Walden wrote:
Recently the Tulsa Zoo approved plans to include a display on creation, as studies had shown that the majority of the local population believed in it. However, the plans were withdrawn immediately following the latest anti-religion rulings of the United States Supreme Court.
You've lost me here. Were they planning to display the created animals separately from those that have evolved?
Seriously though, how could a zoo do a display on creation? If you want to do a display on creation don't you just parade the very same animals you'd parade if you were doing a display on evolution?
Wormdiet asked for a clarification of the distinction between freedom of religion and freedom from religion. In my understanding, the former refers to the freedom of each individual to practice his or her religion (within certain bounds, of course). The latter refers to the privatization of religion so that those who don't like it won't have to be bothered with it (i.e., a society free from any outward evidence of religious life). I would not want the state to sponsor a church/religion, but at times it seems rulings have gone beyond the scope of that danger in the exclusion of religious practices from public life.
James asked for examples of abuses "on the other side that help explain why some Christians are tempted to defend (or over-defend) their place in U.S. society." What I referred to above summarizes one type of abuse. I could dig out some specific examples of the types of rulings I was referring to, but I'm guessing most of us have seen them. I'm not speaking primarily of the posting of the Ten Commandments on public buildings, for example, but instances prohibiting voluntary prayer groups at school buildings before classes, nativity scenes, etc.
Another category of abuse is what I referred to in my previous post in which the relationship between science and faith is presented as truth versus ignorance/superstition.
Whether or not you consider such examples valid or significant, we all need to put ourselves in the position of the other side and try to understand their feelings rather than to objectify them and attack a straw man (person).
I'd like to make a couple of comments on what I've read in this discussion.
Earlier a poster quoted "This nation was not founded on Scientology or false religions like Islam... ".
Wrong, was my first response.
It was founded by a lot of folks that fled their countries because they had 'false' religions. Catholics and Puritans from England, Protestants from France and Italy, etc. They fled religious persecution that was government sponsored. They came to the conclusion that NO religion should be sponsored or endorsed or supported or promoted by the government. That there should be separation between church and state; that the civil or secular form of government should be independent and separate from peoples religious institutions. They strove to create laws that had a broad basis on secular interaction, for example, they didn't want the right to own land to be limited by what church you went to or how often.
They sought other forms of freedom too, political, economic, social, etc. But many folks came to this country to live religious lifestyles that were prohibited in countries they left behind. After a century or so of life here, they found how easy it was to try to impose thier own religions on others and how that produced problems, so they discovered the problem was not with the government not supporting their religion, but with government supporting any religion. The strove to make that understanding part of their new constitution.
As to Creationism versus Evolution, when I was in college, I had a friend who was a fundamentalist and a science teacher. I asked him about it and he said there was a scripture that said a day was as a 1000 years to the lord. He said, he was amazed that the creation story paralleled evolution but on a different time line. He also postulated that evolution tries to describe the order that we find and the ongoing adaptation. He said science was about how and his faith was about why. He said faith should grow in communities and churches. It was not something you could teach in schools it was something to be lived and grown. Science described how things worked, but my friend believed his god created it all in a wink of an eye, including millions of years of evolution, to give order to this world. He said his faith was something you had to decide to believe in and not something that could be proved. He felt that being unprovable was by his god's design that each of use would have to make decisions of faith; because, faith was the substance of the things hoped for, but not seen. So his god created order that would cause it to rain on folks weather they believed in the author of creation or not.
My friend also felt it was arragant and the sin of the pharasies and sadusees (sp?) to assume that his interpretation of any part of the bible was the true or only interpretation. Instead, he said he found himself consumed with striving to "belive all things, hope all things, endure all things" in loving others. He said the rest is details, details he would never fully understand until the next life when he was one with his god. He thought that in the next life, he and his God would have a good laugh at all the sillyness that people got caught up trying to figure out details that only omnipotence could make sense of.
My friend and I shared much of the same faith, just as I share much the same ideals with my forefathers that said government and religion should be separate.
I am worried that many religious groups are striving to have their religious faith become part of the government. Historically it has often been the path to corruption and violence: jihads, crusades, progroms. Insisting that someone believe things of faith, things that can't be proven, sets a precedent that it is right to force one's beliefs on others. My faith is my own, I'd rather others make their own decisions and leave me to mine.
