.D. from The Ohio State University, I could have stayed at the collegiate level, but without research credits, my initial options would have been limited to a junior college or some other not-so-selective institution. Once I met the research requirements there, I could have pursued a tenured position anywhere.
Chad Farnan’s complaint is centered on the way I meet the CUSD Board Policy that relates to Challenging Instructional Topics and Practices. Specifically, that policy states, “…students shall have the opportunities to discuss issues which have political, social, or economic significance and which the students are mature enough to investigate.” My class is a college-level class, and as such, I believe they should be mature enough to discuss virtually anything that appears in a major newspaper. I teach AP European History, but make no mistake – the crucial curriculum of the class is independent, critical thought offered through the extremely well-suited platform of European History. The class is often the first opportunity my students have to experience and develop their own independent thoughts and goals and question the political, economic, educational, societal and, yes, religious, conventions imposed from their childhood. I actively seek to nudge this process along, making the students think about, defend, and even reconsider the conventions they had taken for granted. I believe these brilliant and fascinating youth – our leaders of tomorrow – become better and more productive students, citizens, spouses and partners, leaders and parents when they think for themselves and develop – and achieve – their own goals based on their own core beliefs and ethics. Critical and independent thought is the springboard to that success.
I make my classroom safe for any opinion, and I exercise discretion when deciding if a particular issue is suitable for a particular class. I understand that some parents may disagree with my methods, so for many years now, in June or July before students enter the class, I send a note home to every parent and student, including the Farnans. That note reads, in part:
Current Events
“Those who do not know history are condemned to repeat it.”-Kalil Gibran [also attributed to George Santayana]
Most days we will spend a few minutes (sometimes more) at the beginning of class discussing current events from either the Orange County Register or the L.A. Times. I may also use material from a variety of news websites. Discussion will be quite provocative, and focus on the “lessons” of history. My goal is to have you go home with something that will provoke discussion with your parents. Students may offer any perspective without concern that anything they say will impact either my attitude toward them or their grades. I encourage a full range of views.
I include my home phone number and e-mail address in the letter and encourage parents to contact me if they have any concerns. I have never revealed my own political or religious views, nor have I promoted a partisan point-of-view.
The Farnans have brought me to judgment for doing my best to be a servant to their son. They have sewn discord in my life and divisiveness in our community. The suit has troubled our school district and the public servants entrusted with its care. The lawsuit was needless and pointless. It cost a significant sum of money that should have been spent on the education of children. It served no purpose, beyond ruining my reputation and putting fear in the heart of every teacher who makes the effort to get his students to think on their own. I don’t know for sure why the Farnans’ lawyers, the so-called “Advocates for Faith and Freedom,” filed the suit without contacting me or trying to establish a dialogue with anyone from the school district. But I believe the publicity they’ve gained has likely helped them reap a steady influx of donations to their “legal ministry.”
In my opinion, Chad Farnan has been ill-served in this case. He may find admission to a quality non-Christian school challenging, because such institutions may try to avoid a student who has sued his teacher and his school without making any pre-lawsuit effort to discuss, much less resolve, his claims outside of court. The school district has been ill-served because they have been forced to pay for a defense attorney in a case that, in my opinion, never should have been filed in the first place. I believe the children in the district have likewise been ill-served, because money that should have gone to their educational opportunities was used to defend the lawsuit. The only “winners” in the case are the “Advocates for Faith and Freedom” who constantly used this case as a platform to solicit donations. Very few law firms, it would seem, can make money by losing cases, but the “Advocates” have managed to flourish under that model, and in the name of God. I’ll leave it to the reader to decide who is the “bad guy” in this tragedy.
Jim
Chris
1, September 17, 2009 at 6:31 pm
Its not the teachers job to interject his opinion. Its one thing to spark debate between students, its another to degrade ones beliefs.
—
To say that Creationism is wrong is not opinion- it is scientific fact. A belief passed off as fact has no place in a system of learning and certainly no secular education system. People that have a world view based on demonstrably false premise need to have that belief disabused to the point that the state is satisfied that that the state has done it’s job of education well enough that the student can pass a standardized test on the subject. The flip side of your statement is “it’s another to degrade ones facts with your (irrational) belief.”
Until the ‘superstitious nonsense’ that passes for Creationism can pass the rigorous and long standing application of the scientific method California is wrong in condemning James Corbett.
Byron,
The problem I have with religion is that every religion thinks they are one hundred percent correct. That is the same problem with people who think that religion is “superstitious non sense”. Nobody has all the answers and science is relative what we think we know right now.
Buddah,
I think that you are right on about being objective and teaching your children to have an open mind. The problem here is that it is not the teachers job to give his opinion about which religions are and are not superstitious nonsense.
Dr. Corbett,
When the times seem dark in your fighting the good fight, recall that people of reason and champions of the scientific truths our species has sacrificed so much in learning are behind men like you and would never consider speaking truth to make you a “bad guy”. Anyone who does has some confusion on the whole “good/bad” dichotomy.
To thinking people, you’re a hero.
Chris,
It is the teacher’s right to have an express an opinion just as it’s your right to disagree with it, but curtailing his free speech just to keep you happy over a “belief” is just theocratic fascism. If you or your child don’t like the teacher’s opinion, then don’t adopt it for yourself. I once assisted teaching a science class where one guy just flat refused to believe in surface tension. That didn’t stop him from breaking both his legs when he jumped into a quarry from too high a spot. A belief is just that, a belief. It doesn’t make the holder special. And once again, if your faith can’t withstand the light of reason as well as a differing opinion, then it’s not much of a faith now is it?
Professors and teachers in general do themselves a disservice when they attempt to impose there own personal value system on there pupils. Religion is a very personal and touchy subject, always obey the conscience. Trouble ensues when we don’t…
Lottakatz,
I am not a religious person at all. I have a problem with people who think they have all the answers, whether they are religious or not. Science is relative to what we know right now. Its not perfect, its a work in progress and we continue to learn new things about our planet all the time. There are tons of things in science that are unexplainable, just like religion.
James Corbett
1, September 17, 2009 at 7:17 pm
I’m Dr. Corbett. Here’s my statement:
“… I am unhappy that his opinion damages my reputation in the minds of those who do not know the truth.”
———
I can not imagine the horror and burden this foolish young man and his ‘advocates’ have imposed on you and I have no idea what remedy you have available to you. It is though my opinion that you have behaved in a manner appropriate to your profession both as a teacher and man of integrity. Your opposers are no different that the religious/political elites that, for their own self-aggrandizing purpose, imposed the Dark Ages on Europe. You are a candle in the darkness and I wish you every legal success.
