Santorum says Conservatives and religious people are ignorant

[JustinW]

This is what I previously said,

It's not that I said it was just opposed by atheists. Like I said, it was just the most opposition that I've heard has been from athiests. I don't really care who believes what or doesn't believe what. I would argue against teaching creationism for the simple fact that it is not rellevant to the basic studies that a child learns in school. Also and probably most of all because public schools do not need to pick and chose the winners and losers of arguments based on opinion rather than factual consensus. Things like the teaching and applying of religion need to be taught at home, not in the class room.

 

But with that being said.

What's wrong with this

PA House Unanimously Votes for Saccone Resolution Declaring 2012 as Year of the Bible

 

A resolution sponsored by Rep. Rick Saccone (R-Allegheny/Washington) to declare 2012 as the "Year of the Bible" in Pennsylvania was unanimously adopted by the state House this week.

 

"As not only Pennsylvania, but the United States, continues to face great tests and challenges, House Resolution 535 serves as a reminder that we must look to our faith in God and the Holy Scripture to provide us with the strength, wisdom and courage to conquer these great trials," said Saccone. "All over the Pennsylvania Capitol, one can easily see the tremendous influence that Christianity and the Bible have had over our founders and predecessors. These images and quotes illustrating the beliefs and morals that have shaped our great Commonwealth must never be forgotten."

 

Supported by many members of the Pennsylvania Congressional delegation, legislation similar to House Resolution 535 was passed by the U.S. House and Senate to allow President Ronald Reagan to declare 1983 as the "Year of the Bible" at the national level.

 

It doesn't sound like they are teaching and applying religion. It sounds more like they are trying to teach a better understanding on what drove our founding fathers to make the decisions that they made. While I don't want schools preaching religion, I also feel that it is illogical to think that religion can never be mentioned. If only to better understand the drive behind some people's thoughts and movements.

 

 

Moontanman,

These things are subject to opinion? Wiping slavery out of text books because it slanders the founding fathers? Civil rights heroes? Treatment of Native Americans? Global warming? Striking mention of certain founding fathers because they are too liberal? Editing history to conform to Conservative facts? Give me a break....

Maybe opinion was a bad choice in words. I meant that it is known that some things are taught in a way that support a certain belief or ideology, but I don't see what the big deal is with teaching both sides of the story when the subject matter is controversial or in which the validity of facts is argued by a good number of people.

Edited January 30, 2012 by JustinW

[iNow]

But with that being said.

What's wrong with this

Will they also be equally supportive of a Year of the Qu'ran? What about a year of Dianetics by L.Ron.Hubbard? How about a year of some sadistic satanic religion... would you be asking "what's wrong with those?" After all, they are also religions and beliefs held by a great many people.

 

On top of that, what about all of the non-religious people in our country? Is their freedom FROM religion not as worthy of protection as your freedom OF religion?

 

I don't see what the big deal is with teaching both sides of the story when the subject matter is controversial or in which the validity of facts is argued by a good number of people.

There are not two sides of the story. There is one science based version, then there are countless other mythologies and creation stories. The subject matter is very well understood and not controversial at all. It's just rejected because it conflicts with a faith based worldview that prizes personal wish thinking over reason and evidence.

 

It's not controversial at all if you're a serious person who values academic integrity. On top of that, much like I referenced above, the judeo-christian creation myth is hardly the only creation myth out there, so really there are not just "two sides" of the story to teach. You have thousands, but the only one that's valid and that can stand up to even basic scrutiny is the version based on science. Yet, despite the fact that there are countless creation stories out there, what we see is that the judeo-christian creation story is the only one they want presented in the classroom. If they truly wanted to "present all ideas" and "let the children decide," then perhaps they'd be pushing something more than just their personally preferred creation story. I've got news for you. They're not. They want their fairy tales to have an equivalence with science which has only grown stronger and more accurate over 150 years.

 

Finally, just to close out this post... Popularity is not an indicator of truth, so the number of people who argue the validity of evolution is really rather moot. The only thing that matters is the merit of their argument, and that is an area we find consistently lacking. Their quote unquote counter arguments are specious and weak and laden with logical fallacies and wish thinking. It's truly unfortunate that such a "good number of people" reject evolution, but that is a reflection on flaws with them, not on flaws with the remarkably descriptive theory.

