"What's done to children, they will do to society."Orlando A. Battista

[ChairmanAgnostic]

I have often pondered the problem of growing fundamentalism in this country. Each and every time I start to consider this issue, I have to pinch myself to make sure that this is no nightmare. But, alas, I find that I am wide awake. And religious ideas continue to grasp this country by the balls and throat.

Christians are right. There is a war involving Christianity, easter, christmas and the like. But they are not the targets, nor are they the victims, no matter how much squealing he hear from O'Reilly, Dobson, Fawell and other foot soldiers. To the contrary, they are the attackers, they are the invaders, they are the disease-bearing pests bringing a plague of biblical persuasion into our society.

In some ways it is an unequal battle. We moderates, liberals and rational thinkers prefer to have discussions about science, cause and effect, and to look for explanations. When facing dilemmas or puzzles too complex or too different for the current theory, we search for other factors and reasons. A prime example is seen at the turn of the last century, when physics was almost completely understood. Except. There continued to be some small differences and errors that crept into physicists' measurements and analysis. They could not be explained away by errors in measurement or analysis. So, bit by bit, what we call Classical Physics was eventually dismantled and destroyed, to be replaced by special relativity, general relativity, quantum physics, and now, string theories. Trial and error, admitting mistakes, and further research are prime examples of how Humanity should deal with an issue.

Not so with christians. Whereas we are willing to consider new theories, they view our open-mindedness as weakness. They use our willingness to listen against us.
This battle between fundamentalism and the rest of the world is unequal because it is not a fair battle. Christians cheat, lie and fight dirty. They are more willing to use our natural fears and insecurities to create conditions which only help them. They use our innate feelings and emotions against us. They brainwash the very young, and we are letting them do it.

Their battle plan is something like this.
First, The Christian leaders claim that only religious people can proclaim what is moral, ethical and right behavior. If you are not religious, you are incapable of being moral. You cannot know what morality is and you are unable to act in ethical, proper and good ways.

Unfortunately, rather than call a spade a spade, and throw this junk back in their faces, we stayed quiet. And from that point, the battle was lost.

Second, the religious bigots then claim that teaching the young is critical to their spiritual health. Kansas, Pennsylvania, Utah, Arizona, Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas, Georgia, Indiana, Alabama, even parts of New York and New Jersey have fought, are fighting or will be fighting battles about education of our youth. unfortunately, because we sat back, either in disbelief, laziness or because we missed all the signals about this war, the choices are not between the teaching of evolution or Intelligent Design, but rather, the degree to which religious propaganda is injected into public schools.

Unfortunately, we allowed the battle to be brought us by these christian soldiers, as they proclaimed the high ground. We let it happen.

Third, once they are able to pollute the minds of children, to fix in those minds the brain-damaging religious ideas which form the rest of those kids' personalities and beliefs, the poor kids become damaged goods. It takes a lot of study, education, effort to take off those mental chains once they were placed there by the religious propaganda masters.

Which brings me, in a long winded, and indirect way, to the topic of this thread.
What is done to kids, they WILL do to society. Battista was right.
In order to fix this, we must take control over the education of kids. Now, before it is too late.
Home schooling? Ban it.
Creationism? ban it.
Bible studies? Ban it, except for showing the errors in translation, and proving that it is anything but inerrant.
Allow NOT ONE FEDERAL OR STATE PENNY into any religious organization for any reason, especially education.
Cancel all faith based initiatives, and start heavy duty audits of every recipient. If even one penny was misspent, or used improperly, drop their tax protections, and tax them, with penalties, at the highest rates possible.
Then, tax all religious institutions.

If we are to save our society from the corrosive, destructive and evil being done to it, we must battle against those who started this war - the christians, the fundamentalists, the religious leaders who seek to change our nation and force it into a shape of their own choosing. They started this war, it is our turn to realize that the war is being fought and that it is a war that we cannot afford to lose, not if we want our society to survive.

[proud2BlibKansan]

1. Bravo!

I am a public school teacher. You nailed it. The homeschoolers won't be happy but you are right; we must take the education of our kids back from those who are brainwashing them.

[The Backlash Cometh]

2. Well, I've done my part.

My kids are becoming adults free of the Christian indoctrination that most undergo. I stopped sending them to Catechism and stopped going to church on a regular basis years ago. What guilt I had over this decision was removed when last I went to church and the priest claimed it was okay to wish bad things on people and confessed that he always wished Barbara Walters would slip on a banana peel.

