Jesse Walker visits the dinosaurs in the Garden of Eden.
Reason Magazine
Most Popular Stories
Reason RUPE: Public Opinion Survey
- Romney Most Electable Candidate, Yet Gingrich in Statistical Tie Among GOP Voters (1.31)
- Explaining Newt’s Second Surge (1.26)
- George Washington Would Beat Out Romney as Richest President; John Kerry Would Have, Too (1.25)
- New Poll: Americans Aren't Ready for Another War (1.20)
- 2012 Election Match Up: Romney Wins, Paul Might (1.13)
advertisements
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsSite comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time.
|12.26.05 @ 10:55AM|#
And better a private park than a public school.
Riggggght. Because spreading bad science and reactionary religious dogma is a-ok just as long as it's done of private property.
Sorry for my heresy, but I think that keeping the fundies from dragging the West into another Dark Age is a liitle more important.
Mike Laursen|12.26.05 @ 11:10AM|#
Akira, I sympathize with your fear of these people, but by what means do you propose to keep fundamentalists from spreading bad science and reactionary religious dogma on their private property?
KipEsquire|12.26.05 @ 11:15AM|#
Who needs creationist dinosaur parks when we have the Grand Canyon (which -- the National Park Service will tell you -- was created by Noah's Flood).
|12.26.05 @ 12:14PM|#
having experienced the joy of Kent Hovind first-hand, I can say without hesitation that he is reprehensible, a liar, and does not adhere to the principles of the faith which he professes. In fact, he reminds me of the moneychangers Jesus threw out of the temple in the Bible: he preys on the fear and ignorance of people to make a buck, just like Falwell and Robertson, only without a TV show.
|12.26.05 @ 12:19PM|#
[B]y what means do you propose to keep fundamentalists from spreading bad science and reactionary religious dogma on their private property?
Continue to heap scorn upon its purveyors, making it undesirable and disadvantageous to actually say the shit that they say in public is one way.
These fantasies are as childish as believing in the tooth fairy, Santa Claus, and the Loch Ness Monster. Apparently, this needs to be reiterated and reinforced, because they Just Haven't Gotten It.
Nobody said there's a quick and easy way to do it, but that doesn't mean that this horseshit is better than a public school. It's still entirely possible and non-contradictory to put a premium value on private property, and/or condemn public schools, while maintaining that the world would be better off if this particular piece of land wasn't being used to urge people to permanently suspend some or all of their faculties of reason.
(Please pardon my answering a question not addressed to me. I just happen to agree with Akira's assessment of Jesse's conclusion.)
|12.26.05 @ 12:25PM|#
Perhaps I ought to clarify. Mike's right, there is nothing we can do about what people do with or on their private property. I just object to the "do nothing" attitude held by libertarians toward the anti-freedom mentalities who hide behind property rights. Something has to be done before they fully monopolize American culture and start turning the police state powers their buddy Dubbya has spent acquiring on those who don't fit in their deitiy's great, cosmic, plan.
I don't have an answer on how do deal with the fundies without violating any of their rights. Shame and ridicule doesn't seem to work. Indeed it feeds into their martyr complex, bringing in more power to the holy rollers in the pulpit and the Congress.
It's easy to "live and let live" when everyone around you shares that sentiment, but when you have a significant portion of the populace who believe they have a holy mandate to vehemently meddle in the lives others... someones got to give out and I rather it not be me. The thought of being stoned, hung, or burned at the stake by these people doesn't appeal to me.
|12.26.05 @ 12:29PM|#
Akira, letting them have their say doesn't preclude us from having our say. isn't it a libertarian trope that the solution to bad (subjective) speech is more speech pointing out why the first speaker is incorrect, not gubmint censorship?
I'm also tired of the bs, the lies, and the whole everything around the evolution noncontroversy. ignoring them isn't working, spending more time educating the public and countering their lies is the only solution.
at least it isn't being paid for with tax dollars.
|12.26.05 @ 12:38PM|#
I'm sorry, but knowing about the gullible nature of human beings, I'm not optimistic as you are. People WANT to believe in nonsense like "God" "Heaven" and "Sin" in order to delude themselves that there is justice in the universe and that there is something beyond death. They won't stand to have a tiny group of non-believers tell them otherwise.