Also keep in mind the the people that don’t know the truth- about your role as a teacher, creationism and/or the relationship between church and state would not ‘vote’ for you anyway. Pleas do not lose any more sleep over them.
Buddah,
Im not religious at all, I don’t believe in any of them. I would have just as much of a problem if his opinion was that creationism was perfect.
Free speech is a good thing. There are ramifications to “free speech” though..
In case you missed it on Constitution day thread.
Criminal Contempt Case Over a Meal Prayer Goes to Trial on National Constitution Day.
http://lc.org/index.cfm?PID=14102&AlertID=1035
Chris
1, September 17, 2009 at 7:24 pm
Byron,
The problem I have with religion is that every religion thinks they are one hundred percent correct. That is the same problem with people who think that religion is “superstitious non sense”.”
Buddah,
“… The problem here is that it is not the teachers job to give his opinion about which religions are and are not superstitious nonsense.”
——later post:
” … Science is relative to what we know right now. Its not perfect, its a work in progress and we continue to learn new things about our planet all the time.”
======
One thing we do know is that the Earth is more than 7000 years old, people did not hunt off the backs of dinosaurs and the complexity of the eye in humans is entirely appropriate for a large omnivore that is also a prey animal for other large predators.
We also know that all religions rely on a creation myth that is not subject to the scientific method- a method to determine the likely-hood of of its truth or fallacy. That and its half-baked spawn such as creationism has no business being taught as fact or respected in a teaching environment.
If people want to teach it to their kids, fine- do it after school or in Sunday school. Do not degrade the overall quality of a state sponsored and secular education by supplanting science with belief. My tax dollars should not be appropriated to impose religious belief on my kids: religious belief will not get my kids in a good university, get them well paying jobs in any applied scientific field or improve the lot of medicine and the populous at large that relies on medicine or applied science.
From first post above: “The problem here is that it is not the teachers job to give his opinion about which religions are and are not superstitious nonsense”
It is his job to call nonsense on any theory that is nonsense REGARDLESS of which religion is pushing it IMO.
Chris,
Perhaps the writing was unclear. I meant “you” in the generic sense. I didn’t perceive you as showing a bias either way. You come off more as a Devil’s Advocate type.
And for the record, I’m a big fan of the imperfectibility of knowledge. I’ve gone on about Kurt Gödel and his incompleteness theorems so much I’m sure some of the regulars think I’m secretly a German scientist. That being said, I’m going to give science the edge because of Scientific Method. Empiricism and logic with their interrelation to our communication skills are the true fire Prometheus stole from the Gods. More dangerous than fire, but also more useful when properly harnessed. It’s a precision tool with built-in veracity proofing. No faith required. To me, what one can demonstrate and repeat trumps any leap of faith simply because if you can make something happen time and again then that is the nature of reality no matter what you “believe”.
In case you missed this on another thread:
Buddah,
I don’t really care which is correct, religion or science, one day we will all find out (or not find out) I just don’t like a teacher saying that what someone believes is superstitious non-sense. He does have his right to his opinion, and when I was in school I like to debate quite a bit. But slandering what someone believes isn’t sparking debate. There is a constructive way to question the creationism belief system and debate what each person believes is fact. Would you have a problem if his opinion was the opposite and and that was what he was teaching?
BIL: “…To me, what one can demonstrate and repeat trumps any leap of faith simply because if you can make something happen time and again then that is the nature of reality no matter what you “believe”.”
========
Or, as importantly (I’m you know) one can NOT replicate the result; the fallacy of ones conclusions is obvious also, no matter what one may believe. It is a blade that cuts both ways much to its credit and integrity.
Chris,
The boy has the right to call the teacher a Godless heathen. If that’s not enough equity for you, that’s too bad. Free speech includes the right to disagree.
You can’t slander a “belief”. A person, yes, a concept? Good luck with that. It’s like slandering an abstractions. “I think hope sucks” or “Sigma is the root of all evil”. Now your bias is showing. Religion is not subject to ridicule? Then I suppose it’s not open to questioning either. You apparently think a religious belief is some kind of protected class of what exactly? Person? Thought? Just exactly where you you going with this desire to stifle free speech?
lottakatz,
I like a double-edge. What can I say.
“where are you”
typing and eating pizza not mutually conducive.
Mr. Spindell,
Ketiva ve-chatima tovah.
Truly.
P.S. I believe in creation because it comforts me. I believe in science because it makes my life easier.
Education is spent on POG initiatives. No real reason to educate in your going to extinguish them any way.
GOP
BIL From my post: ‘(I’m you know)’ should have been ‘(I’m SURE you know)’
I know you know. From your postings on the thread regarding the intruder fended off with a sword I did get the impression you liked a good blade
I once saw a documentary on swords that stated that a good Japanese blade properly sharpened had a cutting edge a few molecules beyond the visible edge. It occurred to me that any good blade should be similarly endowed- it’s the nature of molecular things to be ‘fuzzy’ at the visible edges.
I don’t have a sword but the better half and I did accumulate a nearly full set of righteous Henckles knives about 25 years ago. I was always happy that our taste in blades was given props by Michael Myers, who used a 10inch Henckles Chefs knife in the first movie. I use mine daily
Just for the record, I did not disparage anyone. My comment (superstitious religious nonsense) referred to the teaching of a biology teacher at my school who was teaching “young earth creationism.” He sued the District, Dept. Chair, Principal, administrators and student newspaper (I was the adviser), asserting his right “as a qualified biology teacher,” under the principles of academic freedom, to teach that nonsense at a public high school while ignoring the state curriculum, directives by his superiors, and in spite of many complaints from parents. He lost the suit which the judge tossed out noting that it was a “frivolous lawsuit filed in bad faith.” What I said in class was that John Peloza (the teacher)was teaching “superstitious religious nonsense,” not science. I await an apology from all those who didn’t bother to find out the facts before they condemned me for using that phrase. I’ll bet I’ve got a long wait.
We get it, stop looking for strokes.
bUDDHA:
”
When you raise people incapable of exercising rational thought and critical reasoning skills because it hurts their feelings about their “beliefs”, you raise a nation of dullards and barbarians.”
I think we are there.
anyway reason and science are not mutually exclusive as Thomas Aquinas and Peter Abelard and William of Ockham have proven, although there might be a little dispute.
There is nothing ‘unexplainable’ in science, just things that haven’t yet been explained.
1.There are no topics, beliefs, systems, ideas, philosophies or thoughts of any kind which are, or ought to be, immune from either criticism or actual ridicule.
2.Anyone who is unable to understand the distinction between the teaching of scientific theory and of theological tenets is unqualified to be involved in the development of school curricula.
