Fundamentalism in the USA

Parent Cafe
1

<p>I noticed a few posts on the Patrick Henry College article in the New Yorker, and I’m fairly shocked and disappointed at what some of the content was like. I, for one, am a small-government, libertarian Republican. I’d vote for the likes of McCain, Giuliani, and Schwartznegger in a heartbeat. Thus, before you start calling me a, as paraphrased from another post, “liberal, leftists, progressive, socialist, anarchist - or whatever you call it,” know that I’ve got good credentials. </p>

<p>Here are a few questions for my fellow republicans who happen to be of the fundamentalist, socially ultra-conservative kind:

  • How do you not believe in global warming?
  • How do you not believe in evolution? Do you at least profess to believe in Intelligent Design? Or is even that too “scientific” and “logically sound” for you?
  • How on earth can you agree with the doctrine of these conservative colleges that espouse rhetoric along the likes of “physical, sexual contact between males and females is sin,” or “those who die outside christ are damned to hell.” </p>

<p>Before you go on yapping about ‘freedom of speech, thought and expression’ in this nation, let me say that you are certainly free to think in whatever you wish. However, I certainly would like to question how you can logically and empirically justify your beliefs. And before you even think about replying to this post, don’t tell me science is highly flawed or it isn’t the entire truth. The whole purpose of science is to seek the truth through various forms of reasoning and data collection. Our nation was founded upon scientific reasoning, founded on the ideas of the great enlightenment philosophers of locke, rousseau, montenesque, smith, voltaire. These were figures who despised those who took scripture by the word as some irrefutable doctrine. Lastly, pertaining to the article, realize that a college has a responsibility to educate students in the skills of reasoning. Students shouldn’t have to be anchored to any one particular ideology - they should be allowed to find their own through the natural human abilities of reasoning, deduction, induction and empirical observation. So, in my view, a college that trains its students to believe ONLY in christ, shoves down their throats untenable theories such as creationism and asexual marriage need to be shut down, let alone be training our future politicians. </p>

<p>And before I go, know that I will be challenging your fundamentalist asses in the Republican primaries. I can just feel our founding fathers, especially jefferson, turning in their graves.</p>

2

<p>One of the things that Thomas Friedman points out in his book, Longitudes and Attitudes, a collection of his NY Times columns, is that in Islamic theocracies, “education” is meant to be religious education. Where are, he asks, the schools that will teach science and math? But “schools” are established to teach religion.</p>

<p>This means that the generations that could pull them into the 21st century and out of poverty and into the commerce of the world will never be.</p>

<p>==========</p>

<p>Intelligent Design is a fascinating topic, but it tries to give an answer to the “Why,” not the “How.” Using a medical analogy for replacing evolution with ID: it would be like trying to teach the “why” of physiology, but discount and throw out the “what” and the “how.” What kind of physicians would we then be training? Christian Scientists?</p>

3

<p>Yeah, I love friedman. I’m a proud reader of his column and a fan of the lexus and the olive tree.</p>

4

<p>Actually when Darwin proposed the theory of evolution he didn’t have a clue as to the how let alone an answer to it. Genetics - the alleged how of the evolution of species had to wait for for the monk Gregor Mendel to come along and the synthesis of the two theories took another 50 years - in no small part because genetics doesn’t actually do a very good or convincing job of explaining the how of evolution. That fact hasn’t shaken the “scientific” communities belief in Darwins theory for good or ill.</p>

<p>As for global warming except for the fact that there isn’t a shred of evidence that it is actually occurring I don’t know how anyone could doubt it. They were warned and they didn’t listen when told the sky was falling and we all know how that turned out.</p>

<p>I don’t intend to take up the cudgel for creationism or intelligent design. But a healthy skepticism towards scientific “facts” isn’t an intellectually indefensible position. Those involved in science often forget the ridiculous assumptions their most elaborately constructed theories are based on.</p>

5

<p>“This means that the generations that could pull them into the 21st century and out of poverty and into the commerce of the world will never be.”</p>

<p>Interesting. When I was in Scotland earlier this year I was reminded of certain elements of its history. I couldn’t help thinking how amazing it was that some of the greatest thinkers of the Enlightenment and of science and engineering came from an education system created at the insistance of the Church of Scotland (Presbyterians in this country, see the origin of the word “redneck”) who valued education almost as much as faith.</p>

6

<p>Doctorx88, I couldn’t agree with you more…I’m a “moderate Republican” and think I"m one of the few left in this country!. A good friend of mine just put her kids in a fundamentalist school (she calls it “private school”…I guess I’d call it ?? parochial). I couldn’t believe that she was doing it. She said, “it couldn’t hurt” and now, after a year, is constantly comparing my kids’ (private) school to her kids’. “We don’t have those problems because its a CHRISTIAN school”…(sex, drugs and rock n’ roll)…I can’t imagine my kids not being taught evolution. Inconceivable…(no pun intended!)</p>

