New to FriendlyChristian.com? Check out the FAQ page to learn about the site. Wondering who the heck I am? The My Story page is a great place to start. Thanks for stopping by!
Click here to subscribe via RSS.
Click here to have posts delivered by email.
This message will automatically disappear after your 3rd visit.
Some schools have taken the word “[tag]God[/tag]” out of the [tag]Pledge of Allegiance[/tag]. Many teach straight up evolution. Now, some have banned any reading from the bible…even during show and tell!
Wesley Busch is a kindergarten student at [tag]Culbertson Elementary School[/tag] in [tag]Newton Square, Pennsylvania[/tag] — and all he wanted to do was have his mother read aloud from his favorite book, the Bible. The book reading was part of a classroom assignment called “All About Me,” the purpose of which was to provide students an opportunity to identify individual interests and learn about each other through the use of items such as stuffed animals, posters, books and other mediums.
Jeremy Tedesco, legal counsel with the [tag]Alliance Defense Fund[/tag] (ADF), says the school district had a big problem with Wesley’s favorite book. “When Wesley told his mom ‘I want you to read the [tag]Bible[/tag], that’s my favorite book,’ the school said no — even though they let every other book reading go forward… [they said] but here, read this book on witches and [tag]Halloween [/tag]instead.”
I’m actually not gonna write any more.
Popularity: 8% [?]
I’m an atheist and even I think that’s going too far.
It’s one thing for a school not to push or show favouritism to any particular religion and another thing entirely to try to pretend that none of them exist.
Like it or not, religion plays a very important part in some people’s lives. Schools should acknowledge that and try to teach children about the diverse range of beliefs people have in the hope of encouraging understanding and tolerance, rather than sticking their heads in the sand.
I agree with Matt. Religions do play an important role is many people’s lives. I am curious to know the context in which the bible reading was to take place. Was the mother proselytizing, or was she only relating the importance of religion in her son’s life to the rest of the class. If it was the latter, then the school probably did go too far.
On the case of the child’s parent reading from the bible:
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2007/09/the_adf_is_right_on_this_one.php
I wish. It shouldn’t be there. It was only inserted in the 1950’s.
In science class ? Of course. They also teach straight germ theory of disease, straight general theory of relativity, etc.
??
Darn it, I meant to quote the ending from the scienceblogs link. Since the Alliance Defense Fund is nearly always wrong, it is definitely worth pointing out the rare occasion when they are right:
I have to agree with Joseph and Ben on this with the caveat of ‘context’. what was the situation in which this book, the Bible, was being read?
If it is indeed a situation where students are reading from their favorite texts…why not allow this student to read from his favorite text? Nothing is being taught as fact. This is just student speech. No one is being compelled to accept a revealed faith as fact.
I have to agree the ‘under God’ phrase needs to go away. This little piece religious theater was foisted into the original secular pledge by ‘whack-jobs’ in the 50’s during the McCarthy craze.
Here’s the thing though my belief is we shouldn’t be pledging allegiance to an inanimate object, the flag. Why not Pledge or Allegiance to an idea say the U.S. Constitution which is really what we need to defend. A flag is a material object and simply a replaceable symbol. The Constitution is an idea a much more worthy of allegiance.
To paraphrase Carlin, let’s leave symbols to the symbol minded.
All that said though I would not presume to CHANGE the original ‘pledge’ as written by Francis Bellamy.
When I place my hand over my heart I am not pledging to a piece of cloth or to anyones god but to the ideals as represented in the document we call the Constitution.
Oh well…I yield the soapbox…
Robert
Yup, yup, yup, wow, wouldn’t that be predjudice against Christianity??? Hmmmm…
People are so determined to take God out of everything….but being a believer I know it’s all part of the big picture…and how it all turns out. Funny, when people who don’t even believe in God will curse Him and blame Him when things go wrong. When my kids came home with evolution in school, I went to the teachers and asked that both sides be presented. Luckily they agreed and changed the ciriculum to include several other views including Creation. If one view is presented, all views should be so that these kids can make an informed choice….not just based on someones opinion.
Assuming all the relevant facts are in, my response would be that censoring a child’s show-and-tell spiel is totally idiotic. This is exactly why the ADF and ACLJ exist. It’s especially onerous because it just exacerbates the fundmentalist Christian perception that they’re a persecuted minority. So, they fight all the harder to impose a theocracy.
As an atheist I am strongly opposed to any attempt at purging the nation of religion (except through discussion
). Separation of church and state means exactly that, the government should not be in the business of dictating what, or what not, to believe.
Pursuant to that, the word “god” doesn’t belong in any public reference of a secular nation. The people of the US may be majority Christian, but that’s not the same as a Christian government. Gov’t has no religion, it’s a tool for the benefit of the people, ALL its people. (And politicians can be tools, too, but that’s different)
Evolution should be taught in science class. It’s science. Even IF you think it’s a faulty theory, it’s the the latest thinking we have on the subject and ought to be presented until a better idea replaces it. But, far from being faulty, it’s a solidly supported theory.
When I taught in elementary I was not allowed to say Merry CHRISTMAS. We had to say Happy Holidays. No “Easter” break - it was called Spring Break. However, we recognized Hanukkah by coloring pictures referring to that tradition. It was very odd to me. We never even said the Pledge. But I learned quickly that things are better caught than taught. I wasn’t worried that i couldn’t tell a child I was praying for them. It didn’t bother me that i couldn’t tie in a biblical lesson with a planned curriculum. I needed to only be concerned with my character and show them these things instead. Besides, my own children attended there and they were free to speak of God as much as they wanted…and they did and still do…until that is completely taken away from them..
Gods Gal
It’s well and good to say we have to include alternative views to evolution. By alternative views i assume you mean the biblical creation story. BUT, where would you draw the line? Whose creation story is NOT worth including in the SCIENCE classroom? If we accept your creation story we also have to include the Hindu which by your standards is at least as valid as the Christian story of creation.
I fully believe that the Christian creation story should be included in a public education, but it needs to be taught as what it is: a faith-based narrative taught in a comparative religion forum. Even within this Christian tradition there are differences. Whose tradition do you decide is the most valid?
Unfortunately the teacher you spoke to made the WRONG decision, teaching the Christian creation story in the science classroom opens the door to ALL creation myths. See the Dover, PA decision handed down by a Bush appointee. You have said in many posts that YOUR view of creation is one of faith. Many other people in THIS country have a different religious faiths. Will you consent to have creation stories of other faiths (and there are many!) taught to your children?