3.Creationism is not merely a system of religious belief; it is a system of religious belief peculiar to only a small segment of one branch of the family of religions. Accordingly, the teaching of creationism as science in public schools violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
This is not actually complicated. It has merely been made to appear so by fundamentalists who view any restrictions upon the dissemination of their particular religious beliefs in government funded institutions to somehow constitute discrimination against religion. To the contrary, the actual legal battle is between religious freedom and the imposition of Christian fundamentalism as the state religion in this country.
My personal view is that Christian fundamentalism is authoritarian, anti-intellectual, intolerant and unworthy of serious discussion. My tax dollars should not be utilized to promote its doctrines either in the school system or through faith-based initiatives programs.
Mike A.,
Well said. The idea that the public education system is being hijacked by the far religious right is disturbing.
Still waitin’ for some copenhagen dippin’ hunter to bring in a Sasquatch. I’ve been waiting since I was twelve and saw Mysterious Monsters at the Simi Drive-In, back in the 70′s. Everytime I watch the Patterson film from 67′, I get the chills. I am convinced that this is a “Bigfoot” and possibly a subspecies of Gigantopithecus blacki, or some other type of yet unknown anthropoid.
Re bdaman’s video:
Does it bother anyone else that the US government employs Chaplains in the military? How is that not a violation of the establishment clause? I bet they don’t hire a chaplain for every religion. Didn’t James Madison have something to say about that?
To Dan,
Wonder about military chaplains? Consider this:
” Military Evangelism Deeper, Wider Than First Thought”
http://www.truthout.org/article/military-evangelism-deeper-wider-than-first-thought
To Mike A,
Are you sayining that there was no case against Corbett because Peloza should not have been teaching creationism in the first place – as proven, in part, by his own, failed lawsuit?
And to think that each legislative session is opened by a prayer.
Mike Appleton:
re: your 11:13 pm post above
Mespo sent me an article about Jefferson’s Virginia Statute for Freedom of Religion. I read the article and the statute and what I took away from it was not a separation of government and religion but a protection of religion from government establishing a central religion supported by government and supportive of government as they had had in England.
Reading that article and the statute have caused me to look at this whole establishment question in a different light. Jefferson was protecting religion and the ability of the individual to practice his religion per the dictates of his conscience, he was not protecting government. Jefferson also included atheism in this protection.
So the question, in my mind, becomes why should atheists have sway over the debate? Are not Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu ideas not as relevant? I am not speaking only of evolution at this point. And so why cant a manger scene be acceptable at Christmas on public property or at Ramadan a scene relevant to Islam or on a Hindu holy day something that has meaning for them? But all religion is banned from the public square and that seems to me to be an establishment of atheism as the national religion which is exactly what Mr. Jefferson did not want.
Byron,
Perhaps you should distinguish between “atheism” and “secular”.
a⋅the⋅ism -
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
sec⋅u⋅lar –
1. of or pertaining to worldly things or to things that are not regarded as religious, spiritual, or sacred; temporal: secular interests.
2. not pertaining to or connected with religion (opposed to sacred ): secular music.
3. (of education, a school, etc.) concerned with nonreligious subjects.
4. (of members of the clergy) not belonging to a religious order; not bound by monastic vows (opposed to regular ).
5. occurring or celebrated once in an age or century: the secular games of Rome.
6. going on from age to age; continuing through long ages.
While Jefferson was a self-proclaimed Christian, that is a question debated by scholars. By his actions and writings on religion, it becomes apparent that Jefferson was far more complicated than the simple label (or indeed most labels of any sort) implies. But I don’t think he was going for atheism either. His aim was secular government. I think that’s an important distinction.
Byron:
Jefferson was a deist and had no desire to see “God” excluded from the public square. He, like many today, drew the distinction between the deity and the paltry, corrupted attempts at worship created by man known as religion. The pernicious effects of religion (such as power mongering and dogmatism)were as evident to him then and they should be to us today. Jefferson recognized that:
“History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.” (Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813).
Religious dogmatism, which even the most benign religions devolve to be, was an anathema to Jefferson’s rational view of the world:
“I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent.” (Thomas Jefferson, letter to Francis Hopkinson, March 13, 1789)
This why Jefferson believed the wall holding back the seething tide of internecine warfare based upon dogmatic views of what should or shouldn’t be must be an unequivocal separator from the public square where its pernicious effects could lead to civil strive based on conflicting beliefs that were not subject to rational challenge.
His letter to the Danbury Baptists demonstrates that evident truth:
“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship,that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions,I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between church and State. (Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT., Jan. 1, 1802).
Government to legislate actions and not beliefs was a direct challenge to religion’s soul crushing obession to regulate beliefs and actions. This was his (and if I may bandwagon with the great sage–mine as well) greatest fear for the fledgling republic.
Byron you are exactly right. There are choices though, such as homeschool. This is being attacked as well. North Carolina Judge, Judge Mangum forced two homeschoolers back to public school is a prime example.
When issuing his verdict Judge Mangum stated his decision was not ideologically or religiously motivated. He told thier mother public school will “challenge the ideas you’ve taught them.” In other words, Judge Mangum is a liberal judge who wants to retrain the children in a way that they succumb to the ways and teachings of “government”
What has emerged is a picture of a clearly liberal judge imposing his beliefs and striking down traditional values. Mangum, a Democrat appointee, disregarded the facts of the case in favor of his own agenda. Such anti-conservative prejudice is increasingly legislated from the bench, and appears to be encouraged by the Democratic Obama administration. It’s just another way that Judge’s impose their Social Engineering on people. Obama canceled the school voucher progarm while sending his children to private school.
On March 24th lawmakers in North Carolina were reminded of the sheer numbers of homeschoolers in their state. As students and their parents descended on the capitol, organizers of the Capital Fest 2009 field trip showed they have a voice in North Carolina legislation regarding education.
Homeschoolers from across the nation are asked to fight back to defend their rights as Americans to educate their children. Many feel that the judge has been given a free hand to impose his personal opinions and needs to reexamine his decisions. You can find more information on how to participate at HSinjustice.com.
And if you didn’t watch the youtube video I posted Call to Dunkirk you should.
Buddha:
Reading those papers, I am not so sure he was trying to create a secular government. It appears to me he was trying to establish a government that would not prohibit any religion or lack of or the free exercise thereof.
I certainly cant devine Mr. Jefferson’s intentions and can only take an opinion on what I read, but the founders were mostly well educated men and they knew how to communicate using the English language.
