I know that I’ve touched on this topic a few times in my blog, but with recent articles (sorry if this link doesn’t hold, I haven’t tried linking to Google like this before) once again headlining the issue, I have decided to hit this topic again from a very opinionated side.
In truth, this scares me. It rips at the very fibers of this country and if it is able to gain grasp, will take away the piece of this country that was part of the conception, foundation, and supporting structure of what has made this country what it is. In essence, it is messing with the core of freedom, as it has been defined. Shall we visit the first amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." And what, here, are they trying to do? They’re trying to instill a Christian ideal in public schools. They are trying to use government to push a single view. And I’m sorry, but the push that they are making is a focus on Christian ideology, no matter how vague they make it. Yeah, at it’s basis, it fits many religions, but not all. This has to be an all or none type of situation. Religions cannot be singled out by our government.
Now I consider my beliefs to be Christian, but I do not impose my belief structure on the unwilling. I do not force it down the throats of the children I work around every day in my position in the public school realm. Remember, the reason this country was founded was because a bunch of people were fleeing religious persecution…it’s funny how the tides change once their ancestors hold the power that apposed them in the beginning.
And now, the sad thing is, is that they are beginning to gain a firm foothold. People are actually prescribing to this nonsense. And I blame our media for this as much as anything else. They are airing these debates in a way that is giving the idea the publicity it needs because the powers that be, many of whom control these companies, see it as a way to jockey for power, and line their pockets while they’re at it. Does the media not realize that the 1st amendment, the one that is being toyed with, is also the one that gives them freedom of speech and of the press? Do they not realize that they may be skirting the fine edge of a double-bladed sword that will only take their heads in the end?
Right now is a scary time, as are all times of war. It brings out the best in people and the worst in people. Unfortunately many of our politicians are corrupt, and they see this as just another way to push their own agenda to gain money and power. It is times like this that we must be most careful. It is times like this that we cannot allow the corrupt and the constitutionally blind to eradicate the very essence of what makes this country great. We were once "the land of the free and home of the brave," but I fear that if things continue down the path that they are, we shall soon become "the land of the oppressed and the home of the mindless automatons." The choice is ours...
posted by ~mike @ 8:23 AM
8 comments
8 Comments:
I must disagree. Just because ID is being pushed by Christians, doesn't neccessarily make it a Christian ideal. The designer could be anyone... anything. A big diversity of opinion right there.
ID can be taught in schools, but not as a science. Again, I say a philosophy class with scientific overtones would be most excellent.
While I have before that I agree this is a topic that is great for philosophical debate and would, in said case, be an appropriate place for it in the public school system. I have to disagree, however, and hold to my original post comment that this is something being pushed by certain Christian sects that want to get their religion in the public schools. If you read through the articles queried by the Google link at the top of this post, many of them demonstrate how it is the same groups that pushed for “Creationism” (a very Christian view) that now push “Intelligent Design,” and, while I’ll agree that the base concept of Intelligent Design is designed to be more open, it is still, none-the-less, a very deliberate push to open the doors of religion in the public classroom and to try and debunk scientific research that these groups see as a threat to their Christian ideology.
I say “their Christian ideology” because there are many people that accept both views and accept the fact that science is never perfect and is always adapting to new information, and that the religious texts of the world are probably filled with more metaphors and lessons then actual fact. That, while they usually float around a certain truth, these texts are left very open to interpretation. This is a view that allows for both religion and science to thrive in harmony.
In the end, I hold by my original statement that if these flood gates are opened, we are taking a step back a few hundred years that could ultimately destroy our society, our freedom, as we know it...
...lets face it, who wants a belief structure forced down their throat...whether or not it follows what they believe.
Let's say ID wins it's place in the school system. Who is qualified to teach it? With respects to the thousands of religious bodys in America, how? You cannot say to the Muslim student "and that is how we conclude that our universe is the product of a designer, whom we believe to be Jehovah who is also Jesus and the Holy Spirit."
ID may be an attempt to promote Christianity, but that doesn't mean it will turn out that way. It can't turn out that way. Leaving out the book of Genesis and the name of the designer has made the whole idea open to interpretation. That's what really makes the idea exciting. Especially when the agnostic student fires back "so we established the whole universe was designed. What's the point?" The teacher will have to be very careful providing a purpose for our existence without indoctrinating his audience of many faiths or no faith.
After writing this, I cannot help but wonder if ID will succeed as an alternative to evolution if it ever comes to the classroom. The scientific method is merely an explanation of natural phenomena. It cannot answer why we are here. Neither can Intelligent Design because of its discipline not to name the designer. We're left only with, "So we were created by something. It might have been God.... now what?"
I wish I had your optimism. I, too, believe that this is a topic that could be very benificial...atomic power is benificial...I'm very afraid, however, that it won't be used for good, but will instead be a weapon used to debunk our freedoms.
...lets face it, there are many more atom bombs in the world then nuclear power facilities...
Yes, but it's been quite some time since the world has seen a nuke detonated. There is no longer the need to wield such a weapon.
For more optimisim, I invite you to read this post about the decline in armed conflicts throughout the world. In the words of the Speculist (which you should be reading daily) it gets better all the time.
The future is bright, my friend.
An interesting post. Science has done a lot for humanity, and it will continue to do so. The thing with evolution though, is that the more science is uncovering, the less stable the theory is becoming. At the same time, ID is open to pretty much an interpretation depending on the person. What if evolution is the way of ID? Maybe the two are connected. As for putting ID in schools, I'm not opposed. Christian Parents who have had children in public schools have been offended for many years by the teaching of evolution. It's just a theory, but the all of the School teachers I've had have presented it as justifiable fact. Interesing. I'm all for creating an equilibrium in our schools science classes, and introducing ID would be a great way to do that.
Jeremy, I once made the mistake of comparing a scientific theory with a theory of any other type. Mike was very good to correct me.
There is room for ID in the school system, but not as an alternative to evolution. Many things, like modern medicine was brought to us from knowledge gleaned from this very important theory. Science should not be open to interpretation.
I wonder why certain faiths are so oppossed to evolution. It does not rule out the existence of a God. As John Paul II said to one scientist, "Truth does not rule out Truth."
Good enough for me.
I think the problem is that it has to be one or the other. There's plenty of room within the realm of science to postulate theories on well.. anything. If we taught all theories, and definitively state that we don't know (you can't say that!), there shouldn't be a problem.
Post a Comment
<< Home