The only thing I don't like, is that my daughter, usually in defiance, claims she's atheist or atleast agnostic. I wouldn't mind if she reached this decision on her own, but I know she's getting it from one of her friends on the soccer team who, I'm sorry to say, is a slacker. An intelligent girl who finds 101 reasons why she shouldn't have to work, and still get the glory. Ironically, her mum works in advertisement and is surrounded by gay men, and though they seem to get along very well, she doesn't hide the fact that she votes Republican. She said she wouldn't mind being a Democrat, but she just doesn't believe in giving her money to programs that filter it to "lazy" people. Oh, if only she knew her daughter the way I do.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

3. I'm sorry, but

I think some of your cures are worse than the disease. Some I can go for, like taxing religious institutions. But banning home schooling? I don't want to live in a world where I am not the ultimate decision maker for my children. I don't know whether that is called fascism or whatever, but it is way too much government control for me.

You would create a world where religion was kept out of the public square, but at what cost?

And a second, ancillary thought to the discussion is that even if you DID all those things, you still don't have the child from birth to five years old, and people will still gather and pray and that will be passed down to children. The only way you can "take" the children is by gathering them up at birth and institutionalizing them. In Russia, after years of state-sponsored atheism, the Russian Orthodox Church experienced a huge upsurge because in reality it hadn't gone anywhere.

No, I think we must keep fighting with the tools we have at hand. And remember, don't lump all Christians into the same category. You wrote: "...those who started this war - the christians, the fundamentalists...." That seems to me like you make no distinction.

I'm a Christian but I am no fundamentalist. There is a huge difference.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

5. as we have discussed before, perhaps my brush is broad.

I do not suggest that people be banned from practicing religion; I do suggest taking some strong steps to prevent early indoctrination of kids. Freedom from of religion would exist as well as freedom FROM religion. I would concentrate far greater resources in education across the entire globe.

An educated population is the biggest defense we have against this War.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

9. I agree with that

and of course the catch is, how to educate without doctrinating.

And then I thought of this...suppose the RW succeeds in getting theocratic legislation through, and schools are once again places where the Bible reigns supreme. Then WE are going to want to make sure we have home schooling!!

Actually, I work with a lot of home school families (I teach in a center for ESE students and all county kids, even home and private school, are served here) and most of them are progressive and homeschool to counter the dumbing down of the classroom. I currently have three fundamentalist home schoolers.

[Dogmudgeon]

4. Remember this old, old piece of advice --

"Don't throw the Baby Jesus out with the Holy Water!"

--p!
Can I have an "Amen"?

[TallahasseeGrannie]

19. Amen!

[trotsky]

6. Good post. I mostly agree.

First, The Christian leaders claim that only religious people can proclaim what is moral, ethical and right behavior. If you are not religious, you are incapable of being moral. You cannot know what morality is and you are unable to act in ethical, proper and good ways.

Unfortunately, rather than call a spade a spade, and throw this junk back in their faces, we stayed quiet.

Worse, many Democrats agreed with them. Some of them even post on DU.

the choices are not between the teaching of evolution or Intelligent Design, but rather, the degree to which religious propaganda is injected into public schools.

And again, plenty of supporters right here in our own party.

I wouldn't go so far as to ban home schooling. But I would enforce educational standards, and home-schooled kids would have to come in to take standardized tests just like the right-wing forces public school students. "No child left behind" - well, that should damn well include home-schooled kids too. And make their parents pay extra, just like schools have to do.

Regarding taxation of churches, I would tax every bit of money they take in that ISN'T used for faith-neutral charity acts. If that's what they're so good at, let's use a bit of incentive to make sure they stay good at it. And yes, periodically audit to make sure they are benefiting everyone, not just who they WANT to help.

[Goblinmonger]

7. Amen, my brother

We were thinking of the same people here on DU, because this part struck me, too:

"First, The Christian leaders claim that only religious people can proclaim what is moral, ethical and right behavior. If you are not religious, you are incapable of being moral. "

Way too many takers of that position on DU.

Secondly, the home schooling rules in most states are CRAP. There is no accountability as to actually educating the kids. Why are home-schooled kids left out of the NCLB testing? Guess those kids are left behind. For that part, why are private schools left out of the NCLB testing? Why don't they have to report out their sub-categories? I am tired of private and home school organizations talking about how great their students are when they don't even have to take the same testing standards (and they don't have to take every kid that lives in their district, but that is another thread).

[trotsky]

8. Ooh, private schools.

Yeah, not only do they not have to test, they even get to pick the students they want. Public schools have to accomodate everyone. It's amazing public schools do as well as they do with how under-funded they are and all the double standards.

[mzteris]

21. They don't - they're cooking the books.

**It's amazing public schools do as well as they do **

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060418/ap_on_go_ot/no_child_loophole

States Omitting Minorities' Test Scores By NICOLE ZIEGLER DIZON, BEN FELLER and FRANK BASS, Associated Press Writers
Tue Apr 18, 12:21 PM ET

Laquanya Agnew and Victoria Duncan share a desk, a love of reading and a passion for learning. But because of a loophole in the No Child Left Behind Act, one second-grader's score in Tennessee counts more than the other's. That is because Laquanya is black, and Victoria is white.

