Pledge Of Hypocrisy?

[Serpent]

I read today that in the US a court ruling is likely to ban students from reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in school as it breaches the First Amendment. The main point of contention being the bit where it says “One nation under God”, thereby not separating church and state.

I agree with this as forcing kids of a non-Christian or Atheist point of view to recite that is insulting. The oath would be just the same and just as effective with the words “under God” removed. “One nation, indivisible…” is a lot better to my mind. In fact, the words “under God” were apparently only added in 1954 anyway.

Often, from an outside point of view, Americans seem as fundamentally fanatic about Christianity as the Islamic fundamentalists that they are currently at war with. (Yeah, right. Terrorists. Sorry.)

So, I was just wondering, what do you all think of it? Wouldn’t it be a lot better to simply remove those two words and have a pledge that every American could say with honesty and belief?

[ewallace]

I think it is taking PCness too far. However, I do not think that anyone should be forced to say "under God". Those who wish to can just skip it.

[Black Jack]

As an atheist I am ALL for it. It's been a long time coming-though it will not last-but its the FIRST step. I HATED saying that part of the pledge when I was a wee-sh!t.

This is NOT about NOT saying the freakin pledge, its about taking out the words "under god", words that were not in the original verse intell 1954!!

Those words were only added in 1954 to make us the white hat when compared to the state endorsed Atheistic Russia at the time. Other slogans like in God We Trust were also put in around this period I believe.

The original Pledge carried us through the crucibels of 2 great wars, the great depression, all sorts of dark and troubled times, it was written by a minister who KNEW we needed a separation of church and state......period.......end of sentance.

I am shocked and sickened by George Bush's reaction to this landmark advent-though his fathers was worse in his heyday-about how we are a Christian country and are values are derived from God.

MAKES ME SICK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It's no wonder I don't like fundamental Christians. They endorse a default state religon-a rewriten and bogus American Hisotry-not to mention there retarded fictional viewpoints-and worse yet I have to pay taxes to let some poor *****es kid who she shat out of her dirty and uneducated arse go to a cushy private religous school because public school is not good enough.

I did not vote for that dumb****-I will not vote for that dumb****-maybe next time the guy with the most votes can win the election.

[David Jamieson]

Anybody have a copy of the original pledge?

Was it Senator McCarthy that put the "god" into everything?

peace

[Royal Dragon]

The original is printed somewhere in the following conversation

http://www.officer.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=003895

As well as the changes that were made to it along the line, and when they were made.

[guohuen]

The original "pledge" was written by a socialist.

[halfling]

Original - "I pledge allegiance to "my flag" (changed in 1923 to "the flag of the United States of America") and to the Republic for which it stands - One nation ("under God" added in 1954) indivisible - with liberty and justice for all." I remember saying that everyday before elementary school. I loved it. I will never stop saying it.

[wushu chik]

Well, I just heard today that one of the southern states(??) just passed the law that the children in all schools can start their day off with a prayer after the pledge, something along those lines. So, either way, they are getting it in there one way or another.

~Wen~

[Radhnoti]

RD, here's the link I found in that message board conversation you pointed us to, just in case no one else wants to plow through so much. :)

http://www.vineyard.net/vineyard/history/pledge.htm

Kung Lek, here's a breakdown from the site:

"The original Pledge read as follows: 'I pledge allegiance to my Flag and (to*) the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.'

In 1923 and 1924 the National Flag Conference, under the 'leadership of the American Legion and the Daughters of the American Revolution, changed the Pledge's words, 'my Flag,' to 'the Flag of the United States of America.'

In 1954, Congress after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus, added the words, 'under God,' to the Pledge. "

Also, Black Jack...the majority ruling was written up (according to RD's message board folks) by a conservative judge appointed by Nixon. :D
Clinton would have already looked at the polls (apparently 90% of those answering on polls are ****ed about this) and started doing everything in his power to change the ruling. Not sure what Gore would have done...though one would assume he'd follow in Bill's footsteps...but Clinton would've wore a dress and dyed his hair red if the polls said he should.
Bush isn't perfect, I disagree with several things he's done. However, I do think he is the lesser of two "evils". Just my opinion.

Oh yeah, my opinion on the ruling. I'd remove the words...or replace them with something less specific. That worked fine up until the mid-50's. Yes, the majority of the country is of a different opinion, but many laws in our country are made to protect the minority from the majority. I think that's what this ruling is doing...until the Supreme Court overrules them...which wouldn't surprise me. :rolleyes:

[Black Jack]

Kung Lek,

Yeah it was McCarthy.

I am all for freedom of religon, all for people saying the pledge with the words "under god" inserted into it, if they chose to add those words, but NOT endorsed in a public school or government setting.

Its BS and its unconstitutional.......period.

Bush is good for war issues, I did not like the Gore either, in fact I could not stand either one of them, but now I am starting to wonder if we picked, well lets take that back we didn't pick, the different guy for the job.

Bush is very...very faith based and strong willed enough to do something about his deep religous belief's. Just today he said that he will only attend to appoint Federal Judges who understand that our countries rights came from God, that itself is assine and unconstitutional.

He is all for public faith based programs, prayer in schools, my money to non-secular education, the banning of abortion, in a word thought control based on a mythological playground of stories who he believes to be true. His own father, the old retard, said that Atheists are should not be CONSIDERED human beings!!!

I am more Republican than Democrat, though I am really neither, I don't know what I am to tell you the truth, I wish I knew what camp I fit in, though it does not matter, these two *****es will be up there slapping each other around forever.

Just incase somebody can tell me,'

1. For small government.
2. Pro-Firearm
3. Pro-Choice/For Abortion
4. Anti-Public Forced Religon in any and all forms.
5. Pro-Military/Military Science
6. Pro-Science and Discovery/i.e. Pro Clonning
7. Anti-Welfare
8. Anti-Illegal Alien
9. Pro-Farmer
10. Pro-Death Penality/Death to forced entry/serial rapists/serial child molestors.
11. Pro-Strip Clubs

There is more but that is a jist, what does that fall into?

[Mokujin]

this could get messy...

While I'm an independent conservative, I didn't see a problem with "under God" in the pledge. If you don't like it, don't say it. Never once did I feel that the school was endorsing Christianity as THE STATE RELIGION.

How could I? Evolution is taught as fact (even though there are five or more different theories on it), condoms are taught as safe sex and hardly any REAL American history is taught. I could make a list of all the failed social-experiements Public school's have done on children behind the parent's backs!

I'm even more shocked that I have to pay taxes to support a failed school system, but I'm glad I will have to option to CHOOSE if I want my kid to attend such a failure or go to a private school. Screw that! I'll just home school my kids!

I guess the Consititutional is UN-Consititutional because it mentions a divine Creator. Yet, belief in this devine Creator inspired such a profound document that founded one of the best countries in the world!

Later I learned that the battle hymn for the revolution including praising Jesus (shudder!) and many governmental procedings started out with a prayer to the Man upstairs! Gasp!

We have freedom of religion, Black Jack. While you may not believe in God, you shouldn't deny man's spiritual side (not saying that you do).

BTW - Last time I checked all the news stories, George W. Bush did win the most votes. Of course if you start counting specs that could have been votes for Gore, then MAYBE Gore got the most votes (but that's a big MAYBE!).

"Pro Clonning" - I don't know how many sheep it took to get to Dolly- the one that looked good for TV. How many human lives will be snuffed out behind closed-doors until a decent clone is produced? So far, all cloned animals have had genetic defects. Reminds me of that scene in that terrible movie, Aliens 3.

Food for thought.

Peace!
Mokujin

[Black Jack]

It makes the Chrisitian religon the countries religon by default. It has no place in a public forum of that nature, people try to pretend the word god means a universal truth, but lets be honest on what they are really talking about here, anybody who watched the reaction of congress, the presidents address, the majority of sheeple who make up the public on tv, and school teachers to the ruling of this court, then you know WHAT universal truth they are really talking about.

Have ALL the spiritual side of the pie you want, I support that, just keep it out of where our forefathers never intended it go, a point made clear in the begining of the pledge, written by a socialist minister in the late 1800's who understood that we needed a united pledge and not one based on any man's faith.

Anyone who opens there eyes to what happened today can see the hypocrisy, see it, they can freakin smell it.

[Mokujin]

You've got to admit, though, that it's hard to separate a country or region from its religious founding roots.

Israel, India, Asia...

Each one of these identifies with religious roots, as does America. This shouldn't be a surprise.

Yes, Congress and the President are quite good at making a spectacle of themselves- nothing new here. They'll always be politicians.

Oh well, I'm tired and gotta get some shut-eye.

Like that dead guy said, I might not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it!

Peace!
Mokujin

[Lice]

Mokujin,

Uhh... Gore got the most votes(barely), he just didn't get enough electoral votes. So, more people voted for Gore, but he lost anyways. Maybe that's what you meant, or maybe you meant just in the state of Florida.