Someone once said as long as there are tests in school there will be prayer in school. I agree I can’t count the number of times in college I prayed for my mind to work correctly while in the midst of a calculus exam!
What we can’t do is favor one religion over another….thus ESTABLISHING one religion as the preferred.
Robert
Hi Tam
I wouldn’t ever worry about students being stripped of their ability to speak of their God. I would be right there defending their right to do so…even though I am a ‘filthy’ atheist.
I want no thought police in my schools!
I just don’t want a teacher leading a classroom in matters of faith. The problem becomes which faith do we endorse? We can’t endorse them all…so do none…keep it impartial.
Robert
Hi Polly
Well said!!!
Robert
Robert, we are again speaking from two different view points, I think you are wrong in your assumptions, you think I am. It’s fine, but the teacher made the right decision, and yes I AM open as I said in my earlier post to the kids being taught many different views, not just excluding Christianity. God has proven Himself faithful to our children, even tho they were exposed to many different views, they too have chosen the one true living God to serve with their lives, and to me it’s just more proof of His existence.
Hi Gods Gal
I think this before, clearly however it bears repeating.
I have NEVER stated there is NO god.
What I have said and continue to say is that I don’t believe in Yahweh or Jehovah or whatever name you choose to give the god described by the Bible.
Yes we have very different points of view.
My view is that God is the creative force in the Universe. Every fiber of my being tells me that we, you and I, as good intellectually honest people have absolutely nothing to fear from God.
I believe that God is bigger than the Bible, the Qu’ran, The Talmud or any other holy book that we humans have written.
I’m glad that you have the faith you have chosen, truly I am. Clearly it works for you.
Can you not admit that maybe what I am is exactly what God made me to be? I am a person who chooses to use my senses to try to ascertain the how, when and where’s of His creation. I admit that in the end the principle first cause or first “WHY” might just be beyond my scientific and reasoned methods.
I have been searching for God from a very early age. I think that search has made me who I am and this is exactly who god wants me to be.
Peace to you and yours Gods Gal.
Robert
You’re right Robert, I don’t remember reading that about you….I really don’t mean to sound so defensive and yes, I believe we are ALL exactly how we were created to be. I am interested in knowing the in’s and out’s as well where things are concerned, I just choose to give the credit to Him.:)
If I could figure Him out, He just wouldn’t be God to me, I kinda like not knowing everything and having a bit of mystery. It’s so fun for me to just trust Him with the things in my life and have them work out better than anything I could ever plan….it always amazes me. Thanks for sharing!:)>-
Beings this a discussion about school and what is allowed in the school, I was wondering about something..To my knowledge, evolution (as creation) is a theory. Many of you have stated that so far it is the best theory to explain creation so far. I think that’s great for you. My thoughts took me to a question this morning while coloring my ever evolving natural hair color…School is a place to educate our children, Reading, writing and arithmetic. 2 + 2 = 4, that is a fact. This is how you spell “IT” I + T = IT. That is a fact. Why are we teaching theories then or best possible guesses? Not all scientist agree with evolution and I have never heard either of my children discuss that side being taught in school. They have been taught, so far, many, many fascinating facts about science…along with evolution the theory. I’m just curious…What happened to the basics of education? If my children are interested in theory they can take a course in college.
And to add to this thought of mine… I also don’t want my kiddos being taught religion in school! That is our job as parents. So I am in no way attempting to advocate that.
If I was a militant atheist, I’d firmly believe that we should have manditory prayer in school.
Nothing would destroy Christianity sooner than making Jesus so uncool to kids as making Him homework!
When these folks push to get Government-led prayer in school, manditory bible-study all that stuff into the government-run school, all I can say is, this’ll be the last throes of Christianity.
“Government-run Christianity.” Ah, what beauty there is in that phrase.
If I’m against it at all, it’s based on principle… I’m against the strong overrunning the weak. I’m against children being the target of religious indoctrination when they’re young and still unable to think critically.
But really militant atheists should be all for the “Government-run Christianity”. It’s what made England mostly atheist, after all.
Hi Gods Gal
It’s good to be able to understand each other a bit more. I apologize profusely if it seemed if I treated your faith as something less the the precious thing it is to you.
Again yes if you knew everything…you would be God!
Have you tried walking on water…:P
I’m sorry couldn’t resist!
Ciao,
Robert
Tam wrote:
99.99% of them do.
What are you really proposing, then? That we should carve out some time in biology class to teach the beliefs of 0.01% of the scientific fringe crackpottery?
Hi Siamang
I think that’s is a great point!
Were we to institutionalize a religion it would most assuredly destroy that religion.
One things that makes the United States so successful is that we explicitly keep religion and state matters separate. I truly believe that the people who are for making ours a Christian country really haven’t thought the matter through.
Can anyone truly say they would like elected officials deciding what faith is?
I know I wouldn’t!
If I read history correctly I think that’s why a group of pilgrims came to my home state in 1620!
Religion has to be free of state entanglement and vice versa.
Robert
I agree with you, Robert. But sadly, a lot of folks in the majority don’t agree with us that the current situation is really best for them as well.
Hi Tam
I have to concur with Siamang here…
Evolution is almost universally accepted as accurate by Scientific professionals.
There is actually less consensus on the quantum theory and relativity theory, and yet we still have super computers and space travel to distant planets.
All that aside IF a creationist were to put forward a theory that better explains the ‘apparent’ speciation of life on Earth AND has evidence to support it, I’d have no choice but to accept it and defend it.
That’s the heart of what science is!
Robert
That’s the thing…I think most of country men would surprise you there. I think if it were to come to a question on the ballot.. I think all my fellow Americans would see the danger of legislating religion.
robert
Siamang you wrote this, “fringe crackpottery?” Why so rude and disrespectful…
Anyways…to teach children a “nearly” absolute as the explanation, in theory form, is wrong in my opinion. What I should do is ask an actual school board official.
@Tam:
Tam, science goes no higher in its level of confidence than ‘theory’ or ‘law.’ The wikipedia page explains it best:
[quote]Several general properties of physical laws have been identified. Physical laws are:
* True. By definition, there have never been repeatable contradicting observations.
* Universal. They appear to apply everywhere in the universe. (Davies, 1992:82)
* Simple. They are typically expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. (Davies)
* Absolute. Nothing in the universe appears to affect them. (Davies, 1992:82)
* Stable. Unchanged since first discovered (although they may have been shown to be approximations of more accurate laws—see “Laws as approximations” below),
* Omnipotent. Everything in the universe apparently must comply with them (according to observations). (Davies, 1992:83)
* Generally conservative of quantity. (Feynman, 1965:59)
* Often expressions of existing homogeneities (symmetries) of space and time. (Feynman)
* Typically theoretically reversible in time (if non-quantum), although time itself is irreversible. (Feynman)
Often those who understand the mathematics and concepts well enough to understand the essence of the physical laws also feel that they possess an inherent intellectual beauty. Many scientists state that they use intuition as a guide in developing hypotheses, since laws are reflection of symmetries and there is a connection between beauty and symmetry. However, this has not always been the case; Newton himself justified his belief in the asymmetry of the universe because his laws appeared to imply it.
Physical laws are distinguished from scientific theories by their simplicity. Scientific theories are generally more complex than laws; they have many component parts, and are more likely to be changed as the body of available experimental data and analysis develops. This is because a physical law is a summary observation of strictly empirical matters, whereas a theory is a model that accounts for the observation, explains it, relates it to other observations, and makes testable predictions based upon it. Simply stated, while a law notes that something happens, a theory explains why and how something happens.[/quote]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory
The theory of evolution is as solidly supported as the germ theory of disease and (arguably) better supported than the general theory of relativity. Science is based on induction - we have only a small subset of possible situations from which to derive our theories and laws.
[quote]One solution to this problem is to rely on the notion of induction. Inductive reasoning maintains that if a situation holds in all observed cases, then the situation holds in all cases. So, after completing a series of experiments that support the Third Law, one is justified in maintaining that the Law holds in all cases.
Explaining why induction commonly works has been somewhat problematic. One cannot use deduction, the usual process of moving logically from premise to conclusion, because there is simply no syllogism that will allow such a move. No matter how many times 17th century biologists observed white swans, and in how many different locations, there is no deductive path that can lead them to the conclusion that all swans are white. This is just as well, since, as it turned out, that conclusion would have been wrong. Similarly, it is at least possible that an observation will be done tomorrow that shows an occasion in which an action is not accompanied by a reaction; the same is true of any scientific law.
One answer has been to conceive of a different form of rational argument, one that does not rely on deduction. Deduction allows one to formulate a specific truth from a general truth: all crows are black; this is a crow; therefore this is black. Induction somehow allows one to formulate a general truth from some series of specific observations: this is a crow and it is black; that is a crow and it is black; therefore all crows are black.
The problem of induction is one of considerable debate and importance in the philosophy of science: is induction indeed justified, and if so, how?[/quote]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science#Induction
Induction works as long as you realize all your inductively derived knowledge (the majority of ALL of our knowledge) is tentative. Future information or observations can contradict anything whatsoever we so far believe to be true. (Except for some of Gods Gals conclusions which she has claimed will not be altered.)
We have to remember that the greatest religious persecution that took place on the soil that eventually became the USA, was Christian AGAINST Christian. Every sect and denomination excluded and persecuted every other sect. Christians who want a church run government forget just how easily doctrinal disputes can turn their version of Christ’s teachings into a (taxable, punishable, etc) HERESY.
@TAM:
If you want to get techinical about what science really is, it’s not as much “fact” as you might think (and neither is math). We are surrounded by facts, but the job of science is to formulate a model into which these facts can be embedded in a coherent manner. The test thenis whether these models can make accurate predictions about what nature will do. But, even then, some of the most important ideas we have about science are currently untested and some few are quite possibly untestable.
If you want to get rid of scientific theories, you should start with Isaac Newton’s equations of motion. They’re wrong! But, they do work at non-relativistic speeds.
Ideas about how nature works are just that, ideas. They are not facts except in so far as they make reliable predictions. It’s possible that in 400 years everything we think we understand about gravitation, electricity and everything else will appear, in retrospect, to be completely wrong in general but workable as a subset of THE larger, grand-unified discipline of Electrobiochemicophysics. But, we don’t sit back and say, I’m not buying into any of this until you guys are “done.” The human race probably never will be “done” studying the universe, i.e. at a point where we’ve fully explained everything at the most fundamental level.
If a heliocentrist of 500 years ago, in arguing with a geocentrist, said that the Sun is the center of the universe, he/she would have been wrong. Right: about Earth not being the center, but wrong about the Sun being the center…or about even presuming there is a center. I don’t know of any real life conversations like that, I’m just making the point that science is a process not a destination. You can be right about discarding old models while being too myopic in formulating a new model of nature.
It’s a process of evolution in a way. Good ideas stick around while bad ones are disposed of over time. But, we’re left with ever better approximations of the workings of nature, while none are ever perfect or the “final word.”
Whew, long post! I hope that helps.
They were afraid they would’ve favoured a religion over others by allowing a situation where an adult figure was talking to young children about a particular religion. It was a mistake not to let her speak, but isn’t it a bit far fetched to talk about the schoold treating Christians as second class citizens or implying that the school somehow favours witchcraft as an alternative to Christianity?
My impression is that it was probably a mistake, not deliberate oppression.
Well I believe God is the final word here. I do not discount science nor do I want it abolished in the schools. I think it is fascinating, beneficial and life saving. I, personally as a Christ follower, do not believe its theories of creation…period! You do, I don’t. I’m fine with that. My opinion is present more than the creation theory in school or nothing at all.
@Tam - couple of things to add to your musings…
-gravity is also ‘just’ a theory.
-if you’re operating in a whole number system with rounding off, 2+2 can =5 (2.4+2.4=4.8)
-if language is factual, why does a dictionary from 100 yrs ago often contain unrecognisable words? why do i spell colour differently from you when we speak the same language?
No. Denying the theory of evolution is on the level of denying that the flu is caused by a virus or that your computer works by electricity and magnetism. Science presents one supported theory of electromagnetism (hint: no magic), one supported germ theory of disease (hint: no magic), and one supported theory of evolution (hint: no magic.) The knowledge that humans are primates, sharing common ancestry with all other primates - all other modern living things, in fact - is as sure as the knowledge that lets us believe computers work or painkillers work.
I’m sorry…2.0 + 2.0 = 4.0
Seriously people! Romans 1: 19&20 says, “They know the truth about God because He has made it obvious to them. For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see His invisible qualities-His eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God.” For me to have stayed in the belief system in evolution as fact would be for me to keep denying what I already instinctively know. That there was a designer not an accident. To have continued holding onto changing theories to support and justify me not choosing to believe in God would have left me foolishly book smart and still searching for mans next biggest guess. This is where I stand though.
