Subject:
|
Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 5 Jul 2002 13:45:54 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3996 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> I'm opposed to schools teaching e.g. strict creationism
> > instead of reality, but I'm not sure I'd even support legislating against it.
>
> Well, this statement kinda shows where you stand on the matter.
Yes.
> This is a totally different topic, but showing your bias against creationism
> by saying it isn't reality, is as bigoted as those Bible thumpers who say
> that the world came into existence on October 4, 6006 BC and dumbly adhere
> to that date.
But actually, I was trying to indicate a specific thing when I wrote "strict
creationism." I meant the belief that you describe above as dumb. The notion
that God set up a bunch of physical laws several billion years ago, knowing
much of what would happen and from there physics and evolution did the rest is
not nearly so odious to me (though, I sill think it's unsupported) as
"Evolution doesn't exist and anyone who tries to prove otherwise is going to
hell. I didn't rise from any monkey!"
In any case, I think you're misuing bigoted since I merely displayed my
understanding of reality, rather than holding it against anyone else who
disagrees.
> We today don't know what happened back then for certain. We can make
> educated guesses but they would be guesses, or theories. Theories are *not*
> laws and, as such, should not be stated as such to be Reality.
The "Reality" is that some theories have varying degrees of support found in
the physical world. Strict Creationism is a theory that has virtually none.
Darwinian Evolution and speciation have lots. It is further true that if you
poll those working as biologists you'll get a preponderance of respondants who
do believe that our refinement of genetic evolution is a fairly accurate
explanation for the current diversity (and lack thereof) of life on Earth. All
of this combines to make it better fare for a biology class than the "theory"
of Creation.
But I agree that from day one, students should be taught that science is not a
process that proves things to be true and that _all_ the results of science are
nothing more than theories with varying levels of evidenciary support.
> Now this is where the rubber hits the road--If someone says that I'm
> teaching a falsehood 'cause I want my 5 year old to believe in Santa, and as
> such I should have my kids taken away, I would probably have a problem with
> that.
Sure! While I am totally against lying to kids, I'm not sure that removal of
the children is the most appropriate response that society can take. What
should be the response of society to such fraud? I sincerely belive that on
the balance the santa lie does more harm than good, but I'm not sure how to
measure it and I'm not sure how to determine what (if any at all) repercusions
would then do more good than harm. I doubt any would. I think it's one of the
many mistakes that parents should be allowed to make.
> Something more insiduous though, is what if I'm teaching my kids
> about God, and how Jesus died for us, and the athiests say 'oh that's false!
> you can't teach your kids that, either in the home or in school!.
I don't see how it's any more insidious. Again, I think that's one of the
mistakes, and for the same reasons, that parents should be left to make. While
it's certainly more damaging than the Santa lie, at least the kids aren't hurt
by discovering that mommy and daddy lied to me, because the parents presumably
believe what they are teaching.
> > Should a parent be able to surgically alter their kids for aesthetic • purposes?
> >
> There are those religions that believe that no blade shall pierce the skin,
> so surgery's out--you're going straight to the red man if you have surgery
> performed. Do you take the kid away from the parent when the kid needs an
> operation when its against the parent's fundamental religious beliefs?
I'm not sure. What do you think? In part, I think that it depends on the age
of the child. Or maybe the answer is yes, you do take them away because it is
fundamental violation of what we believe as a culture. But again, I'm not
sure.
If the child wants the treatment and the parents won't allow it due to their
superstition, then the child should get the treatment without regard to the
desire of the parents. If the child agrees with them it's a much tougher call.
But that's not what I was getting at. I am opposed to genital mutilation,
though some religions endorse it and say they do not have the right to mutilate
the body of their children just for the satisfaction of their superstition.
Nor for personal aesthetic, nor for conformity to social norms, etc. The child
must be old enough to make an informed decision on the matter before the
mutilation/modification can be made.
> And if you send your kid ot a Catholic and/or any other religous school,
> should institutional prayer be allowed?
Today, I'd like to say no, but what I really want is for the kids to decide
where they go to school. At that point, the answer is resoundingly YES! If
the kids, rather than the parents, have decided to enrich their life with the
surroundings of religious-based education, then of course they should be free
to pray as part of that experience. And since it is exercise of a freedom
rather than being forced, I can't find any fault with the public dollars going
to support it. In an ideal world, I'd have no problem with that.
Chris
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
395 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