I'd rather the government teach reading so people can read the torah, the bible, or the koran, and gain insights to principles and ideals they can decide to hope for, ideas they can have faith in. I'd rather a government that sponsors education on why it shouldn't support any religion, not because people shouldn't have faith, but because separation of government and religion is the only way to allow faith to grow. I'd rather government sponsor language and reason that we all can learn ways to communicate and live together with our individual and shared faiths. I'd rather government sponsor the teaching of science that promotes reason and understanding of how things work and leave to religious institution to teach purpose, meaning, and the things unseen, but hoped for. I'd rather a government that teaches the politics of freedom, the workings of political institutions, and history that lets use live together in tolerance and diversity; and, leave to religious institutions the search for conscience and spirit.
For those that are worried that the religious ideals, that they feel are so important, are dying out of our culture, they should focus on the failure of their religious institutions. If church or temple or institute failed to communicate those ideals then they need to change their church or temple or institute. I don't think they need to get the government to re-enforce those failures.
Perhaps I've read more into this discussion than was part of the original posts, perhaps a word here or there mis-read or mis-understood has touched on some of my beliefs on how our system should work. Since it is not a perfect system, it may be, for me, a decision of faith, something unseen but hoped for. I have tried to put into words some of those thing I believe about our system of government. I also tried to touch on the need I see for the revitalization of our religious institutions in general, to focus on faith, love, hope and not get lost in details.
All of this is why I like music because it connects us without regard to creation or evolution, without regard to politcal affiliation or religious belief. Whoever I am, I can still ...
Wombat wrote:
Seriously though, how could a zoo do a display on creation? If you want to do a display on creation don't you just parade the very same animals you'd parade if you were doing a display on evolution?
It was just to be a monument that gave an overview of the creation account in Genesis. There was already a monument on the creation myth of another society, as well as monuments on evolution.
Wombat wrote:
Seriously though, how could a zoo do a display on creation? If you want to do a display on creation don't you just parade the very same animals you'd parade if you were doing a display on evolution?
It was just to be a monument that gave an overview of the creation account in Genesis. There was already a monument on the creation myth of another society, as well as monuments on evolution.
Ah, thanks Walden. I think that's rather a nice idea actually. I was just intrigued to know what form it would take. I don't really see how anybody could object to that but, lets face it, whatever it is, somebody objects to it.
Wormdiet asked for a clarification of the distinction between freedom of religion and freedom from religion. In my understanding, the former refers to the freedom of each individual to practice his or her religion (within certain bounds, of course). The latter refers to the privatization of religion so that those who don't like it won't have to be bothered with it (i.e., a society free from any outward evidence of religious life). I would not want the state to sponsor a church/religion, but at times it seems rulings have gone beyond the scope of that danger in the exclusion of religious practices from public life.
James asked for examples of abuses "on the other side that help explain why some Christians are tempted to defend (or over-defend) their place in U.S. society." What I referred to above summarizes one type of abuse. I could dig out some specific examples of the types of rulings I was referring to, but I'm guessing most of us have seen them. I'm not speaking primarily of the posting of the Ten Commandments on public buildings, for example, but instances prohibiting voluntary prayer groups at school buildings before classes, nativity scenes, etc.
This is a bit sneaky, isn't it?
I don't consider court rulings designed to protect separation of Church and State to be an abuse. I consider that equal protection under the law.
I meant and should have said: "Please provide examples where you, yourself, have faced abuse."
Just because you don't get your way doesn't mean you've been abused.
Tell us something.: I've picked up the tinwhistle again after several years, and have recently purchased a Chieftain v5 from Kerry Whistles that I cannot wait to get (why can't we beam stuff yet, come on Captain Kirk, get me my Low D!)
Walden wrote:[It's no secret that I believe in fiat creation...
“First lesson: money is not wealth; Second lesson: experiences are more valuable than possessions; Third lesson: by the time you arrive at your goal it’s never what you imagined it would be so learn to enjoy the process” - unknown
Tell us something.: I've picked up the tinwhistle again after several years, and have recently purchased a Chieftain v5 from Kerry Whistles that I cannot wait to get (why can't we beam stuff yet, come on Captain Kirk, get me my Low D!)
Walden wrote:[It's no secret that I believe in fiat creation...
Heh! Heh! Heh! I know this is a serious thread, but I was waiting for just this post from you, Tyler.
Tom
Just goes to show....you have to watch what you type! Some fool will twist it around!!!!!!!