[wufupaul]

All I can say is..good riddance. I haven't recited the pledge of allegience since I was in elementary school, I have too many objections to it, the phrase "under god" just being one of them. About 12 or 13 years ago, the principal of my junior high told me to stand during it's recital; but that didn't sway me, I told him that he couldn't force me to do it, I'd call the aclu, haha. I do think that it is a good idea to have it removed; it will help to make people of all beliefs more comfortable with it. Now, instead of it favoring theists, it could be more easily adopted by polytheists, atheists, and agnostics, as well. Or, we could just permanently get rid of it and let people decide on their own how they choose to show their patriotism, ;)

[GLW]

The point of the separation of church and state was that the founding fathers ADMITTED that it was hard for a group of people to separate their religion - any religion - from their government. therefore, NO Religion would be injected into the way the government was to run.

This does NOT mean you can't pray or do anything else. It does mean that you can't take MY time or MY money to support your prayer to whatever you worship or allow such things to hold sway in the way the government works.

People often see no problem with public prayers and displays of religion - until they are NOT in the majority. What if you are a Chrisitian and you lived in a Wiccan society. Would you feel comortable with public prayers if they were to a deity or a set of deities that you had a problem with? How about if you were a young Jewish kid and were in an area where the little kids were taught in Sunday school about the "Jews killing our Lord" (trust me, those words ARE really used - especially in the South). Then they start prayers....

Taking it a step further...according to the Constitution, within safe limits (like you can't yell our FIRE in a crowded theater - that is NOT safe), there is freedom of speech. This also includes freedom NOT to speak. You are also protected from self-incrimination.

Now, why should anyone be required to say anything. Yet, in many schools, they REQUIRE the students to stand and say the pledge of allegiance. Don't know about you but for me, I don't believe much of anything a person says if they are doing it because they are required to.

Many have problems with the wording of the pledge. The "Under God" phrase is just one part. There is also the "Liberty and Justice for ALL". Some people do NOT say the pledge out of protest for the fact that this phrase is NOT true. If you have money, you get the best justice and liberty money can buy. Ken Lay and the other Enron folks as well as folks like O.J. Simpson are proof that money definitely influences justice.

Freedom is a tricky thing...you have to grant people the freedom to do things that you may 100% disagree with before you can say that you truly allow freedom of speech and expression.

[Radhnoti]

Black Jack, my gift to you:

http://www.self-gov.org/lp-quiz.shtml

Here's some quotes...just because they kill people who are so sure our country is 100% based on Christianity.

“The United States is in no sense founded upon the Christian doctrine.” -- George Washington

“It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” -- Thomas Jefferson

“I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church.” -- Thomas Paine

“I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature.” -- Thomas Jefferson

“The Bible is not my book, and Christianity is not my religion. I could never give assent to the long, complicated statements of Christian dogma.” -- Abraham Lincoln

(Quotes as listed in the books Salvation for Sale, by Gerard Thomas Straub, and The Real Frank Zappa, by the late, great Frank Zappa.)

Not to say I have a problem with Christianity...worship what you will, but I don't think the actual feelings of the founders is always acurately represented.

[shaolinboxer]

I received multiple detentions for refusing to recite the pledge on these very same grounds, which were embarrassing and degrading.

We'll see how long this court decision stands. I wouldn't mind the pledge if they restored it to its original format. It was brilliant and a reflection of global unity and solidarity among countrymen.

[TjD]

the problem is that children are FORCED to recite the pledge no matter what their belief system

this is clearly in violation of the 1st amendment :) and personally, i have no desire for my children to be forced to pledge to a nation under god; especially when i am not raising them to be good little christians


i dont see why some people have such a problem with me or my children (if i ever have any) NOT being christian or some other monotheistic religion; and can actually think it is right and fair to force them to pledge that they are

its not too difficult to take out the two words 'under god' and make every one happy


so why as a non-monotheist should i be forced to pledge my allegience to a nation under god? why is this constitutional?

travis

[ewallace]

I still don't think it should change, if you don't like it don't say it. But, and I caught some **** from my friends for saying this, when you break it down it really is unconstitutional.

[NorthernMantis]

Actually the Bible supports the seperation of Church and state.

Didn't Jesus say "Let what is of Ceaser's be of Ceaser's and what is of God be of God"?

Basically Jesus said that because he saw that in those times religion or the Church/Temple was being used as vehicle for politics.

BlackJack the irony about stating the pledge was the part that really bothered me pledging alliegance to the "flag". Why would I pledge allegiance to an innanimate object? In a way it goes agiants the Bible's teaching.

I got no problem with atheists or anyone of any belief other thatn mine's as long as we both stay on our side of the fence. I don't impose anything on them and they don't impose anything on me. However when someone talks talking smack about my God I'll talk smack back.

[guohuen]

I feel for ya man. I too recieved multiple suspentions for the same thing.

[rogue]

Seperation of Church and State is not in the constitution. (http://www.noapathy.org/tracts/mythofseparation.html)

The first part is accurate, but the author then gets into his agenda later on.

The contitution is based upon Masonic thinking.

[Black Jack]

Thanks Radhnoti,

I have always dug the Thomas Paine quote and 100% agree that the actual feelings of our founders is never showcased for its real merit.

For a joke just check out some of history books they show in school.

Northern,

I know your a religous guy, you know I am not, I respect your choices and as an American I will defend them, but here is where I see the difference between the two fences, and I believe you will see this to, your side of the fence does not stay on its side of the fence :D

Not saying that you do any of this, but I mean in general terms, just yesterday the Supreme Court ruled that vouchers for religous schools can now be used with my tax money, its always push-push-push from your side of the fence, a ton of examples of its effects are seen in our culture and it is ALWAYS pushing.

I like the old pledge, like I said our forefathers used it to muster a united love of a country for over 60 years, through 2 world wars, global disasters, and economic hardships. If it was good enough for them without the "under god" it is good enough for me.

People think its easy being an atheist, but growing up and even now in adulthood it is a test, the ignorance of politicans, teachers and many chrisitian adults is one of true awe. it's not just the big things but the many little things one may run across, I did not say the "under god" part of the pledge, I got sent to the principle for it on more than a few occasions, I was not baptised so when asked that question you can guess the flak I recieved from so-called well-wishers, I do not pray at dinner tables when I was having dinner over at my friends houses, in general I ASKED questions of people in authority and they did not like it.

It was even better that I was born on Halloween. Helped me laugh at the jerk-offs.

.

[Braden]

GLW, the idea that the govenment should protect people from feeling uncomfortable is absurd. Freedom is speech doesn't stop when people start feeling uncomfortable - that is fallacy created by the political correctness movement. It stops when it actually starts infringing upon the rights of others. If you were a Catholic and you lived in a majority Wiccan society, and you were bothered by their prayers - you should grow up and stop worrying so much about what other people are doing, or leave the society if you can't. How far do we extend this? What if I don't like black people? Should society make it so that I don't have to eat in the same establishments as them? We've been down that road, and it is repugnant.

[Mokujin]

I didn't know that in some schools that MADE you say it. In my school days, you had the option NOT to say it, but you had to stand to show respect. If you think about, school itself is socialist / anti-freedom of speech.

"...its always push-push-push from your side of the fence"

Blackjack and Northern Mantis, I think this statement is accurate on BOTH sides of the fence, not just the right.

Rogue- I knew those Masons were behind it. I'm still trying to get my Mason-buddy to show me that secret hand shake! :p

Peace!
Mokujin

[Black Jack]

Braden,

I disagree on some respects, this type of uncomfortable we are talking about here is one which is a blatant push of one religon on a society in a state setting, where kids are being forced in a lot of occasions to say this and if they are not, they are getting overt or covert blowback from it, either in the form of feeling bad about themselves and there beliefs or direct responses from there peers or mentors.

I am NOT pc, I do not care about a party line, I just believe that the church has no business being involved on a state level in any manner whatsoever.

Any manner at all. Nothing, Zip, Ditto, Buttkiss. :)

[Black Jack]

Mokujin,

I disagree on it being on both sides. At least from a pro-active level. We are just attacking the damage that has already been done, trying to push the already pushed boulder out of the way, as it does and has never belonged there in the first place.

I do not know of any atheist groups that are trying to get humanism preached in local churches;)

But I know a bunch of groups that are trying to get prayer and creationism taught in PUBLIC schools.

[Braden]

BlackJack, I agree 100% without question that no one should be forced to make any religious statements. If school children in public schools are being forced to recite a pledge which contains overt religious elements - it is 100% wrong and should be stopped immediately, no questions asked.

You're honestly carrying the idea too far though. You cannot ask the government to legislate the 'covert' motivations of people in society. Any steps they might take to do this would be so damaging as to far, far outweight the benefits. It is unfortunate that we live in a society where there are covert motivations to join social groups - but it is a fact, and government has no business whatsoever making laws about it. Change in this respect must come by changing people's attitudes, there is no other way. This isn't just a religious issue. We are pressured into buying certain clothes, talking a certain way, studying certain things. The very act of living in a society means we are under a vast number and variety of these pressures. I don't mean to be insulting nor dramatic, but this is a very serious issue - what you are proposing is the exact same reasoning that dominated the Nazi regime in WWII Germany. We like to demonize it, but in doing so we fail to see the lessons it can teach us. Reasonable people in that state were convinced that there was a way of living - a social outlook - which was damaging to the state, which put damaging covert pressures on their youth (read their writings and you will find that exact phrasing), and they made it illegal. This is a very slippery and dangerous slope.

We cannot reject or hide the religious underpinings of our society - and, even if we could, police and government would most certainly not be the institutions we should use to do this. Religion's impact upon our society is an undeniable historical fact. We should dedicate our efforts to making people absolutely free to run their own lives and educated as to their options and history so they can run them in an informed manner.

