>> >MikeBGene:
>> >
>> >. . . If it turns out the Kansas decision
>> >was inconsequential, all that talk about the crucial importance of
>> >macroevolution
>> >in a state-wide standardized test is going to be exposed as empty
>> >rhetoric. It will be interesting to see if any scientists ever get
>>around to
>> >scientifically establishing the importance of macroevolution on
>>standardized
>> >tests. Of course, why take the risk when the rhetoric "sounds" so good?
>
>To which Susan replied:
>>
>> the reason the Kansas decision was not inconsequential, is because it is
>> a
>> step toward a state religion--the Christian religion, specifically
>> fundamentalist protestantism. Fundamentalist Christian protestants are
>> not
>> in a majority in this country and even if they were, the Constitution
>> promises freedom of religion for all the many religions practiced in
>> this
>> country and also the right to have freedom *from* religion.
James Mahaffy wrote:
>I really should not be replying to this forum, but an evolution list
>from Calvin College should have more voices from a Christian perspective
>(see John Rylander's post of Dec 5th of last year at
>(http://www.calvin.edu/archive/evolution/199912/0058.html).
and I believe I pointed out at that time that the list doesn't have a
maximum number of posts per day. All the subscribed Christians have ample
opportunity to jump into the conversation.
>The concern of parents in the heartland of this country is not that we
>are establishing a Christian or Protestant religion in the schools.
>Rather the judicial concern of non-establishment of religion in the
>education has resulted in an attempt teach their sons and daughters
>without the moral framework and values that are a vital part of their
>beliefs.
and the schools are the only place they can learn that? Isn't that the
parent's job? IN my experience all k-12 schools BEG parents to be more
involved and don't get much of a response.
<Rather than having a neutral education, their sons and
>daughters are being taught a secular humanism, which is just as much a
>religion.
no it's not and you know it. *Religious* humanism (which describes my
religion as much as anything else) cannot be taught in public schools.
Public schools have to not teach any religion at all. You have to get that
at home if you are going to get it at all.
(If you are concerned with the issue Susan you should really
>read some of the works of a first class evangelical scholar, George
>Marsden and realize that not that long ago, the major public
>universities were concerned about the morals of their students and only
>recently have moved from Protestant values to established non belief.
>Check sometime and see if it is not true that less than hundred years
>ago the University in your state (aren't you from Kansas or somewhere in
>the midwest) probably required chapel attendance of its students.
It almost certainly did (I'm from Oklahoma). And that is establishing a
government religion and that's why it was stopped.
>While
>there never was any movement then toward "State religion," - nor is
>there now - there is a valid concern that values antagonistic to their
>faith is being taught by the secular humanism in the elementary and high
>schools. Unfortunately we can not move the public schools to where they
>were (sympathetic to instilling the values of their communities in their
>schools), but that is also why home schooling and vouchers are becoming
>increasingly more attractive. As a member of a protestant denomination
>(Chriatian Reformed), we believe strongly enough in teaching from a
>Christian perspective that we pay twice for education supporting (in
>addition to our tax dollars) for a good and strong system where courses
>are taught from a Christian perspective.
paying for private schools for your children is your option. However, when
you "pay for" public schools you are not paying just for your children but
for all children--yours and the Moslems kids down the street. I pay for
schools and my "baby" is 27 years old. As a society we have vested interest
in seeing to it that *everybody's* kids get an education. Meanwhile we
can't use the schools to push one religion over the others.
>A system, by the way, that
>fostered the likes of Alvin Plantinga and George Marsden.
and me (Catholic school)
>Susan the problem is not that our highs schools are moving toward state
>sponsered relgion (as you suggest), but that a secular humanism is being
>increasingly taught even in places that have thought their own public
>schools were teaching values that reflected those of the community. Yes
>it often comes to a head in values parents see as taught in science
>classrooms, but it is the hostile secular values that parents are
>objecting to.
the Supreme Court has ruled that "secular humanism" is not a religion and
the schools have to go with that. Values only *seem* to you to be taught in
classrooms. We have to teach children the results of scientific research
because that is the body of knowledge our society has. You can *derive*
values from science--even I do that--but science itself is value-free. I
think *that* may bother you more than anything else!!
Susan
----------
For if there is a sin against life, it consists not so much in despairing
of life as in hoping for another and in eluding the implacable grandeur of
this one.
--Albert Camus
http://www.telepath.com/susanb/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Feb 08 2000 - 17:50:51 EST