“Well aware that the opinions and belief of men depend not on their own will, but follow involuntarily the evidence proposed to their minds; that [Whereas,] Almighty God hath created the mind free, and manifested his
supreme will that free it shall remain by making it altogether insusceptible of restraint; that all attempts to influence by temporal punishments, or burthens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, who being lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do, but to extend it by its influence on reason alone, that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world through all time”
“that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency is a dangerous fallacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty, because he being of course judge of that tendency will make his opinions the rule of judgment, and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own; that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order; and finally, that truth is great and will prevail if left to herself; that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate; errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them.”
both quotes from The Virginia Statute for Establishing Religious Freedom
Byron,
Welcome back! As well as the fine points made above by mespo and Buddha, Creationism is clearly the establishment of Christianity as a state sponsored religion. Their is no science in Creationism. The Dover,PA case looked extensively into it’s history and it is clearly an attempt to establish a christianity as a state sponsored religion.
I think creation stories of as many religions and cultures as poassible, should be taught under anthropology. Creation stories are very important in each society, and subsets within that society. I consider knowing them a part of education. But no creation story has the validity of science behind it, so none of them can be taught as a “science” no matter how disguised.
I think if you bring up the idea of teaching Creationism in the classromm with Goddess instead of God, after many parents have stopped stonning you, you will see they do not mean this as “religion” neutral! (I think you would get a lot of hate mail as a teacher or parent who wanted creation stories from many cultures taught in anthropology as well.)
Does this mean that The Flintstones was a documentary?
More mischief by the Undersheperd Bdaman:
Judge Mangum’s ruling is against the mother (she is the plaintiff) trying to keep the father from having any influence on their children.
She wants to severly limit his contact with their children and keep the children away from anyone critical of the cult she has joined.
Mespo:
in regards to the Danbury Baptist letter, it appears to me, after reading your recommended paper and the Statute, that Jefferson is saying he is glad that religion is being protected from the state, not the converse.
“thus building a wall of separation between church and State.”
When you build a wall for protection, as I believe this is what Jefferson is saying, the wall is to keep something out and since church is the first word this is what you are protecting and it falls in line with his thinking in “The Virginia Statute for Establishing Religious Freedom”. He is protecting religion from the state not the other way around. Whereas the current thinking is protecting the state from religion.
Although I will agree that he would probably be opposed to Bob McDonnell and his views on religion and it’s use to determine legislation.
CCD:
If the mother joined a cult that is her choice unless it is an illegal cult. If the children are not being harmed and are getting proper care then it is not the states business. If you infringe on this woman’s rights to home school, at some point there could be a conservative Christian judge who could quite easily tell a liberal school system to fire all teachers who don’t believe in God.
Although I believe the children should not be deprived of their fathers’ love and affection.
John Puma, what I am saying is that there is no case against Dr. Corbett because nothing in the Constitution protects a person’s religious beliefs from criticism or ridicule. Whether his comments were appropriate within the particular setting is a policy issue, not a constitutional one. Inasmuch as his course was described as a college level European history course emphasizing the development of critical thinking skills, I fail to understand the controversy. If the student in question was offended, that is not evidence that his religious rights were violated, although it may be evidence that he (and his parents) are seriously deficient in the very skills demanded in Dr. Corbett’s classes. The remedy, if you will, should have been the student’s withdrawal from the class.
Mike Appleton:
why are people so gutless when it comes to derision of held beliefs? All it makes me do is work a little harder to try and prove the other guy wrong. And if I find he is actually right then I change my belief to be in line with the reality. If there is evidence of either being correct, based on the extent of knowledge at that point, then I retain mine until proven wrong.
Byron my dedication to you sir.
Days grow shorter and the night are getting long
Feels like we’re running out of time
Everyday seems much harder telling right from wrong
You’ve got to read between the lines
Don’t get discouraged
Don’t be afraid
You can make it through another day
Make it worth the price we pay
The good book says it’s better to give than to recieve
I do my best to do my part
Nothing in my pockets I got nothing up my sleeve
I keep my magic in my heart
Keep up your spirit
Keep up your faith baby
I am counting on you
You know what you’ve got to do
Fight the good fight every moment
Every minute, every day
Fight the good fight every moment
It’s your only way
All your life you’ve been waiting for your chance
where you’ll fit into the plan
You’re the master of your own destiny
So hive and take the best that you can
You think a little more money will buy your soul some rest
You’d better think something else instead
You’re so afraid of being honest with yourself
You’d better take a look inside your head
Nothing is easy, Nothing good is free
But I can help you where to start
Take a look inside your heart
There’s an aswere in your heart
Fight the good fight every moment
Every minute, every day
Fight the good fight every moment
Make it worth the price we pay
Every moment of your lifetime
Every minute, every day
Fight the good fight every moment
Make it worth the price we pay
Nate,
Leshanah tovah tikateiv veteichateim.
Mike
“I believe in creation because it comforts me. I believe in science because it makes my life easier.”
We all have beliefs, many with no factual basis and yet our “guts” tell us they’re true. This is as it should be because our “guts” often
express truths our brains can’t fathom. May you and yours have a good year and an easy fast. May you also be inscribed in the Book of Life for another go round.
bdaman:
thanks, but I actually don’t believe in creation, I just think that people should have the right to personal points of view without derision especially from a person with power over them. My son has been on the end of this type of behaviour and it is Bravo Sierra for a teacher to mock and/or make fun of a student.
I don’t think the teacher should be sued and the student should just drop the class and tell the prof that he is, with all due respect, an a.. wipe. Everyone holds beliefs that are simple or down right stupid (Except Prof. Turley!), the quest for knowledge is never ending.
Byron welcome back from vacation:
“If the children are not being harmed and are getting proper care then it is not the states business,” Byron.
Yes I agree, but their father objected to the home schooling,
via the Sound Doctrine Church.
Judge Mangum ruled against the mother because some former members of Sound Doctrine allege the church was abusive, practiced brainwashing and was run by fear and manipulation.
(What’s in a name??)
Thomas Goldsmith writing for News and Observer, here: http://www.newsobserver.com/news/story/1447447.html
Bdaman cuts and pastes directly from the Ben Graham article from the “Right on Right” website, without acknowledging Mr. Graham. http://www.rightontheright.com/node/3785
I don’t know how to get Wake District Court Judge Ned Mangum ruling from March 6, 2009. Could one of the seasoned veterans point me in the direction. From Goldsmith’s article the ruling does not appear to be against parents home schooling.
Forcing a child into a life of utter delusion and muddle-headed thinking under the guise of religious liberty is child abuse of the worst kind. You can recover from blows to the body, but handicapping the child’s ability to think rationally makes him worse than an automaton-it makes him Glenn Beck.