Forcing someone to say a religious statement is undeniably wrong according to this perspective. Banning someone from saying it is equally wrong.

[rogue]

Oddly BJ, we on this side of the rock think the same thing. Oh hell we'll all be muslims soon anyway.

[Merryprankster]

I personally think this is a frivolous issue. It's one of those things that truly injures nobody. If you don't like it don't say it.

And I am STRONGLY against such things as posting the 10 commandments, etc.

[Braden]

BJ - BTW, we agree on 9 of those 11 points. :D

[Black Jack]

Merry,

How can you say that it does not injure somebody and what does your description of injury consist of?

Rogue,

A Reverand who feels the same way and I dig the guy is Rev.Barry Lynn. His own Christian organization thinks this is a great deed.

I dig the guy, maybe I will send him a hooker.

Braden,

I respect your viewpoints but I think you are taking it to far in terms of separation, this is not about thought control on my side, its not about banning anything, if a person wants to say that part of the pledge they are more than welcome to add it in, if they want to hold private prayer groups or clubs in school, okee-dookalee.

It's about keeping everybodies rights intact when it concerns religous freedom. Be that freedom to not practice any religon at all. To me it is a little more personal because of my beliefs on the christian religon and its push to stick its fingers in the government setting, but I will not insult anybody, I am all for free excercise, just keep it in private schools, in the home, in a club, in church, in the public park, where ever you want to do it at, with the exception of in a state endorsed PUBLIC program where not everybody believes in the same concept.

I think it's so egocentric, it was never in there in the first place, same for the cash. Sorry for the rant bro but I have feelings for this topic.

[Merryprankster]

I just think it's not that big a deal Black Jack. I agree that IN PRINCIPLE it should probably be removed from the pledge, but in the grand scheme of things, it's not that big a deal whether it stays in or not.

Posting the 10 commandments clearly crosses the line, but this? Eh...

Now, being sent to detention for NOT saying it is another issue entirely.

[Braden]

Not at all. I think this topic, in general, is one worth having strong feelings about.

You disagreed with religious control via "feeling bad about themselves and there beliefs or direct responses from there peers or mentors" which, although I agree with it in principle, in application sounds like thought control. If you don't mean this, then I think we probably see eye to eye on the issue.

I have to say, having heard some of the things the Christian Right in your country has said, I don't blame you in the slightest for thinking Christians are a bunch of raving idiots.

[Merryprankster]

Braden, the Christian Right IS a bunch of raving idiots :)

[rogue]

Only as much as the god-less left are. :p

I agree that it's a minor issue, (note no chest thumping posts from me), we lived with it out and we've lived with it in. One thing about atheist that I've never understood, if they don't believe in god why get so upset about it. It's like a Gracie being afraid of a Dim Mak master. Then I've seen atheist carry their disbelief to religious levels many a time.

[Black Jack]

Merry,

I see your point, I still feel it is important but from a atheistic viewpoint it means more to me than others, to me it is really nice, one small step in the back and forth tug o' war, though we will just gain a foot and lose a mile as it's mostly push and resist.

Braden,

Are you an Aussie?

How is separation of church and state in your neck of the woods?

[ewallace]

The problem with taking it out is that when you pack a gymnasium full of kids and have them say it together, the one's that want to say "Under God" will fuc k up the flow. Now, if it stays in, then those who don't want to say it only have to pause for a second, wait for the others to catch up and then finish it out. Everything else is just a cover story. :)

[GLW]

It is NOT about comfort. It is about casting people in a less than equal position....on what basis....??? What church you go to? Belief in god...?

Access to governement services and protection under the law... Should be blind to such things. Unless you have lived in the south, I would submit you are not qualified to know much about this. Having seen things like BLUE LAWs - it was legally mandated for most of my childhood that most stores were closed on Sunday because people went to church. If you opened on Sunday, you could be fined or shut down.

Having seen people beaten for being Jewish and Athiest...as well as NOT going the the agressor's church.... and seeing that person receive NO punishment for what they did...by authorities.....

I have expereinced school prayer from the perspective of being told I could not read quietly while they were doing their prayers "In Jesus' Name" and threatened with expulsion if I did NOT put my SCHOOLBOOK down and put down my pencil or pen. I was also threatened with expulsion for an anti-war demonstration (I would not say the pledge of allegiance). I made the fact that it was a QUIET protest against the Vietnam war and the lives we were losing (American lives) known to the powers that complained...and was threatened again.

In all cases, this is an infringement on my freedom of speech and injecting religion into someplace where it does NOT belong.

You make the argument of absurdity. We BOTH know what I am saying.

This is not about comfort but about the government funded institutions (like schools, courts, offices) bringing inappropriate things into them. Is it legal to allow an area of homes to be restricted by race, religion, etc... Try it and see how fast you are in court. Is it legal to restrict who you serve by the same criteria,...nope.... There are certain laws that are to preserve an open society. Having seen a closed one, I can tell you that you should appreciate them....

It is also about a group of politicians playing the old shell game. They are doing one thing but making you argue about a pledge....when you should be wondering WHY this person has such a poor grasp of the bill of rights...and is holding such a high office in the US government...and they had to take an oath to defend the constitution at that....

Frightening....

[Braden]

Canuck. I think it's alot better up here; ironically though, since in theory we've never been as concerned with it as you have. We have access to both Christian and Public schools pretty much everywhere up here, so there hasn't been as many problems with schoolkids. It's not like that down there?

[Merryprankster]

GLW,

I lived in the bible belt most of my life, growing up.

Sorry, I just think people are making a mountain out of a molehill.

Why not discuss the more important Supreme Court decision on school vouchers rather than something as relatively insignificant as this?

[Braden]

GLW - There's no point in arguing about things we both agree on. If someone assaults someone else, they should be arrested for assault. This is pretty obvious. If you get expelled from a public school for not making a religious statement, that is wrong - I allready said I agreed 100%.

This was the reasoning you provided:

"People often see no problem with public prayers and displays of religion - until they are NOT in the majority. What if you are a Chrisitian and you lived in a Wiccan society. Would you feel comortable with public prayers if they were to a deity or a set of deities that you had a problem with? How about if you were a young Jewish kid and were in an area where the little kids were taught in Sunday school about the 'Jews killing our Lord' (trust me, those words ARE really used - especially in the South). Then they start prayers...."

And it was exactly the reasoning I did have a problem with and I did reply too.

Please spare me the 'if you didn't/aren't X you wouldn't understand about prejudice' though.

[fa_jing]

Things have changed somewhat since the days of forced recitations. My wife is associated with the Jehova's Witness, and they do not salute the flag no matter what - they only believe in one government, the holy government of God. We found out that her son was being made to draw US flags and such in school, in the wake of Sept. 11 terrorist attack. I complained about this to the principle, and this was the compromise - every morning, before they said the Pledge in class, he was allowed to leave the room and stand in the hallway, so as not to be forced to hear the Pledge. However, he was still required to draw the flags, which were considered "for educational purposes." I asked what if that's against his beliefs, they said the because the Watchtower Society didn't prohibit "art projects" such as drawing flags for educational purpose, they would not take it seriously as for this being his personal belief. He's only 10 years old, and is not the type to really care. But I imagine myself in the same boat, and it would suck. I am not a Christian really, but I happen to agree with alot of the JW philosophy w/respect to governments, not voting, etc. I remember saying the Pledge when I was in elementary school and I always used to change the words, "liberty and justice for none," "Under Dog," etc. It's f.ucking brainwashing. They don't even have the Pledge of Allegiance in High School, high schoolers would make a joke out of it because it is so obvious that it is all about control and making society complacent. We have a lot of free-thinkers in this country, even teenagers. So they try to get them young, you know they have been playing the Star-Spangled banner and other pat songs in the schools all the time, and children are forced to listen. I think really, people who don't want to be praising the rule of this country for whatever reason, from whatever philosophical background, should be able to leave the room whenever there's sh.it that offends them. Then again, there is so much brainwashing with the goal of making people accept authority, making people believe in the "system," going on in the public schools, that really every kid should have the right to stay home, or go somewhere else. After all, public school teachers want to perpetuate themselves, and convincing the students of the role of government in schooling, and to follow what the system tells you, is their primary concern, it improves their job security. What anti-voucher people are forgetting, is that we are forced to pay taxes to support public schools, when I am against 80% of what goes on there. Sh!t, I went to public school in the city, I was lucky that in high school I got into some advanced programs, otherwise I would have been completely wasting my time, as opposed to just wasting most of it.

-FJ

[myosimka]

It seems that most people here agree that forcing children to say "under God" in the pledge is a bad thing. And if they could just leave it out, I'd agree with you that the recent fervor is silly. But being involved in public education(I teach at a state university and my wife teaches in the public school system) I can tell you that this is being abused.

Kids are required to recite it and are given detention if they don't.

Virginia public schools have a 'moment of silence'. Unfortunately, some teachers are telling the students to pray in this time.

Religious comments are routinely made at secular assemblies where attendance is mandatory.

I don't know of any area that bans kids from praying.(How is that possible anyway?) I'd take issue if that were the case but it's not so I am objecting to the present system that rejects the religious freedom of atheists, humanists, agnostics, buddhists, etc. Requiring a recognition of God is a problem and it does occur.