7

<p>How come everyone associates rejection of evolution with stupidity? That, in itself, makes evolution unscientific: if people enter into research about it with a preconceived notion, of course their results will be biased…</p>

<p>Whether or not evolution is correct, will you agree that it is not pragmatic? IMO, it is the most useless of the sciences (I’m tempted to put that word in quotes, but I’ll refrain). Why waste endless time and money on research about evolution when it could be spent on medicine, information technology, or good old-fashioned monetary aid to countries who are too poor to be sitting around gazing however many billion years back?</p>

<p>“Our nation was founded upon scientific reasoning”
Need I point you to a delightful instance of “scientific reasoning” where a bunch of scientists got together and concluded that the brain capacity of blacks was smaller than that of whites, therefore “justifying” slavery? People embrace evolution as (1) an excuse for racism, and (2) a freedom from responsibility.</p>

8

<p>“So, in my view, a college that trains its students to believe ONLY in christ, shoves down their throats untenable theories such as creationism and asexual marriage need to be shut down, let alone be training our future politicians.”</p>

<p>Along a similar line, shouldn’t schools that ban said theories and beliefs be closed down as well? The problem, as usual, is the ubiquitous double standard…</p>

9

<p>There is evidence of global warming and finally, our President kind of acknowedged it:</p>

<p>Bush described climate change as “a significant, long-term issue that we’ve got to deal with” and acknowledged that human activity is “to some extent” to blame.</p>

<p><a href=“Climate Change | US EPA”>Climate Change | US EPA;

10

<p>Teaching scientific theory is much different than teaching faith. Sure, teach ALL the stories about how different faiths thought humans were created. Why is one better than the other? And, gee why do we have churches if to not teach religion? </p>

<p>And, its not stupid to believe in whatever you want, its the taking of someone FAITH BELIEFS and putting them into the public arena and into government and schools.</p>

<p>And, while we profress to want other countries to have religious freedon, we preach something a little different.</p>

<p>We say, yeah sure, people here are able to worship in all religions. That is true. But a particular group of people are using their particular faith systems, Born Again, to shape policy, elect officials, etc.</p>

<p>And, what I find most amusing is the hypocracy…</p>

11

<p>dke - never fear - the same problems that exist in public schools also exist in Christian schools - your friend just will never tell you. My friend did the same thing - but found out much from the D. A child died from overdose 2 yrs ago. One tried to comit suicide. One was pregnant - now those are small numbers, but the school is also small - 55 graduates this yr. Kids don’t always make the right choices - school can’t change that for everyone. Some of the most vocal Christian teens I have seen are at the public HS.</p>

12

<p>our local public school has a christian prayer group- which I don’t have a problem with- why should I ?
However when I read about some virginia schools having a large part of their student body take religious classes off site I was a little concerned
<a href=“http://slate.msn.com/id/2113611/[/url]”>http://slate.msn.com/id/2113611/&lt;/a&gt;
I see that they have been doing it for 60 years? but why they have to do it during the school day I don’t understand.
every school has problems, but in our area one particular Catholic school which I am sure is a very good school also has problems with parents assuming that because they are attending Catholic school they don’t have to keep such a close eye. THis school has by far the worst reputation for drinking ( however the suburban schools have worse reputation for drugs- follow the money)</p>

13

<p>Check out the Silver Ring Thing, an abstinance program that talks about God, Jesus, and has bible scriptures on the rings and get a ton of federal money</p>

<p>Their webs site has been toned down quite a bit since the ACLU got involved becuase of federal law. but the progam…</p>

14

<p>citygirlsmom - if your faith, whether in God or global warming doesn’t inform your public policy decisions then either you don’t really believe or you are unprincipled. And a freedom which allowed you to worship whether at the altar of God or Reason didn’t allow you to act on that faith or worse forced you to act contrary to it would be a hollow thing indeed.</p>

15

<p>Patuxent: Just curious - what other ridiculous scientific theories are you skeptical about besides evolution and global warming? gravity? radioactivity? relativity?</p>

16

<p>“relativity?”</p>

<p>Haven’t you guys heard of the Princeton experiment where they shattered the speed of light by, oh, 300 TIMES?</p>

<p>“gravity?”</p>

<p>The LAW of Universal Gravitation is directly observable, simply stated, and fits all predictions. Macroevolution, on the other hand, has never been observed, has no simple explanation, and must be modified at every new discovery.</p>

<p>“global warming?”
Let’s assume for a second that you evolutionists are right (I’m using the double standard argument). If so, according to cosmic evolution, the Sun is 5 billion years old. We have been collecting data on the Sun for 100, maybe 200 years. How do we know that this isn’t just some cyclic behavior of the Sun? If you’re a YEC (which I am) (and even if you’re not), couldn’t the Sun be starting to go out ahead of schedule?</p>

<p>“radioactivity?”
Again, directly observable.</p>

<p>BTW, make sure you know the difference between cosmic evolution, macroevolution, and microevolution. They do NOT imply each other, and only the latter has been observed.</p>

<p>Sorry patuxent if I hijacked your response…</p>

17

<p>So it’s not just those scientific theories which are awkward for corporate profits and religious fundamentalism? Because the only scientific theories I see under constant attack - and subject to an unmeetable standard of proof - seem to fall into one of those two categories… </p>

<p>Actually, there’s a lot of uncertainty about gravity - just how it works, etc. But I guess that’s not a problem because it doesn’t threaten profits ot prophets. Similarly, radioactivity is observable, but what’s your explanation for it? Don’t need one? Don’t have to cross every T, dot every I before it’s okay to consider the whole atomic decay thing a workable theory?</p>

18

<p>I don’t much enjoy conversations like this because when I ask for the falsifiable hypothesis for the existence of God or the accuracy of the Bible, my screen seems to go blank. ;)</p>

19

<p>Alright…time for my little liberal self to walk into the discussion and add my opinions as well as facts that I know.</p>

<p>Global warming- Yes, it does exist. The way that we have tested for global warming is by testing layers of ice in the Arctic. We measure the carbon levels and are then able to determine general warmth of the planet. The problem is today when we look at the ice, we see deep in the ice a normal up and down patern of about 10,000 years leading from peak heat to ice age and back up and down, etc. Today when we look at the ice, where the carbon level should be decreasing, it is instead rising. The opposite effect of the Earth’s natural cycle is being reversed by major industrial waste and extreme carbon pollution. Pretty much if we stop using major fossil fuels (the projected amount of actual oil left in known reserves is about 40 years, natural gas 80 years and coal about 300 years), we can significantly change the climactic patterns set by today and make the 150 year change in climate a small blip and outlier in the history of the Earth.</p>

<p>Now to religion in schools, which I saw up a few posts ago. I am an agnostic (raised Jewish and had a Bar-Mitzvah) and I am fine with people who want to believe in God. Personally, if it makes people moral and have a clean conscience, I am all for it. The problem I have is its massive display in the public. The highest rate of religion in this country is Christianity. There are also a very large amount of Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Atheists, Agnostics, Baha’is, Taoists, Shintoists, etc as the list goes on. A country that stresses one religion’s beliefs over others as the media has as of late with many Christian interviews and tours taking place (such as Chris Matthew’s Hardball Church Tour as well as a lot on Fox News and CNN) offend me purely because I see no other religion getting notariety. I think religion should be kept in the Churches, Synagogues and Temples. I understand that religions such as Christianity and Islam are universal religions that stress getting their beliefs to other people. I respect that fact as it is a core part of the religion. I don’t want to see, however, religions being spread in a public school classroom or in the halls of Congress or on the bench of the Supreme Court or in the White House. Private buildings and practices not associated with the government I could care less about what they do as it is their prerogative. I personally believe that it should stay out of governmental affairs as a good amount of the Founding Fathers were actually Deists who believed that God said the universe in motion and then backed off for eternity.</p>

<p>Evolution is actually a touchy subject. While I do believe in evolution strongly and I will be working with genetic research this summer, I do understand that many people also believe in creationism. The problem I see here, and it is only in terms of how the word of each spreads, is that public schools are beginning to teach both. While both are equally respectable views, states like Kansas which have mandated both to be taught, should understand that creationism is a religious belief, not a scientific one. Science is taught in public schools, not religion. Evolution should therefore be allowed to be taught in public schools and if a student chooses to not believe in that theory, they are allowed to as they can look in a religious text or hear a sermon personally in private or at a religious facility. There are places for both. Let us keep them there. From a simply logical standpoint, the only evidence I have seen for creationism is from the Bible (written by a human some 2,000 years ago) while there is much hard, scientific and irrefutable evidence produced at hospitals and research laboratories every year. That to me shows where the real answer lies (just my personal opinion though).</p>

<p>As for the very religious thought processes taught at places like Bob Jones University, I only say that those who learn them are a very small minority and that the majority of people in the United States doesn’t believe in them. I am sure that the vast majority of people in the US, as well as a vast majority of Christians have had some sexual contact before marriage and do not particularly believe in those sections of the Bible. </p>

<p>Phew…long post…I hope that some of you actually read that entire thing and realize that those of us on the left do actually understand where you come from with your beliefs and that we do respect them. We, however, choose a different option than you and in fact as Thomas Jefferson said “Dissent is the greatest form of patriotism.” So on this 4th of July let us celebrate this nation by debating without argument and slurs.</p>

<p>-Jaug1</p>

20

<p>Actually I don’t have a problem with evolution provided you buy into the idea of “species” its just that I am a little skeptical that genetics can account for the diversity that we see.</p>

<p>Global warming on the other hand is politics masquerading as science.</p>