That's -so- American, RD. Me, me, me. Sod the rest. I'll take a socialist State any day. You ARE responsible for the rest of humanity, RD, as they should be responsible for you. Whatever happened to 'all for one, one for all'?
"... then I'll step back in!"
Will 'The Colon' be able to save the Americans in time?
Will the evil normals infiltrate his extensive, one man, information system and discover his secret identity as R. Swipe, mild mannered self abuser from Oz?
tune in next week for another exciting episode of..
THE COLON... he's full of sh1t.
no, AG, that's 'COLE IN' this is 'COLE ON'.
I like Colin Powell because he looks like my grandfather, which is funny because my father looked just like the dad Philip Banks in The Fresh Prince of Bel Air- same facial expressions, even the same beard but my dad was a lot bigger.
The people who look most like my family are black and we're all white. Weird eh?
"All for one, one for all" - that's those French Muskateer chaps, Maid Marion. You and Robin Hood, rob the rich to give to the poor - America robs the poor to give to the rich :o)
This is nothing more than politics amonst the school board, jockying for position in a conservative political environment. There is nothing here that restricts freedom of information. It just says we teach God not science. For those that wish to believe in God and all the trappings thereof, it's a wonderful thing. It protects their belief system for another election term, makes some people feel warm and fuzzy and ultimately will have no effect on reality other than delay the mental development of anyone seeking a primary education in public school in the state. I'm fortunate, I am not raising my children in Kansas public schools, as they are all grown now and free to believe what they wish. Otherwise, I'd have to send them to private school and pay a higher cost to insure they were exposed to a wider variety of knowledge. This has an added side effect of keeping stupid people stupid, thus increasing the likelyhood that smarter children will be accepted at better colleges, as there will be fewer well educated kids to compete with during entrance examinations.
This is a good thing, it means we won't be wasting taxpayer money trying to educate morons in the long run. The whole idea that higher education should be available to the masses is a liberal political concept that has actually been rebuked by scientific investigation and study on the ground that you can educate stupid people all you like, it doesn't make them smarter (check out the book Bell Curve by Richard J. Herrnstein,Charles Murray." This gives stupid people a simulated alternative to proper education and fits right in with the conservative agenda which is to reserve the better education resources for the more intelligent.
I don't know if I agree or disagree with all of this, but it sure makes for interesting social engineering and another funny thing is that most folks won't even know what it is all about. They're too worried about Jesus to think beyond the end of their nose.
I'm sorry RD, but that's just bollocks!
This is one step away from book burning. It is an abomination. Science is to teach science, religious studies to teach religion. End of story.
Religion knows that science teaches an alternative to the fucking Bible. As religion has a history of thousands of years of repression, I shouldn't be shocked but this kind of thing has to be stamped out before it can gain a foothold.
It is not enough to say 'so what?' like you do. It should be actively resisted. The thin end of the wedge of sexist, homophobic, anti-science repression. Body stockings for women - forced reorientation for gays will be next.
How you can say 'it makes for interestring social engineering' - can't you see the bigger picture?
I despair, I really do.
I see the bigger picture quite clearly. In the United States, states rights are of primary importance, and the issue of public education is a states rights issue. Based on that theory, I support their right to choose what ever they as a "state" choose as a course of action via their elected representatives and appointed officials. In the long term, the only effect it will have will be to generate public debate (which is a good thing) and to direct more children to private schools, which is a definate conservative agenda. People are free to have religion even if you don't believe it. To conservatives this is a political issue which they now have the means to address. The tide will turn, the pendulum will eventually swing the other way. Those states that want to live in ignorance are free to do so, there are progressive environments available as well, which will balance things out. I see nothing wrong with it at all. We need a variety of thought and actions in order to judge the future better. I would no more prefer that the state forbid the teaching of creation in favor of evolution. Kansas isn't the place to get a liberal education, that's all it boils down to.
In the deep south it's hardly the thin edge of the wedge, KJH. More like the norm if you ask me. There's no difference between what goes on there and what goes on in moslem states viz a viz thought control. What are you saying, that islam should be stamped out before it gets a hold?