An Associated Press computer analysis has found Laquanya is among nearly 2 million children whose scores aren't counted when it comes to meeting the law's requirement that schools track how students of different races perform on standardized tests.

The AP found that states are helping public schools escape potential penalties by skirting that requirement. And minorities — who historically haven't fared as well as whites in testing — make up the vast majority of students whose scores are excluded.

-MORE-

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060418/ap_on_go_ot/no_child_loophole

[mzteris]

18. Do you want to know why PS

won't ALLOW hs kids take the EOG's?

Because it shows how shoddy their system is. HS kids typically outscore PS kids.

[Goblinmonger]

27. I don't know

of any lobbying by public schools in the US to stop home schoolers from taking the NCLB testing of a given state.

Unless there is a pretty extensive network for the home schoolers in a given area, I would think that high school home school kids would have a hard time keeping up to your average high school. Mostly just because of discpline speciality. You can't tell me that your average home-schooling parent will know as much about physics, calculus, british literature as your high school teacher that specialized in that in college. Much less that they would know as much as ALL of those teachers put together.

Are there benefits to home schooling? Certainly. Your "average score" (minus any NCLB nonsense) on a standardized test for public schools should be 50%. That is definitional to average. Will home schoolers do better than that? Probably. But that does not correlate to home schoolers being better than the best of the public schools. Just that public schools have people taking the test that draw patterns on the answer sheet (I've seen it). Given that reality, the fact that public schools do as well as they do is pretty amazing in its own right.

[mzteris]

34. It's not allowed.

Period. Not in any state I'm familiar with. (Though there *may* be some, I don't know.)

The PROBLEM with taking the "state test" would be that most people don't teach "A" curriculum. As in 6th-grade-level-knowledge, period. Very few people are NATURALLY on ONE grade level. They are advanced here, behind there, average in this, challenged in that, gifted in the other. HS'ers (especially the liberal ones) tend to teach their kids where they ARE.

My son - for instance - is ahead in math, science, and history, yet behind in writing (he's dysgraphic.) He's also has dyscalcula - so he still to this day can't "say his times tables". In the PS - he'd be "held back" because of that - in our world, I hand him a calculator and say, let's do Algebra. He has severe test anxiety (thanks to PS); so say the word "timed test" and he totally and completely freezes. Let him relax and go at his own pace (even though that pace may or may not be less than the "time" that would have been instituted) and he'll outperform most kids his age.

**You can't tell me that your average home-schooling parent will know as much about physics, calculus, british literature as your high school teacher that specialized in that in college.**

No, I'm not going to tell you that. But we have access to co-ops, classes, colleges (especially dual enrollment!), tutors, online classes, textbooks, videos, dvd's, TV, the internet, and other parents.

Just because we "homeschool" doesn't mean the parent "teaches" every single subject. In just one group we're affiliated with there is a mom with a Master's degree in Math, another dad who teaches math at the NC School of Science & Math; there's an engineer (mom), a couple of special ed teachers, a couple of other "regular teachers" - (chemistry, elementary ed), an artist, musician, an author, another dad is a "wildlife biologist", one's a professional chef - just to name a few of the people to which we have regular access. A neighbor of another mom is a "forensic engineer" and will be giving a class.

My highschool chemistry teacher was a math major who knew squat about chemistry.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

22. I don't know much about school funding

(maybe I should, given my profession) but isn't the NCLB testing tied to federal funds? Or is it just a law? My programs are mostly federallly funded ESE, so I'm not up on it.

[mzteris]

17. Want to know what most of hs'ers call NCLB?

NO CHILD GETS AHEAD!

Want to know why *many* of us pulled OUR kids? Because the PS couldn't educate them in the way they needed educating. This is most especially true amongst the gifted and/or ld population. But can also be true for the "average kid" when you get a teach to the test mentality pervasive in PS today. The DUMBING DOWN of Public Education being pushed by this fundamentalist republican system is seriously hurting the public schools in this country.

**"No child left behind" - well, that should damn well include home-schooled kids too. And make their parents pay extra, just like schools have to do.**

FYI - on average - HS kids ARE ahead of their PS peers. As a group - on average - our kids score higher on standardized tests.

MANY states require testing. And even in the states that do not, most hs'ing parents DO test their kids each year to gauge their child(ren)'s progress. And we DO PAY FOR IT. OUT OF OUR OWN POCKET. And guess what? We're still paying taxes that go to PUBLIC education - without using any of the services. So I guess that means *we're* actually paying MORE than others. We buy our own books and supplies and provide our own transporation. We provide our own extra-curricular activities and enrichment programs. And we pay for it. Ourselves. So I'm not sure what "extra" you want us to pay?

