Reptile & Amphibian Forums

Hello,

I'm sure we are all aware of the age-old debate between the Church and the scientific community: The Church wants God in schools and no evolution, and the scientific community wants evolution in schools and no God.

Both sides have accused the other of trying to "dumb down" the education system, and both sides feel that they are right.

With that said, I come to you with an idea to end the debate, a sort of compromise that will take us closer to satisfying both sides.

Imagine it:

A mandatory World Religion course in all public high schools, which teaches not only Christianity but all religions: Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, etc. And not only will it teach the beliefs of those religions, but it will also teach the history of these religions.

Evolution will continue to be taught in the mandatory Biology course as a counter-theory to creationism.

This will give students a well rounded education in science and philosophy. They will come to see that there is a common thread among all the world's religions: living a humble, righteous, compassionate life. They'll realize that the study of science is the advancement is human reason, and the study of religion is the advancement of human compassion.

As a political idea, I feel it is more pragmatic than either sides current argument. If our leaders were to promote this idea, I think it would have more "legs" than the current ideas.

Please comment.

- tethered

I come from an area and an era when Religion was allowed in my local schools (Broward Co. Fla in the late 1950's). Our classes began with students reading from the Bible.

The result of this was discrimination and persecution of the students that did not adhere to Christianity.

Later when I was in High school we had Religions included as part of our social studies program, where students spoke before the class about their faiths. The result-though less violent was still discriminatory, as the Christian students tried to cooerce the non religious (for their own good).

There unfortunately is a mindset that goes with the religious that They are right and the rest of us should suffer their doctrine-again-for our own good...This being said in a oh so compassionate tone. Organised religion fears the teaching of evolution as they see it as a threat to their faith. They are not about to tollerate any compromise.

If one were to be fair...There should be Evolutionary theory taught in Churches. Ridiculous you say? Churches are about the Faith that they teach. That is what belongs there. And That is the point. Schools are for education-Not the teaching of any Religious doctrine.

Any attempt at a compromise would be used by the religious groups to further promote their ideology...Just as they have allways done.

That is why...Wisely, Schools and religion are and should continue to stay ...Seperate.

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

The problem is like you said. People who are religious are not even allowed to consider evolution as a possibility, or that other religions have any validity. And we wonder where all of these problems come from! To them, evolution and other religions are not real, so to discuss it would be absurd. You may as well be talking about aliens and space travel via pineapples. Have any of you heard George Carlins "you are all diseased" cd? I think he has some great commentary at the end about religion. Really makes you think.

EP
-----
Occupants not paying rent:
7 balls
2.1.10 corns(candy cane, creamsicle, ghost, 6 normal, 4 anery )
1 pueblan milk
1 everglades rat
1 cal. king
1 gray band king
1 w. hognose
1 bearded dragon
1 fish
1 mouse
3.3 cats

"There unfortunately is a mindset that goes with the religious that They are right and the rest of us should suffer their doctrine-again-for our own good...This being said in a oh so compassionate tone."

This is exactly the problem that I've been focusing on. If you look at the world, every conflict involving arms is related to a clash of ideas. By having a course specifically dedicated to world religions, each religion being given equal time, students would learn that there are other religions other than their own that are equally right. This in itself promotes open mindedness.

"Organised religion fears the teaching of evolution as they see it as a threat to their faith. They are not about to tollerate any compromise."

Do you really think that they see it as a threat? Isn't it possible that many truly believe that they are right and evolution is wrong?

Thanks for the response. I look forward to hearing more...

One of my good friends is becoming very religios in his old age(29 lol) We have had many discussions about this. To him, all other religions are wrong because they are worshiping a false god. I wont say that he is open minded, but I still appreciate being able to talk to him in a civilized manner, even though he probably thinks Im going to hell.

EP
-----
Occupants not paying rent:
7 balls
2.1.10 corns(candy cane, creamsicle, ghost, 6 normal, 4 anery )
1 pueblan milk
1 everglades rat
1 cal. king
1 gray band king
1 w. hognose
1 bearded dragon
1 fish
1 mouse
3.3 cats

LOL. Ya know, lately minded abo I'm becoming more "spiritual". Not religious, because I can't live a life of following something blindly, but definitely more spiritual. I think I'm realizing that there are shortcomings to human reason, and that the experience of being alive goes beyond reason. Either that or I'm going MAD!

