Will Promotion of (Anti)Religion Continue to be Permitted in U.S. High Schools?

_{Gil Dodgen

March 15, 2008

Atheism, Darwinism, Education}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

In my neighborhood in Southern California, a high school student has filed suit against a history professor who openly and consistently disparages Christianity in the classroom. Note that this teacher is “faculty adviser to the Free Thinking Atheist and Agnostic Kinship student club.”

Question #1: Why is no discussion of scientific challenges to Darwinism permitted in high schools, when open hostility to Christianity is? Where is the ACLU when you really need them?

Question #2: Why are atheists and materialists the only ones who qualify as “skeptics” and “free thinkers”? I used to be an atheist and materialist, but when confronted with the evidence, I became skeptical of atheism and materialism.

I became a free thinker.

Comments

leo Criticizing the Christian religion is not the same thing as criticizing Christ. Neither is criticizing Darwin the same as criticizing Darwinian theory. I was using a bit of literary freedom there, Leo. Replace the men themselves with the things they taught and it's literally true. But you're right about framing of issues. The bottom line in this and many other issues boils down to framing one group as a bully and another as a victim. It plays to our sense of justice. It's politically correct to pick on the bully and politically incorrect to pick on the victim. The history of the United States is largely one of white anglo saxon protestant (WASP) men running the show. It's thus really easy to frame them as bullies and frame anyone not them as victims. I'm as willing as any other WASP to acknowledge that my ancestors are guilty as charged. I'm shamed by the fact that it took 150 years for my forefathers to codify the equal treatment under the law of blacks and women. I'm probably more willing than most of my peers to use the force of law to treat everyone equally regardless of race, creed, or gender. What I'm less willing to do than most of my peers is to be punished for the sins of our fathers by willingly offering ourselves up as everyone else's politically correct whipping boy.DaveScot_{March 16, 2008
March
03
Mar
16
16
2008
09:05 AM
9
09
05
AM
PDT}

The fundamental problem is your American approach to 'separation of church and state'. While institutional separation is possible, ideological separation is not. The idea of 'religion-free' education is either based on a preference for materialism; in which case I can see no reason any non-materialist would assent to it; or it is based on the idea that there is some ideologically neutral perspective from which kids can be taught the objective truth. There isn't and they can't. This is why all the establishment-clause lawyering on the part of organizations like the ACLU is abject misguided nonsense from start to finish and a form of stealth totalitarianism. The ACLU is to American civil liberties what "people's republics" are to people's republics.BenK_{March 16, 2008
March
03
Mar
16
16
2008
06:40 AM
6
06
40
AM
PDT}

The students should tell that teacher to shut up when the teacher talks bad about religion. And if that doesn't work there is always the parking lot after school... ;)Joseph_{March 16, 2008
March
03
Mar
16
16
2008
05:42 AM
5
05
42
AM
PDT}

Criticizing the Christian religion is not the same thing as criticizing Christ. Leo, do you realize that the way things stand now is you can't criticize Darwin? You can't even say that evolution is a theory and not a fact as per our federal courts.tribune7_{March 16, 2008
March
03
Mar
16
16
2008
05:35 AM
5
05
35
AM
PDT}

leo Maybe it's just I have a warped sense of equity but doesn't it seem a bit odd to you that the 1st amendment bars a teacher from criticizing Charles Darwin but by the same token allows him to criticize Jesus Christ? In times past Americans would have exercised their 2nd amendment rights to correct attempted violations of their 1st amendment rights. Too bad that's not such a well respected option today. DaveScot_{March 16, 2008
March
03
Mar
16
16
2008
04:45 AM
4
04
45
AM
PDT}

That is exactly what it is Gildodgen, "anti-religion." Students have a right to know that the physics and math that the are learning about in school came from guys like Isaac Newton who spent most of their time pondering, studying and writing about THEOLOGY. There isn't even a theology course in most public high schools. I find that ridiculous. They could make such a class optional but the worst case senario would proabably happen, that is that most students would choose to take such a class because it is INTERESTING and that would look embaressing to all the religion haters who like to pretent that thier atheistic view is the one accepted by most in the mainstream. A belief in God and the study and development of religions is not respecting any particular religion. Of course the fear is that students after learning and thinking about religion might actually choose to join one. Religion is ( in general by itself) a subject like math, physics, history etc. There is no church or religion called "God" or "creator." They are simply nouns or subjects that have warranted the full attention of some of the best minds in the world for the last 2000+ years. There is nothing that "Darwin" did that warranted any of changing of this trend. Yet, ever since the popularization of the Origins of Species people wrongly threw God out the window. And look what we got for it... corrupt politicians everywhere you look, murder and crime reaching all time highs, the disintegration of the family, unhappiness everywhere manifesting in the increase use of antidepressants, illegal drugs and alcohol abuse- the list goes on. Science too has fallen short of its 19th century promise. The possible cures for degenerative diseases that once looked so promising have not developed at the rate originally anticipated. Maybe if kids were taught that “its reasonable to think ( or eve God forbid even “believe”) that life and their life might have purpose, they might take science just a little more seriously and enthusiastically. The idea that physical laws are “out there” and possibly “designed” by a super intellect, makes the search for such universal coherence seem far more reasonable likely and promising then to think that such laws might not exist and that moreover there is no good reason to even suspect that that do. In my view both science and people are looking for a coherent unifying answer to their problems. Unfortunately a world without purpose makes such a search futile. Even worse, a world that limits people’s freedom to investigate the possibility of purpose is in fact choosing a certainly level of futility. To ignore man’s 2000+ year experience with religion is to demand a certain degree of ignorance. If this sort of ignorance is due to a fear of bias or political power and corruption the decision is probably misguided. I remind you that it has been said that “ignorance is the greatest bias of all.”Frost122585_{March 15, 2008
March
03
Mar
15
15
2008
11:14 PM
11
11
14
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply