The ignorance never stops

[Americano]

A Louisiana school district is considering teaching creationism in its science classes next year.

Source (http://ncse.com/news/2010/08/latest-from-livingston-parish-005898)

"Marjorie Esman, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Louisiana, told the Advocate that the decision to teach creationism would be not only doomed to failure but expensive. "If they were to do it, they could anticipate that any litigation would result in them not only losing, but having to pay enormous legal fees," she said. "They would be wasting a huge amount of taxpayer money on a battle they can't win." The board's attorney confirmed that it would be unconstitutional for the schools to teach creationism."

Here's the kicker:

"Board member David Tate, who broached the possibility of teaching creationism at the previous board meeting, commented, "We don't want litigation, but why not take a stand for Jesus and risk litigation."

If I had a child in that district I'd be pursuing legal removal of Mr. Tate for fiscal incompetence. Unfortunately, in fundamentalist Louisiana I'd probably be a minority of one.

[Michael]

I think it ought to be sufficient to make Mr. Tate, and/or his religious fellow travellers, stand on the hook for any litigation expenses that the County may incurr following from Mr. Tate's political extremism.

Lets see Mr.Tate put his money where his mouth is and where he's pushing the County to.

[The Drunk Girl]

I would be nice and tell them that if that is what they wanted their children to be taught, then send the little turds to a Christian school!

Or (and this would really be going out on a limb) take the fucking time to teach their children that the heavens and the earth were all created in six days and God rested on the seventh. They could easily be taught this at home or even church!

Going out on another tiny, tiny limb...teach the children at home, giving the guidance and direction to accept what they would like.

If one is wanting their child to be educated, then one needs to take the time to educate their child.

[Michael]

I would be nice and tell them that if that is what they wanted their children to be taught, then send the little turds to a Christian school!

Or (and this would really be going out on a limb) take the fucking time to teach their children that the heavens and the earth were all created in six days and God rested on the seventh. They could easily be taught this at home or even church!

Going out on another tiny, tiny limb...teach the children at home, giving the guidance and direction to accept what they would like.

If one is wanting their child to be educated, then one needs to take the time to educate their child.

With all due respect, I don't think that's the issue at all. Indeed, if these people want to indoctrinate their kids with Christian theology, that's their right and nothing is stopping them.

But that's apparently not good enough. The goal here appears to be all about getting 'validation' from the state for their theology. That's why they keep trying to push it on school boards.

In this way, it isn't much different than same-sex marriage. Nothing stops gay people from living together - but having 'validation' from the state is the whole point.

[Non Sequitur]

I would like to add that, with a conservative theological outlook comes several things in America. One of the main points is that America is often equated (or at least strong parallels drawn) with Ancient Israel. In this theological paradigm, America is increasingly given the role of God's chosen people. However, for Israel to be God's chosen people in the world with their own land the law has to be followed. In similar fashion America for it be the chosen nation of God with it's special purpose must follow the word of God. If America is going to prosper the word of God must be prominent. If America fails in keeping it's promise to God, then we will loose our power and mission (just as Israel lost it's monarchy, land, and wealth because they failed to uphold the law). Part of keeping the promise with God is having a nation which teaches children the right way. Hence, the objection to evolution and the odd obsession with getting creationism in schools.

[The Drunk Girl]

With all due respect, I don't think that's the issue at all. Indeed, if these people want to indoctrinate their kids with Christian theology, that's their right and nothing is stopping them.

But that's apparently not good enough. The goal here appears to be all about getting 'validation' from the state for their theology. That's why they keep trying to push it on school boards.

In this way, it isn't much different than same-sex marriage. Nothing stops gay people from living together - but having 'validation' from the state is the whole point.

I'm not saying it isn't their right to teach their children this at all. That is why I said, they can teach their children what they are pushing for in the home environment. No, they don't need to pull their kids out of the public school system and home-school, but they could take an hour out of their evening and talk to/teach their children. But, if they are looking for a curriculum strictly regarding religion, then why not place the child in a school that strictly provides that?