Again, I SIMPLY was wondering why more than the creation theory isn’t presented in schools. At least nothing more is at our local schools. But also like I said, this simple question is probably better answered by an actual school official.
You said “not all scientists agree with evolution.”
I pointed out that 99.99% of them DO agree with evolution.
Do you accept this as a statement of fact, or do you deny it?
I don’t think it’s rude and disrepectful to call a fringe belief among scientists a fringe belief. If we’re going to start including the beliefs of 0.01% of scientists in our public school science classes, I’m afraid you’re going to get crackpot science… get ready for cold fusion, the aquatic ape hypothesis, psychic phenomena and the Lifecode theory of biological self-organization. Michael Behe the fringe scientist in the field of Intelligent Design said that his definition of what is and isn’t science would include astrology. Do we want that taught, too?
I don’t understand this sentence. Can you help me understand what you’re saying here?
You’re saying it’s wrong to teach children a nearly absolute? What is “nearly an absolute” here?
It sounds GREAT to me to teach children things that there is near universal scientific consensus on. Especially things like the central organizing principle undergirding all of modern biology: evolution.
Is it wrong to teach children something that’s not an absolute? Why? Are you saying that untill 100% of people agree on something, you shouldn’t teach it? 100% of people don’t believe that Elvis is dead. Are you really going to teach kids that he’s alive?
What’s wrong with teaching children things in theory form? A theory is a scientific word for “an explanation that fits all observed data, is falsifyable and has never been falsified.” Is there a problem with that? Should we also teach falsified explainations?
For anyone who might be interested, I wrote about this on skepchick.
Are you guys completely whacked…..sorry sometimes it slips.. Robert, thank you, I’m feeling like I can actually relate with you now. Walk on water? Naw, but I have been called out of the boat a time or two LOL…Like this blog…geez.
Siamang: I agree with you Robert but sadly alot of people in the majority don’t agree with us??????? That’s a bit oxy-moron isn’t it? With millions of Christians around the world, I really don’t get where the mindset comes in that Christianity is now nor will ever go anywhere. It may be wishful thinking on the part of angry atheists who doesn’t want to see the obvious, but as a believer I could really care less about science when forced to choose between being an ape or a loving creation from a loving God. While I find it sad, it’s your choice. What I don’t understand is why all the atheists on this blog today are in the mood to shred and rip up instead of discuss…can we get back to the respect factor here? Oh, when millions of us disapear, and all hell breaks loose, you won’t find your reasoning in the science books, you will in the Bible tho….hope your scientific reasoning will help you then. If not, God will…if you ask Him. Blessings on ya’ll.
Siamang - my apologies. I apparently misread your fringe crackpottery statement as exclusive to belief in God as Creator.
Again and again I will say if schools are going to present the evolution theory they should present creation theory as well. In my opinion. Or none at all - and I’m only referring to how the world was created. I’m not talking about gravity and germs.
And I got the “nearly absolute” from the link you provided. Apology again…I should’ve stated that.
Siamag: For every source you come up with saying that 99.99 % agree with evolution, I can point out a ton of papers and facts that disprove that, who is your source….which one would you like to read first?
While science isn’t “100% proof” it’s not will-o’-the-wisp opinion, either.
Presenting non-scientific philosophy in the science class begins to dilute the subject. It would be like teaching economics in an English class because Adam Smith wrote “Wealth of Nations” in stylish prose.
I don’t mind comparative religion classes being offered - in fact, I wish I had taken one. But, shoehorning religious discussion into a science class doesn’t do justice to either subject. Creationism is not science: it’s not a theory, it proposes no mechanism other than positing an unknown - god - and it asserts no testable predictions. The closest thing was M. Behe’s “Irreducible Complexity” conjecture which was proven false becuase it made predictions that his colleagues showed to be wrong…twice.
Regarding math, did you know that not all mathematical equations are solved even though they are used? Scientists, including Einstein and other great ones, used approximation methods rather than solve directly because no one had figured out how to solve some equations.
There are mathematical conjectures and hypotheses (and even the math in a famous theorem) that have remained unproven for hundreds of years. Some mathematical solutions to old problems were subjected to scrutiny and found to contain errors.
Nothing in the world of human intellect is black and white - not even math.
Why such ardent defense of the integrity of science education? Because, as Tam says, it saves lives and is the NUMBER 1 reason we enjoy the incredible standard of living that we do, today.
Guys & Gals!!!!
Let’s tone down the rhetoric just a tad eh?
Sniping back and forth will get us nowhere!
Siamang: Christians are more than capable of changing their minds on things. Little more than a 100 years ago, Christians of the day found justification for SLAVERY and the subordination of women within the same Bible they quote from today. Clearly Christianity evolves as does humanity.
I think it’s a huge mistake to say that the Christian religion is responsible for ALL the BAD and NONE of the GOOD in this world. It’s never that simple. It’s like saying: Stalin was an atheist. Stalin did horrible things, therefore ALL atheists are horrible people.
Last I checked I hadn’t the desire to engage in purges or genocide. :d Some of my best friends are Christians.
I think Gods Gal would be the first to agree with me that she and I will NEVER agree on Evolution for my part and the doctrine of the rapture for hers.
But we have to find common ground somewhere.
I think where Americans have to come to common cause is in the support and defense of the Constitution as our wise fore-fathers wrote it. They saw the danger in mixing religion and government.
You mix those and you get Iran and Saudi Arabia.
I don’t think we are there here in the States… and I don’t see it happening.
Robert
That’s easy. We get the mindset from the rest of the industrialized world outside of the U.S. Go to a U.K. based Christian Forum like ship-of-fools.com. You won’t find ANY creationism threads in their debate forum. Anyone who brings up the topic gets immediately sent to the ‘Dead Horses’ thread, where the Christians routinely refer to people like Kent Hovind or Hen Hamm as ‘lying creationist weasels.’ Europe is essentially post-Christian and the phenomenal growth of the non-religious population of the U.S. indicates the U.S. is heading that way, too.
Here in the U.S. atheists often debate outing ourselves due to the social stigma in our society. In the U.K., Christians apparently debate outing themselves due to the social stigma:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=010246;p=1#000000
Thanks again Robert….for DISCUSSING and not SLAMMING!!! If I didn’t know Miss Tam so well, I’d be worried that she was somewhere rocking in a corner in the fetal position.:-w
Anyway, i think we have found our common ground, and I for one am happy about that. I do think Tam asked a couple of very legitimate questions and if anyone out there can be respectful and answer it would be nice…:-\”
Ben I agree we do have an uphill battle to fight here in the States.
But, as I have learned of late, belittling a someones faith will not earn us her respect. Quite the opposite.
You’ll be labeled a ‘militant atheist’ and the positions on both sides will harden and there will be no debate.
Robert
Hello Tam,
Believe it or not, evolution has nothing whatsoever to say about:
(1)the creation of the world
(2)How life started
The only question evolution tries to answer is: How did all this biological diversity arise? / Why are there so many different “kinds” of plants and animals?
There are Christians who accept the theory of evolution without losing their religion. However, this is a tricky bet since science is always progressing leaving less and less “wiggle” room for Biblical explanations.
Gods Gal
I think Tam is asking why other alternative Creation theories aren’t being discussed in the classroom.
I can’t speak for the rest of the reason and science based advocates here. But I think the reason people of a science background get so incensed about creationism or ID in a science classroom is this:
The current theory of evolution is very very sound. Now before you go and point to websites or publications that claim to poke holes in Evolution, you have to ask from what position those ‘poking the holes’ are coming from.
You have to admit that most people who want to tear down Darwin have already made up their minds. Nothing that any scientist can show them will sway their faith. I think that is what raises the passion of supporters of evolution the most.
Again if you read the kitzmiller vs. Dover decision you’ll get a really good feel WHY creationism and ID really can’t be considered science.
I don’t know if this is the forum to start answering questions about evolution.
Robert
Does evolution state that we came from monkeys? How long did it take for us to go from monkey to man? How long has the world been in existence? Why are we not still evolving? Who said, it’s time to stop now? I don’t agree that it’s sound. That’s the problem with thinking we’ll ever reach a middle ground on this issue, because I believe man was created seperately from animals. i believe we were created in the image of God. I don’t know how you can have it both ways.
Polly: again, you are not in sinc with the rest of the evolutionists on this site, I think that’s what’s so confusing to me is that you all have different opinions about your different opinions. I’m really giving an effort here to understand ya’ll….thanks for your patience. We may never agree, but the tone has come back to one that we may be willing to discuss again….;)
I respect people as people regardless of their beliefs. I respect beliefs not one whit - they have no feelings, no capacity to be hurt. For beliefs, I only assign varying levels of confidence to beliefs based on evidence.
If I bring up a belief, and someone else says ‘I think that belief is wrong and here’s why’ they are NOT belittling me. Either I will learn why I’m wrong, we will reach an impasse, or they will learn why they are wrong. Only if I bring up a belief and someone else says ‘I think you are a ‘ would it be belittling.
Gods Gal,
That’s good. I wasn’t sure if your comment about Tam being in the fetal position (LOL!) had anything to do with me. I certainly hoped not, since everything I wrote was for the purpose of providing something interesting(?) and, hopefully, somewhat helpful(?).
Love right back atcha, Gods Gal.
Fossil evidence and genetic evidence as well as multiple other lines of evidence point absolutely to our ancient ancestors being monkey-like primates.
Depends on what you’d call “monkey” and what you’d call “man.”
Our most recent common ancestor with the old-world monkeys was approximately 25 million years ago.
If by “world” you mean the earth, 4.5 billion years.
If you mean the universe in its present expansion, about 13.7 billion years.
We are evolving. It’s just that evolution of human beings is too slow to witness over a human lifespan, as evolution takes many many multiple generations to notice. But at the genetic level we can and do detect evolution occurring.
Nobody. All living organisms are evolving. The only way to stop evolving is to go extinct.
It’s sound whether you agree or not.
The DNA in every cell of your body shows something quite different.
Ask a Christian who accepts evolution as God’s mechanism for creation. I cannot answer the theological ways people reconcile their beliefs with the science. All I know is that some quite brilliant scientists seem to have no problem with it.
Thank you Siamang, but you’re trying to make me feel guilty for my reaction to the garbage you wrote earlier won’t work. We are human, and will defend out belief every bit as much as you would yours. Don’t make the mistake please of believing that we have emotion….
Naw Polly, I can’t speak for her, it’s just when people get mean and in your face…we do have feelings ya know! I don’t back down from people like that…we aren’t weak people, just saved. I appreciate you!
Again, your opinion Siamang, all that reasoning does is make me giggle.;))
If you enjoy being an evolved ape..more power to ya, me? I’m a daughter of the Most High King, and made in His image…I guess we’ll find out in the end.
Ahh… but you’re just a rib out of a mud man.
I on the other hand am made of star stuff.(*)
:d
:(|) Siamang
Great, now you’re an alien ape…that clears it up…
Much more believable than a Creator…=))
Yep!
To God’s Gal: Feel free to believe whatever you want. The problem that scientists have with creationism/ID is that they are theories with no predictive value.
What does ID tell us we should do about the Flu?
A: God made the flu virus perfect the first time so one vaccine in your life should do the trick.
Evolution, same question.
A: The flu virus has shown a remarkable ability to adapt to a human’s immune system, mutating (evolving) into hundreds of new strains every year. Therefore we have to come up with a new set of vaccines every year to counter the new strains.
Okay how about antibiotics:
ID: Bacteria do not evolve, so we should be fine with penicillin forever, and you can use it as much as you want.
Evolution: Bacteria evolve resistances to antibiotics, so we should develop new antibiotics every chance we get, and use the ones we have sparingly.
Genetic Engineering?
ID: Impossible
Evolution: Let’s do it!(Okay, pretty much all the modern advances in biology and medicinehave come about through the use of the theory of evolution’s predictive qualities.)
Evolution happens whether you believe in it or not. Just be glad that biologists and doctors are aware of it. (Yes I know you you can dig up some surgeon somewhere who doesn’t believe in evolution. Good thing his/her disbelief doesn’t affect his ability to hold a scalpel.)
Basically Evolution is useful because it describes very well the world as we find it, and has been proven time and again to predict things even before we observe them. If there ever comes a time when evolution cannot explain an observed phenomena, the theory will be modified or discarded in favor of one that more closely corresponds to observation.
It sounds like your major beef w/ evolution is that it says that Humans share common ancestry with apes (and further back, every other living organism on the planet). All I can say is that scientists must follow the evidence wherever it leads. If you don’t want to be confronted with reality, I suggest you don’t study science because that is all it offers.