The "more free speech" argument only works when both sides are willing to listen. They aren't. Since they operate on faith you can't argue with them, you can't debate them, you can't reason with them. So what do we do?
At this rate, It's no longer a question on IF America will become a theocracy, it's WHEN.
|12.26.05 @ 12:58PM|#
you might be right, Akira, so I'm learning Spanish in preparation for a move to the Mediterranean region of Spain, just in case.
warm, sunny climate. topless beaches.
The Owner's Manual|12.26.05 @ 12:59PM|#
Jesse, what makes the web useful is linking to sources when applicable. Those wishing to view the entire LAT article are saddened to see you ignored the convention.
|12.26.05 @ 1:49PM|#
The Owner's Manual,
Here is the article.
Santa Mo
|12.26.05 @ 2:07PM|#
Hmm... I just got:
There's no explanation of who "I" is above, nor do I know what "your" or "first time" means. I've posted comments before, and they haven't been held up. This will be my second post after getting the above message. Who else gets these? Does anyone want to elaborate on what's going on? Is this happening for all people with bogus e-mail addresses? Was it related to keywords in the post I just made (Christianity, Islam, moneychanger?)? Was it related to my previous post (explaining why the Dover decision was a horrible one?)? Perhaps it was because I called Akira a fuck-tard?
|12.26.05 @ 2:21PM|#
OK,
Since my "Thank you for Commenting" post made it through, my guess is the post that didn't make it through was quarantined due to key words and not due to my username or IP address. Here's my last attempt to see if I can figure out what's going on. If this makes it through, then most likely one or more of the words with italic vowels are responsible.
grylliade|12.26.05 @ 2:23PM|#
At this rate, It's no longer a question on IF America will become a theocracy, it's WHEN.
Bullshit. Remember, half the country voted against Bush. Most of the Christians in this country, even most of the evangelicals, don't want a theocracy. The smart ones (and there are more of them than you'd think) realize that there's no guarantee that their particular brand of Christianity will be the one that gains the upper hand. This country is not moving towards a theocracy. It might become more religious than many of us here would feel comfortable with, and there might be more laws made that are based too heavily on religion. But how is that different than the early years of the twentieth century, when prohibitionism (driven by religion, mainly) was made national law? We've had times like this in America before; we'll have them again. It sucks, but no one's going to be burned at the stake or hanged for non-belief. And no matter what, there's going to be a large proportion of the population that doesn't follow the prevailing form of Christianity. Don't worry; it might suck for a while, but it won't be Saudi Arabia.
|12.26.05 @ 2:24PM|#
Oh, come on. I don't want people spreading this bullshit either. But if it is to be spread, I especially don't want to be paying for it. That's all I got from Mr. Sanchez's little comment, and I don't see any reason to jump all over him for it.
At this rate, It's no longer a question on IF America will become a theocracy, it's WHEN.
I mean, that's just ridiculous.
|12.26.05 @ 2:29PM|#
Bullshit. Remember, half the country voted against Bush. Most of the Christians in this country, even most of the evangelicals, don't want a theocracy.
I hope you're right, Grylliade, but it may not be as simple as that. Remember the old saying "The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing"? I think something similar may apply here. Because what matters isn't how many Americans want to avoid a descent into theocracy, but how many want it badly enough to DO something about it, even if that does mean missing a very important episode of American Idol.
It hasn't happened here before, but that doesn't mean it can't.
|12.26.05 @ 2:31PM|#
Anon, no judge found that simply teaching bad science is an establishment of religion.
|12.26.05 @ 2:38PM|#
And another thing: look at how many regular (presumably freedom-loving) posters on this very comment board are ever-ready to justify why it's okay for the government to torture people, detain them without trial, tap phones without a warrant, search people at random without a warrant. . . can you honestly say you have good reason to believe that such apologetic people are in the minority in this country? I don't. Some people would rather let the country fall to pieces than admit to themselves that there's a problem (especially when said problem is caused by the party they voted for).
|12.26.05 @ 2:45PM|#
Jennifer, can you honestly say that such apologetics point to an inevitable theocracy?
|12.26.05 @ 2:48PM|#
Jennifer, can you honestly say that such apologetics point to an inevitable theocracy?