 

One last point... If you're interested, the whole "our founding fathers were christian" is a bit of a myth. I'd be glad to share data on this point if you'd like.

 

EDIT: We discussed it here: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/37895-framersfounders-religious-beliefs/

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5j5ncmZizJ0 Edited January 30, 2012 by iNow

[Phi for All]

Maybe opinion was a bad choice in words. I meant that it is known that some things are taught in a way that support a certain belief or ideology, but I don't see what the big deal is with teaching both sides of the story when the subject matter is controversial or in which the validity of facts is argued by a good number of people.

The controversy was manufactured. Creationists/Intelligent Design adherents kept coming up with refutations of evolution or other scientific theories, which were, in turn, thoroughly debunked. The Creationists/Intelligent Design adherents, whose arguments are poor but have a certain sound byte quality to them ("If we evolved from monkeys, how come we still have monkeys?"), ignored the debunking of their work and simply kept repeating it, causing scientists to go into lengthy explanations about why the Creationists/Intelligent Design adherents were wrong. Explanations like this aren't what the public wants, so many don't hear the rebuttals. So every time the Creationists/Intelligent Design adherents drag out their lame, demonstrably wrong arguments, science responds heatedly (for the bajillionth time) and WHAMMO! The Creationists/Intelligent Design adherents suddenly call it a controversy and demand we hear both sides. It's actually the cleverest part of their manufacturing process.

[JustinW]

Will they also be equally supportive of a Year of the Qu'ran?

Did the quran help to shape the decisions of our founding fathers? I don't recall too many Muslims signing the declaration or being major players in providing the foundation to build this country. If I'm wrong then I would probably support such a thing under that context.

 

On top of that, what about all of the non-religious people in our country? Is their freedom FROM religion not as worthy of protection as your freedom OF religion?

 

Are you saying that religion can't even be brought up? I would say that would leave out a vital understanding of history. About who the people were. How those people lived and thought. Why some people chose to fight or die. There is a lot of aspects where religion can be brought up in a lesson to be used as a tool for understanding and not as a way to indoctrinate a belief system. You're the one who talks about academic integrity. Is it not reasonable to consider that the judeo-christian religion was a big part of our founders lives, and that these beliefs played a big part in the decisions that formed our history. I'm not supporting the preaching of religion but also am not against the understanding of the role religion has playedin history.

 

 

 

There are not two sides of the story. There is one science based version, then like a thousand creation stories. It's not controversial if you're a serious person who values academic integrity, and the judeo-christian creation myth is hardly the only one, yet that's the only one they want presented. Finally, just to close out this rebuttal of your comment... Popularity does not dictate truth, so the number of people who argue the validity is really rather moot if their arguments are specious and weak... which they are.

You can't take the human factor out of everything. As long as popularity exists you'll get an argument, true or not. And this really depends on what exactly you're talking about. The creationist thing. .yeah, I get that their argument goes against any observable evidence, but it is still something that is being taught to their children that they don't believe in. What's wrong with saying " this is what the evidence has shown us. . .this is some other things that people believe about the subject, and here is the evidence for that". It would still drive the creationists crazy, but then they wouldn't have a leg to stand on because their side is still being presented. I understand what you're saying,also this idea probably wouldn't be plausible in an arena with so many different beliefs, but it is just an idea.

Now global warming on the other hand. It would be a shame to not have an ongoing debate on this subject. I would miss reading you and JohnB throwing arguments back and forth. You have to admit the subject is controversial and it's validity for cause, effect, and method are somewhat debatable. Why teach this in schools as pure fact when so many things about the subject are argued logically. Why not present it like" this is what the studies have shown and this is what the opposition believes and why"?

Edited January 30, 2012 by JustinW

[iNow]

Are you saying that religion can't even be brought up?

Oh, please. That's hardly what we're talking about. They're trying to insert religious myths into the science classroom and pass laws making this a "year of the bible." How is it possible you think that's equivalent to just "bringing it up?"

 

I would say that would leave out a vital understanding of history.

So, teach it in history class, or religious studies classes. Not in biology.

 

Is it not reasonable to consider that the judeo-christian religion was a big part of our founders lives, and that these beliefs played a big part in the decisions that formed our history.

For some yes, for most, no. See my post above. I was completing an edit when you posted this.

 

I'm not supporting the preaching of religion but also am not against the understanding of the role religion has playedin history.

Fine, but nobody here is talking about history class.

 

You have to admit [global warming] is controversial and it's validity for cause, effect, and method are somewhat debatable.

Everything is debatable, but I hardly admit that the validity of the science is truly in question. More than 98% of people who study climate as their life's pursuit all agree that humans are the primary driver in the current changes we're facing with climate. Just because there are people who deny it despite the evidence does not mean that the "validity is debatable."

 

Why teach this in schools as pure fact when so many things about the subject are argued logically. Why not present it like" this is what the studies have shown and this is what the opposition believes and why"?

Because some of us have integrity and value accuracy and truth.

[JustinW]

"All over the Pennsylvania Capitol, one can easily see the tremendous influence that Christianity and the Bible have had over our founders and predecessors. These images and quotes illustrating the beliefs and morals that have shaped our great Commonwealth must never be forgotten."

This was in the link you provided for the saccone resolution. So in this context I could see it being a benifit in a history class and that was what I was talking about. I took this article as presenting the religious aspect of history, not science, although I'm sure there are some aspects of science that religion has had a positive influence on.

 

For some yes, for most, no. See my post above. I was completing an edit when you posted this.

 

http://www.glennbeck.com/2011/11/02/are-we-a-christian-nation/

http://www.jameswatkins.com/foundingfathers.htm

 

Since the links you gave were the work of some who are considered leftwing, the top is someone who is definitely considered right wing, but an interesting bit of info to say the least. The link I provided on the bottom are some words from the same people that your links refer to. I only thought it fair to include some of the same founders and their words.

 

 

Because some of us have integrity and value accuracy and truth.

Yes, lets hope that the truth is never bent to include ideology.

[Keenidiot]

Evolution is a cornerstone of biology. It's a well attested scientific theory, like Cell theory.

 

Creationism is part of religion. It is only controversial to those of strong, literalist, religious beliefs. It has no part of a class on science, except to be mentioned with vitalism, spontaneous generation, and similar past concepts.

 

 

[imatfaal]

This was in the link you provided for the saccone resolution. So in this context I could see it being a benifit in a history class and that was what I was talking about. I took this article as presenting the religious aspect of history, not science, although I'm sure there are some aspects of science that religion has had a positive influence on.

 

 

 

http://www.glennbeck...ristian-nation/

http://www.jameswatk...dingfathers.htm

 

Since the links you gave were the work of some who are considered leftwing, the top is someone who is definitely considered right wing, but an interesting bit of info to say the least. The link I provided on the bottom are some words from the same people that your links refer to. I only thought it fair to include some of the same founders and their words.

 

 

Yes, lets hope that the truth is never bent to include ideology.

 

Justin - Glenn Beck does not provide information - he provides propaganda. I thought I would listen until I heard something demonstrably and obviously false - by two and a half minutes in it seemed to be agreed that you cannot preach christianity in israel - here is a list of places you can go to mass (I think that counts as preaching) in Jerusalem (which is in Israel). Citing Glenn Beck is akin to saying "I don't really care about the facts, I have already made up my mind and I will ignore all those that I disagree with!"

 

Additionally David Barton - the phone-in "historical expert" has more of a reputation as a revisionist than an historian - there are plenty of US constitutional historians, if one merely wanted a historical viewpoint and explanation of religiousity or not of the founding fathers then perhaps getting someone who didn't run a website dedicated to removal of the division between church and state (and that there never really was one)

 

this is from media matters

David Barton Founder of anti church-state separation group whose theory "many historians dismiss." Barton is founder and president of Wallbuilders, which describes itself as a "pro-family organization that presents America's forgotten history and heroes, with an emphasis on our moral, religious and constitutional heritage." According to Time magazine, Barton is "educating an evangelical generation in what might be called Christian counter-history" whose "thesis" is that "that the U.S. was a self-consciously religious nation from the time of the Founders until the 1963 Supreme Court school-prayer ban." Time also reports that "Many historians dismiss his thinking."