“And so why cant a manger scene be acceptable at Christmas on public property or at Ramadan a scene relevant to Islam or on a Hindu holy day something that has meaning for them? But all religion is banned from the public square and that seems to me to be an establishment of atheism as the national religion which is exactly what Mr. Jefferson did not want.”
Byron,
What you advocate is reasonable, but I think untenable, which is why religion is banned from the public square. If all religious believers in our society were tolerant of others beliefs than we could have a pluralistic society reveling in our differences as well as our similarities. This, however, has never been the case. What you get is the religious majority in various communities pushing their beliefs to the exclusion of others.
In my own case, being Jewish and attending Elementary School in the 50′s prior to various court rulings, I was subjected to religious rituals which I wanted no part of and yet was forced into by the nature of being so young. As a Jew my family didn’t celebrate, or believe in Christmas. Yet in school each class had its own Christmas Tree trimming, “Secret Santa” drawings, Christmas art projects and a school assembly where we all had to sing Christmas Carols and watch a nativity play.
In my way I protested and was viewed with suspicion, anger and amazement by my teacher’s and school administration. I was marked as a “troublemaker” and possibly disturbed child.
The amazement came from an attitude held by the predominantly Christian school staff that not being in the Christmas Spirit was almost un-American.
The real irony was that perhaps 50% of my fellow students were Jewish. However, in the 50′s Jews were generally afraid to question the status quo. American anti-Jewishness was just beginning to dissipate (although many fine Hotels for instance had a “no Jew” policy)and many Jews were afraid to rock the boat lest the anti-Jewishness became virulent once again.
This is the situation faced by all of us once again in this era. This is not the US vs. Christianity per se, but an encroachment upon religious freedom by a group of Christian Fundamentalists, whose definition of religious freedom really means that they can impose their beliefs and their values on the rest of us.
“As a Catholic, I have no anxiety believing in evolution. I believe this is a system that God implemented, allowing creatures and all living organisms to form over eons of time. As a Catholic, I am not forbidden to believe this. I also don’t have problems with people believing literally in the story of creation.”
Billy,
Thank you for not only expressing your own view, but for raising the larger more important issue. The RCC has for a while accepted evolution as not being antithetical to God creating the Universe. Genesis itself can be interpreted easily to allow for evolution. Originally, it was viewed as a metaphor by those in BCE times and afterwords, not as literal truth.
Fundamentalist belief, of any religious stripe, usually loses sight of the real message of a given religious teacher and condenses it into a bunch of “Thou Shalts.” This is because the tendency of power hungry sociopaths to become religious leaders is a strong one. By reducing religion to its simplest components it gives them more control over their “sheep” for shearing. We see this today in the Fundamentalist Christian Movement, which emphasizes Revelations, over the Gospels. The
Book of Revelations is the most dubious of inclusions into the Christian Canon, but it is excellent fodder for those who want to use it to justify just about any thing.
Those who hijacked Jesus teachings by making belief the only
gateway to heaven, rather than “good works,” in reality made Jesus teachings irrelevant and turned him into a mere figurehead. I say this of course as a Jew, but one quite familiar with the Gospels and Christian history. The “Golden Rule” as Jesus put it, actually was first formulated by Confucius circa 550 BCE, then Buddha around 500 BCE and later by the Jews and by the Hellenist philosophers too. It is really the basis of all ethical religion and within it contains the foundations of uplifting humankind. The religious grifters don’t like it because it can’t be used to honestly justify hatred and greed.
I acknowledge that Evolutionary Theory is but a work in progress, however, to equate it in importance with Genesis, in education is absurd and cannot be tolerated.
Mike:
I would certainly not be in favor of that type of thing. That is just wrong on so many different levels.
And I am heartily opposed to christian fundamentalism, I read a portion of Bob McDonnells thesis and was appalled. I probably am not going to vote for him because of it’s content. It was pretty bad, although I did not disagree with his opinion that an intact family is the optimal way to raise a child.
“Fight the good fight every moment
Every minute, every day
Fight the good fight every moment
Make it worth the price we pay”
Especially against those “Christ Killers.”
mepso:
“Forcing a child into a life of utter delusion and muddle-headed thinking under the guise of religious liberty is child abuse of the worst kind. You can recover from blows to the body, but handicapping the child’s ability to think rationally makes him worse than an automaton-it makes him Glenn Beck”
What about Thomas Aquinas, William of Ockham and other religious intellectuals? They don’t seem like they were handicapped, although they did use Aristotle to develop their arguments for faith.
You must have experience with a particulary nasty group of christians.
CCD:
thanks, I hope you are doing well and keeping the boys in the Chicago political machine in line and marching to the drum beat of we the people.
This being one of the most thoughtful and decorous threads we’ve had in a while encourages me as I begin the Rosh Hashanah holiday at sundown to again express where I’m coming from religiously. Although I am a practicing Jew (so sue me I like it)in reality I’m a Deist. This to me means that I have a tendency to believe there is a purpose to the Universe, but that humankind could not possibly grasp the motivations of the creative force that runs it. All religions are attempts at understanding this force, but none rise up to the task.
In that sense the best that religions do is formulate an ethical context for humans, in Judaism best expressed by Rabbi Hillel:
“That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn.”
“If I am not for myself, who will be for me? And when I am for myself, what am ‘I’? And if not now, when?”
This has also been expressed similarly in other religions and philosophies and for me it represents the essence of what humanity needs to learn.
If one looks at modern Physics Theory, or has taken LSD, peyote and/or mescaline, they learn that “reality” is a malleable entity. If that is so, then to my way of thinking we humans are still in the stages of early infancy in understanding the Universe around us. Many things are possible, but no one has the truth and the pretensions of the Fundamentalists to absolutely know the purposes of the creative force (if it indeed exists) makes them dangerous and in the end intolerant.
My kudos to Mr. Corbett for his courage and to all from my own meager perspective I wish you a good year.
Mike, that line you used was from a song by Triumph, Right On! I also believe in the creation story of Genesis. I believe it is a story that explains the creation of “civilized man”, and his ability to dialogue with his Creator..
I value all Sacred Scripture, from Genesis through the Apocalypse.
mIKE:
“If one looks at modern Physics Theory, or has taken LSD, peyote and/or mescaline, they learn that “reality” is a malleable entity”
strictly speaking about LSD and other mind altering drugs don’t they just cause hallucinations? Your brain is not perceiving reality but the hallucinogenic effect of the drug.
For example you see spiders on a wall that are not there, your brain is distorting reality because it is being set off by the drug, some area of the brain is being artificially stimulated and so what you are perceiving is not reality at all but a drug induced hallucination.