No, but it does a good job of fertilizing the soil in which the seeds of dictatorship can sprout. Nothing is inevitable in politics--but some outcomes are more likely than others. And I think the likelihood of us becoming a theocracy, or a nationalist dictatorship, is far, far greater than it was in the last century.
|12.26.05 @ 2:50PM|#
Zach,
That's exactly my point. Judges don't have the leeway to decide that a given curriculum has to be excluded because it is bad/wrong. They also don't have the leeway to decide that a given curriculum has to be given a pass because it's good/correct. They only have the ability to decide based on whether a curriculum violates the first amendment which reads:
It takes a broad definition of "establishment" to find that teaching ID is an establishment of religion. Yes, there's already precedent for such a broad definition, just like there's already precedent for a broad definition of "interstate commerce". However, if we get a broad definition of "prohibiting the free exercise thereof", then schools won't be able to teach things-even true things, things that are really good to know in general-that undermine religions that have enough clout to get judges to side with them.
And it's not just judicial decisions that we have to worry about. There's also the chilling effect. The chilling effect comes into play when a school system decides to simply not teach various things since it might cause trouble. It's pretty easy for the chilling effect to kick in. Just look how my article was quarantined because I mentioned a few well known religions. If it can happen here, you can bet it can happen in the schools.
It's true that teaching intelligent design in a science class is an affront to science. It may even slightly damage the few kids who think critically enough for it to matter but don't think critically enough to check out intelligent design on the internet. But I'm much more scared of judges having sweeping powers than I am of some backwards school boards whose members can't even retain their seats after a vote. People who fear theocracies should be a lot more afraid of judges with too much power to prohibit than school boards being allowed to make abysmal mistakes.
We just threw Brer Rabbit into the briar patch. That'll learn him!
|12.26.05 @ 3:04PM|#
I don't think we can take Hit and Run as a microcosm of the US (thank God!). But it is interesting that people who are supposedly so opposed to tyranny can be so nonchalant about the steps we're taking in that direction. The lesson I draw from Hit and Run is that even the most freedom-loving ideology is no safeguard against blindness.
|12.26.05 @ 3:16PM|#
I don't think we can take Hit and Run as a microcosm of the US (thank God!).
I don't mean to take it as such; if anything, my point was that if the type of people who post here can be so calm about tyranny, how much worse must it be among people who are perhaps more prone than the average H&R poster to think that if it's the US government doing it, it must be okay?
It would be like finding that the posters on an atheist forum don't care about something like mandatory prayer. If THEY are unconcerned, how much more so must religious people be?
Thomas Paine's Goiter|12.26.05 @ 3:26PM|#
Kip:
Even more troubling, PEER charges that Grand Canyon National Park no longer offers an official estimate of the age of the canyon,
Has this been confirmed?
|12.26.05 @ 3:28PM|#
Jennifer-
It may be that the general public will actually be less tolerant of tyranny than some of the people here. We on this forum tend to be pretty ideological. If you get too serious about an ideology you can persuade yourself that almost anything is acceptable in fighting the enemies of that ideology, and almost any sin is forgivable if committed by the proponents of that ideology.
As long as people here believe that the GOP are the true Guardians of Liberty, any sin can be forgiven if committed by a Republican. But people who simply believe that the GOP is offering some decent policies, without annointing the GOP as Guardians of Liberty, might be more likely to be turned off by the current bullshit.
It might not be happening yet, but I suspect that non-ideologues will turn away from the GOP faster than the most ideological posters on Hit and Run. Ordinary people who merely fell for the bullshit have far less invested in it than ideologues.
|12.26.05 @ 3:41PM|#
It takes a broad definition of "establishment" to find that teaching ID is an establishment of religion. Yes, there's already precedent for such a broad definition, just like there's already precedent for a broad definition of "interstate commerce". However, if we get a broad definition of "prohibiting the free exercise thereof", then schools won't be able to teach things?even true things, things that are really good to know in general?that undermine religions that have enough clout to get judges to side with them.
Well, I disagree. I don't think it's a stretch to call ID religion, and I certainly don't think it's anywhere near as much of a stretch as our new definition of interstate commerce. And I think it would be an even greater stretch than the interstate commerce thing to call teaching simple fact contrary to a religion a prohibition of the free exercise thereof.