 

 

 

[Ladeira]

This creationist park must be cool... I would feel like I were in a Harry Potter theme park.

 

Well, I'm upset with elections in US, so no comments at all.

[JustinW]

imatfaal,

Justin - Glenn Beck does not provide information - he provides propaganda. I thought I would listen until I heard something demonstrably and obviously false - by two and a half minutes in it seemed to be agreed that you cannot preach christianity in israel - here is a list of places you can go to mass (I think that counts as preaching) in Jerusalem (which is in Israel). Citing Glenn Beck is akin to saying "I don't really care about the facts, I have already made up my mind and I will ignore all those that I disagree with!"

 

Additionally David Barton - the phone-in "historical expert" has more of a reputation as a revisionist than an historian - there are plenty of US constitutional historians, if one merely wanted a historical viewpoint and explanation of religiousity or not of the founding fathers then perhaps getting someone who didn't run a website dedicated to removal of the division between church and state (and that there never really was one)

I know, I know, I knew I would catch hell for putting that on there. The fact is though that the founding fathers were religious and were influenced by judeo-christian beliefs. The glenn beck link was just to prove that there are two sides to this argument, and the second link was to illistrate that the same founders provided by the link from iNow were in fact religious. And that religion played a part in who they were and the decisions that were made conserning the founding of this country. I don't see why religion can't be used in a classroom to better understand people in history and how they were influenced by their religion.

As to creationism, I pretty well stand with you on the subject Keenidiot, but I don't see why religion can't be included for a better understanding of how things came about. Even if it is only mentioned with spontaneous generation, past concepts, and vitalism.

 

Okay let me ask the forum this... In '83 when Reagan anounced a year of the bible, what bad things came of it. Did muslim and jewish kids convert to christianity in mass? Was there another inquasition?

I'm not understanding why this is thought to be applied in a way that will indoctrinate kids or even negatively effect them.

[John Cuthber]

I think this says a lot about how he is perceived.

http://www.gocomics.com/doonesbury/2012/01/27

[Keenidiot]

The fact is though that the founding fathers were religious and were influenced by judeo-christian beliefs.

 

Dunno if deism, strictly speaking, is a religion as such. Thomas Jefferson was almost certainly an atheist, and many of the founding fathers were very critical or religion.

While arguably they were affected by The Christian values of their home country, they were also (and rather obviously) influenced by many of the current philosophers of their time.

 

The glenn beck link was just to prove that there are two sides to this argument

As presented by a whackaloon conspiracy touting television pundit?

If that's a legimet alternative, then you have got to hear about how the Royal family are lizards...

 

The founding fathers had a range of religious and political views, to be sure, with a variety of influences. The greatest majority were deist, and most were vocally against organised religion.

 

As to creationism, I pretty well stand with you on the subject Keenidiot, but I don't see why religion can't be included for a better understanding of how things came about.

 

What special insight does religion give?

Seriously. If we go with the Bible, bats are birds, rabbits chew cud, humans were created from dirt and descended from two singular ancestors without concern of inbreeding.

 

Again, history class is fine, religious class, is fine. It doesn't really have a place as anything more than a footnote in modern science books. The real issue is the people who try to pass it off as still valid science, instead of religion.

 

Okay let me ask the forum this... In '83 when Reagan anounced a year of the bible, what bad things came of it. Did muslim and jewish kids convert to christianity in mass? Was there another inquasition?

 

 

 

Um... Ronald Reagan was one of the first presidents to my mind that ran with a strong religious message as part of his platform which helped lead to the modern GOP of right wing religious nutters.

Currently the US rates lowest (except for Turkey) in science education, while ranking the most religious of the first world nations.

He of course isn't all to blame, but he certainly helped usher in the many problems we're having today.

 

 

The real problem that we have is the people pushing to get religion taught as a valid alternative to science in science class, in the public schools.

Whatever they want to teach in private schools is fine, providing they meet standards.

[JustinW]

The greatest majority were deist, and most were vocally against organised religion.