Reality may appear “malleable” in this state but it clearly is not as many young people found out after jumping off a building thinking they could fly (think Art Linkletter’s daughter). While LSD and peyote may give you some insights because of stimulating a certain area of the brain and release some long stored data, it cannot mold reality to your wishes, needs and desires.
True, Byron. I would hate to think that our society is going through “formation” based upon someones use/abuse of a hallucinogenic drug, such as Lysergic acid diethylamide.
“Reality may appear “malleable” in this state but it clearly is not as many young people found out after jumping off a building thinking they could fly”
Byron & Billy,
The instance of people jumping off buildings were minuscule and fostered by a society afraid of the effects of mind altering drugs. However, my point wasn’t to defend these drugs, but to comment on the nature of reality. Modern physics for instance theorizes 11 dimensions and innumerable universes separated by only the thinnest of membranes. Your perception of a given reality that we both observe may differ significantly from mine and yet we are both sane. To me this indicates that there are a great many possibilities and explanations for things that can’t be currently scientifically explained. If that is true, I personally believe it is, then there could possibly be a creative force that is behind everything.
As far as dismissing hallucinations, you miss the point that it is not the hallucination per se that causes any insight, but the fact that they look, sound and taste real. If it is possible for that to be, then to me one must question whether ones senses fully perceive and/or fully appreciate that around us which we call “reality.” This is not an idea original to me but has been explored by philosophers and religious seers for thousands of years.
Well said Mike, cogently presented. I feel ya!
That is deep Mike…. I read it yet again.
Now, lets’ talk Sasquatch!
Mike:
obviously there could be things beyond our perception but we can only really deal with that which we can be percieved via our 5 senses. This input and our ability to reason allows us to interact with our world
It’s worse than you suggest Mike, physics now tells us that two people can experience the same event from different perpectives, witness two seperate and distinct outcomes of the event, and both can be correct. Reality is actually maleable. The only difference is perspective.
Byron:
“What about Thomas Aquinas, William of Ockham and other religious intellectuals?”
************
One wonders how the word “intellectual” can used to reference a group of men who piously believe in a talking snake. Sincere, articulate, persuasive to those already believing, but intellectual? Forgive me, but that is a term of the Enlightenment, not the Dark Ages.
Mespo:
those men may have been from the middle ages but they were indeed intellectuals. Ockham’s razor comes to mind as does the Summa Theologica.
William of Ockham basically came up with modern scientific inquiry.
fundamentalist christians of this era have very little in common with these men. Men like Aquinas questioned and probed.
Mespo:
“One wonders how the word “intellectual” can used to reference a group of men who piously believe in a talking snake. Sincere, articulate, persuasive to those already believing, but intellectual? Forgive me, but that is a term of the Enlightenment, not the Dark Ages.”
I see, so, within ‘your mythology’ Socrates, Plato & Aristotle are to be ignored as being non-intellectual simply by virtue of the myths which they believed?
I must say you subscribe to a unique definition of the term “intellectual.”
BobEsq:
Watch out for that Aristotle cat, man he thought that the sun revolved around the earth.
But that might have been because he held man in such high esteem.
Truth be told, since I’m a Kantian, I fall into the category of neo-platonist.
Bob,ESq:
I am not so sure our favorite Greek philosophers were dogmatic religionists, but if so, they too had the same blind spot all dogmatists do when it comes to believe in the foolish. They don’t lose the mantle of intellectual since they were not parsing a collective delusion like the some of the other names mentioned, but their mantle does seem a bit tattered. As you know, Aquinas was no fundamentalist believing that reason would be the substitute for the rare divine revelation. He was an Aristotelian, so my pithy comments may have been somewhat hasty, but I remain convinced no intellectual believes the Bible’s nonsense literally.
Byron:
“strictly speaking about LSD and other mind altering drugs don’t they just cause hallucinations? Your brain is not perceiving reality but the hallucinogenic effect of the drug.”
William James & Aldous Huxley would disagree.
I love it when Mespo contradicts himself, post, after post, after post…….
Last time I checked you were championing the virtues of Luther, mespo. Was he not a dogmatist? Oh yeah, I forgot you like his dogma because he was in opposition to the Catholic Church. I read your posts dude, you speak with forked tongue…
Mespo,
Let’s just agree that your comment was ‘hasty.’
Anyway,
Speaking of parsing the collective unconscious…
C.G. Jung and the Holy Grail of the Unconscious.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/20/magazine/20jung-t.html?_r=2&hp
This is huge if you’ve ever read Jung.
BobEsq:
I disagree with them. Neurons firing in your brain because you are tripping on acid is not the same as actually experiencing something in reality. Now I wont argue that the effect on the brain may be the same but it is not reality.
I dont know really anything about Kant, but wouldnt he say the same thing as James and Huxley? That a dream/hallucination is just as valid as reality because it exists within the brain. We dont necessarily need our senses to experience reality.
During the time period in question there was no public education was there? One relied on patrons, private tutors and The Church to educate people. Knowledge was a threat to faith and power and withheld from the masses. Dissing Church educated scholars kind of dismisses most of the trained thinkers of the time does it not?
Well stated lottakatz, couldn’t a said it better myself. Sorry, if you felt I capped on you kinda hard, no hard feelings..
Byron:
“I disagree with them.”
Specifically how?
“Neurons firing in your brain because you are tripping on acid is not the same as actually experiencing something in reality. Now I wont argue that the effect on the brain may be the same but it is not reality.”
Epistemically speaking, how do you know?
“I dont know really anything about Kant, but wouldnt he say the same thing as James and Huxley?”
Not really, but he could definitely show you how to tell the difference between a transcendental illusion and a cleverly disguised rock.
“That a dream/hallucination is just as valid as reality because it exists within the brain. We dont necessarily need our senses to experience reality.”
Before completely discounting any of the ‘varieties of religious experience’ you may want to do a little more research. I guess it’s just the Socrates in me that says “what do I know?”
C.G. Jung: “In the same way that our misconception of the solar system had to be freed from prejudice by Copernicus, the most strenuous efforts of a well-nigh revolutionary nature were needed to free psychology, first from the spell of mythological ideas, and then from the prejudice that the psyche is, on the one hand, a mere epiphenomenon of a biochemical process in the brain, or, on the other hand, a wholly unapproachable and recondite matter. The connection with the brain does not in itself prove that the psyche is an epiphenomenon, a secondary function casually dependent on biochemical processes.” (C.G. Jung, ‘The Undiscovered Self’)
Read “Man and his Symbols” by Jung, it is much more thought provoking and relevant.