This is why it's not illegal for public schools to teach that atrocities were committed in the name of Catholicism in the Dark Ages, although the religion involves belief in an infallible Church. Government is always expected in some to present facts to the people in some way. This is fine, because alternative sources for facts are readily available; but this doesn't mean that the government has to endorse said alternatives as credible. Indeed it shouldn't, if they're not; and it is held accountable if it does anyway, or directly misrepresents facts itself.
Anyway, my point is, if you don't like what the government is telling you (as in teaching science to kids in public school), you're free to ignore it or send your kids to another school. This doesn't mean it's somehow unconstitutional for the government to tell you things. If those things run contrary to the teachings of an establishment of religion, that's fine, as long as it's not endorsing another establishment of religion, which of course science is not. So: "Man wasn't created in 6 days, he evolved over millions of years through processes such as natural selection", good; "Man wasn't created in 6 days, he was left over from an alien race whose king was Xenu", bad.
|12.26.05 @ 3:50PM|#
Another thought on Jennifer's post:
It would be like finding that the posters on an atheist forum don't care about something like mandatory prayer. If THEY are unconcerned, how much more so must religious people be?
I have a hunch that one or more atheists on this forum would see mandatory prayer as "no big deal." I mean, it's only 30 seconds out of your day! And the people pushing for it also passed a tax cut. And they support gun rights!
Besides, praying once a day under penalty of law is better than being forced to pray five times daily, which is what will happen to us if we don't stay the course in Iraq.
Yep, I'm pretty sure we could get somebody on this forum to say that.
|12.26.05 @ 3:50PM|#
It may be that the general public will actually be less tolerant of tyranny than some of the people here. We on this forum tend to be pretty ideological. If you get too serious about an ideology you can persuade yourself that almost anything is acceptable in fighting the enemies of that ideology, and almost any sin is forgivable if committed by the proponents of that ideology.
I get this same impression, thoreau. I suppose this is the way of things with "fringe" political communities such as libertarians. This same tendency might explain some of the reflexive anti-Christian stuff (I know, I'm tired of that phrase too, but it applies here) and sweeping predictions of doom and gloom.
|12.26.05 @ 4:09PM|#
I hope you're right, Thoreau, but I don't think so. Last week the story broke that the NSA is conducting warrantless wiretaps on Americans. The President said he'll continue that. Where's the outrage? We're passing laws making certain forms of torture legal. No outrage. Laws making it okay to detain citizens in secret, indefinitely. No outrage.
Or at least, no organized outrage. No protests. Nothing to make the government change what it is doing. A couple of complaints on a couple of blogs, shouted down by Apologist Whores for Freedom. That's all.
I see no reason to have much optimism about the future. Maybe I'll get lucky and the 2006 elections will prove me wrong.
|12.26.05 @ 4:22PM|#
Jennifer, approval ratings for Bush are declining, and Republicans in the Senate had to resort to trickery to get the PATRIOT extended for only a month. These are good signs to me. If Santorum is voted out in 2006, I'll feel positive about things in my home state, at least.
|12.26.05 @ 4:34PM|#
Jennifer, do the Apologist Whores for Freedom have a website? :)
|12.26.05 @ 4:44PM|#
No, biologist, they just hang out here and make brilliant observations like "If you oppose the Iraq War that means you love Saddam Hussein and believe Iraq was a paradise when he ran it!"
|12.26.05 @ 5:09PM|#
By the way, here's something I meant to post hours ago, and would have if I hadn't been distracted by piddling little things like my job. It's the index to a cartoon site called "After Eden," from the Creationist organization "Answers in Genesis." The cartoons roughly break down into the following categories:
1. Look how stupid and/or evil evolutionists are!
2. Wow, life sure was tough back in the days of Noah's Flood.
3. Any pain or suffering you experience is all Eve's fault. That bitch.
4. Man, them evolutionists get more hellbound every day, don't they?
5. If you ain't Christian, you ain't shit.
Sorry that I can't make this an actual link, but it is well worth the effort to cut and paste:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/aftereden/index.aspx
|12.26.05 @ 5:10PM|#
Are they even trying to avoid being made fun of?
|12.26.05 @ 5:29PM|#
Anyone know (or have a guess) how many empires have been toppled by Christianity, either because it displaced the ruling religion and the empire fractured, or because the power-mongering inherent in Christianity (and other religions, for sure) brought down a Christian state?