[Goblinmonger]

28. If you find a teacher

in a public school that likes NCLB, take a picture, because they are far and few between.

We hate it, too. Trust me. In a couple of years, you will see NCLB being changed or dismantled once the realization that not every kid in the country CAN be proficient is finally made obvious to Washington. I think you will find the "teach to the test mentality" much less pervasive than you talk about. I know very few teachers that actually do that. The districts that do are usually huge and hurting to begin with.

[mzteris]

33. I'm not so sure about that:

**I think you will find the "teach to the test mentality" much less pervasive than you talk about.**

I'm on hs'ing loops with people from all over the country. The mantras, the problems, the rants, are nearly identical regardless of the state, the district, the county.

Are there great teachers? Absolutely! Are there good schools? Of course. But more and more I see that they want the "average". When you have classrooms with 20+ kids in them and limited time to teach, and your bonus is tied to what how well your kid scores on the test - and you have to spoon feed them the test because critical thinking ISN"T tested, but rote regurgitation IS - well, there's not a lot of wiggle room.

[trotsky]

56. Ruh-roh, GM...

once the realization that not every kid in the country CAN be proficient is finally made obvious to Washington.

Don't you think they already know that? NCLB was pretty much specifically crafted to give the right-wing public school haters a "legitimate" way to shut them down, one by one. They can't announce their agenda straightforwardly - Americans would overwhelmingly reject it. So they take what they know (Public schools HAVE to take on even the most challenging kids, they have limited funding, etc.) and set up a system by which those weaknesses will be used to take them down.

[mzteris]

60. I think you're incorrect -

I don't think RW'ers want to shut down education. I think they want to CONTROL education. They want to "educate workers" - not thinkers. That is reserved for those schools that most kids can't afford to attend.

[Goblinmonger]

72. I would agree with trotsky

I think that RWers want to privatize education. Probably for the reasons you state (plus the added benefit of being able to teach religion freely), but I think they want public education shut down.

[mzteris]

74. privatize education..

Privatizing isn't the same thing as doing away with public eduation.

I think they want to privatize within the confines of the "public school system" (think Neal Bush's textbook company).

If there's $$ to be made off of PS - they'll figure out how to scam it.

[Goblinmonger]

76. What I mean by that

is that it is run it like a business. Get it "off the taxpayers backs." Yes, "scam it" is correct. But that is where they are trying to go with NCLB. They want to be able to say "Look, the schools can't cut it as it is. We need to do something." My hope is that people are smarter than that. I have been proven wrong repeatedly in that regard.

[Goblinmonger]

73. I think that is what they want

but I don't think it will happen. I have faith that NCLB will not continue for very long. It will soon become cost prohibative to continue meeting the requirements. Connecticut has already started the ball rolling. Soon the amount of money that comes from the feds will be no where near what it takes to meet NCLB and so state will just tell the feds to piss off. We don't want your money and stick the NCLB up your ass.

The good thing is that, constitutionally, education is still CLEARLY a right/responsibility of the states. Only through "blackmail" can the feds have any control. They aren't paying nearly enough to continue that blackmail for very long.

[trotsky]

52. I pay taxes for a lot of services I don't use.

So I have never bought into the "waaah, why do I have to pay for public schools" argument.

The rest I can see you feel very strongly about so I'm just going to agree to disagree.

[mzteris]

59. I'm not complaining

I don't mind paying. Besides the fact that I HAVE a child in PS - I think public schooling is necessary for society.

I just wish it were better done.

I was bringing up the fact that I pay taxes for services I don't use in response to the previous posters comment about hs'ers having to "pay extra" like schools do. (Although, to be honest, I'm not really sure what they meant by that.)

[trotsky]

61. Yeah, that was me.

Schools have to cough up extra money to pay for the NCLB testing. Home-schooled kids should be subject to the same tests, and parents should have to pay for it just like public schools do. Just MHO.

[mzteris]

65. We do pay for our tests.

As for not using the NCLB testing - they're a crock of sh#t - why would we use them?


http://www.nea.org/neatoday/0604/nclbtimeline.html
"Newly released reading and math scores from the National Assessment of Educational Progress—known as “The Nation’s Report Card”—show NCLB has failed to improve basic skills. Reading scores, flat for many years, remain flat. Math scores, rising for many years, are now rising more slowly.
NEA Today reported on these results in January, 2006. Scores on many state tests have risen, but that’s apparently because schools are teaching to the test. Give students a different test and the progress evaporates. Find the story here: www.nea.org/neatoday/0601/upfront05.html . "


Also, States have been manipulating their tests in order to try and "look better".