Just to add to my too-long reply from before:
There IS Newton’s Law of Gravity: F=G(m1+m2)/r^2
As far as the whole number system thing, is that some kind of Computer Science thing? If any ME rounded the input AND the product at the same time… well just be glad they don’t. Do one or the other, not both.:d
Wow Bill, I see there are already 53 post on the subject. Great topics.
The legal brief by the ADF is 42 pages long so it take some to time read.
Lots of reading to do. I kinda fell like I am back in school doing “homework”.
Since we are talking about kindergarten children in a “show and tell” class, at first glance, this sounds like a extreme over reaction.
On the next subject:
(I will admit to getting a tad emotional about it)
I don’t believe the word “God” should be in the Pledge of Allegiance.
I want to reaffirm my allegiance to my country but I will refuse to pledge allegiance to a God I don’t believe exist.
I spent three years during the Vietnam War proving my allegiance to my country.
If my country now says I can’t reaffirm that allegiance in a pledge, because I won’t acknowledge a God I don’t believe in, to my that’s a real slap in the face.
The purpose of a pledge of allegiance should be to help unite all the people of the country. It should promote patriotism It should not be to promote religion. Adding the word God to the pledge divides us. It does not brings us together.
I don’t believe America is a Christian nation. I believe America is a country made up of people with many different beliefs. People who are atheist like me. Our pledge of allegiance should reflect that diversity.
I should not be excluded from saying the pledge because don’t believe in God.
I look forward to seeing what everyone else has to say.
Gods Gal
You asked:
Actually humans are no longer evolving in a completely naturalistic way anymore. The fact that we have spread across th planet is making the standard mechanisms of natural selection not really applicable. There will naturally be changes to our species but those changes are so slow as to be imperceptible. Consider our continuing loss of body hair. Thats a form of artificial selection, meaning people with less body hair are generally considered more attractive so they tend to get more action.
Hence more offspring. Consider the tonsils or the adenoids or the appendix…these parts are thought be vestigial…because we seem to longer need them… why?
I’ve always considered this statement very telling of Christians who disavow evolution. Why exactly is it so horrible to be related to the animal kingdom? I don’t think it diminishes us in anyway.
What does ‘in his image’ mean exactly? Does that mean that we bear a resemblance to God? How far do we take this? I am not being a smart ass I really want to know what your feelings are on this?
Robert
Heck, what I wanna know is, if we’re not related to monkeys, how come some people are born with tails?
I only read the first few of the comments, but it was enough for me to want to say this:
Our nation was built around Christianity. Deal with it. Why do we think we NEED to change anything?! We should respect it and have respect in how our nation came to be. **==
Are humans still evolving? A resounding YES! Please check out the Vadoma people of Western Zimbabwe. The mutation allows them to walk for miles and even climb better.
http://www.chester.ac.uk/~sjlewis/DM/Babies.htm
There are other examples of human mutations that confer benefits such as stronger than average bones but I don’t have the sources handy.
Sista
Oh really!? Did you go to School at Bob Jones or Liberty University!?
Deal with it!? Are you kidding me!?
Please read the US Constitution and show me the part where it says that this nation is a Christian nation founded upon the
Bible or any other Judeo-Christian principle?
This nation is a secular nation founded by Deists and Christians.
Jefferson, Madison, Franklin and all the others saw the danger of marrying religion to the state.
Robert
Hey Robert, I didn’t want you to think I was ignoring you….I need to get some stuff done and I’ll be on later tonight….C ya in a bit
What type of reaction do you guys think there would be if a child was denied the right to read out of his/her favorite book: The God Delusion, by Mr. Richard Dawkins?
How about HeLa cells? Human cancer cells that mutated into genetically stable, infinitely self-replicating single celled organisms which now contaminate just about every cell culture in every petri dish everywhere. They have more chromisomes than human cells, and their DNA is made up of a combination of the original host’s (a woman named Henrietta Lacks) and the HPV virus that caused her cancer. By most definitions, HeLa cells count as the first new and distinct species to have evolved from Humans. Also (I think) the first time a multicellular sexual reproducer has evolved into a one-celled asexual reproducer!
Hela Cells from Wikipedia
Hela Cells were used to create the Polio vaccine!
Horror of Horrors!!! Stone the impudent swine!!!
:d
Robert
Would the story even make the news?
My reaction would be “kid, don’t even go there. It should be reading time, not preaching your message time.”
Hey Blockstacker… I forgot about HeLa cells!
Here’s a dinosaur comic about it!
Hey, one of my personal favorite mutations: Lactose tolerance in adults!
Why would someone give their kid a Richard Dawkins book? He’s in Kindergarden, you’re his parents. Just TELL him there’s no God if that’s what you want him to think, he’ll believe you!
Are Christians giving their 4 year olds apologetics to read? No! just tell him there’s God and Jesus and he’ll believe you. He doesn’t need a reason.
That’s totally where I heard about them! High five for similar tastes!
@Blockstacker,
That is awesome! I never knew that. Talk about punctuated equilibrium! LOL!
@Bill,
Atheists would be in an uproar! Letters, blog postings, bumper stickers, you name it would all come flying out like bats out of…a cave.
If a kindergartner wanted to read TGD, I’d get his head examined. At least the Bible’s got a narrative a kid can follow. I haven’t read anything by Dawkins, yet, but I imagine it’s not very entertaining for children.
nah, it’s a biblical kinda thing - see AiG where they explain this;-
by this;-
@ Bill: (Sorry for the triple post)
My post #69 came out more flippant than I intended it to. I apologize for that. You did bring up an valid point. I don’t think the God Delusion is an apt comparison in this case however, (I haven’t read it, but I don’t think anyone considers it a religious text).
In both cases, I feel that the kids should be allowed to bring whatever book they want for show & tell. Especially at that age, the important thing is that they’re learning that there’s good stuff in books. The teacher may have just been worried about stepping over a boundry that could have gotten her in a lot of trouble.
Wow, 73 posts. What a great discussion. I will apologize now if I get what one person wrote confused with another.
Polly, post #7, I agree with everything you say. I can’t put it any better.
I will however take me to about 3:00 am to get through the ADF legal brief. :).
Tam,
The issue to isn’t whether evolution is right or wrong. It is just a theory, like Intelligent Design. The difference is that evolution was subjected to critical peer review and the evidence which supports it found to be valid. It’s science.