As for the former, Rome comes to mind. In the later case, pilgrams fleeing to the new world seems to qualify. Any others?
|12.26.05 @ 6:02PM|#
Jennifer- thanks. I wasn't sure what had happened to the dinosaurs.
Now I know. They sleep with the fishes.
|12.26.05 @ 6:41PM|#
At this rate, It's no longer a question on IF America will become a theocracy, it's WHEN.
Nonsense!
Name any time in this country's history when the Christian religion had less influence on law and public policy than it does today...
Be sure to discuss: witchburnings in Salem, 'official' state religions, 'blue' laws regulating commerce on the Sabbath, The Women's Christian Temperence Union(they actually passed their Amendment... 80 years ago), the Mann Act, assorted historical nutbars from Joe Smith to Mary Baker Eddy-- not to mention "under God" in the pledge, "In God We Trust" on the money, divorce and marital property laws, etc. ad nauseum.
The only 'advance' of the religious agenda I've seen is that religious charities now get to suck at the Federal teat, and stem cell researchers don't...
Jesse Walker|12.26.05 @ 9:19PM|#
Jesse, what makes the web useful is linking to sources when applicable. Those wishing to view the entire LAT article are saddened to see you ignored the convention.
I didn't write this article for the Web. I wrote it for the print edition, where it appeared a month ago.
Before that, an earlier version of it appeared as a blog post. That time I included a link. This time, feel free to take the extra 20 seconds required to Google it.
|12.27.05 @ 12:17AM|#
Have you people been asleep for the last 5 years?
We have a fundie in the White House and a Congress that is by-in-large allied with them... Hell, even the Democrats are trying to ape their "values" rhetoric. Afterall, they went from being the party of the KKK to the party of New Left in less than twenty years. They can certainly learn ro embrace the bible-beaters if it means beating the GOP.
We have a foreign policy that might be influenced by fundementalist pandering
We have evangelicals in the FDA barring approval of Plan B and threatening to do the same to the anti-HPV vaccine.
While we may have won in Dover, Kansas' educational system is still in the hands of IDiots. The demand that public schools march lock step with Christian dogma is begining to spread to other disciplines beyond science. Just this month a conservative Wisconsin state senator introduced a bill that would censor textbooks that didn't use the BC/AD dating system.
So don't tell me that that all this is "nonsense." It's happening. However, you can go right ahead and bury your heads in the sand. Just as long as there's a new seaon of American Idol, you'll be happy, right?
|12.27.05 @ 12:42AM|#
Jennifer,
I went and looked at the cartoons. At first a few of them seemed cute, although lame. But by the fourth page I was pretty disgusted. What contemptable bullshit!
I found a website today that I hadn't known about previously and which was refreshing for an atheist to read. I'll share it with you:
http://www.themronline.com/200502m1.html
It's The Modern Rationalist and you have probably seen it before, but if you haven't....
Sorry, I haven't learned to do the link thing yet.
Thomas Paine's Goiter|12.27.05 @ 2:03AM|#
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/opinion/letters/
|12.27.05 @ 5:29AM|#
Name any time in this country's history when the Christian religion had less influence on law and public policy than it does today
The time surrounding the ratification of the Constitution springs to mind. The Founding Fathers, with a few exceptions, weren't terribly big proponents of the Christian religion.
Afterall, they went from being the party of the KKK to the party of New Left in less than twenty years
Not to go all Joe on you, but it was the Republicans who went from being the party of Lincoln to the Party of Segregation, and they did it in less than ten years. The Democratic change happened because they embraced Big Government, not because they embraced the New Left. Which explains their mercenary behavior, actually. If they were actually leftists, they'd have insituted leftist programs, not something they've been in any hurry to go through with for about the past ten or so years.
|12.27.05 @ 8:04AM|#
Zach,
Intelligent design isn't a religion. It's an explanation that may appeal only to the certain religious people, but it's still an explanation and not a religion. Are there going to be any polls that ask which religion a person belongs to that have "Intelligent Design" as one of their possible choices? "It's a religion" because it's related to religion is like saying something "is interstate commerce" because it affects interstate commerce.