". . . At the same time, there's evidence states may be manipulating the numbers, said Petrilli, a former Education Department official who helped implement the law in 2002. He cited Oklahoma, where the percentage of failing schools dropped to 3 percent from 25 percent a year earlier.

``All they did is make a technical change in their accountability system,'' he said.

. . . The figures can be misleading because each state implements its testing program in different ways, state education officials and other experts said. States have made their tests easier or have tinkered with assessments of results to meet their goals, said Petrilli.

. . . Florida's low numbers aren't reflective of the state's performance, said Hanna Skandera, director of accountability research and measurement at the state Department of Education. She said Florida has higher testing standards than other states.

``Every state gets to choose their tests and to define the achievement levels required,'' Skandera said in an interview. ``And so states vary widely in their expectations of what students should know.'' http://www.edexcellence.net/institute/global/log.cfm?right=99



States have been manipulating their test scores - not "counting" all test takers - to make themselves "look better".

States Omitting Minorities' Test Scores By NICOLE ZIEGLER DIZON, BEN FELLER and FRANK BASS, http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060418/ap_on_go_ot/no_child_loophole



Why do you think they spend so much time "teaching to the test"?

Because (in many states) teacher bonuses are tied to their classroom results.


If states have diverse material, and each district, each school within the district, and each teacher with the school - all are teaching "not quite the same thing" - then how can you have a "STANDARDIZED TEST" that adequately "tests" each child. (Without strictly limiting *what* you are teaching to those items that are *on the test?)


We cover a myriad of subjects in a way that probably wouldn't make sense to much of anyone else except my son. He's not sequential learner. He's a global learner. He's not a "bottom-up fact based learner". He's a top-down conceptual learner.

Would he do well on an NCLB test given by my state for the grade he *should* be in? Probably. He'd probably ace just about everything except the written portion (he's dysgraphic) - but I've recently been told his writing is "on par" with other 6th grade boys - so maybe he'd do okay there, too (with time accommodations, of course).

On the yearly achievement test I give him, he tests in 99% for math concepts for 9th graders (as high as the "spread" goes for a test given to a 6th grader). Yet he tests on a 7th grade level for "math computation" (he has bit of dyscalcula, too.) Shoud he not "be allowed" to do Algebra because he has difficulty with "computation"? (Don't forget that Einstein had difficulty with computation as well. His wife checked all of his math for him.)

We don't do the "schedule" of history - state in 3rd grade, US in 4th grade, Medieval in 6th grade, etc....... - it's a more in-depth and broader approach typically. We try to look at what is going on interactively as well. What is going on over *here* while this is going on over *there*. Instead of isolated "just NC" history - a few years ago we did a US history co-op that integrated what was going on in our state specifically within the context of what was going on in the US. Along with that we took a look at what was going on Europe and the Far East, etc. We looked in-depth at music and art and the inventions of each period. We did NOT "memorize dates". We wrote a "kids bill of rights" (lol) when studying the Constitution. My family "took a field trip" to Philadelphia and saw the Constitution and Besty Ross's house. We went to Boston and visited The Old North Church and Paul Revere's house. We went to Baltimore and took a tour of the USS Constitution (just to name a few of the activities . . . )

He just finished a college level video lecture series on Egyptology (we were doing Ancient History and he went off on a tangent.) We're getting into Greek history - I'm sure that will get in to way more than the typical middle schooler, too. lol

So what "history" should I test him on this year? It's not what the "school" is teaching their 6th graders? And why should my son be constrained by the artificial implementation of what "they" deem to be important?

[Goblinmonger]

75. Let me just say this

I think you are doing a great job with your son. I wish every home schooled child had the experience your child does. But they don't. That is all I, as a public school teacher, am asking from home schoolers. That there be some indication that they are doing something to progress them toward some semblence of a high school equivalency.

For every "good" story you tell me, I can tell you a "bad" story that I have first hand experience with. That is the problem. Keep the good homeschoolers and stop the bad. I know a parent who is home schooling their child. The parent is studying for her GED along with the kid. They do not utilize outside resources in the form of teachers as you describe in another post. That is crap and needs to be stopped.

Keep doing what you are doing. I have no problem with it. Is the current method of making sure you are "on track" sufficient? Probably not. But something needs to be in place to make sure the morons who just don't want their kids in school, tell the state they are home schooling, and then just leave their high school kid alone all day while they are at work aren't allowed to continue (I know of AT LEAST 5 examples of that in the small town where I teach--high school population of 500).

[mzteris]

79. thanks....

I am for more accountability - but I'm not really sure how that should be structured. Using the schools EOG's isn't the way to go, though. Of that I'm sure.

Most states that require testing, require a "nationally normed achievement test" of your choosing.