Rogue, in response to your question. Humanists I know don't get upset about mention of God(well, some do) The issue though is the right to determine the religious indoctrination of your own children. I am not an atheist but I can certainly see why they might have a problem with their children being taught something that conflicts with what they are teaching at home.

On a side note, I am ok with creationism being taught in schools. Or with neither evolution nor creation being taught. As long as creationism is taught as a theory and not fact.(A weakass scientifically indefensible theory but a theory nonetheless.) And on another side note, I must say that I am sick and tired of the notion that evolution and Christianity are mutually exclusive. Just because some moronic zealots yell louder than I do doesn't mean that I actually buy the story laid out in oral history over 5000 years ago by people who thought the Earth was flat over theories supported by modern scientific techniques! Boy, did I turn into tangent boy!

[Braden]

How does hearing someone make a religious statement at a secular ceremony infringe on your right to be an atheist?

Children shouldn't be taught that evolutionism is a fact either (since, for one thing, it's not), they should be taught how to think for themselves and how to inform themselves. To the extent that both evolutionism and creationism create a backdrop upon which our society's knowledge developed, both should clearly be taught.

[GLW]

Actually, I have a major problem with school vouchers.

The idea that market based concepts will work with education when all you have to do is look at how well market based ideas work with poorer neighborhoods...like going into a large chain grocery store in a poor or rural area and look at the quality and selection ...then go into a middle to upper-middle class area and look at the same store chain...

And we want to take this into schools.

And the people we elect think that this will improve education in this country instead of addressing why the teachers can't read and write.

I have no children (yet) but I pay school taxes and do NOT mind doing so since it supports the need of my community to have children with basic skills required for being a productive member of the community. If someone wants to pull their child out of the system and go private, I have no problem with giving them an education tax credit...but their school tax money should stay. They should support the community they live in.

Free speech - good thing...even when I disagree with what is said. Being required to say something - bad thing...

Allowing people to remove themselves from a community (take their toys and go home) means that they will no longer care what state the community is in...and they will cease being concerned with things get worse. Lack of involvement - bad idea.

We have degenerated into a society of people who expect things to be done for us...but are pi$$ed off when the government does things for others (what's up with that), a society where we never see beyond our own noses and those who disagree with us "just don't get it" instead of maybe having another point of view...and a society that CAN'T have a battle over something..finish the battle and then go and have a beer with each other later.... And it boils down to one group thinking that they should tell another group how to live and think...and what and how to say things.

This is not the country I was raised to believe in.

[rogue]

Well as a dad with two school age kids I find a lot of things being taught in school contradict what is taught at home. I don't like all of the "all cultures are equal" BS that my kid has to hear, but I put up with it. I've also seen history presented incompletely which is always bothersome.

[Merryprankster]

GLW--a corollary(sp?) to your statement.

I think what you are really saying is that we are a nation of people who have come to expect certain services from our government, and then get ****ed when we actually have to finance those services.

[Le nOObi]

Originally posted by rogue
I don't like all of the "all cultures are equal" BS that my kid has to hear, but I put up with it.

Uh just wondering but what do you mean by that statement?

[Merryprankster]

All cultural practices are not equally valuable.

It's a byproduct of reality, vice the happy PC bullcrap we like to pretend is the truth.

[myosimka]

Braden, not sure how I didn't make it clear that evolution or creationist schools of thought should be both taught or neither. In fact, it seems to me in rereading my post that I did in fact state that. Yes I am biased to believe one over the other. (Personally I believe that carbon dating and other forms testing moves one theory into theorem status but you may certainly disagree.) I still stated that both could be taught in schools or neither.

My children being required to listen to other people's religious view points by the government (state employees at a public school qualifies) is indeed a violation of my rights. My children being told by authority figures to pray is a violation. The free exercise of a humanistic belief system would preclude that. It doesn't hurt my right to be an atheist. But it's the free exercise of the religion that shall not be prohibited. Children are required to attend school in many areas. Many parents cannot afford private education making attendance of public school facilites mandatory. Teachers and administrators then conducting prayers and preaching religious doctrine outside the context of necessary exposure in a history or social studies class is a prohibition of the rights of humanists, atheists and other nontheistic belief systems.

Rogue, that's always going to be the case unless you design the curriculum. I disagree with tons of things I hear in the schools. The difference I see here is that this one relates to the right, as a member of certain faiths to raise your children in that faith, being infringed upon.

GLW, I agree absolutely. I feel much the way that you do about vouchers. The problem is most people view schools as a resource for their children only. The rural school district my wife is in just shut down the alternative education program. They are now adopting a policy of mainstreaming the problem children and discontinuing vocational or GED programs. Quote from a board member:"Most of these kids won't finish their diplomas before they drop out anyway. Just let them." Scary. My favorite is that the most vocal supporter of the program is the local sheriff. Sheriff's quote:"You have 2 choices. You can pay for the program now or we can hire more deputies and COs later. Your call."

[Black Jack]

Myosimka and GLW,

Good Posts!:)

It's hard to add anything else of value to such complete and intelligent posts. Better than I could of put it.

"Ugg.....me Black Jack....Uggg....me like to hit things....flowers pretty no?"

Rogue & Merry,

I 110% agree with you on the "all cultures are equal bs".

Thats what they would like us to believe but the proof is in the puddin fellas.

Braden,

I like your points but I don't think creationism should ever be taught in public schools, Thats what private schools are for.

[KC Elbows]

1. "under god" did not add much stylistically to the pledge, but did add a religious conotation.

2. Church and state are separated in the US(theoretically)

3. Adding a religious conotation to something that is to be recited by school children in public schools is basically the state endorsing religion in a small way, which was the whole intent in putting those words in.

THEREFORE

4. we need to add "next to buddha" somewhere in the preamble, "in view of Allah" to the national anthem, and "In tao we trust" on the Sacajeweia(sp?) dollar, and then we should be ok, except for the fact that we aren't separating the church and state.

People think religious catch phrases make us better people, and I think that's cr@p. Somehow, I don't think there's a crackhead with a knife out there right now who's changing his mind about knifing some unsuspecting victim for three dollars because of a blurb on the nickel around some white guy's head.

BTW, being in the only state, to my knowledge, that required teaching both creationism and evolution, it is a waste, and it did nothing to improve the schools. Science classes are for teaching what scientists have established. Scientists have not established much in the way of a workable model of creationism, and so it should be left out of science classes just like any other theorem of questionable scientific value. Shall we teach about the great spirit as well? And that helps kids learn science how?

There. That's my rant.

[fa_jing]

KC's Back!!!

[KC Elbows]

What about my back?

[KC Elbows]

and since when was it pc to tell church to go to hell?

Hehe.

[Le nOObi]

Originally posted by Merryprankster
All cultural practices are not equally valuable.

It's a byproduct of reality, vice the happy PC bullcrap we like to pretend is the truth.

Im a lil thick headed i still dont quite understand could you provide examples of what you mean, its just this statement could mean many different things!

[Merryprankster]

We like to pretend that all cultures are equal on the plane of values. They aren't. Some are more enlightened than others, some are more humanitarian, some kill or abort female children/fetuses, some have the death penalty, some don't, some value a rigorous education, others place little emphasis on this, etc.

It's a curse of Sartre's version of existentialism (its impact on 20th century western culture should not be taken lightly). If everything is pointless all is valueless and therefore equal in its valuelessness. This prevents you from making value judgments about one culture/its activities as compared to another.

It leads to the PC happycrap of each culture being just as good as another, when that is clearly not the case. To say there is nothing fundamentally 'better' about a society that does not stage mass executions and fights to the death in an arena vice one that does, for instance is sheer folly.

YET, this is what PCness promotes--that we embrace all cultures as equals.

The truth about PCness is that we are to embrace all cultures as equal...except when PCness dictates otherwise--like in the case of female circumcision.

PCness doesn't really promote viewing each culture as equally valuable--it really promotes cultural ****geneity under its own vision of what "should" be.

Not too different from any aggresive religion or philosophy, really.

[Le nOObi]

oh okay
I thought you were making fun of indians

[Braden]

Note - due to some misunderstandings, I rewrote this post trying to be completely clear with my meaning. See 06-29-2002 01:08

myosimka - "Braden, not sure how I didn't make it clear that should be both taught or neither. In fact, it seems to me in rereading my post that I did in fact state that."

:confused: I never accused you otherwise.

"Personally I believe that carbon dating and other forms testing moves one theory into theorem status but you may certainly disagree."

I'm not sure what you mean by that.

"My children being required to listen to other people's religious view points by the government (state employees at a public school qualifies) is indeed a violation of my rights."

Your comment specifically was: "Religious comments are routinely made at secular assemblies where attendance is mandatory."

So just so I get this straight, if I were to finish a valedictorian speech with 'God bless', I should be fined or tossed in jail? You believe you have a right that states 'no one in my presence my say anything religious I find distastefull'? *

"My children being told by authority figures to pray is a violation."

Authority figures tell children all sorts of things. I'd be interested in hearing an objective outline as to when this is a violation and when it isn't. *

"The free exercise of a humanistic belief system would preclude that."

Again, so I get your point straight, you're stating that for you to be able to exercise your beliefs freely requires that I not be able to speak about my beliefs in your presence? *

"Teachers and administrators then conducting prayers and preaching religious doctrine..."