One of the landmark interstate commerce cases was Wickard v. Filburn, decided in 1942. It's hard for me to consider the tortured definition of interstate commerce as new since that's only two years after Cantwell v. Connecticut. Cantwell is the case which caused the free exercise clause of the 1st amendment to apply to the states via the 14th amendment. It wasn't until 1947 that the "establishment" clause was incorporated in Everson v. Board of Education.
Speaking of incorporation, supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas believes that the 14th amendment should incorporate the "free exercise" clause, but not the "establishment" clause. Alito's dissent in C.H. v. Oliva certainly makes some people believe that he's likely to favor "free exercise" over "establishment".
How seriously does the supreme court take the "establishment clause"? Our currency says "In God We Trust." What's going to happen when the two new justices join the court? Are they likely to strengthen the establishment clause protections? I doubt it. Are they likely to wield the "free exercise" clause against curricula whose factual presentation undermines particular religions they favor? Maybe. I certainly won't be surprised if that happens.
Either way, the same chilling effect that causes posts on H&R to be quarantined (if you have particular religious words in them) is likely to apply to schools who don't want the hassle of finding out just what the courts will decide. Religion is problematic ... let's just not talk about it.
Overall, I don't think we're headed toward a theocracy, but putting curriculum decisions into the hands of a very small number of people is very likely to slow down the teaching of various facts that undermine religion, even if momentarily a school district or two is enjoined from teaching Intelligent Design. Consider the case of the California Islam Controversy. The last paragraph on that page is
Zach,
Intelligent design isn't a religion. It's an explanation that may appeal only to the certain religious people, but it's still an explanation and not a religion. Are there going to be any polls that ask which religion a person belongs to that have "Intelligent Design" as one of their possible choices? "It's a religion" because it's related to religion is like saying something "is interstate commerce" because it affects interstate commerce.
One of the landmark interstate commerce cases was Wickard v. Filburn, decided in 1942. It's hard for me to consider the tortured definition of interstate commerce as new since that's only two years after Cantwell v. Connecticut. Cantwell is the case which caused the free exercise clause of the 1st amendment to apply to the states via the 14th amendment. It wasn't until 1947 that the "establishment" clause was incorporated in Everson v. Board of Education.
Speaking of incorporation, supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas believes that the 14th amendment should incorporate the "free exercise" clause, but not the "establishment" clause. Alito's dissent in C.H. v. Oliva certainly makes some people believe that he's likely to favor "free exercise" over "establishment".
How seriously does the supreme court take the "establishment clause"? Our currency says "In God We Trust." What's going to happen when the two new justices join the court? Are they likely to strengthen the establishment clause protections? I doubt it. Are they likely to wield the "free exercise" clause against curricula whose factual presentation undermines particular religions they favor? Maybe. I certainly won't be surprised if that happens.
Either way, the same chilling effect that causes posts on H&R to be quarantined (if you have particular religious words in them) is likely to apply to schools who don't want the hassle of finding out just what the courts will decide. Religion is problematic ... let's just not talk about it.
Overall, I don't think we're headed toward a theocracy, but putting curriculum decisions into the hands of a very small number of people is very likely to slow down the teaching of various facts that undermine religion, even if momentarily a school district or two is enjoined from teaching Intelligent Design. Consider the case of the California Islam Controversy. The last paragraph on that page is
If you can't teach the belief system, then can you point out huge flaws in the belief system, such as the economic consequences of barring interest? Perhaps you still can, but even the controverisal curriculum didn't.
|12.27.05 @ 8:11AM|#
Sorry about the double-post. The first time I submitted it, it was quarantined. So I put HTML italic markup around the A in Islam and pasted the new version in and resubmitted it without taking the old version out. Interestingly, the resubmission went through even though it had Islam spelled directly.
|12.27.05 @ 8:55AM|#
JW--Yeah, those cartoons are vile. The first one I ever saw was the one titled something like "Adam gets into trouble while trying to be romantic with his wife;" it showed Adam saying "Oh, Eve, I love you so much! I can't imagine where I'd be without you! Well, actually, without you I'd still be. . ."
And then there was the cartoon which made the point that it is incorrect to say ID proponents are anti-science, because after all, a lot of them use sciencey things like computers.