The “symbols” are archetypes of mans’ most highly cherished beliefs and values..
One of my professors in college was the founder of “bibliotherapy”, which was to be used as a treatment modality in the therapeutic relationship between counselor and client. Jung employed “art therapy” as a means of unlocking elements of the subconscious…
Now don’t you boys make me break out the Many Worlds Theory . . .
I leave you kids alone for a day and you’re into the LSD again!
(Buddha goes to check his yard for intruders)
Byron,
Perhaps it’s still a semantic hang up.
You’re second quote, “to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency is a dangerous fallacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty, because he being of course judge of that tendency will make his opinions the rule of judgment, and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own; that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order; and finally, that truth is great and will prevail if left to herself; that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate; errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them.”
I parse that desire to keep the magistrates neutral in religious matters as exactly secular but perhaps secular is a value loaded word. Perhaps, “principled but neutral” would have better encapsulated the thought. He clearly intends to grant people the maximum religious freedoms possible by keeping the government out of their worship, but I think it’s also implied by his vision of government was a place where logic and evidence held sway, “that truth is great and will prevail if left to herself; that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate”. That’s a blade that cuts both ways. By remaining a principled neutral third party, a secular government, was the very mechanism to achieve maximum religious freedoms.
Is it not the corollary of that in order to protect that freedom, government must remain free from religious influence beyond providing the principles required for a common man to have the common sense to know right from wrong? He’s calling for religion to be a guide to ethical administration, not opening the door for the dogma de jour.
Buddha:
I am saying exactly that a government should be a neutral third party and so I see no problem with teaching evolution or creation or spontaneous biological emination.
BobEsq:
I honestly don’t know how I would know an hallucination from an actual event if I did not know I had been drugged. Although if I saw something that I knew could not happen in reality, say a dog reciting On the Origin of Species, I would then know I had been hallucinating. but if something happened that could happen in reality and all the senses that I would use in the actual event were involved I don’t think I would be able to tell the difference.
Although I have never done LSD so I cannot speak to the level of hallucination it can induce. If it is like a dream state then I would be able to distinguish that from reality.
Byron,
I am going to assume you mean “within context”.
If so, then our difference was indeed semantic.
This article contains the common flaw of equating “creationism” with a true scientific pursuit, the search for evidence of intelligent design in nature.
Common sense should dictate that it is more scientific to discuss the flaws with any theory, openly, without stigma.
If the arguments brought against a theory are silly, it will disappear soon enough. But if the arguments carry reasonable scientific challenges, then show some respect, and address the issues for a change. This would be refreshing, instead of talking about the religious implications all the time.
Buddha:
But what I think I see going on is a government that is stifling the Christian religion which I don’t think it should. It should neither stifle nor promote one over another or one belief over another. Now it could be that Christians are getting too militant and need to be slapped down and reminded that this is a society that allows all faiths.
Mr. Jensen that was very eloquently stated. Bravo..
“Now it could be that Christians are getting too militant and need to be slapped down and reminded that this is a society that allows all faiths.”
Bingo.
But see, that’s why the “in context” is important. I don’t see Christians as persecuted one damn bit, but quite the other way around. The media plays it that way because most of the best camera footage is to be had a Christian Right events gone bad. When was the last time a Hindu bombed an abortion clinic? Never, but they get an extra ration of shit by the TSA at the airport you can bet. I’m also thinking not a lot of Buddhist’s get into armed standoff’s with the FBI because they think it’s God’s will that a grown man have sex with children.
If you want to teach science, teach evolution, if you want to teach creationism, teach it in comparative religion.
What we have right now are situations where Christians are trying to force their beliefs on others thought the courts. Look to Dr. Corbett’s example above. And consider the whole C St. and The Family debacle. Those people are theocrats, plain and simple, and as such, they should not be allowed to impose Christian ideology upon our legal system. The Christian Right are a real and present danger to the Separation Doctrine. To preserve religious liberty for all, all religion must be kept from our government. That does not mean people should not try to use it as a guide for ethical decision making even if they carry on their internal dialog in the moral terminology and I think that’s Jefferson’s point. A government free of religion but informed by principles, his “greater truths”, but a government that not only doesn’t interfere with religion, but by definition of being a neutral third party remains free from the dictates of any dogma and the realm of argument/debate and proof.
BIL I hope you took your sword.
BIL I hope you took your sword.
Billy, I’m one of those malleable reality folks, from drugs, disease that interferes with the proper firing of neurons such as epilepsy or religious bliss (which has much more in common with neurological diseases than people want to admit) and the current state of physics. We’re all just 0′s and 1′s here so I take very few things personally. I’m generally a MYOB kind of person regarding society at large: I don’t care what anybody believes, as long as they don’t impose it on me in some fashion that disrupts the secular nature of my environment; I don’t want my universe tilted toward someone else’s belief. No offense was taken and I hope you stick around. This is a good group of people.
Mike S’s post strikes at the heart of the matter IMO- either you prefer an open mind society or a closed mind society. Either your society is molded on a open, generally un-bounded model or a closed, tightly bound model. My opinion of reality is so malleable that even being a professed atheist doesn’t rule out the deist possibility that the universe (ours being one of many) is a self organized entity that has evolved us and other thinking beings as a tool to examine itself. Anything is possible.
Jill, I like your reference to the Goddess, I generally refer to a supreme being in the feminine with religious people just to poke at them
I’ll try my Goddess sign off here, I signed all of my e-mail correspondence with it for years.
o
/O O\
( . )
_V_
Nope, didn’t work, spacing is wonky, oh well.
Byron:
“I honestly don’t know how I would know an hallucination from an actual event if I did not know I had been drugged. Although if I saw something that I knew could not happen in reality, say a dog reciting On the Origin of Species, I would then know I had been hallucinating. but if something happened that could happen in reality and all the senses that I would use in the actual event were involved I don’t think I would be able to tell the difference.”
I don’t understand why you imply there’s a necessary connection between drugs and hallucinations. Ever hallucinated from lack of sleep?
“Although I have never done LSD so I cannot speak to the level of hallucination it can induce. If it is like a dream state then I would be able to distinguish that from reality.”
There’s a difference between the experience of an hallucination and a self/drug induced/enhanced lucid dream state.