The concept is this...at least over here. You have the right to believe what you like. Your right is primairly protected by the Constitution, but individual states are guaranteed the right to direct their own internal affairs so long as they aren't in conflict with the Constitution. This falls within the realm of states rights. Over 80% of Americans practice religion. Over 80% of the worlds population practices religion in one form or another. Those of us that don't believe in religious practice are in the extreme minority on this planet. You better get a grip on that fact and learn to deal with it, like it or not. The alternative is what is happening in the Middle East. You piss the religious zealots off and people get squashed. Is it right? No, but it is REALITY. It's warm fuzzy shit for these folks to cluster their thoughts and support their internal identity. They feel threatened and by doing this, it makes them a better, tighter community...it's a survival technique, tried and true throughout the history of man. This is how religion came about to begin with. It works, even if you or I think it's wrong.
To go off on a tangent that it's tantamount to book burning, I don't think so. Book burning is book burning. This isn't happening nor do I doubt that it ever would in a state sanctioned format. That doesn't prevent uneducated or ignorant people from wanting to burn books as a protective measure. At least in this country, I can say God is not real, and oppose organized religion without fear of having my head chopped off.
The American constitution is based on God....but what they don't say is WHICH ONE! *wink*
*Three dung beatles and a pile of goat shit*
)))) Next Batter up ((((
Just give 'em time RD. And people like you will give them the time to let them do it. It's their right to act like a repressive bunch of small-minded self-righteous bastards, is it? Well, that makes it all al right then. Sorry, I've must have been off my rocker. Don't oppose them, why do that? No, no. Let them do as they please. Did the 60s just not happen in your country or what?
Religion isn't all bad you know and science isn't all good. There is probably as much stupidity and evil in science as there is in religion. Anyone who thinks otherwise I humbly suggest hasn't studied the history of science, or how it has been applied. My view is that sensible people, behaving in sensible ways can benefit from both science and religion. Religion has a role for many people because it touches the parts of life that science cannot reach.
J-lo,
Just about every society on this planet is based on God in one form or another.
We were populated by religious conservatives trying to escape religious/political persecution in England and throughout time, from around the world...I personally think our religion is pretty mild compared to other ideologies around the world. The alternative is anarchy, which I don't personally want to be a part of.
Well said Milton, but that's not the argument. It's basically should religion be allowed to interfere with the teaching of science in schools.
My argument is no, definately not. This has to be resisted, regardless of what you think about science in general or religion for that matter.
RD seems to think that doing nothing is okay. I disagree, I would resist this will everything I could muster. That's where we are at.
It's easy ennit RD. Say something that you really mean and when someone calls you on it, make out it was a little tounge in cheek and that you are much cleverer than the respondent. You do it every day. But i guess you know that.
Anyway, I'm bored of reading about America and how this state is this and that state is that. It's only Americans that care and probably why they are the main respondents to another 'look how dumb America is, except for me'. thread.
Marvin removes organ and says "Brain the size of a planet and look what they have got me doing now..." but Door says "It's a huge step forward for the NHS. We are here to help. Have a nice day..."
My argument isn't for doing nothing. My argument is there is more than one way to skin a cat. One must pick their battles. This is a political issue. Kansas is not a hotbed of political activity, it would serve no purpose to fight this issue in Kansas as I don't recall anyone ever saying "as Kansas goes, so goes the nation." Kansas is a political side-show. For 2% of the population to fight a public battle against the rest of the populace is political suicide and that is not how to change things. Change takes time, it takes smart people and mankind is not ready to give up on the concept of God. Humans are no more emotionally mature now than they were 5000 years ago. You can't destroy society over a concept that isn't accepted by the majority, it's never happened. Science isn't mature enough to convince the masses that it's a better alternative.