What about eating meat? Alot of people for religious reasons find the eating of meat utterly repugnant. Should we make it so no meat is served in public schools? But wait a second, that infringes upon your right to not find eating meat religiously repugnant. Maybe we should offer meat and let people choose for themselves - in other words, not make any legislation at all about meat. Hmm... *

* please please please don't reply here 'I'm talking about children being told they must do religious X or get expelled from a public school' as I've allready said several times I agree that is wrong, so must assume you're referring to more general cases.

Black Jack

"I like your points but I don't think creationism should ever be taught in public schools, Thats what private schools are for."

What about Thompson's model of the atom in physics? What about behaviorism in psychology? Should those get tossed from public education as well?

[Black Jack]

This is getting a little silly dude,

The person giving the valedictorian speech is not a state payed school offical. She is using her natural right of freespeech to put anything in that little rant she wants.

Big difference between paid government offical's pushing a default religous/mythological belief system to the captured public which is breaking the constitutional law of separation of church and state vrs a teenage prom queen saying god bless you at the end of her non-government endorsed or paid speech.

Authority figures have no claim as to what your children should have a belief system in. They should have a solid understanding of what there purpose is, that is to teach in a secular enviroment, not one of fire and brimestone, based on one religon and one vewpoint.

Those that don't get this should be **** canned.

I think the meat eating thing is a wacky comparison, schools have other sources of food than just meat, no one is forcing you to eat lean protein, I don't see any serious relation to the topic.

On creationism-

Children in a public school are taught greek mythology in Social Studies, if creationism should be showcased anywhere it should be in that section with all the other mythologies, the main word mythology, not a clap-trap pandora's box of junk science.

Leave the real science where it belongs there is no room for boogey men in white robes and blessed virgin mothers in the same classroom as mathematics, geology, physics, psychology, and biochemistry.

Maybe in the drama department though:cool:

[Braden]

Note - due to some misunderstandings, I rewrote a previous post trying to be completely clear with my meaning. This may clear up issues raised here. See 06-29-2002 01:08

"This is getting a little silly dude..."

Yeah, it is getting silly. All I want to hear is the specifics of what is being proposed here, and it's yet to have been provided. If you're in favor of government paid armed men knocking on people's doors and telling them under force of arms what they can and can't say (even if said people happen to be teachers), I'd hope you've got a specific idea as to what's being enforced. All I'm asking is to hear what that is. His exact comment which I asked about was "Religious comments are routinely made at secular assemblies where attendance is mandatory."

"I think the meat eating thing is a wacky comparison, schools have other sources of food than just meat, no one is forcing you to eat lean protein..."

And no one is forcing you to believe a religious comment someone makes at a secular assembly. There are certainly other sources of belief. Sounds like an exact parallel so far.

"Children in a public school are taught greek mythology in Social Studies..."

You didn't answer my question. What should we do with Thompson's model of the atom? Does that get taught in the Greek classics class as well?

"there is no room for boogey men in white robes and blessed virgin mothers..."

:confused: I thought we were talking about creation.

[Radhnoti]

Braden, I think...and this is just my opinion...that you've stretched your "exact parallel" to absurd levels. I should know, I've done so myself often enough. :)
"All I want to hear is the specifics of what is being proposed here..." -Braden
The specifics, to me, would simply be to return the pledge to the pre-1950's state. Funny thing, my son was watching a Porky Pig cartoon today and he repeated the pledge...there was no "under God"...I wonder if the Cartoon Network had the timing of that planned. Barring a change, any publicly financed institutions should not force (either directly or indirectly) anyone to say it.
I don't recall anything about "Thompson's model of the atom", but I do remember being asked to repeat the pledge every day.
*sigh* Now I'm gonna have to go and research just what the heck "Thompson's law of the atom" is...
I'm too old for a homework assignment!

:p ;)

[KC Elbows]

I cannot say "Hey baby, nice ta-tas" at my job, and government employees cannot require anyone to say "under god" in their's. This does not require nazi soldiers patrolling schools, it requires principals(managers) doing their job and firing anyone who does not understand that they are there to teach, and NOT religion, which they can teach on their off hours if they like, off of school premises, which is the province of modern education.

If certain teachers(in my experience, the exception, not the rule) have so much god****ed time that they end up in personal religious discussions in the presence of students, perhaps they need to push THE SUBJECT THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO BE TEACHING.

[Braden]

Note - due to some misunderstandings, I rewrote a previous post trying to be completely clear with my meaning. This may clear up issues raised here. See 06-29-2002 01:08

Rad "Braden, I think...and this is just my opinion...that you've stretched your 'exact parallel' to absurd levels."

Quite possibly. Care to point out why? Or is there just an unnameable sense that it is wrong?

"The specifics, to me, would simply be to return the pledge to the pre-1950's state."

I guess it wasn't clear. We all already agreed on that.

"Now I'm gonna have to go and research just what the heck 'Thompson's law of the atom'"

It's just another model man used to try to understand the universe which is now in the defunct pile.

KC

"government employees cannot require anyone to say 'under god'...This does not require nazi soldiers patrolling schools"

I'm guessing this was directed at me, in which case I must apologize again since somehow it wasn't made clear - but we all already agreed on that one.

I'm not sure how this keeps slipping past people, as I actually begged people in a previous post to keep this in mind (see my "please please please" paragraph), but I'll try to be more clear in the future.

[KC Elbows]

Braden, how are we gonna get a simultaneous religious and political argument going if we all agree?

D@mn peace niks, always ruining my good fights.

[Braden]

Sorry, what I meant was:

KC, your kungfu is so bad you could never understand. Also, the only reason we're having this discussion is because the lesbians and gays made the forcefield around America that protects us from stupidity disappear.

[Braden]

Since there's been misunderstanding, I'll rephrase my previous posts for the sake of clarity. I realize in retrospect I realize I should have chosen my words more carefully as people are likely to interpret sarcasm or debate tactic where I was being literal, due to the emotional nature of the topic.

Just to state again, I agree absolutely 100%, no questions asked that it is wrong (and should be legislated so) to require anyone to make statements or actions of overt religious charactered in the publically funded sector.

Myosimka said "My children being required to listen to other people's religious view points by the government (state employees at a public school qualifies) is indeed a violation of my rights." and "Religious comments are routinely made at secular assemblies where attendance is mandatory." and "Teachers and administrators then conducting prayers and preaching religious doctrine..."

To clarify, what is the nature of the comments/activities you object with, the reason for your objection, and your suggestion to remedy the issue?

My objection stemmed from the fact that we all already agreed that anyone being required to actively participate in a religious belief in the public funded sector is inappropriate. Thus I must conclude that in the above you are not referring to statements of belief as part of a school curriculum, nor upon any situation which requires action on the part of the child, or other individual in question. That I can think of, the only situations that remain would be remarks of a casual, illustrative, or narrative nature: such as a blessing following a speech, a reading from a religious book, or a statement of the speaker's beliefs. To my knowledge, this does not seem to, in fact, violate the listener's rights. Perhaps you could explain further the objection you have here. Has there been any misunderstanding?

And "My children being told by authority figures to pray is a violation."

Keep in mind again that we allready agreed any enforced religious activity or religious belief statement was wrong. Thus, I must conclude you're not referring to a formal request, for example as part of a school curriculum. That I can think of, this leaves only situations equivalent to any other casual statement made by authority figures - such as not to drink, or to be polite if they happen to meet old ladies, or indeed to wear Tommy Hilfiger if they want to be happy. Has there been any misunderstanding?

My objection here is that I am unsure how one would go about controlling such statements using police and government as tools. If you're suggesting social change through discussion and media to change values to discourage authority figures from making such statements, I must agree wholeheartedly - as I said from the beginning. If not, my question is: how, specifically, do you suggest we go about using the police and government to enforce the cessation of this behavior? Speficially, by what definitions do you define authority and religious statement; how will this behavior be monitored; how will it be punished? Furthermore, why, if at all, are religious statements different in this regard than other statements?

And "The free exercise of a humanistic belief system would preclude that."

The that in the quote refers to the previous quote regarding authority figures.

Provided there has been no misunderstanding regarding that aspect of the discussion: my question here is simply, can you elaborate upon the idea that a third-party making casual assertions regarding a belief system prevents you from free exercise of your beliefs? This certainly doesn't seem to follow naturally at face value.

...

Those are the main issues that seemed to have caused misunderstanding. I hope this clears that up.

As for some side points...

My point about Thompson's model is as follows: Many people seem to have a concept of 'hard science' which is the truth about reality versus 'everything else.' This is not a valid concept, however. Intelligent remarks about reality come from contemplating to great length whatever one happens to be remarking upon. To this end, good science classes of any sort always teach a wide variety of concepts which, according to 'hard science' in it's current state, are patently false - or could be called 'mythic.' This, I believe, is to condition the student's mind to thinking about the topic; to give them the backdrop to society's understanding so that he can truly understand the advances that have taken place. For example, it's ironic that the example of Greek classics was brought up - if one were to study particle physics from a good instructor, their first class would be discussing the ideas of Leucippus and Democritus. Thomson's model of the atom would be another topic they would eventually progress too; one which has been long abandoned as incorrect. Creationism, despite the heavy controversy surrounding it, is not a religion-specific concept (which is to say, it is present in a wide variety of cultural understandings which vary in religion; which is to say, it is a concept independant of religion). It is, like it or not, a legitimate and historical fact regarding man's approach to understanding the world - as legitimate as atomism. To 'hide' it from schoolchildren because it is steeped in religion is akin to hiding Huck Fin and Tom Sawyer because they were percieved to be steeped in racism. In both cases, they are legitimate historical cases that have value in helping us to understand our society. To further illustrate the point with an example that is alot closer to home - natural selection (which, I assume is what you all meant when you said evolution) is not the hard fact people assume it is. Quite old ideas from ecology have demonstrated clearly it's not the overwhelming process governing all development; and new ideas from molecular biology have dramatically weakened it's case further. I'll spare you the specifics unless you really want to know. Should we stop teaching Darwin in schools?