To be honest, I had to do it before Slude-dude did!
(No offense, Walden, your argument holds water, but I just couldn't resist )
“First lesson: money is not wealth; Second lesson: experiences are more valuable than possessions; Third lesson: by the time you arrive at your goal it’s never what you imagined it would be so learn to enjoy the process” - unknown
I don't consider court rulings designed to protect separation of Church and State to be an abuse. I consider that equal protection under the law.
I meant and should have said: "Please provide examples where you, yourself, have faced abuse."
Just because you don't get your way doesn't mean you've been abused.
***
I'm not sure what you mean by "sneaky." I believe I have been honest and above board with everything I've said. First, my point was that some (not all) rulings under the umbrella of separation of church and state go too far and are not about the avoidance of establishing a state religion. As far as personal abuse, I tried to make it clear that I was attempting to explain why some of my fellow Christians (not myself) might feel threatened in some ways. The closest thing to abuse I have experienced is a condescending attitude from some for being a Christian, as if you couldn't be an intelligent person and a person of faith.
Not getting your way is obviously not the same as abuse. But if you believe that you are not getting your way because, in your opinion, principles such as freedom of religion or separation of church and state are being applied improperly or unfairly, you might feel abused. The same perspective appears in the outrage of some in this thread over what they perceive as President Bush's misuse of his powers. I believe you wrote something at the beginning of this thread to the effect that we will be suffering from President Bush's actions/comments for many years to come. I guess I would classify that statement as a feeling of abuse because you have not gotten your way with this president. Some Americans agree with his policies and others who don't feel that they (and the nation) are suffering as a result.
My point has been not so much to debate particular points. I have said very little about where I am personally on the issues, so I hope no one will jump to conclusions about my views. I just felt as I read this thread that Christians who believe in creation were being somewhat caricatured in a way that does not promote healthy discussion.
Cynth wrote:I would be worried about any group of people doing this whose values and beliefs are so different than mine. I do believe that they are acting in sincere accordance with their beliefs, but then I must do the same.
You sound just like a fundamentalist Christian speaking about atheists/Muslims/Wicca, etc... So how is your worry morally superior to theirs? You would say that they cannot physically prove the existance of God, but conversly, you cannot physically disprove the existance of God.
Cynth wrote: That would include all those who sincerely feel their religious beliefs must be a part of their lives and the duty to strive to have them be part of the lives of non-believers as well but it would not target a specific religion.
Do you feel that your beliefs should be part of your life? Seems to me that would be part of the operational definition of belief.
Are you enthusiastic about Irish music? Do you ever try to expose others to Irish music in order to have them make it part of their lives? Do they rail against your intrusion into their musical beliefs? If a person is enthusiastic about something, they are likely to want to instill that enthusiasm in others. It's not evil, or devious, it's human nature.
Cynth wrote:I do not know if the word "malice" fits into the situation. The word "dangerous" seems to me to be very appropriate. This is just my point of view. I don't feel hatred, but I do feel scared. And I have no doubt that I will become angry, even if these people are acting from sincere and honest belief.
Gee Cynth, you sound just like those dangerous, religious right, conservative Christians when they talk about Islam...
Cynth wrote: I certainly don't think I know what we are doing on Earth, etc. I don't understand that comment. Is it not the religious who feel that they have the answers to all these questions?
When you do feel like you know what you're doing here on Earth, don't try to tell anyone. I wouldn't want to see you labeled as a person who is forcing their beliefs on someone else.
A note to Random notes, who stated: "The problem with pointing to gaps in a scientific theory is that any scientist will say, "So? Of course there are gaps in scientific theories. That is what makes them scientific."
Actually, the gaps are what makes them theories, not specifically scientific. Most theories which have been shown to be free of gaps are promoted to the status of laws (gravity, death, taxes, moisture accumulation in the windway of your whistle just when you get to the really fun part of the reel )
IRTradRU? wrote:And I'll go you one further: I'd like to know who the genius (sic) was that decided that the federal government had any business in education. It sure as heck isn't defined in the Constitution, and IMO, should never have been instituted at the federal level.
The states had their chance to run education and proved unfit for the task by consistently and maliciously excluding a large part of their population from meaningful access to education. The pattern continues today, sadly, through unequal funding.
(You may want to review the "necessary and proper" clause of the Constitution.)
Some fool will twist it around!!!!!!! 
)
)