Regardless, I think the world would be much better off if we could raise our children to be openut other faiths.

Agreed Rep...

To answer your question tethered...There is a difference between faith-which is the belief of a person...And religion which controls and orchestrates the dogma of it.

The key word here is control(which translates into power).

To acknowlege the possibility of any belief other than that promoted is to surrender power and that the heads of the various churches are not willing to do. That is why they program their followers to deny anything that even begins to present an alternative view.

If you doubt this-a little history. Back when the churches (or more specifically the Catholic Church) held power over Europe You could be executed for reading the Bible. As the law said: Reading and interpretation of the Bible is the soul province of the Church.

Given the leeway they play hardball.

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

I guess it depends on your definition of religion. Dictionary.com's definition is the "belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe" or "a personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship." I consider practice certain fundamentals of different religions (i.e., I try to live a righteous, humble, compassionate life, often times failing miserably), but I don't consider myself religious (i.e., I can't blindly put my faith in a "creator".

When we talk about the institutions, I think it's important to realize how loosely knit they are. There's churches, mosques, etc. scattered all over the world. Many (perhaps most), I would bet, are run by people who truly believe in their religion. We so quickly say things like the Church is afraid to lose power, but that implies that the Church is conciously analyzing the situation and deciding that something is a threat and must be denied. I think its more of a byproduct of the system than it is a conscious effort to secure power.

At the same time, any system is susceptable to some degree of corruption, and there will be mis-uses of power.

In that my friend you need to read more history. Though diminished in power, the Roman Catholic Church once ruled Europe with an iron hand. Kings held their power by the will of god and so if the Church excomunicated a soviern, they lost their throne. That was one heavy piece of blackmail and it worked till the time of Henry the Eigth of England-who just made his own National religion to get past the threat..

The Cathloic Church's power was still great enough that in the 1700's The church divided South America between the fueding Spanish and Porteguese colonists. The movie THE MISSION was based on that. Even today the Catholic Church has a say in international events.

In the late 1920's the Scopes Trial in Tenn. was part of a major religious move to keep Evolution out of the schools and to have an amendment to the US constitution making it law. Just a few years ago, religious groups in Kansas tried to outlaw the teaching of evolution in their schools.

That you don't think there is organisation and an agenda shows you really (no offense intended)need to read more on the subject.

The churches (interestingly enough) began their slow fall from power with the coming of the Rennisance (the age of enlightenment) and the rise of democracy.

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

I understand that in the past certain European countries' structures of government were closely tied in with the Church. In the beginning of the Irish revolution in the 1800s, the oppressive government directed the Church to excommunicate dissenters. If you were excommunicated from the Church, you were shunned from society. This is an example of the government and the Church having too close of a relationship.

I definitely understand the dangers of mixing Church and State.

Today, in the U.S., we have scattered cases in the court system whose proponents are non-profit organizations, etc. It seems to me that there's no real central leadership that says evolution is a threat and must be dealt with. Just scattered churches, groups, and organizations that are doing what they think is right. Their motivation could be that they truly believe in God and think that evolution is false, or it could be that they think its for the good of the people to believe in God and not evolution regardless of what is really true.

While it is true that the churches do not have the power they once had do not be fooled into thinking they are disorganised. They are allways testing to find a weak place where they can advance their cause. Small town's are great places for testing the waters. When they have sensed there was a larger platform to exploit they readily do so...Again (as they say) for our own good.

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

A mandatory World Religion course in all public high schools, which teaches not only Christianity but all religions: Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, etc. And not only will it teach the beliefs of those religions, but it will also teach the history of these religions.

(me)I'm not sure I'd make it mandatory.

Evolution will continue to be taught in the mandatory Biology course as a counter-theory to creationism.