Yeah this so well illustrated by the link I provided. (sarcasm)

 

 

Whatever they want to teach in private schools is fine, providing they meet standards.

Isn't it wierd how most private schools not only meet but surpass the standards.

 

 

 

Um... Ronald Reagan was one of the first presidents to my mind that ran with a strong religious message as part of his platform which helped lead to the modern GOP of right wing religious nutters.

Currently the US rates lowest (except for Turkey) in science education, while ranking the most religious of the first world nations.

He of course isn't all to blame, but he certainly helped usher in the many problems we're having today.

This doesn't quite answer my question. Can you be a little more specific on HOW Reagans institution of the year of the bible had a negative affect on the teaching in schools.

 

http://www.aproundtable.org/tps30info/beliefs.html Here is another link that directly connects christianity with the founding of America as spoken by the founders. Why is it so difficult to believe that the founding of this country was influenced by religious beliefs?

Edited January 30, 2012 by JustinW

[Keenidiot]

Yeah this so well illustrated by the link I provided. (sarcasm)

 

Which I read. My point was they didn't support organised religion. I personally disagree that deism itself is part of the Christian religion, but that's me.

It's important to note that fundamentalists are attempting to remove Jefferson from the books. There's also constant battles to teach science versus religion in class.

Which is our point of contestion it appears.

Isn't it wierd how most private schools not only meet but surpass the standards.

 

 

In certain subjects. In my own experience the science classes tend to be lacking and the religious classes tend to be skewed. I pulled the statistics, which does back your statement.

I do note that it doesn't seperate religious from non religious private, but religious is majority so I don't think it'd affect it much.

 

My point still stands, so long as they meet standards, there're no problems with religious schools teaching ID in their classrooms. It can't, however, be taught in public schools unless all other creation stories are included.

 

This doesn't quite answer my question. Can you be a little more specific on HOW Reagans institution of the year of the bible had a negative affect on the teaching in schools.

 

 

 

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/answer-sheet/school-turnaroundsreform/how-ronald-reagan-affected-tod.html

 

Ronald Reagan had a serious affect on education. His "Year of the Bible" probably didn't, but it was a product of the same thought that brought about the SAT.

The problem is nto about schooling, but that it set preference for one religion over another.

 

Why is it so difficult to believe that the founding of this country was influenced by religious beliefs?

 

I said:

While arguably they were affected by The Christian values of their home country, they were also (and rather obviously) influenced by many of the current philosophers of their time.

 

...

The founding fathers had a range of religious and political views, to be sure, with a variety of influences. The greatest majority were deist, and most were vocally against organised religion.

 

The Founding fathers had more influences than just religion.

That's all I'm saying, this includes religion as well as the ideals of the Enlightenment and the philosophers of the time.

 

I can keep repeating this if you'd like.

[ydoaPs]

One doesn't have to be old. It's happening right now, and it's happening all across the country, and it has been happening essentially non-stop for a very long time. It's time you stop arguing from a position of incredulity and catch yourself up on current events.

 

Start here: http://ncse.com/

 

And here's one from just yesterday in Indiana: http://freethoughtblogs.com/blaghag/2012/01/indiana-senate-committee-approves-creationist-legislation/

 

It passed in our state Senate and they're not even pretending that they're not intentionally wasting hundreds of thousands of dollars of school money for potential theocratic gain: "This is a different Supreme Court...This Supreme Court could rule differently."-Dennis Kruse (R-District 14)

Edited February 1, 2012 by ydoaPs

[imatfaal]

"The governing body of a school corporation may offer instruction on various theories of the origin of life. The curriculum for the course must include theories from multiple religions, which may include, but is not limited to, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Scientology."

Scientology. FFS! I meant to post and comment that is it a disgrace and a retrograde step... but Scientology! And that's the amended version which isn't quite as bad ...but Scientology!

 

I struggle to see why any state would want to spend 10^6+ dollars fighting the undoubted legal fallout to this insane bill - I suppose they think it is better than teaching the children of the state. The reading of the Dennis Kruse's (the bill's sponsor) comments makes it fairly clear he is willing to waste the tax payers money to make a point and take a case to the supreme court - nice use of state funds.

 

And it is hinted in this link - that the reception in the upper house will be favourable