***For every "good" story you tell me, I can tell you a "bad" story that I have first hand experience with. That is the problem. ***

The same can be said of PS, too, can it not? :(

As for leaving highschoolers home on their own. I'm not opposed to that. By the time a kid hits highschool they should be pretty responsible for getting it done on their own. Parents by that time should just be facilitators.

This is one reason why more and more colleges are seeking out hs'ers. They seem to be better prepared for the college environment as they are used to setting their own schedules. Seeking out information they need. Not waiting to be "spoon fed" and told what to do. Not being told "this is on the test" - study it. "This is not - ignore it".

If you want to know a secret, truly successful hs kids are very self-directed learners. Some people call this "unschooling" or "child-led learning". (There are varying degrees of this that doesn't mean what you may have been led to believe it means, btw.)

[Goblinmonger]

78. One other thing

"teacher bonuses" :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

I'd like to get me some of them.

[mzteris]

80. does your state not have them?

One of the first things I'd do (if I were in charge, of course! :) ) would be to increase teacher pay! Decrease beauracy. Increase teacher training. Have a required "paired teacher" program for new teachers to function as "teaching assistants" in a classroom for at least a couple of years before being cut loose on their own.

Smaller class sizes, too.

Better method of addressing disparate learning styles.

Increased ability to recognize and accommodate ld's and giftedness (and how these are often paired, frequently one masking the other).



Now you . . . what what you do?

:hi:

[TallahasseeGrannie]

20. Good compromises

but clear me up on what the home-schooled kids should pay extra for that the schools do. The tests? I'm not familiar with that.

[trotsky]

51. Unfunded mandates.

Schools had to come up with their own funds to administer the NCLB tests, etc. That's how it was explained to me.

[mzteris]

62. And hs'ers pay with their own funds

to administer their tests - and to have them scored.

[trotsky]

63. Home-schoolers don't have to take the NCLB tests. n/t

[mzteris]

66. And good thing, too!

There is no "NCLB test" Each state makes up their own. (Emphasis on Makes Up!) lol

See above posts in reply to you about state manipulation of tests, and the sheer lunacy of trying to have "A" standardized test for "facts".

[trotsky]

67. I completely agree with the futility of NCLB.

But the point is that the right wing holds public school students to those standards, but no one else, including home-schoolers. That's not fair. They're forgetting the "NO" part of "No Child Left Behind." Of course, they're not really forgetting, they just hate public education, so they only apply a stupid and unattainable set of standards to the schools they hate. Don't blame the schools - blame the right-wing politicians.

[mzteris]

68. I'm not sure

why you keep thinking that RW politicians are behind hs'ing. They're not.

HS'ing is NOT just for rw'ers.

And I completely disagree that RW politicians are against public education. They are FOR Public Education. They WANT brainwashing of the masses. It creates their worker class. Having students who "fail" gives them the manpower they need to do the dirty work for their corporations.

[trotsky]

69. I didn't say that.

I said RWers oppose public schools. And they do, because instead of fixing them, they are looking to shut them down and leave people with no alternative other than religious schools or homeschooling.

[mzteris]

70. And I disagree.

I think rw'ers support public schools. They are taking over the local school boards. They WANT to dumb down education for the masses. They need "trained workers" - not educated thinkers.

[Goblinmonger]

77. I know what you are trying to say

but a large part of me gets offended with comments like, "They are FOR Public Education. They WANT Brainwahing of the masses." As a public school teacher, I can 100% tell you that is NOT what I do in my classroom. I can honestly tell you that is NOT what 99% of the teachers in my building are doing. Don't dismiss all of public education because some asshats are sticking their fingers in it. There are A LOT of us in the trenches doing a pretty damn good job. I think my teaching of Huck Finn is among the best going. I get EVERY junior I teach to understand some rather deep aspects of "The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock." And trust me, it took me several years of work and thought to get to the point where I could get every junior in my charge to understand T. S. Eliot. But I got there. Because I care about my job and work hard at it. I am NOT brainwashing the masses. MOST of us in the trenches aren't either.

[mzteris]

81. I'm sorry -

sweeping statements are not meant to be taken personally.

I KNOW that "individual teachers" are great - MOST of them, in fact. It's the SYSTEM I'm having problems with.

Public education, however, was structured in this country for the purpose of "educating factory workers" way lo many years ago. IMO, the RW'ers in charge (those same ones who exploit immigrants, build factories oversees so they can circumvent things like OSHA and Worker's comp and providing insurance, sick leave, minimum pay, etc.) ARE for "brainwashing the masses".

NCLB is ABOUT "dumbing down" education - regardless of what they say they're trying to do. Maybe, indeed, some of the lower scoring students are receiving services and instruction that they might not have received. It is true that the lowest ranking students test scores have improved overall.