FWIW KC, I disagree with the sexual harrasment laws you brought up as well.

[Black Jack]

Braden,

Since I disagree I guess I will have to wake up some of the gray matter and dance. You bastage. I may rant a little towards the end.

Here are my thoughts on creationism and why it should never be taught in public schools.

1. Church and State Separation-ANY religous indoctrination-either direct or indirect-by public resources is a violation of our constitutional principles.

2. Public teachers are only required to indentify, organize, and teach facts not divinty.

3. It WOULD be used to push a personal agenda i.e see Mysokima's first post.

Religon by itself and its theory of theistic/biblical creationism or as they like to call it the intelligent design theory does NOT rest on any logic nor evidence.

It is not a law of nature but what they see as divinity. A divine explanation of natural data is not subject to experiment, it cannot be proved untrue, as it rests in the mind of the faithfull, it rests on the unobservable, existing ONLY in faith. To be a science it needs to be both 1)testable and 2) compatible with our natural laws. Divine miracles thereby do not fit into those two criterion.

Science's dispassionate stare examines issues publicly, exchanges information openly, discusses awkward points objectively, and builds up a network of interdependent ideas and theories that progressively expose the complex as an outcome of the simple. Religion's inwardly directed sentimental glow reflects on issues privately, exchanges informatin by assurance and assertion, discusses awkward points by warfare, terror and coercion, and builds up a network of conflicting ideas that coneal ignornace under a cloak of empty prose.

Where religion purports to explain, it resorts to tautology.To assert that "God did it" is no more than an admission of ignorance dressed deceitfully as an explanation. Science with its publicly accessible girth of information and its open scrutable arguments, can lead the wondering to an understanding or the entire physical world.

Creationism does not do this. It does not respect the power of human intellect, it belittles it. Creationism is armchair speculation well fitted to adipose brains, it tries to answer deep questions with just words alone, it speculates widely, from flabby personal OPINION and NEVER be put to the test, where science draws on the perspiration of countless experimenters and the tough struggles of theoreticians to make sense of data.

Because religion asserts that science cannot divine the purpose of the universe, the religous conclude that science's orb is incomplete, that of course is bs, for religion cannot be allowed to invent these illusory hoops for its enemies to jump through, hoops such as life after death-not a single jolt of evidence with the exception of wishfull thinking-the soul-not a jolt of evidence-and the whole mess that fits into the timeline and structure of intelligent design theory which I found no reason to talk about personally because I find it VERY silly, though I can if I have to.

Getting back to the my main and last point. Where did it all come from and creationism science. Creationism adopts the adipose answer: God made it-for reasons that will forever remain inscrutable, kinda like a chinese laundry store owner. That answer is intrinsically absurd. Science in contrast is steadily and strenuously working towards a comprehensible explanation, acieved this side o' the grave.

Where religion scorns the power of our human comprehension, science respects it. Kids do not need scorn they need respect.

[Braden]

Black Jack

"1. Church and State Separation...2. Public teachers are only required to..."

I agree.

"3. It WOULD be used to push a personal agenda i.e see Mysokima's first post."

What would?

"Religon by itself and its theory..."

Not sure you're going with all this, but you did say you were going to rant. ;) For the sake of discussion...

"intelligent design theory does NOT rest on any logic nor evidence."

This isn't true. It may not have been concluded from scientific (in the formal sense) reasoning, and we may both disagree with the logic that defends it, and the people you speak to might not be able to adequately defend their positions, but that doesn't mean there was no logic involved. They have a reason for believing this, and their reason is based on their perception of reality - just like ours. Call their logic and asuumptions flawed, but don't say it doesn't exist.

"A divine explanation of natural data is not subject to experiment..."

It's not clear who you're ascribing this belief to. Is this your opinion, theirs, or something you believe is simple fact? Anything that effects reality is subject to experiment; if divinity effects reality...

"To be a science it needs to be both 1)testable and 2) compatible with our natural laws."

Requirement two is incorrect. If science (in the formal sense) has to be compatible with our current understanding of natural laws, then there could never be any advancement. Obviously, we have seen time and time again how science has accepted things that wildly contradict out current understanding of natural laws.

"Science's dispassionate stare..."

Well, in theory. ;)

"Religon's inwardly directed sentimental glow reflects on issues privately, exchanges informatin by assurance and assertion, discusses awkward points by warfare, terror and coercion, and builds up a networkd of conflicting ideas that coneal ignornace under a cloak of empty prose."

The comparison you're making here is entirely unfair. You're painting science in an ideal light which is not indicative of reality, and you then compare it to a pessimistic view of religion which is similarly biased. The above description of religion is only true of it at it's worst, when it fails; just as your idea of science is only true of it at it's best, which is never. Thus, the comparison just falls to pieces.

"To assert that 'God did it' is no more than an admission of ignorance dressed deceitfully as an explanation."

I understand your pessimism about religion, since I'm familiar with the kinds of people you are exposed to who claim to represent it. If you're interested in holding strong opinions on the topic though, you really should seek out the intelligent people active in religion. To dismiss religious philosophy as an immediate dismissal of reason is to insult some of the greatest, and most rational and thorough philosophers of western history, which came directly from the religious tradition, and who applied reason to topics you seem to believe are only excuses against it. Look into the entire Jesuit order, for example, who were pioneers of knowledge and rationality as great as the world has seen.

"It does not respect the power of human intellect, it belittles it..."

Your argument here again compares an idealistic science to a pessimistic religion; a comparison which is clearly not valid.

"Because religion asserts that science cannot divine the purpose of the universe..."

Again, it is not clear who you are ascribing this belief to. Is this your opinion, theirs, or what you believe to be a general fact?

Suffice to say, that it is not, in fact, valid to ascribe this belief to religion in general. The Jesuits and the Taoists, just as handy examples, asserted the exact opposite.

[Shaolindynasty]

I have a question for those who think that saying things like "under god" etc. doesn't matter.

What do you think the Christians would do if some president in the near future added words like "buddha bless us" or "praise allah" etc. in our athems pledges and etc.?

IMO most of the Christian's in this country are just bad as any fundamentalists.

[Merryprankster]

Braden,

Here is where black jack is having difficulty, and rightly so, in this instance:

The crux of the issue is, that a public school receives both state and federal funds. Since it receives (in fact, almost wholely supported by,) public money, it is bound by the strings attached--in this case, one of those strings happens to be not advocating religion in any form. The problem is one of context:

You can learn about religious history, and how it shaped the world at large. You can learn about the Pope and the doctrine of Papal Infallibility. You can learn about pantheistic dieties. All of these are appropriate materials to learn about within the context of sociological/anthropological/historical studies.

Creationism can and should be studied--within the context of a public policy course, philosophy class or perhaps some other sort of sociological context. When you present it in a biology classroom, however, you're in a bit of a mess. Creationism has at its BASE the existence of a first cause and that drives the rest of the argument. Creationists would argue that what I just said isn't true. What they would argue is that the evidence collected and analyzed points to the existence of a watchmaker. This is, in fact a tautology in that the evidence collected points only to the existence of highly refined structure in a seemingly almost lawless environment. To assign that order the quality of having been designed by a first cause is an unwarranted leap of faith.

Evolution and associated theories simply admit the lack of evidence that would prove the point either way. They don't rule OUT the existance of an ultimate, intelligent first cause, but they don't point at the order amidst chaos and say "this is too chancy, it must have been designed," which, given the studies done in chaos theory, is simply not necessarily true.

Creationism is agenda oriented, and specifically, it is agenda oriented towards the existance of an intelligent designer, and because of that, has no business in the SCIENCE classroom. you can't test Creationism out as a theory, or observe its effects on generations over time because it ends (and begins, IMO) with an untestable idea.

Get me some fruit flies or bacteria and we can discuss selection issues--doesn't mean that evolutionary theories are all correct, but we can test and explore those. :)

Throw it in a different field of study (like philosophy), and I've no issue with it.

Harrison Ford once pointed out, as Prof. Indiana Jones, that Science is the pursuit of fact--if you want the pursuit of truth, head to the philosophy professor down the hall.

[Braden]

"When you present it in a biology classroom, however, you're in a bit of a mess."

I understand perfectly your and his exception, which is why I asked specifically (several times) what he thought we should do with Thompson's model of the atom, or behaviorism. Now I'll pose the question to you as well.

I'm not being clever; and I'm not being metaphorical. I'll state my question explicitly and in the general sense: By what standards do you decide what theories get dumped from the curriculum and/or get moved out of science versus what ones stay in the science curriculum?