To me science is the process we used to determine the validity of someone’s idea. In science class what you teach isn’t that a theory is correct. What you teach is how to test an idea to see if it is valid.
In science class children learn how to perform experiments. They should be learning how to test the validity of different scientific ideas so they can determine for themselves whether it may be true.
Using science you aren’t taught that 2 + 2 = 4. You are taught how to add 2 + 2 and see what the result is.
Critical thinking, skepticism are essential to the process of Science. Anything is possible but don’t believe until you investigate it.
You don’t build an airplane using a design that someone says will work. You test it first.
I am not an expert on Creationism. As far as I can tell it is based on what is written in the bible. It has never passed the test of critical peer review. That doesn’t mean it isn’t true. It does mean it isn’t scientifically valid. You don’t teach it science class.
Public Schools should teach about different religious ideas and the impact they have on society.
What shouldn’t be taught is that one religion is more true than another.
Hi Robert…I am addressing your #57 comment here….i still don’t understand why we stopped evolving…did we somehow reach our unapeness, and now we’re just done? Were there hairless apes for the hairy ones to breed with to make what we have now? How did the hairy apes…kidding:d
As far as vestigial parts, I don’t buy it. In the last century, many organs were called useless. Rober Wiedersheim, a German follower of Darwin, listed 86 vestigial organs in his book, but it was written in 1895. Even tho there are many books that talk about vesigial parts, as science advanced, yes I used the word, and more was learned about our bodies we have come to realize that we HAVE no vestigial organs. The appendix has a role in antibody production and protects our intestines from infection. It also helps in protecting people from leukemia, Hodgkin’s cancer of the colon and overies. The tonsils are there to protect us from infection, the Coccyx (which is where the reasoning that we used to have tails comes from) has muscles attached to it that hold our pelvic organs in, we wouldn’t be able to walk, sit upright or poop without it…I think I want mine thank you! The Pineal glan produces hormones like melatonin..the list goes on. Everything in our created being is neccessary.
As for the being created separately from animals, I believe we were, not that there is anything horrible about animals, I’ve never said that. I just believe that we were created with a different purpose…mostly spiritual..I know another can of worms but you asked!
b-) As far as the image of God goes, yes physical attributes play a part on that, but mostly spiritual…don’t know if I could even begin to explain this to you since I know your main purpose is to find fault with it, but I believe we are essentially spiritual beings, eternal beings created in His image…spiritually and physically….
I gotta say it: nipples on dudes.
J/K
Gods Gal
I am very suspicious of those ‘uses’ for vestigial organs. I want to look into that a little more.
Here are a couple other points:
There are segments of our genetic code that are IDENTICAL to those of a crocodile.
We share 99% of our genetic code with chimpanzees.
Using Occam’s Razor….does it not stand to reason that we are related in some way to other life forms on the planet? Could God have not chosen to create the chemistry of life and let it evolve? Isn’t it at least as plausible as your creation story?
I very much like your idea of ’spiritual beings’. I think my own idea is very similar. We are a way for the Universe to know itself and the contemplation of our place in the Universe is very much part of that spirituality. By no means a I suggesting that our purpose is the same as the animals…no way.
Robert
Anyone interested in reading the opinion of the court on the Wesley case can find it on the courts (US District Court for Eastern District of Pennsylvania) site:
http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/ssearch2.asp?UserSearchString=donna+kay+busch&radioQueryType=1&selectSearchScope=Documents%3A++Opinions+%28filed+since+June+1%2C+1997%29&selectSort=Rank&selectOrder=%5Ba%5D&selectHitCnt=0&UserSearchDays=&selectIncCnt=10&IncButton=0&IncPosition=0&GoButton=Search
The story is on the first 9 pages of the 39 page PDF document.
Little Wesley was allowed to create a poster with a picture of a church and he explained why he loved church.
The problem started when Wesley’s mother wanted to read on her son’s behalf from what she said was her son’s favorite book the bible.
Parents were allowed to participate in teh exercise.
Her son’s baby sitter testified that Wesley’s favorite book was Brown Bear, Brown Bear.
The mother wanted to read Psalm 118, verses 1-4 and 14.
That is when the mother was asked to come out to the hallway and was told she couldn’t read from the bible.
I think is was a bad decision to stop the mother from reading from the bible. We are talking about a kindergarten class.
I also suspect that if little Wesley was given a choice he might have prefered to read Brown Bear, Brown Bear to the class.
I strongly suspect the kidergarten kids have more sense then the adults involved in the case.
O well, somebody has to keep the lawyers busy.
@Sista:
Our nation was NOT built around Christianity. The founders explicitly answered this question in 1796, less than a decade after the Constitution was ratified, while many of them were still in office. Article XI of the Treaty with Tripoli begins “As the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.”
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/buckner_tripoli.html
The idea that the United States was founded as a Christian Nation is a myth with no basis in fact. You could argue some of the colonies were founded that way, as they were governed by the Christian King and not by a Constitution. But our Constitutional government and nation are not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion. It was explicitly declared by the President and the Senate and understood by the public (you could not get similar wording passed today unanimously or without public outcry or dissent.)
@Bill:
Well, first, since I am much more familiar with The God Delusion and am an atheist myself, I would be in a different position. I would feel much more comfortable throwing a B.S. flag on the idea that it was the kindergartner’s favorite book. You better show me one incredibly precocious kid because otherwise I’m seeing a parent indoctrinating their kid without giving them a chance to think for themselves. The kid will stand a much better chance of rejecting God-belief not because of thinking it through for themselves but to fit in with the family and earn their parent’s approval.
On the legality side, same exact issues as the real case, and same exact conclusion.
@BlockStacker (76)…
:)) Good point
Robert: I understand we all have blood, we all have similar stuff, I guess I’m talking more about the purposes of the species. I don’t believe animals have souls…sorry…but I believe they were put here for a completely different purpose than we were. Our internal makeup is different, ie. spiritual….I guess I’m saying it wrong or something…and if I need a Razor, I prefer Gillette…=))
As far as America goes….has anyone ever heard of Dr. Marshall Foster?
Do me a favor and spend some time reading about this man…I’ve heard him speak several times, and he is right on…I realize that will not be the consensus here…but he’s still right on.
That’s all I’m sayin on that topic…
#:-s
Hi Ed! I totally agree with you. I do not think one religion should be taught in schools either. In fact, keep teaching about Christianity out! I don’t want our Public schools teaching something to my kids that may not be in line with our family’s Christian values. That is our job.