But there's an interesting corollary to that story. Fewer kids are scoring in the upper ranges.

Now why do you think that is?

Like I said, most of my friends call it "No Child Gets Ahead!"

Again, please don't think I'm anti-teacher. Nor indeed, I'm not even ANTI-PS! I HAVE one child in public school. But I am seriously concerned about the direction that PS is taking. Hopefully we can the b@st@rds OUT of the admin and some intelligent ones in to try and repair the damage.

However, the biggest problem isn't going to come from Washington - it's going to come from your local school boards. Fundies are pushing hard to take them over so they can mandate what can and cannot be taught in the classroom.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

84. what we need is more people like you.

in the trenches.
I bow my head in thanks, appreciation and honor.

[Festivito]

10. If some groups fall to the corrupt, attack the corrupt, not the group.

Please do not mistake Kool-aid Christians with generalized Christians or even fundamentalists. The underlying problem could be as simple as money and greed rather than religious fervor. Yes certain groups are more easily fooled than others, yet we do not blame all Germans for Nazism, all Colombians for drugs, nor all paper for the child porn imprinted.

This neo-conservative-kool-aid-christendom sold itself as much as David Brock sold himself and sold us that the Clinton's Whitewater dealings were somehow nefarious. It was blatant. It was for money. It was for power. Too many Christians fall prey to political idolatry. Their leaders become complicit, sometimes not seeing the buyout happening under their very noses.

The dismissal of science held by some Christians, rises easily from illicit political monies. Yes, many of these people fool themselves, and home school their children. But, I don't mind it as much as you. I promote diversity. I'd like schools to reach out to these people and offer them inclusion, to the degree both can handle.

Let's not create more prejudice, reduce diversity, become intransigent, divide ourselves one against another, abuse rhetoric. And, instead realize that we are dealing with old-time corruption. Let's clean the baby and throw out the dirty water, careful not to throw out the baby with it.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

12. Sorry, but I disagree. It is an undeclared war, brought against us.

The second that any religious leader preaches that conversion is the path to god, or that the teaching of the young of biblical fairy tales is a must, or that his flock must become energized politically to seek change in our society, so society plays lapdog to their peculiar beliefs, then it becomes a war. And we are losing it.

I promise to stay out of your church, if you stay out of my bedroom, my office, my local politics.
I promise to support your right to choose how and when to pray, if you support my right to choose - period. (even though I am male)
I promise to treat you equally, under civil and criminal law, with the same rights and obligations as any other citizen, so long as you promise to cease and desist any efforts to change those civil and criminal codes to match some aged, contradictory, and erroneous book, parts of which date back to the Hittites and others were written, altered, mangled and edited for political reasons around 500 CE and again 1500 CE.
Society cannot grow up when so many cherish false fairy tales as truth and promote it to everyone else.

[Festivito]

13. Are you calling for the repeal of the 1st amendment?

You imply that you want society to grow.
That society cannot grow when people are free to
"cherish false fairy tales as truth and promote it"
read: free to choose their religion and free to practice it.
At least, in regards to a religion with which you do not agree as your truth, your non-fairy-tale.

Is there too much effect from the 1st amendment?
Do you want it -- gone?

[ChairmanAgnostic]

14. it's easier to be a dictator, but only if I - - - never mind.

I would strictly construe and enforce the 1st including the freedom FROM religion.
Is it an attack on the 1st to require scholastic standards that rely on real science? I think not.
Is it an attack on any amendment or the constitution to adapt our latest discoveries and apply them to our constitution?

230 years ago, a group of men sat and negotiated the future of a royal colony. They were not common men, uneducated, poor, democratic. They were the most literate, educated and in some cases, among the richest. They gathered together and attempted an experiment. They themselves knew just how dangerous and unique their chosen course was. And they were aware that times would change and the constitution would have to change with it.
+
as an aside, Scalia is an idiot. Bright, opinionated, well-read, but an idiot nevertheless. Of course the constitution of a changing country is a living breathing document. It bends, it folds, it adapts, it amends. The problem is that he and his brain-dead followers think that his course is a return to some original reading, to some unique moment in time. That is just foolish. It never existed. The Supreme Court, even before Marbury v. Madison, had analysed and explained the constitution from the very begining.
What Scalia and his cloneboy, Alito, are doing is actually revolutionary. They are adapting a peculiar reading of the constitution to their own political agenda - and in that way, it is no different than the logic and theories applied by those who believe in a living document.
+

If you look at the battles they fought BEFORE the revolution, one over-riding issue was religion. only 40 years earlier, incredible crimes against women had taken place in Europe in the name of religion. 60 yrs ago, women were being tortured for being witches in the colonies. Various states had enacted laws banning people of one faith, and in three cases, the penalty was death. Virginia tried twice to make their state religion a subsidized national one.
Science, as it was, was in its infancy and many people knew little more than what their fairy tale collection told them.
Slavery was actually supported in the bible and was constantly referenced as the source of the South's right to own other men, and to use negro women for their pleasure.
When our revolution was almost over, the best and the brightest knew that religion could and would tear the country apart. So they kept it out of our lives as much as possible.

