I also may be talking out of my hat, for I have no children either, and my very young nieces are privately schooled. I think sexual education as part of health and/or physical education classes are fine. I just don't see the need to teach elementary school children about chlamydia when they haven't learned how to spell it. I was in 5th grade when I first was taught sexual education in a public school in northern California. I still don't see how passing out free condoms is a good use of my tax dollars, though perhaps in a nation headed toward socialized medicine it's different (I don't pretend to know much about that). If little Johnny's parents want to tell him about vaginas when he's 5, more power to them. I'm pretty sure I would not want my child being told those things at that young an age. Schools could in theory both teach robust sexual education programs and broad-based curricula on the 3 R's, but that's not what is getting funded. I'm getting into the anecdotal realm now, so I apologize, but I don't hear much (even from sources that don't pull punches against "fundamentalist" conservative Christians) about right-wing radicals getting prayer sanctioned in schools, or removing sex ed curricula. What I do see is movements banning the teaching of creationism or Intelligent Design. I see lowering of standards in order to show higher graduation rates. It used to be that colleges were the realm of ideologues...now the battleground has moved into the primary schools as well. My church may not have to recognize gay marriage, but if it becomes law of the land then I have to...much like the abortion we agree not to talk about (not totally parallel, so I don't want to get off on that tangent).
ok. Are they being taught about chlamydia? And if so, what are they being taught about it? And... ? How did that affect you and/or your viewpoint on sex ed? The reason it would be a good use of your tax dollars is that teenage pregnancies cost vastly more of your tax dollars than condoms do. Ok. But I guess we've established that this isn't about our kids, since we don't have any. Maybe, but it isn't like the 3Rs is starving due to all the money being funneled towards sex ed. Sex ed just doesn't cost that much. ok. Are we changing the subject here? And that would be yet another unrelated subject... I don't think graduation rates have anything to do with sex ed or creationism. Not sure what you mean by that. How so? If gay marriage becomes law, how does it affect your daily life? barfo
Im addressing all of it but the highlighted section is really ridiculous... Nobody is saying there is no God. Nobody is saying children in school cant pray as you falsely imply. Go ahead and tell YOUR kid to pray at school to YOUR God. The point is to not have the school shoving God down kids throats. I recall times where parents notified their kids school to let their kid do a religious act, for example, a muslim going to pray (they are supposed to 5 times a day). You want to talk about religions, what they believe, and how they have influenced the world in the history portion of the school day then fine, no problem. No school should talk about God as if it is 100% fact. Religions would have a lot less followers if it wasnt brainwashed into every kid, no matter the religion. Thank GOD I overcame that.
Religious groups come knocking at my door once a month to see if I might join their religion... I am yet to have a gay dude knock on my door and try to convince me to turn gay... So who do I have to deal with more? Both of them have views I dont want to follow. Religion is shoved in peoples faces all the time...Yet to see gay sex in public
real quick, children are not prohibited from praying in schools. what is prohibited is for the schools to organize religion. If a child wants to pray quietly in a corner, more power to him or her.
that's silly. someone can certanly logically believe jesus wasn't god but still recognize the value of much of his (supposed) moral philosophical teachings. same thing with buddha 500 years earlier. the fact that both of their teachings included a lot of metaphysical baggage that non-believers reject doesn't mean there isn't potential value for everyone to what they said about earthly social morality. a secular humanist is just someone who believes in strict separation of church and state, and believes that our modern common sense is a much better guide for moral choices than ancient texts written by primitive superstitious humans. what's wrong with that? not sure what you mean by darwinism, but evolutionary science and accepting the high probability of the truth of evolution is certainly not a religion. there is no faith involved.
I have no problem with religion; the issue has to do with state-sponsored religion. There is obviously a very large grey area that the Court has addressed in recent years. While a courthouse can't have a copy of the ten commandments on the wall, a christmas tree is NOT considered a religious symbol, and is fair game. Releigions, particularly christianity, has increasingly tried to become more involved in politics, speaking out on purely social issues. They've gone too far, in my view, on many of those issues, by trying to restrict the rights of those that are not members of their religion. I don't have a problem with a chruch declaring that members that enter a gay/lesbian marriage will lose their membership. I personally don't agree with that stance, but they can do whatever they want. What right do they have to restrict the rights of all of society? As far as creationism goes: that's what private schools are for. Again, why subject non-christians to those tenets?
The only problem I have with Bertrand Russell is that the majority of his critiques of religions are really just critiques of Christianity. He focuses his attack on that specific faith and then, in his conclusions, extends it to all of religion. It's a problem that I find throughout religious discussions and is frustrating, because I find Christianity to be the most prone to contradictions.