When my kiddos come home and tell me they were taught about “evolution” that day it is always, without fail, exclusively on the Big Bang Theory. I’m not kidding, every time. So what my kids are associating evolution with is Big Bang.
Side note…I know 2+2=4 can also equal 5 if using the rounding system and there can be a number of different ways to play with that problem…I get that, thank you! It was only meant to be used as a simple example of basic education like I had already prefaced it. I’m really not an idiot…
Anyways, I’m not opposed to science, never said I was. I had a simple thought earlier, posted it, and BAM - I get everyone jumping on my case as to why evolution is proven and factual and why you believe and why nothing else works and on and on (this isn’t directed at you anymore Ed) Anyway…I already know this is how you feel - you’re Atheists, I didn’t need or ask for further opinion. But thanks for clarifying it…once again.
Tam, I believe in the Big Bang theory, it must have been pretty noisy when the Lord spoke things into existence…unless someone was there, and witnessed the events of how things came to be, I choose to stand on God’s word…it’s real to me, and thousands upon thousands of others… I agree that Christianity should be taught by people who know it, not atheist teachers following some ciriculum…good point. Whew! I’m also glad you know basic math…with all the people dying of disease, murders, war, starvation, and suicide, I can see why it was worth someone worrying over for an entire day….:o:d
Tam said:
“Side note…I know 2+2=4 can also equal 5 if using the rounding system and there can be a number of different ways to play with that problem…I get that, thank you! It was only meant to be used as a simple example of basic education like I had already prefaced it. I’m really not an idiot…”
I didn’t mean to imply you weren’t intelligent.
I didn’t read your post carefully enough.
From your post #15
“School is a place to educate our children, Reading, writing and arithmetic. 2 + 2 = 4, that is a fact.”
“If my children are interested in theory they can take a course in college.”
As Ben said in post #25
“science goes no higher in its level of confidence than ‘theory’ or ‘law.’”
It’s been 50 years since I have been in high school. I know children are being introduced to “concepts”, as opposed to “facts” at an ever early age.
Children should start out learning the basic, the “facts”.
By the time they are introduced to science they need understand that every theory they are told about may be at some point in time proven wrong.
They need to think beyond the “facts”.
You know better than me at what age children can deal with these concepts.
If America is going to say on top technologically than we need to start teaching science as early as possible.
Ed, thank you for speaking with me and not “at” me. I really appreciate and respect that. My 2+2 thing was actually referring to some earlier comments regarding that example. Sorry for not making that clear. So no apology needed from you in any way…
I am exhausted…I’m off to tuck my kiddos in, pray with them, grab a Good Book (ahhh) and settle in for the evening…
Hope you all sleep (or slept) well! Blessings!
Gods Gal said,
“As far as America goes….has anyone ever heard of Dr. Marshall Foster?
Do me a favor and spend some time reading about this man…I’ve heard him speak several times, and he is right on…I realize that will not be the consensus here…but he’s still right on.”
I have downloaded his June newsletter.
I will read it and let you know what I think about it if you will read what the following site has to say about Christianity. The site is clled The Ontario Consultants On Religious Tolerance. It is my primary source for information about religion.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/christ.htm
I’ll post my thoughts about Dr. Foster to the e-mail on your site.
Thanks Ben for the links you provided in your post #79.
I did not know there was a document, the Treaty with Tripoli, that so clearly stated that “As the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion”
I have been looking at the idea that Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson were deist, and probably “closet” atheist.
This idea is well presented in Jonathan Miller’s BBC series “Brief History of Disbelief.
http://www.abriefhistoryofdisbelief.org/
I highly recommend it.
Sorry Bill for hijacking your blog with the above plug for atheism.
It is now 1:40 am here. Time to drag my self to bed. I guess I have gotten too old for “all nighters”.
I think they should allow the child to use the bible for show and tell. there’s nothing “official” about that. that is PC gone too far
Gods Gal
I completely agree…
Humans are different than animals…
We can create works of surpassing beauty: architecture, symphonies, poetry, art…
I have never seen a chimpanzee do any of these things. This doesn’t preclude a common ancestry though.
We will have to agree to disagree on origins.
As far as America…
Respectfully, you are wrong this is NOT nor was it EVER intended to be a Christian nation….sorry.
Robert
You know, though we have plenty of disagreement about side issues, I think pretty much everyone in these comments agrees that the kid should have been allowed to read from the bible. Just wanted to point that out.
Ed, thanks for reading it and yes I will read what you have provided and comment to you later….as long as you remember I’m not about religion, it’s relationship that I have.;)
Robert, you’re right we’ll have to agree to disagree on both areas…thanks!
Gods Gal,
I have finished reading Dr. Foster’s newsletter. Where would you like me to post my thoughts? I am not sure if this blog is the best place. I don’t see where I can post them to your blog except in the comments section.
Hi Ed, go ahead and post them on my latest blog entry comments….it may get me to writing a new entry!!!! Thank you for reading it!
Hi Ed, i just wanted you to know as well, that I just spent some time on the site you posted and read through the first pages that came up. I do have some comments on this as well, was there anything else in particular you wanted me to read on this site, or just the general synopsis of what it was. Let me know, and as I can hardly keep my head up anymore tonight, I’ll say goodnight. Chat with ya tomorrow!!:)
Gods Gal,
I am manly interested in knowing how accurate you think the information on the site is concerning the Christian religion.
You don’t have to go into any detail. Just your overall impression.
Ed, thank you for your comments..:) I’m going to have time today to read thouroughly through the ones you left, I was pretty brain dead last night… As far as the article I read, my short answer would be no, I do not agree that it is accurate. One of my big reasons is that it lumps “religions” in there that don’t believe in the God of the scriptures…I believe there are Christians in different religions, but I don’t believe certain religions listed are Christian in the sense of who the Bible says God is. Sorry, that’s the shortest answer I could give on that, hope I explained it right!
@ Ben
Thanks for the summary, at 96 comments I was wondering if the overall sentiment was with the kid or the teacher!!
Personally I’m with the kid as well unless his favorite part of the Bible involves utter destruction of Israels enemines in gory detail. That’s just not grade school classroom material right there.
[...] Washington, D.C.. - HUMAN EVENTS Witchcraft and such is already embraced by the public schools. No Bibles Allowed! | FriendlyChristian.com Maryland School Sued for Refusing to Let Girl Read Bible — 10/04/2006 Place a restriction on a [...]