Somewhat off topic, but that is one of the many things I am looking forward to as being a parent: teaching our children things that they won't learn in school.

[Michael]

I'm not saying it isn't their right to teach their children this at all. That is why I said, they can teach their children what they are pushing for in the home environment. No, they don't need to pull their kids out of the public school system and home-school, but they could take an hour out of their evening and talk to/teach their children. But, if they are looking for a curriculum strictly regarding religion, then why not place the child in a school that strictly provides that?

Somewhat off topic, but that is one of the many things I am looking forward to as being a parent: teaching our children things that they won't learn in school.
Yes, I understood what you said and it is very reasonable. That's exactly what parents ought to do.

My point was all about why these types of people are so focused on getting the school boards to teach creationism in science class - it is all about gaining state recognition/validation of creationism.

As you correctly noted, nothing is stopping them from teaching creationism to their children at all.

[Michael]

I would like to add that, with a conservative theological outlook comes several things in America. One of the main points is that America is often equated (or at least strong parallels drawn) with Ancient Israel. In this theological paradigm, America is increasingly given the role of God's chosen people. However, for Israel to be God's chosen people in the world with their own land the law has to be followed. In similar fashion America for it be the chosen nation of God with it's special purpose must follow the word of God. If America is going to prosper the word of God must be prominent. If America fails in keeping it's promise to God, then we will loose our power and mission (just as Israel lost it's monarchy, land, and wealth because they failed to uphold the law). Part of keeping the promise with God is having a nation which teaches children the right way. Hence, the objection to evolution and the odd obsession with getting creationism in schools.

That's very interesting - I've never come across that idea before. I've certainly heard of the 'house on the hill' (or beacon on the hill) idea, but I'm far more familiar with the obvious and conscious parallels with Republican Rome in the political foundation of the USA.

Indeed, I've always considered the 'founders' emulation of Republican Rome to be quite odd, given the descent into tyranny that it produced. Though, Gibbon's great work was only published in 1776, so was not available to that generation. I can only imagine what they knew of actual Roman history at that time (before Gibbon).

Speaking of which, I do think the idea of America as the new Republic has turned out to be an unfortunately accurate analogy. As I've said several times already - those Presidential Motorcades with the phallanx of motorcycle cops is a REALLY disturbing visual symbol - those motorcycle escorts serve the same role of the ancient Roman Lictors - who's symbol of office is the origin of the word fascism itself. The increasing 'aristocratic' character of the Senate (families passing Senate seats from one generation to the next) is also very disturbing for the same reason.

Though, as I would argue about Rome, nothing is cast in stone. The tyranny of the Empire wasn't an inevitable result of the virtue of the Republic, though the death of the Republic similtaneously with the acquisition of the Empire certainly was.

That is to say, I don't believe that it is inevitable that the USA is going to emulate the Roman Republic's descent into fascist imperial tyranny, only that it does seem to be the path that the USA is presently on. :erm:

[dilettante]

That's very interesting - I've never come across that idea before. I've certainly heard of the 'house on the hill' (or beacon on the hill) idea, but I'm far more familiar with the obvious and conscious parallels with Republican Rome in the political foundation of the USA.

Indeed, I've always considered the 'founders' emulation of Republican Rome to be quite odd, given the descent into tyranny that it produced. Though, Gibbon's great work was only published in 1776, so was not available to that generation. I can only imagine what they knew of actual Roman history at that time (before Gibbon).

They certainly knew about Rome's decline; to some extent they were obsessed with it. They believed that liberty was extremely fragile, that power corrupted, and that in order to maintain their freedom, a people must be eternally vigilant against any hint of corruption. The basic train of thought was inherited from England, but by the mid-to-late 18th century it was stronger in America.

One result was this way of thinking ("True Whig ideology," as its been labeled) was that the colonists perceived Parliamentary attempts at taxation as a precursor to enslavement. They were, in some cases, paranoid and constantly worried about conspiracies against their freedom. When they accused the British of trying to term them into slaves, they actually meant it. This mindset pushed them toward ever more radical resistance and eventually toward independence. It also hampered the war effort (since it was constantly worried over any consolidation of power, and particularly hostile toward Washington's army) and eventually made itself felt in the almost absurd weakness of the federal government under the Articles of Confederation.