Your argument is to start a shit fit over it, and by pure weight of scientific knowledge, you'll win. That's flawed thinking, because there is no proof that science isn't flawed as well. You're advocating that one belief system (just a flawed) be forced upon a majority that prefer a different belief system (along with its flaws), simply because you think everyone that believes in a God is wrong. What your advocating is the the exact same thiing that you're wanting to fight. Trade one flawed belief system for another, by pure force of will if necessary. There is a gentler and more productive way and that is to exercise your right to think freely, regardless off what others tell you to think. There is nothing in Kansas that restricts free thought.
I don't think the issue is whether science or religion is right, it's whether they are same thing.
Creationism isn't a scientific theory. That's not to say I necessarily believe evolution is 100% right but creationism is not a scientific theory at all.
Relgious beliefs are, by definition, beyond the bounds of science.
If it was scientifically possible for people to turn water into wine or rise from the dead, the fact that Jesus allegedly did these things wouldn't be interesting or remarkable. Surely the same rule must apply to making the world in 6 days.
Philosophically, the demand that creationism be treated as science devalues religion far more than it devalues science but there is a concern about the effect of this sort of battyness on children who have no choice about what they're being taught and will be severely handicapped if and when they try to engage with the sane world in later life.
Surely there's a human rights issue there?
I suppose they can always sue the school board when they grow up, though.
Korri culture (aboriginal) over here is based on a Dreamtime Eagle whom created man (adam) from mud, and a Flying Fox (bat) whom created woman (eve) from the same mud....as equals!
Your Western Gods and Your Western Science seek only to either own, corrupt, or destroy, her true nature of Ruler...at any cost! So I'm for whatever it takes to stop both Western science and Western religion dead in their trick or treat traps! And the toilet or a hole in the ground is the very best place for all Mens anti-woman crap!
*Four dung beatles, a pile of goat shit, and a black ewe*
RD: Wow, you really haven't got a handle on this at all have you? None of that above is anything like how I think about this issue. This is about freedom. Not your freedom (where the majority of 'right thinking Christian folk' can force a minority to do it's bidding) but freedom to be left alone.
You said: "Your argument is to start a shit fit over it, and by pure weight of scientific knowledge, you'll win. That's flawed thinking, because there is no proof that science isn't flawed as well."
How would 'we' win using scientific knowledge? And who is 'we'. This is my argument, I'm not representing any group here, far from it - that is in your peculiar mind. This is not about winning either? Winning? You really come up with perplexing statements that I can't enage with. Winning is not what this is about - It's not what I'm saying at all. Not even close. This is simply the curtailing of freedom - the freedom to be educated without prejudice.
Science across the world is taught the same way. The speed of light is not different in Iraq or Idaho. There are no different orders who argue about the speed of light. It is not interpreted, it's been measured, it's a constant. There were theories before that but they were discarded in the face of the facts.
Religion has sought to make science look like itself. They see it as a competing religion - they can't see it as any other way because of their mindset. By allowing this argument to take place - that somehow science and religion are competing over the same territory is to allow science to become politicised and to, in the end, to devalue it. Your statement about winning means that you have been suckered by this argument doesn't it, because you see it as science against religion. That is not what this is about at all. This is about freedom to be educated without external interference.
The Bible has many, many...many interpretations and groups and factions. To allow religion into science is to allow a group of people who can't agree what the facts are between themselves, to teach a version of the truth as the truth. A truth that is different in different congregation, villages, towns, cities, states, countries, continents.
Science is...ahem a science. Theories are expounded as theories. Theories are theories until they are proved or disproved. It's not a religion, it is not seeking to actively oppose religion. Only religion sees it as the enemy and because you have allowed religion to circumvent free speech, science has become their battleground.
In a free system (which the USA goes on about so much but can't see how there country is oppressive to said freedoms) , you offer people alternatives. Science doesn't seek to oppose religion, it's just that science has found out many things that the church has disagreed with. For instance, the Earth not being the centre of the universe. Copernicus didn't set out to piss off the religious establishment but neither could he not ignore the evidence of his own eyes.
People should be left to make up their own minds. By allowing religion to invade and pollute the education system, you deny students this choice and deny them your much vaunted freedom.