(me)As long as it NOT taught as a counter theory to creationism. The two do NOT necessarily clash. Teach it as it is with the evidence that exists (there's no shortage of it). Religion need not be mentioned. Let kids argue with parents or other elders about creation vs. evolution. State run public schools have no business teaching ONE or the OTHER as total fact.

This will give students a well rounded education in science and philosophy. They will come to see that there is a common thread among all the world's religions: living a humble, righteous, compassionate life. They'll realize that the study of science is the advancement OF human reason, and the study of religion is the advancement of human compassion.

(me)The study of religion is not ONLY the "advancement of human compassion". There's more than that, I believe (and I'm agnostic). The "well rounded education in science and philosophy" I totally agree with.

As a political idea, I feel it is more pragmatic than either sides current argument. If our leaders were to promote this idea, I think it would have more "legs" than the current ideas.

(me)Well, here's what I think what has happened. This last election, the micheal morons and rich liberal activists and candidates (george soros, kerry etc.) AND this new gay marriage idiocy coming at us from liberals all at once, has seriously activated the conservatives (neo-cons call 'em what you will) in this country that don't wish our society and culture to degenerate into filth. They're saying "Enough with the progressive, diversity, multi-culturalism open minded let ANYBODY do ANYTHING." type of thinking that liberals seem to be bringing us. The ultra religious have been seriously activated by the actions of liberals too. If they'd stick to common sense issues rather than spinning us all off into space with garbage like gay marriage (and about a hundred other things), I think more would get done. Everyones busy fighting about issues that shouldn't even be in front of us. Now neo-cons and the religious will get more active. When things slow down, I think we'll ALL get more done

-----
Thane

Whoa there Thane...While it might be considered fashionable to chastise the ungodly and obviously demented Liberals (in Conservative circles). I should point out to you that historically Conservatism has been the bastion of stability, but the enemy of freedom.

Break out your history books and look up the "Blue laws". Then note that the ultra conservative Victorians were the most repressed generation that modern western history records. Look up Prohibition-a conservative theory made law. look up the Hays Commision-which censored movies and books. Look at the Mc carthy witch hunt of the fifties...

Liberals Freed the slaves...The Republican party in the time of Lincoln was quite liberal. The slavery advocates were Democratic Conservatives. Strangely the philosphies of the two parties have reversed since those days.

In fact, the founders of this nation were Radical Liberals who broke with the conservatives that just wanted to make peace with the British and continue under their domination.

Sure there were down sides..Like the unions that changed from a needed social force-to a handicap. But then, the civil rights movement could not have happened without liberalism.

There is an advantage to knowing history...
***************************************************************
As stated above, the church was-and is an enemy to free thought.

As to the rest. Don't you think people should live their lives without others dictating how they should live it? I see plenty wrong with a taught morality that seeks everyone to conform to one group's concept of what is-or is not-acceptable.

I personally am happy with the lady in my life. If a Gay couple wants that kind of happines it is none of my business. But when you seek to remove the rights of others to fit your view of the world...Then it is plain wrong.

There is a fight now because those who would confine or thoughts and deeds to only "Their" concept of how the world should be; have raised their ranks behind our present administration. Given the chance, they will enact new laws to control our behavior so we will all conform to their mold.

Liberalism supplies the needed balance to conservatism. It is because of this, that both viewpoints should be respected.

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

Whoa there Thane...While it might be considered fashionable to chastise the ungodly and obviously demented Liberals (in Conservative circles). I should point out to you that historically Conservatism has been the bastion of stability, but the enemy of freedom.

(me)Well, with the actions they have and ARE taking these days, it IS obvious that the new liberalism really IS a dementia. I never identified myself with any political bias but with what they are doing today, what choice do I have ?

Break out your history books and look up the "Blue laws". Then note that the ultra conservative Victorians were the most repressed generation that modern western history records. Look up Prohibition-a conservative theory made law. look up the Hays Commision-which censored movies and books. Look at the Mccarthy witch hunt of the fifties...

(me)Yes, the ultra conservative veiws like those are pretty much dead in the water though (I hope).