Even your morning coffee can be an instrumental drug to induce a lucid dream state. And in that dream state you may find that “once in a while you get shown the light in the strangest of places if you look at it right.” (Robert Hunter)
Stay in your own movie,
Bob
Thanks ‘lottaktz’, you all seem to contribute in a manner that is most thought provoking. I can clearly tell you guys are all sharp cookies and professionals. Sometimes I may come on a little strong, but it is usually just a bit of bluster. I am really a pretty tender hearted man, albeit with a rather goofy sense of humor. I do have a penchant for the bizarre and I frequently laugh at humor that some may find a little “off the wall”, shall we say. Chicks usually dig me, because of my rather “loaded” sense of humor. I frequently spice up a ‘bon mot’ with a zinger, just to make sure people are on there toes. I went to lunch today in Yucaipa at a great Mexican restaurant, saw a sexy latina honey who was waitressing, she flashed me a wicked smile over my combination plate. This little “ego stroke” did almost as much for me as a weekend in Tahoe. Still can’t get this sexy, little dusky hued devil, out of my system. Wow! I think I will return in a few days for a margarita and maybe some kissey face afterwards….
billy:
“Last time I checked you were championing the virtues of Luther, mespo. Was he not a dogmatist? Oh yeah, I forgot you like his dogma because he was in opposition to the Catholic Church. I read your posts dude, you speak with forked tongue”
************************
My praise of Luther was as a man of integrity in opposing the most pernicious of Catholic innovations the selling of indulgences — perhaps the first snake oil sale on record. That is not to say that Luther was not a dogmatist himself. As such, he was no lover of reason saying, “Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has.” (and right he was). Luther’s value is precisely his opposition to the Roman Church which held political sway over the German principalities. From a purely rational view, Luther was, in fact, one of the men, though imbued with integrity, who set about to parse the collective delusion so dominating Western Culture.
I am glad you read my posts, “dude,” but there is a difference between complexities and deceit, and mouthing faux American Indian idioms won’t get you any closer to knowing the difference.
You’re still full of it..
billy,
Or is this really William McCarty? I heard billy the kid was a real coward too. He shot people in the back, little billy please don’t cry. Hopefully your momma will still love you when we say good bye.
Slickone, you better hurry, I hear Chippendales closes early on the east coast. You better bring a fist full of “ones”, to stuff in those “banana hammocks” you’re soon to be drooling over..
lil billy,
surly you jest? what is a Chippendale? I have heard of Alvin, Theodore and Simon, they man there was Dave. Chip and Dale they are some more cartoons. Which one are you, banana bucks? That sounds too deep and penetrating for me. Maybe you can stand for it. Some people like you may actually like you. But then again, do you like you? Not that I care.
Friday Night is Amateur Night.
Please tip your servers.
They work hard even though the acts are of uneven quality.
Half-price drinks!
Free salsa bar!
Friday Night is Amateur Night.
lil billy,
useyourhead.
I don’t see why the decision in this case is so absurd (and, for the most part, neither does Turley who says the teacher “went a bit far and should be a bit more circumspect”). Let me be clear: I’m not religious, I believe in a strong separation of religion and state, and I think creationism and intelligent design have no place in science classes because they’re not science.
But the state is supposed to be neutral in matters of religion. So it seems to me that a teacher telling a student that creationism is “superstitious nonsense” crosses the line of neutrality.(I think the teacher could say “I don’t think it’s science,” or “I think the topic belongs in a comparative religion class.”)
I don’t know whether the teacher’s statement is distinguishable from the other statements Turley brings up.
jim corbett 1, September 17, 2009 at 9:33 pm
Just for the record, I did not disparage anyone. My comment (superstitious religious nonsense) referred to the teaching of a biology teacher at my school who was teaching “young earth creationism.” He sued the District, Dept. Chair, Principal, administrators and student newspaper (I was the adviser), asserting his right “as a qualified biology teacher,” under the principles of academic freedom, to teach that nonsense at a public high school while ignoring the state curriculum, directives by his superiors, and in spite of many complaints from parents. He lost the suit which the judge tossed out noting that it was a “frivolous lawsuit filed in bad faith.” What I said in class was that John Peloza (the teacher)was teaching “superstitious religious nonsense,” not science.
Buddha,
Well said. Creationism is a poor excuse for science. It was developed for the purpose of challenging scientific fact with religious ideology.
I have always wondered why some Christians interpret the Bible so literally. I know a lot of other religions, which despite their followers who at times are very close-minded and orthodox thinking, generally do not challenge sciences, be it the science of evolution, or healthcare sciences, such as when those people withhold medical care from their families. I do not follow any religions, never read the Bible, but there must be really some flawed teachings there to result in this kind of blind faith and a diminished ability in critical thinking, as opposed to being an independent thinker. The people who in the 21st century, still believing in that nonsense of creationism tall tales, opposing all scientific evidence, need to get real. They are bad for society’s progress. The most advanced and happiest societies are the least religious ones in the world such as some European countries.
It has been suggested by some that we should ‘teach the controversy’. But when we do that, this is what happens. If you teach the “controversy” over evolution, you end up teaching evolution, and then pointing out that some people still refuse to accept scientific facts, and instead cling to their superstitious nonsense. So a science teacher gets sued for stating a scientific fact, simply because the way he said it felt ‘hurtful’ to weak-minded religionists.
What people who say “teach the controvery” actually want is for us to pretend they have any facts whatsoever on their side, or even that they have logic on their side. When creationism/ID is presented in a factual, balanced way in a science curriculum, there is only one honest way to do it: point out it is superstitious nonsense that was refuted definitively almost a century ago, at best.
What are the ‘scientific facts’ of evolutionism? There is indeed a controversey because plain and simple, there just isn’t any cut and dry hard core, testable, provable evidence that backs up the theory of evolutionism. That’s also why the theory is still a theory. But the teaching of evolutionism has been politically sheltered from scrutiny or examination in the classroom beacause it is supposedly a sacred-cow ‘fact’ – yet no one can bring up a single ‘fact’ of evolution. The superstitious nonsense of evolutionism is politically protected in the school system and it is shameful that people won’t even let criticisms of evolutionism see the light of day. The students aren’t allowed to examine all the problems with the theory of evolutionism. Heck, even Darwin had several problems with evolutionism – for one the marked absence of transitional fossils. To this day we STILL haven’t found that abundance of transitional fossils that should literally be everywhere, if evolutionism is true.
The students can’t study Creation, even though we see remarkable intelligent design in created things that our best ‘scientists’ can’t explain. But they aren’t allowed to even think such a way. To do so would violate the sacred cow protection of evolutionism. A lot of states even have laws regarding the accuracy of the textbooks used but the laws aren’t enforced. For example, to this day, there are some textbooks that still use the fraudulent drawings of Haeckel, regarding alleged gill slits on human embryos. These were proven fraudulent over a hundred years ago but are STILL used. That alone is a red flag to question everything taught about evolutionism.