As an aside, science is a branch of philosophy. I guess you mean you'd be happy seeing it in a metaphysics class.

Some things that might be interesting to keep in mind: They DO teach atomism in physics class, which was derived with as 'spooky' a logic as creationism. They DO teach Descartes in a wide variety of science and rational philosophy classes, even though his work was as 'agenda driven' as creationism. The vast majority of science spending in north america is also just as 'agenda driven.' And scientists routinely get wide-spread respect from the rational community, and large amounts of tax-payer money to investigate things for which there is no evidence (eg. dark matter).

[Merryprankster]

If you're going to nit-pick about it, yes, I'd be happier seeing it in a metaphysics class. :D


Apples and Oranges?

Thompson's Atomic Model is taught as part of the "development of the current state of things."

Nobody runs around actually proposing working theories, based on negative charges being stuck in a smeared around positively charged goo.

Creationism is NOT taught in this way. Context again.

Should we not teach Magnetism and instead jump right in to Electroweak because we now understand that it is only one aspect of the Electroweak force? (Didn't we get strong thrown in with that awhile back?)


By what standards do you decide what theories get dumped from the curriculum and/or get moved out of science versus what ones stay in the science curriculum?

This is something of a straw man, don't you think? By expanding the argument, you're asking me to develop a set of criteria through which to evaluate the appropriateness of theories for the science curriculum. You're actually asking me to define science--

At any rate, that's actually not the issue at hand. The issue at hand is whether or not Creationism belongs in the science classroom.

Creationism is inherently non-testable--we cannot, regardless of our equipments capabilities now or in the future, design a hypothesis and perform a test of any kind to demonstrate the existence or non-existence of an intelligent designer. Consequently the existence or non-existence of an intelligent designer is speculation--a realm more appropriate in a metaphysical, rather than scientific, setting.

Creationism is inherently non-explorable. We could do NOTHING to explore this intelligent designer--other than attempt to fathom its purpose or its mindset, and that is an issue for metaphysics, not the science room.

I'm sure there are other objections.

Here's a definition that's not too shabby, IMO, and happens to fit rather nicely with my objections to Creationism as "science."


Science is a process of searching for fundamental and universal principles that govern causes and effects in the universe. The process itself is a method of building, testing, and connecting falsifiable models to describe, explain and predict a shared reality. The method includes hypothesis, repeatable experiments and observations, and new hypothesis.

[Braden]

MerryP

"Thompson's Atomic Model is taught as part of..."

I'd agree to this, which is why I rephrased my question in the general and explicit form.

"Creationism is NOT taught in this way. Context again."

Maybe we should clarify that I never asserted a given way for creationism to be taught. In fact, the direct comparison I made is between it and atomism. Particle physicists are similarly not asked to formulate new theories based on atomist (in the formal sense) thought. In other words, if what you're saying is creationism should simply be taught for what it is (although this isn't in fact what you've been saying), then surely we must completely agree?

"This is something of a straw man, don't you think? By expanding the argument, you're asking me to..."

No, I don't think so at all. You've made a statement that government should legislate what is taught in classes. All I'm asking is for the qualities of things which get excluded.

Unless you simply have an agenda-driven desire to see creationism removed, not for any logically consistent reason, but simply because you personally find it repugnant... I assumed this wasn't the case though. If this is the case, there's really no argument (in the formal sense) anyone could make with you, other than that those kinds of reasons shouldn't be used for legislation - which, I think, is exactly what BlackJack said in the first place (and to which I'd completely agree - which is why I generalized the question beyond possible agenda to determine a logical basis for the legislation).

"At any rate, that's actually not the issue at hand. The issue at hand is whether or not Creationism belongs in the science classroom."

Isn't that exactly the issue the above addressed?

"Creationism is inherently non-testable..."

Science doesn't test theories, it tests hypotheses. Scientific theories have as a necessary requirement - testable hypotheses. If two competing scientific theories to explain a given phenomenon do not resolve themselves via hypothesis testing, a second procedure is used to select which one to follow (eg. parsimony). Creationism is a theory, not a hypothesis.

For example, if an evolutionist said 'Look at the world, it is thus because of a series of progresive changes as outlined by Darwin!' and a creationist said 'Indeed, so it seems, but in fact God created the world in seven days, including the semblance of the fossil record and everything else!' then comparing these theories based on hypothesis testing would fail - they both agree on the observations about the external world. The creationists theory, however, would be rejected on basis of parsimony - it requires an assumption not necessary to explain the observations; an assumption the competing theory does not require. This seems to me like the scientific process working exactly as designed.

Which leads me to a pretty good reason why it should be taught - so that students won't make the fallacy of believing there is some kind of 'explanatory gap' which prevents science from looking at all religious issues; such that they could reply to and recognize such arguments laid at them from others, as well as not make the mistake in their own thoughts. For example, the exact same reason Larmarckism is taught in evolution classes.

[Merryprankster]

Braden, once again, we're in agreement, oddly enough, despite objections to the other's argument.

I have no problems with Creationism being TAUGHT. I have tremendous problems with it being taught as an alternative viewpoint to truly rigorous science.

Secondly, it's actually not a theory. Theories need to be falsifiable. Creationism, by its insistance on concluding the existance of an intelligent designer, is in no way falsifiable because it cannot be shown to be either right or wrong.

[Braden]

In my view, as I explained, I don't believe science deals with 'right or wrong,' but rather puts forth a methodology that describes how to choose between two alternatives - and this methodology is equally applicable to the problem of creationism.

The reason I argue my case, despite basically agreeing with what you said, is that I feel one of the great failures of the contemporary scientific community is to accept the notion of an explantory gap between it and religon (FWIW, I think the same notion in the general sense is a failing of contemporary religion as well). If we look back past this century, we find that this was largely not a view that was held by either camp. In my opinion, it was burgeoning political agenda-ism/correctness that caused this wall to be built in the first place; and the wall itself permits people to make such statements as "Scientists can say absolutely nothing of value on this topic, thus any criticism they make of what I say is utterly invalid." This statement, particularly when it is believed, greatly deters intellectual progress (both religious and scientific). IMHO, the problem we see here (re: creationism) is a symptom of the above, not it's cause.

[Merryprankster]

Actually, teaching science deals with teaching observations and models for the way the physical world works.

Metaphysics deals with trying to discover the ultimate why.

Would you agree that Creationism has crossed the boundary of science into Metaphysics? Honest question, not looking for an answer.

[Braden]

There isn't a solid boundary (in terms of topics) between science and metaphysics. They are different in the sense that to mention one is to imply a certain goal, and the goal in each case is different.

Science is nothing more than a procedure - it can be applied to a wide variety of topics. Metaphysics is a topic, or at least, a certain goal-minded approach to a certain group of topics. It seems like a category mistake to compare them for the purposes of making boundaries.

Science class doesn't just teach the procedure, it also teaches the present popularly held belief (depending on the level of the student), the historical beliefs from which this sprung, and the possible objections to the view, both historical and contemporary, along with standard replies. If creationism is as widely-held and problematic an objection as you suggest, it should most surely be included in this procuess.

Certainly creationism can be a metaphysical issue. As can a variety of problems from evolution, cosmology, etc.

[Merryprankster]

It's widely held in Kansas, apparently. :)

Mincing words again....

Science is a process, strictly speaking. The science known as biology, however, is a result of applying science to observations and models about life. Creationism, as such, doesn't actually qualify beyond a cursory discussion--Lamarckian evolution, while important to know ABOUT, is not that important to delve deeply into for the reason that it's been shown to be wrong.

There's a very real practicality issue you're overlooking--one of finite time. A public school biology course is a survey course--it's an overview of a GREAT deal of material, so you have to pick and choose the highpoints, and go as in depth as you can on the issues that are REALLY important--teach biology without a discussion of Darwinian derived theories or Gregor Mendel and genetics? ABSURD! However, you could probably have done your job of teaching them biology if you don't teach them a great deal about Creationism beyond a small 5 or 6 page section of a 300 page book.

How would you feel if you sent your son to a TIG welding class and he spent his time flux rod welding? :D

I'll agree with your argument about parsimony. I was looking at it from a slightly different angle in that for a model to truly be a "theory," it needs to be falsifiable. Since the "model" of creationism assumes/ends with an intelligent designer, it is inherently non-testable, and therefore, not worthy of being a theory. I think we're saying the same thing, but I'm using WAY more words :)

I'm not sure I agree with the comment about metaphysics and science...

I agree that the boundary isn't solid, but I think some things are clearly within the realm of one or the other. The nature of "goodness," for example...

Creationism, to my mind, falls within the "other" category.

I realize it's a disservice to NOT teach somebody something based on your personal feeling that it's wrong--that is agenda driven. But I also think that has to be weighed against the disservice of using valuable time on a subject when the time might be better used in a different capacity.

[Braden]

I agree completely.

What makes me uncomfortable - it's unconconstitutional to teach about creationism in schools; by corollary, we should fine or lock up teachers who mention it.

What I would agree completely with - creationism looks pretty wrong by our current outlook, and hasn't contributed much to it's development, so our discussion of it, particularly in a general level course, should be cursory. I'd even be happy with 'we shouldn't discuss it at all' so long as your objection is 'we don't have enough time and there's more important stuff' rather than a legislation about religious content - which is why I asked for an objective qualifier of what gets excluded. See? There's kind of method to my long posts. ;)

"Creationism, as such... Lamarckian evolution..."