Liberals Freed the slaves...The Republican party in the time of Lincoln was quite liberal. The slavery advocates were Democratic Conservatives. Strangely the philosphies of the two parties have reversed since those days.

In fact, the founders of this nation were Radical Liberals who broke with the conservatives that just wanted to make peace with the British and continue under their domination.

Sure there were down sides..Like the unions that changed from a needed social force-to a handicap. But then, the civil rights movement could not have happened without liberalism.

(me)I agree. However, if what the ACLU has become doesn't scare you, you're not paying attention. Extremist liberalism is dangerous nasty stuff.

There is an advantage to knowing history...
***************************************************************
As stated above, the church was-and is an enemy to free thought.

(me)You'll get no disagreement from me here I'd just modify it by saying SOME churches. Radical religion (think Islam) like radical liberalism AND radical conservatism is dangerous, nasty stuff.

As to the rest. Don't you think people should live their lives without others dictating how they should live it? I see plenty wrong with a taught morality that seeks everyone to conform to one group's concept of what is-or is not-acceptable.

(me)Well, to a certain point you're right of course. How far should we take it though ? Call two men together a marriage and two women a marriage ? What were civil unions MADE for then ? Just a waste of time ? Now they expect to be recognized as a union under God ? What will they want NEXT ? their gay lifestyle is all over the media, on sitcoms in the news and they're still screaming for MORE. Do we REALLY have to redefine marriage to please them ?

I personally am happy with the lady in my life. If a Gay couple wants that kind of happines it is none of my business. But when you seek to remove the rights of others to fit your view of the world...Then it is plain wrong.

(me)Gays have not had their rights removed. They are seeking MORE rights. They are asking us all to accept that being marriage means ANY two people. They have all their rights, good lord, we need to make up special rights and change the definitions of something like marriage to keep 'em happy ? THAT is plain wrong.

There is a fight now because those who would confine or thoughts and deeds to only "Their" concept of how the world should be; have raised their ranks behind our present administration. Given the chance, they will enact new laws to control our behavior so we will all conform to their mold.

(me)Sometimes our behaviour NEEDS to be controlled. If liberals would come back down to earth where most of us actually live and stop pushing outlandish ideas/agendas at us via their special interests groups and activism, maybe there would be a tad more agreement and both sides wouldn't seem so radical to each other.

Liberalism supplies the needed balance to conservatism. It is because of this, that both viewpoints should be respected.

(me)I lost my respect for the libs veiwpoint (which is where I started out MYSELF). Maybe they'll earn it back in time with some common sense actions, we'll see.

Thanes Place

-----
Thane

Thane...

Extreme anything is dangerous.

Just heard Bush's phone message to the right to life kooks. Yeah, this is a president that is representing all the people (lol).

Again, extreme conservatism as I have shown...is every bit as bad as extreme liberalism.

ACLU? Please, I just ate dinner....

As to our needs. Yes our needs do need to be controlled when they put other's in danger. Other than that it is just guilt used for control. unless of course you want to sit by For example-while the take away of privilige to keep reptiles.

Gay couples want the legal rights of married partners-for example the right to enforce medical and property decisions for loved ones. Sorry, I think they are entittled. Since we only grant those rights by marrige....support an alternative...

I think the conservative cry of Outlandish...is just fear of change and imagination.

Without activism...the conservatives would create shelves to store away all thought of change. We would not have improved rights for minorities without activism.

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

I beleive that our schools should teach our children about alternate realities..dimensions if you will.

Personally I believe several things about evolution, but based on my beleifs in GOD dont ascribe to it as a complete answer for creation. MANY scientists nowadays are falling into this thinking.

Again....lets teach the kids about Dimensions. And no...I am NOT kidding.

PS

I am not talking about the healing power of crystals.....plants talking to you...or past life regression, just dimensions in time.

Sincerely

Read Brian Greenes book called "the elegant universe". I think you'll like it. Don't let the science and physics intimidate you, just read it.
-----
Thane

Ok Fred....This hits a new level. What proof that any of that stuff is real will you use to convince them to teach it?