The cartoonists' last name is "Lietha." Fitting, no?
|12.27.05 @ 11:44AM|#
anon2, I suspect the quarantining of messages may be related to the number of hyperlinks in the post, not any religious messages. I attempted to post a message to another thread yesterday with 5 hyperlinks and was quarantined for the only time that day.
|12.27.05 @ 12:33PM|#
Anon, I don't believe ID is a religion, anymore that I think the belief that Jesus died for our sins is a religion. That belief combined with others, along with the way those beliefs are acted upon, defines the different Christian religions. But just because that belief is not a complete religion by itself does not make it acceptable to teach it in public schools. The fact that a belief is religious in nature is enough to make it unacceptable for the public classroom, unless said belief is corroborated by scientific evidence.
Likewise, the belief that God created us is not a religion in and of itself, but it is very cleary religious in nature. Combine with this the references to the Bible in the book "Of Pandas and People" and the clear motives of chief ID-in-schools proponents and its religious nature cannot reasonably be denied.
Now carrying my point further, its religious nature only bars it from a public curriculum becuase it is not also science. If the central ideas were borne out through evidence, then it would still be worthy of teaching, regardless of its religious origins or the motives of its proponents. This of course is not the case.
|12.27.05 @ 4:16PM|#
The quarantining happens because of too many links in post. Some of the older threads have two or three hundred posts of spam in them, hence the filtering.
|12.27.05 @ 4:44PM|#
biologist,
It could have to do with the number of hyperlinks. However, I've always been able to get it to post eventually and in the case of my annoying double-content post, there were even more hyperlinks in the one that got through.
I think that my quarantined comments have been posted from the preview page. I'm not sure that I've had a comment quarantined that I've posted from the main comments page.
Typically I compose elsewhere, then copy the text into the main window, then preview it. If I like what I see in preview, I go ahead and post from there. However, if the post is quarantined, I might go back to my editor in another window, make some changes and then paste back into the main window again.
So, although I've been paying some attention to what gets through and what doesn't, I haven't kept a lab notebook or remembered every detail. It's possible that the filter associated with posting from the preview page is different than the filter that's applied to the comment page itself. If so, then my keyword hypothesis may be complete bollocks.
When I was quarantined the first time, the questions I asked were sincere. I would still appreciate clarification.
As an experiment, I'm posting this from the main comment page without previewing it.
zach,
My point is that you're happy that judges decided to censor a curriculum based on the establishment clause. I'd rather not have judges censoring at all, especially since the "free exercise" clause can be interpreted to not allow material that denigrates a religion or an aspect of a religion, and denigration is subjective.
Neither the establishment clause nor the "free exercise" clause requires that the material excluded has to be factually incorrect. It's all well and good to think that the Supreme Court will use a broad interpretation of the establishment clause and a narrow interpretation of the "free exercise" clause, but as the links in my previous post document, there's very good reason to believe we're headed in the opposite direction.
Personally, I believe that were the U.S. Constitution to be amended saying "under no circumstances will any item of a school curriculum be stricken due to Constitutional grounds", we'd get a small (and dwindling) handful of schools that (largely unsuccessfully) would try to foist creationism on the students and we'd get a small (and growing) handful of schools that pointed out a lot of defects with even the popular religions.
There's a huge amount of knowledge that undercuts religions. Skittish school systems-even in ostensibly progressive California-will shy away from most of it. Evolution is more of an exception than the rule, but mostly because it only undercuts the unpopular young earth creationist flavors of Christianity. After the two new justices are on the bench, let's see a school present an in-depth examination of usury/riba and its implications with respect to historical Christianity and modern Islam and Judaism through the ages.
|12.27.05 @ 4:58PM|#
The time surrounding the ratification of the Constitution springs to mind. The Founding Fathers, with a few exceptions, weren't terribly big proponents of the Christian religion.
You mean back when most of the new States had established churches and the few public schools were chasing out Catholics with fiercely Protestant religious instruction?
|12.27.05 @ 5:00PM|#
anon2:
email hitandrun@reason.com and ask your questions regarding the quarantine
|12.27.05 @ 5:35PM|#
Eric-I was thinking more of creation of an entirely secular Constitution and the passage of the Virginia Act Establishing Religious Freedom, actually. Thomas Jefferson himself couldn't pass that today. And the laws establishing State churches were relics of a prior period, and already on their way out by that point.