Ab_Normal

ManM, I'm curious: What's your solution to the problem you perceive?

Bible Humper

Yeah, they would love to see the curriculum only ever show the world from their perspective. Hypocritical indeed.

Nonetheless, I have to point out that the left undeniably engages in the force-feeding of their views to students.

It should not be an either/or question here, they are both coercive.


<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> Because you will decry your counterpart's efforts to "think their thoughts for them" while you do the same damn thing.

Both sides of this issue are hypocrites, the loony left and the reich wing are both using their left hands to do what they are indignantly pointing at with their right hands regarding what their counterpart is doing, and us poor pragmatic centrists in the lonely middle ground get drowned out by all the squawking and jeering.

brighid

Man M,

Man M,

Parochial schools exist in Florida and therefore you have the choice to send your child to it, regardless of expense. You may not be able to take advantage of that choice, but the choice exists. Poor thing … you live in Florida … considering that state government is run and how it has little regard for the welfare of children I can’t say I blame you for not wanting your child to go to a Florida public school. You can also choose to home school your children and teach them exactly as you would like them to learn.

I am not arguing that you must believe the same way I do, or that you must interpret scientific results the same way I would. The scientific method and the verifiable and falsifiable results that correspond to our very existence as human being within a natural world are very relevant to every child regardless of religion. Scientific results or even the scientific method do not conclude that this is the ONLY way something can be, unless of course after extensive research in attempt to falsify it the claim has not been falsified. But again, the wonderful thing about science is that doesn’t even stop anyone from making and proving claims once thought impossible. Nor does science preclude the actual existence of a generic Creator, it simply hasn’t discovered any evidence to actually suggest a Christian (or other version) of that Creator exists as defined by it’s theologians, adherents or by it’s Holy Books.

I apologize for making a rash and unfair comment about wallowing in your ignorance. I was a bit insensitive and as I don’t actually know you it is not something I can state with any accuracy.

I hope the day never comes where the walls separating Church and State crumble. I think that will be a sad and dangerous day for ALL people and the history and current state of theocracies is a bloody, oppressive one. Pray to your God that your co-religionists don’t get their way because someday, just as in the days of old, you may not believe in the correct interpretation of God and Christ and find yourself declared a heretic, stripped of your freedoms and punished for your sin in cruel and unusual ways. History has a very nasty way of repeating itself and if the infighting amongst Christian denominations is any indication of the future I would be vary afraid if you don’t happen to be amongst those who gain the majority rule.

I am not positive, at this moment, what percentage of my actual paycheck goes to support actual Church organizations. However, one dime of it is 10 cents too many and with the present initiatives it will be much more then it presently is and therefore the constitutional violation is more egregious.

Brighid

ex-preacher

Also, I'm deeply troubled that most schools insist on teaching heliocentrism. My faith teaches me that the earth does not move. Why must I support schools which indoctrinate my children with evil heliocentrism!!!!

eldar1011

I must confess, I had to look up the definition for "naturalism". I was not sure if it could be used interchangeably with science.

That being said, I don't think science necessarily sets bounds. If you could demonstrate a controlled experiment where a pile of kindling can spontaenously combust simply through the power of prayer and allow peers to succesfully repeat said experiement, then there'd be a case for supernatural causes.

The scientific method does allow for this, there is room for evidence from outside the bounds of the natural world.

I doubt that religion does the same. Is there an equivalent religious method for challenging the articles of belief?

As pointed out by Wyz_sub10:

If "intelligent design" or "creation science" can be subjected to the scientific method and proven, then it should be taught. But, that's a BIG "if".

I know I am assuming that your "explanation of the world" is inline with the American Christian Conservative movement, if I'm mistaken then simply insert whatever explantion you like. It wouldn't change the test for scientific validity.

I'd also like to follow-up Wyz_sub10's question to you: "Do you reject all of science or only evolution?"

Finally, as far as the lack of vouchers in Florida..."Feel free to move about the country".

Corwin

Actually I have an idea.... let's work together and strengthen the wall by removing the exemption churches have, instead of weakening it by allowing churches to endorse political issues AND keep their tax exemption.

Right wing churches bitch about politics and social issues constantly.... and they don't pay a damned cent to help out.

Autonemesis

In science class, yes. Those terms refer to techniques and methodologies employed by scientists. Nothing should be taught in science class, but what scientists do and how they do it.

In P.E. class, we should indoctrinate them into physical fitness techniques. In English, we should indoctrinate them into the rules of grammar. In arithmetic class, we should indoctrinate them with multiplication and division tables. In music class, they should be indoctrinated with scales and rehearsals and sheet music and the techniques of playing an instrument.

So yes, we should indoctrinate children into the principles of the discipline in which they are receiving instruction.

Rusting Car Bumper

Whether you like it or not you are a naturalist. (Actually materialist would be more accurate but I will use your choice of words.)

If you break your leg or get an infection, you will request the "naturalist doctor" to mend the wound or to provide antibiotics to reduce the infection. You will not believe that prayer or a shamanic dance will accomplish these things.

You believe that lighting is electromagnetic discharge and not war between the gods.

You, sir, are a naturalist.

DC

Autonemesis

Critical thinking has no bounds.

Don't make me laugh. Oops, too late. Religion encourages orthodoxy, subservience, self-loathing and obedience.

Speak for yourself.

Too bad, it is still a fact that scientists do science, and science is what should be taught in science class.

Too bad. I will grow old and retire in a world run by your children, and I have as much stake in how they are taught - indoctrinated, whatever - as anyone else. Get used to it.

You're right. Your willful disdain for honest inquiry has made you ignorant.

What should we teach in science class if not science? Scientists don't do creationism, or comparative religion, or ethical theory. They do science. Science is naturalism. You cannot teach science without teaching naturalism. What you seem to be in favor of is abandoning science education.

As is completely proper when the discipline under study is one of the sciences. Otherwise, no science instruction can take place.

This is solipsism.

"Nothing is True, Everything is Permitted." How interesting that you agree with Chaos Magick.

How many prayers did it take to get a space probe to Jupiter?

A technique is not a belief. Science is a technique. Religion is belief.

You're right, taking both sides makes you a hypocrite. AFA is trying to take both sides. They're all for 1st Amendment when it protects their ideas, and completely against it when it protects someone else's.

theyeti

Evolution is a scientific theory; it is not a religious concept. It is called a religious concpet by creationist propagandists as part of their exceedingly dishonest campaign to infuse their own religion into public schools. But the Supreme Court has specifically ruled that the theory of evolution is not religious in nature, and therefore it cannot be removed from classrooms on religious grounds.

As for naturalism, it has nothing to do with the theory of evolution. While evolution is consistent with naturalism, it does not compel it nor does it require it. Just ask the Pope. If children really were being indocrinated with philosophical naturalism, then I would agree that this is wrong; however, I see no evidence of this, and it certainly wasn't my experience as a school kid. But if it does happen, contact your local ACLU immediately.

It's hypocrisy because the arguments that they're using against the Laramie Project and evolution, for example, defeat their own arguments in favor of "putting God in schools" and whatnot. If indoctrination of specifc religious concepts and/or ideologies is wrong, then it's wrong regardless of your religion or ideology (though I think it's total crap to claim that a play which shows sympathy to a murdered gay man is ideological or religious in nature). If the AFA wants to advocate for prayer in schools and other violations of the 1st amendment, then they should drop the pretense of religious/ideological neutrality when arguing against The Laramie Project. They've shown time and time again that viewpoint descrimination is perfectly okay, as long as it's their viewpoint.

theyeti