Sorry..if I see no justification for teaching Christian beliefs, I really don't see teaching that.
You Are Joking.....Right?

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

Frank,

Other than the Devils Triangle and so many unexplained dissapearances of rather large ships in that area of the ocean...I dont see any real proof. Thats ok. I believe it anyway. Time travel...dimensions...sounds wacky..but then so did the theory that the earth WASNT flat at one time.

Getting it into schools would be nearly impossible. Getting ANYTHING that even bears a CLOSE resembelance to the truth into our public schools is here-neigh impossible. We raise our kids on mis information/ half truths/fairy tales and out right lies. then we expect them to make this a better world. Its laughable.

So..to answer your question...No I dont think that any school district will ever accept teaching that other dimensions exist..

But, doesnt stop me from thinking it and RUNNING to hollyweoood movies that reinforce that belief.

Kinda like people running(Voteing) to Bush despite overwhelming evidence that he LIES. Its a free country, and I can believe that Dimensions exist, and 51% of misguided/uneducated/sheeplike voters can believe tha Bush was a good choice and will carry us to the "promisedland"

PS
wheres the promiseland anyway?

Laughing,

Fredrick Albury

Hey guys,

Since we're on the topic of things we believe but for which we have no proof...

I have a strong feeling that the universe makes up a much larger "whole", and that if you were to continue a million (or billion or trillion...) orders of magnitude upward we would see it. I also have a strong feeling that there is an equal inverse. In other words, if we were to continue a million orders of magnitude downward (smaller), we might see something similar (or completely different) to the universe we live in now.

We've got telescopes to see upward, microscopes to see downward, and we're in the "center" peering outward into infinite.

I also think humans are so inherently social and so strongly feel the need to be accepted that as our ideas (language, math, science, etc.) progress over centuries, they lose touch w/ fundamental reality.

So there's my two cents. Hope I didn't weird you guys out too much. lol

- tethered

Not really tethered. I could never buy the "universe bit" as described. By definition it should mean everything and it is just plain logic that there is more beyound the end of it.

Fred....I have to place what you said within the confines of my own quest-To seak the perfect Peanut Butter sandwich....Does it exist?

I seek.......

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

I'm also under the impression that words are just a silly game invented by us poor big brained animals to keep ourselves busy. I have proof, too! Just look into a dictionary. Every word is defined by other words. If words are merely other words, then, I can only be led to conclude that they are entirely things unto themselves and have no basis in reality...

Good luck finding that sandwich...

tethered,

You have just discovered the secret of life....

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

Hooooooo weeeee. This thread got me crackin' up. Perfect peanut butter sandwich ? Fahhhh, . Perfect PIZZA is MUCH more important LMAO
-----
Thane

Read that book I mentioned. It's almost required that there be other dimensions (other than the four we can see), physics at the subatomic level requires it. These aren't dimensions that we can see, measure or prove (yet) but it IS very likely they exist. This doesn't necessitate parallel universes and the like. ... read that book its very good.
-----
Thane

Have you seen that movie/documentary, "what the "bleep" do we know". It deals with quantum physics and other stuff I cant wrap my head around. They discuss other dimensions and the like that they say exists but cant be proved. example: one object being in 2 different places at the same time. Pretty intersting stuff. Every now and then I give myself a headache by looking into the sky and thinking, "damn, that just goes forever". Then I have to sit down. When its all said and done I bet what we know and think now, will be only the tiniest, tiniest portion of reality. We'll all be dead by then so maybe theres no point in me thinking about it, but its still intriguing.

EP
-----
Occupants not paying rent:
7 balls
2.1.10 corns(candy cane, creamsicle, ghost, 6 normal, 4 anery )
1 pueblan milk
1 everglades rat
1 cal. king
1 gray band king
1 w. hognose
1 bearded dragon
1 fish
1 mouse
3.3 cats

Haven't seen that one. Is interesting. Not sure where we can go with it though. Sometimes I compare such things to the likely hood of an ant learning algebra. It's nice to wonder but . .. what can you really make of it ? Makes some religious I guess
-----
Thane