If you're interested, The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution (Bernard Bailyn) is perhaps the go-to book on this on "True Whig ideology." Gordon Wood (one of Bailyn's students and also a Pulitzer Prize winner) has also written a lot of more recent stuff that uses the same ideas in explaining the course and origins of the Revolution.

[The Drunk Girl]

Yes, I understood what you said and it is very reasonable. That's exactly what parents ought to do.

My point was all about why these types of people are so focused on getting the school boards to teach creationism in science class - it is all about gaining state recognition/validation of creationism.

As you correctly noted, nothing is stopping them from teaching creationism to their children at all.

Sorry, I had a 'slow' moment.

Everyone needs validation at some point in time, and I like your example of same-sex marriage. Going on what I believe about being fair, you really can't have one without the other. However imo, it should be a personal decision and not crammed down someone's throat.

So how about this possibly naive suggestion: teach children the basics in elementary school. Once children hit middle school/high school have creationism as an elective course.

[Americano]

I would like to add that, with a conservative theological outlook comes several things in America. One of the main points is that America is often equated (or at least strong parallels drawn) with Ancient Israel. In this theological paradigm, America is increasingly given the role of God's chosen people. However, for Israel to be God's chosen people in the world with their own land the law has to be followed. In similar fashion America for it be the chosen nation of God with it's special purpose must follow the word of God. If America is going to prosper the word of God must be prominent. If America fails in keeping it's promise to God, then we will loose our power and mission (just as Israel lost it's monarchy, land, and wealth because they failed to uphold the law). Part of keeping the promise with God is having a nation which teaches children the right way. Hence, the objection to evolution and the odd obsession with getting creationism in schools.

In this instance the US quest for creationism being taught in science classes is in direct conflict with established US law. How does theology view that development?

[Americano]

Sorry, I had a 'slow' moment.

Everyone needs validation at some point in time, and I like your example of same-sex marriage. Going on what I believe about being fair, you really can't have one without the other. However imo, it should be a personal decision and not crammed down someone's throat.

So how about this possibly naive suggestion: teach children the basics in elementary school. Once children hit middle school/high school have creationism as an elective course.

I find it difficult to consider the teaching of creationism using public funds, even as an elective, as being in the best interests of students or society. To provide them with escapist mythology when student body ability to absorb the three Rs is declining seems counterproductive.

[Michael]

So how about this possibly naive suggestion: teach children the basics in elementary school. Once children hit middle school/high school have creationism as an elective course.

That would entail state-sponsored teaching of a particular religious theology. That would be a clear-cut violation of the 'non-establishment' clause in the Constitution.

That's only possible if the same course covered the same material from the perspective of Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, paganism, etc. (which is always unacceptable to the Christians pushing for it, which is why it never happens).

[Non Sequitur]

In this instance the US quest for creationism being taught in science classes is in direct conflict with established US law. How does theology view that development?

The law is unjust (preventing America from serving it's true purpose) and, as St. Augustine noted "an unjust law is no law at all." Also, the law betrays the founding principles of the country.

Furthermore, creationism isn't theology, but solid scientific fact. So there is no conflict.

I know it's bad science and bad history, but it isn't coming out of no where.

[Americano]

The law is unjust (preventing America from serving it's true purpose) and, as St. Augustine noted "an unjust law is no law at all." Also, the law betrays the founding principles of the country.

Furthermore, creationism isn't theology, but solid scientific fact. So there is no conflict.

I know it's bad science and bad history, but it isn't coming out of no where.

Adherence to printed dogma with no quarter given is an ideal rationalization. Throw in the promised afterlife, a supportive community and we have a defined social demographic. Put it on syndicated TV for the big bucks.

I have no problem with that particular demographic. Unless it attempts to govern or tax me to spread the gospel.