If you're considering creationism and larmackism in the same light, then I've adequately argued my position. :)

"I think we're saying the same thing, but I'm using WAY more words."

Hmm... yeah, I think so. To the extent that you could say the law of parsimony permits a relative (in the formal sense of the word; that is, in relation to something else) falsifiability. I dunno if that is a stretch or not, but we're drawing the same conclusion anyway, and seem to understand what each other are saying.

"I agree that the boundary isn't solid, but I think some things are clearly within the realm of one or the other. The nature of 'goodness,' for example... Creationism, to my mind, falls within the 'other' category."

I understand what you're saying, but think I've explained why I think science can address creationism via my example regarding parsimony. While it's a simplified example, it's based off of positions that people actually take on the issue, so I think it is valid.

Just for the sake of pondering, ethologists have done alot of work into the nature of goodness, re: altruism among animals.

[Merryprankster]

Actually, I think we never really disagreed, Braden, which is, quite frequently, the case with us.

I really think we just like to talk to hear ourselves think. :D

I never disagreed that it should be TAUGHT, but it should be taught within a context--and the correct context is NOT alongside evolution as an "equally valid, alternate model," but rather, "here's an idea, apply what you've learned and tell me what you think."

BTW, you need to contribute to the recipe thread ya dumb Canuck!

[Braden]

I can't cook worth ****. Except cookies, I make a mean cookie.

There are worse sins than being eager to describe what you mean about something. I'm eager to do it because it's the only way I've ever been able to learn anything.

[guohuen]

Everything should be mentioned in the correct context. Otherwise you'll look like a fool to the students. Kids are smart.

[rogue]

Anything happen on this thread while I've been away?

How about when religion possibly gets in the way of the state? (http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/06/27/license.veil.ap/)

[JusticeZero]

Originally posted by Black Jack
Kung Lek,
Just incase somebody can tell me,'
1. For small government.
2. Pro-Firearm
3. Pro-Choice/For Abortion
4. Anti-Public Forced Religon in any and all forms.
5. Pro-Military/Military Science
6. Pro-Science and Discovery/i.e. Pro Clonning
7. Anti-Welfare
8. Anti-Illegal Alien
9. Pro-Farmer
10. Pro-Death Penality/Death to forced entry/serial rapists/serial child molestors.
11. Pro-Strip Clubs
There is more but that is a jist, what does that fall into? Libertarian party covers 1,2,4,6,7, and 11, and is neutral on 3. The others are usually only "against" because of the implications of those specific state powers, not because of a moral stance. (eg: anti-death-penalty not because of concern for 'criminal's rights' but because it's a power that the government, based on 'small government', probably shouldn't have their fingers in because it's bad precedent. That, and they'd rather make prisoners work for their living and to pay the victims damages in real money. 'government as tool of vengeance doesn't philosophically wash with me.)

[tsunami surfer]

It always amazes me when I read these posts and see how everyone just wants to bash the US and run down everything we are about. I never gave "under God" much thought because as far as I am concerned God is just a word to represent supreme being to what ever deity you want it to be. If you dont want to say it then dont say it. But people all over this world still flock to this country to get what we take for granted, FREEDOM. Go ahead and call bull hooey if you want but just ask any oppressed refugee why he is coming here. Ask any cuban on an inner tube, ask some guy swimmin the rio grande or some family stuck in the hold of a stinkin cargo vessel and he or she will tell you so they can live as they choose. Thats freedom to worship, work, participate in politics, VOTE, go to school and sit in your home without the secret police crashing in on you. And as for athiests, I've met a lot of mouthpeices who say they are when they are well fed and warm and clothed. But as an EMT and a law enforcement officer and a soldier I never met one when life was balanced on an edge.

I am now putting on a triple layer of nomex so I can withstand the flames.

[Black Jack]

:rolleyes: I once had a pushy pentecostal nitwit try to say the same thing to me when I was presenting a large financing program to his church.

You know what it reminded me of, a counter-sell, he was selling a product and I was selling a product, when he asked what religion I was, he jumped right into that claptrap, mine just turned out to be the one purchased.

I hate to break it to you, but "under god" is NOT what are nation is about nor was designed apoun. To be more specific to this point, the words under god, written by a MINISTER who had the brains to understand that we needed a pledge to make us united and not one forcing a default religion, were not ever in the original pledge, a pledge that took us through the great depression, two world wars, and other hard times, just fine.

That is intell Ike threw it in.

[KC Elbows]

Tsunami,
The separation of church and state was put in place to protect the very freedom you're talking about.

In addition, seeing as what a vast minority atheists are, of course you didn't tun into them much in your job. Does that mean their freedoms don't need defending? In addition, one could take the statement you said about never meeting atheists in need to be evidence that atheists don't end up in those situations. I'm not saying that is true, but that's the problem with the statement you made: it doesn't truly support either side of the argument.

I'm kind of tired of hearing certain religious groups complain about the fact that their beliefs are excluded from state financing and support. They themselves are not excluded, just as atheists aren't, yet they mistake everything in life as a platform for their personal beliefs, and that is not what a science class or any other scholastic activity is. *In addition, if they didn't get the memo that church and state is kept separate in the US to protect personal liberties, then perhaps they should have paid closer attention in government class and not wasted so much time complaining about how godless school is, in their opinion.

I can't eat a hoagy in the library, but do you see me complaining that my liberties are being threatened by the "educrats"?:p :D

[rogue]

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

The first paragragh can even make the Wiccans happy. Do notice the the big "G" in God and the big "C" in Creator.

[KC Elbows]

Rogue,
The reason that that quote is defensible is because it is in its original form, and is a fairly vague referrence(puposefully so). After all, the laws of nature are not a religious concept, Nature's God, though pushing the envelope, is still slick enough to put doubt into whose god is being discussed, and Creator is, again, sufficiently vague. In addition, it does not put the reader in a position of servitude to said conceptual being.

The pledge, on the other hand, was ammended by a hack, and that hack put a quote in that directly stated that everyone who is a citizen is subservient to one deity. I am willing to defend the original documents that the founding fathers put out that have some very vague referrences to religious beings, but some hack this century who decided to have us all say we're beneath someone else's concept of divinity can go to hell.

Shall we add a couple words to some other great works of our past?

I'm working on "improving" Shakespeare right now. "Cry havok, and let loose the weiner dogs of war". There, that's what it is now. Weiner dogs of war. Remember to say it that way from here on out, cause its better, really.

[KC Elbows]

In otherwords, constitutionality aside, exactly when is it OK to change another person's master work? Without permission from the author, I'd say never, but apparently I am in the wrong, and it's OK as long as it agrees with the sensibilities of the reader.

I'm off to Rome to do a little improving on those Michelangelo sculptures. After all, some people don't like looking at pen1ses.

[KC Elbows]

Hang on, I've just left Rome and am on my way to Israel to complete my repairs to a few classic Seuss works. After all, who the heck is gonna buy some guy liking swine? "I do not like green eggs and motzah". There. Another classic saved from the author's ignorance of the preferences of future generations.

[Black Jack]

KC,

You just made me almost spit up my drink.:D

btw, what in the name of a 70's untrimmed bush is a hoagey?

I like Ike, his jacket was the frekin bomb, but he should of kept his fingers off a already good piece o'work.

[KC Elbows]

It's a sandwich. I have no idea if I spelled it right. I'm now being told it's spelled hoagie. Thank god for the voices in my head.

[Gabriel]

Dude, I always argue my right to eat in a library. After all, I spend like half my day there. The head librarian is weakening, I can tell. Its my Mind Fu at work.

:D

Hoagies/Hoagy's rock!

[Braden]

Mmm Hoagies.

Whoever thought to put olives on hoagies needs a reward... A bottle of percocets, and an evening with a hot tub and TV in the same room during one of the A&E Law and Order marathons.

Or, like, whatever floats their boat.

You can eat in libraries. The secret is to eat quiet food. I got over my smartees addiction having to live in libraries. Don't even think about chips. Nibbs are A-OK. So are hoagies. Eat in the basement with all the neurophys books. No one goes there anyway.

[rogue]

Just pointing out that the idea of God wasn't a foreign concept to these guys. Now considering that many were Masons we could discuss who some of them thought God is.;)

[Black Jack]

I like to bring my lobster dinner to the library. A couple of lobsters, some fried clams, some slaw, some hush puppies, and that wine in a box.

I get looks but I wonder if its because of the food or because I walk around with my snake swining out of its cage. I like to rush up to people I don't know, very often mature overweight women, and slap them with it on the fanny, often with a cute remark like, "my germs!!"

Its a good ice breaker and it gets me dates for my lobster dinner at the library. I hate to be lonely at the library.

Ohhhh....I LOVE hoagies!!!!!!

[Braden]

Ok, you win.

[KC Elbows]

Above is the best hijacking of the year.

Oh, and hoagies rule.

[Serpent]

Of course! It's been plainly obvious all the time! The pledge should be:

"One nation, under Canada"

It's factual and not in the slightest bit controversial!

[KC Elbows]

It's a pledge and a lesson in geography all in one!

Wait, won't that exclude the Alaskans?

[Serpent]

What doesn't exclude the Alaskans?