[%sig%]
Allowing religion to invade education is freedom. Religion is pure thought, I can see no other more pure form of thought than religion, as it's purely a figment of collective imagination, honed and tested since the dawn of man. Pure thought taught as facts in many forms.
Religion attempts to account for something science has yet to address...
Morality.
Tell me of the scientific theory of morality?
This is why humans choose to trump science with religion. Science has no morality and without morality we can't survive.
Well, notafreakinsceptic, if you get bored reading about dumb American stuff, then DON'T READ IT. IT'S STILL A FREE COUNTRY, INNIT, BUDDY?
Likewise, I might add that Americans get bored with Brits bitching about the tit at Number 10, Downing Street, and if we get bored with it, WE DON'T READ IT.
Life is so simple when you look at it like that.
My head is no where near the sand KJ, I'm simply debating a point. If you knew me, you'd know that I'm a die-hard athiest. I have no belief in God nor desire to worship one. I do know and understand fully the origions of Religion and the purpose it serves humanity and I also understand the concept of freedom quite well, and I am a rational realist. The issue in Kansas means nothing in the course of humanity, it's a rehash of old ideas and nothing more than local politics. God serves a purpose, even if he isn't real, he serves a real and substantial purpose and there is no suitable substitute at the moment.
Don't disagree with that at all, but this (again) is not about a religious vs science debate, nor about our credentials as atheists or not. It's about basic freedoms. Will have to leave it there - I'm off back home.
I would also point out that the United States Supreme Court has long since made determinations on the matter of science vs religion being taught in schools and is by far and away one of the more progressive determinations regarding the matter in the world, in support of freedom of thought and what a publically funded school can shove down somebodys throat. Kansas is flying well below this standard and is merely jockying publicly by passing laws that are in no way going to have an impact on anything tangable other than public perception. Chest thumping I think comes to mind.
Basic freedoms are a subjective thing are they not?
The states have the political right to determine their own actions in many regards (public education being one area of jurisdiction). The states are made up of citizens, who in turn elect representatives to their local governments, who in turn enact and inforce laws in the best interest of the majority of the citizens of their state. Democratic process, not unlike England or other western cultures, based on State and National Constitutions. The people of the state, through their elected representatives have the right to choose what they want to be the law of "their land" within certain boundries. The state government by in large, represents the majority viewpoint of the citizen. If the citizens wish to promote one social theory over other theories, then that is their right. They have the freedom to choose how their public tax money is allocated. They have the freedom to base their practices and public policy on religious theory, so long as they don't violate the constitutional restrictions on separation of state and religion (which is spelled out quite clearly). If 98 percent of the population were athiest, I'm quite convinced that athiest ideology would dominate politics. It is not the responsibility of the populace nor government to give every ideology equal footiing in the education system. There are other ideologies, which if given equal attention, would bog down the entire educational process into a morass of so many dissenting viewpoints, nothing tangable could ever be obtained in the way of meaningful information. In Kansas, it just so happens that 80% of the people there are Christians and they've chosen to teach the theory of creation in their public schools over other minority viewpoints. It's their right and it's their freedom to do so. Agree or disagree, that is freedom. California is free to do differently, as are all other 50 states. Of course, the rest of the world feels free to rag on about anything they don't agree with.
Touche, RD. But I chuckled when I saw that it was Kansas. Typical. No doubt all the radical-thinking evolution believers will be making a mass exodus to a less-Conservative neighbouring state, like, er...
*scratches head*
I guess they'll have to go to Illinois.
I was wondering when you were going to chime in. You challenged me to a conversation and then bugged off you stinker....My biggest problem with Kansas is the insects. Mess up the windshield driving through at night. Big Ass bugs they are.
I'll take here just fine KJ (Colorado), I've got 1/3 more room to move around with 1/10th the population, better scenery, lower taxes and greater freedom than you'll ever experience.
*kicks boots up on pink cadillac door jam, sips chocolate milk shake, turns up british rock music on japanese radio, waits for barage of verbal abuse from across ocean 6000 miles away*
*little smiley thing*
Pages