I really want to respond, but I cannot in the short amount of time I have left in a way that's responsible. What I'd like to ask is this: How is it that one can have "faith" in Evolution, or Global Warming, or the Big Bang, or the Plum Pudding Model of Electrons and call it "science", but as soon as someone take the view of 6-day Creation, it's debunked as "religious tenets" that non-Christians shouldn't be subject to? Look, if you have a chance and an open mind (from someone who's done some studying on the matter), check out this book at your local library if you can. It's old (1960, iirc), but many of the principles and questions still apply. http://www.amazon.com/Genesis-Flood-John-C-Whitcomb/dp/0875523382 And a review (not mine): This is one of the first contemporary books on the subject, possibly the book that started the modern creation movement, giving a scientific basis for the Genesis flood. This is not for those with short attention spans. Heavily footnoted and very comprehensive, it covers the gamut of science and creation, looking at the geological world of today in light of what we would expect to find after a global flood. Dr Whitcomb conclusively demonstrates the scientific basis for the Genesis flood, casting strong doubts on the foundations of evolution. Evolutionists tend to discuss their theory more in philosophical terms than scientific. Dr. Whitcomb presents the Genesis flood from solid and current (as of 1960) scientific evidence. Dr. Henry Morris, who died early this year, earned his doctorate in hydraulic engineering and was a respected educator and writer in his field. His book, Applied Hydraulics in Engineering, was a standard in colleges for nearly forty years--quite a feat for an engineering textbook. I doubt the critics of this book can boast the same authority. Like most creationists, Dr Morris started out as an evolutionist/gradualist, only switching because creationism better explained the geological phenomena he observed. It is indeed in need of updating, but is a starting point for understanding this subject. Radiocarbon dating is still inconclusive a half century later, and in fact needs other corroborating evidence for a date, and even has to be correlated regionally. It is based on three assumptions--the rate of decay has remained constant, the original content of the sample is known, and no contamination of the sample has occurred. Hydrology still fails to explain the formation of the Grand Canyon (if viewed as millions of years old). This geological formation is a mile-deep, winding river--impossible by our understanding of water action. Either it is a shallow and wide meandering stream or a straight, deep rushing river, but not both. The Colorado River could not have cut this canyon through solid rock. Drs Whitcomb and Morris give a scientific, not wishful or philosophical, explanation of its formation. For more myth-busting on the formation of the Grand Canyon, read Dr Walt Brown's In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood (7th Edition). Unfortunately, the evidence will fall on deaf ears for the person unwilling to read this with an open mind, insisting that naturalism, itself based on unproven assumptions, is all there is. The more evolution accepts catastrophic causes, such as the Yucatan meteor theory, the more it is abandoning its gradualist foundation (and unwittingly supporting creationism) yet reluctant to admit it.
every sector of organized religion contradicts the other. I believe in god and all, just not organized religion.
Because science and religion are not the same thing. If you want to believe that as a matter of faith, be my guest. But if you want to claim that as a scientific fact, then I'm afraid I'll have to say you are completely out to lunch. barfo
It's simple really. People have faith in those things, because all of them are proposed as theories with the possibility of failure. The fact that they acknowledge their own potential fallibility is what makes them science. They don't box thinking into a single perspective and they promote any sort of discourse as long as it aims towards one fundamental goal: more accurate explanation. Creationist beliefs may aim to explain as well, but they're entirely lacking that scientific aspect. There will never be a creationist who acknowledges that potential for failure in their theory. If another theory were to come along with a more accurate explanation, creationists wouldn't even entertain the idea of accepting it. As such, creationism isn't science because its main goal isn't more accurate explanation. Its only aim is to continually justify itself and make itself relevant. You can add an empirical dimension to creationism all you want, but until it acknowledges its own potential failure it will never be true science and should never be taught in science classes.
Or it is a huge, slow-moving glacier. Which, as I recall, is what is supposed to have carved out the Grand Canyon. Also, two other points: 1. There's nothing about "water action" that refutes a deep, twisting river and "rushes." Narrow water ways rush faster than wider water ways, all else being equal. But there is another variable: pressure. With sufficient pressure, a wide (and/or deep) water way can rush fast. 2. A river doesn't have to rush fast to create erosion.
science by definition does not involve faith. it uses empirical evidence & logic to judge the probability a theory is true. we have mountains of direct empirical evidence supporting evolution & the big bang. there is no scientific consenses on the causes of global warming. funny that you mention the plum pudding model, since it was just a theory that turned out to be contradicted by evidence, and now nobody believes it. it's debunked because it's contradicted by all evidence. even if they were legitimate at the time (unlikely) i'm sure most of them DON'T still apply. there's been a HUGE amount of scientific progress in geology (and biology & anthropology) since 1960. there is zero chance a global flood could have occured. also the flood story in the bible is clearly plagiarized from the sumerian epic of gilgamesh which predates it but has nothing to do with the christian god. many christians these days (including the pope) have accepted that the first part of genesis must be "allegory". it could not have happened as literally described. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html
Tell me about it. I live on the Little Deschutes. Another huge variable in erosion is the type of soil, sand, stone or muck being eroded.