Today, we know much more about the age of the universe, the formation of life, of stars, of galaxies and of human existence. Yet, we also seem to be less educated, less rational and much less deep and practical in our thoughts - compared to the masters who founded this country. One thing they agreed on - we would have future strife and will would stem from two simple issues.
The first we already covered. The gross activity known as human bondage.
The second they feared is the war we now face - religion. Religion in all of its forms, even the christian one. No, especially the christian one.
So, what we are left with is this. religion, especially in its most fundamental form, is tearing this nation apart. It drives cultural domestic wars, foreign wars, and worse. Ben Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Tom Paine, and others, all recognized the danger and suspected that religion would cause such problems in the future. They also suspected that we would be better off without it and if necessary, we might need a domestic revolution to cure the problem. Wasn't it Hamilton who thought that we need a revolution every generation? Didn't Franklin complain that a powerful church would be freedom's downfall? Didn't Adams agree that organized religions were worse than British rule? I can find their exact words, but I know they exist.

We need to wake up and arm ourselves. Not with guns, but ideas and answers. We need to bring the battle back to where to where it belongs - the future of our country. We need to recognize that we are in a war and that we need to fight back.

[Festivito]

15. You un-clearly say enforce the 1st, then describe anything but enforcement.

(I think I understand what you attempted to say. That said, I find that you say you would enforce the 1st, yet, I also find that despite what you say the rest of your passage does not indicate that you have any intention of enforcing the 1st, only enforcing the 1st as it suits you, yourself.)

Your first question could be: shall science trump religious freedom? I gather you'd say science should win, religion should lose, where they conflict. Okay, I'd disagree. Religion should come after the body of the Constitution, such as respecting life and liberty, but not after science. Science as not in the Constitution should be secondary to religion or equal to religion when conflicting.

I realize that is not what you want. And, it would be easier if you were the dictator. You're not. Neither am I.

Someday we may revoke the 1st and make science the preeminent religion. Or, we might make science Constitutionally preeminent, that is, effective before and above any other right.

Yes, people will abuse religion, and yes, children will be hurt.
But, also know, people will abuse science, and yes, children will be hurt.
In either case, children will grow and strike harm back at society.

Science and religion will each make mistakes, they will each correct those mistakes slowly. I want to err on the side of diversity, that science and religion should compete as equals. I wish to respect your beliefs as you would respect mine. (Stealing from Khalil Gibran) Like they were two much loved friends in my home at the same time: I would never ignore one, while looking only at the other.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

25. Your response has made me think

sometimes I am so used to "science" as being the answer I forget it is just a human construct. It might be based on observable events, but nevertheless it is a human construct and it is most definitely not protected in the Constitution.

[Festivito]

31. I've argued this point for years, you're the first to write understanding.

Not that you've agreed. Not that you would or would not. Just that you understand what I've written. Thank you.

I think I'll avoid taking this further for the moment.

I love the T-rex walker.

[beam me up scottie]

35. Religion does not self correct.

As is painfully obvious to anyone who knows anything at all about history.

Science and religion will each make mistakes, they will each correct those mistakes slowly.

Attempts to compare religion to science, which IS self correcting, are disingenuous and, frankly, an insult to the intelligence of rational people.

Someday we may revoke the 1st and make science the preeminent religion.

Science is not a religion.

Science as not in the Constitution should be secondary to religion or equal to religion when conflicting

that science and religion should compete as equals

Science and religion are not equal and should not compete at all.

Religion will always come first at the pulpit, and that is as it should be.

But when it comes to public schools, laws, governmental policies and society, science MUST displace superstition.


Anything else would be, and IS, barbaric.



Freedom of religion should always be a right, but secular society will never be able to advance as long as people allow ancient beliefs based on ignorance and bigotry to dictate policy.

[Festivito]

41. Are you sure? I mean: never? ever? Never-ever?

obvious? painful? to anyone who knows history?

Sorry folks, painful or not, here goes. Didn't Catholics recently attempt to correct an old wrong against Copernicus? They did it themselves. That's: religion . self . correcting.

And, you said it doesn't happen.

Now, who's disingenuous? Eh? And, whatever else you wrote...

You have a high opinion of your opinions. But, I don't share it on all of them.
"Science is not a religion." (Fine. A semantics game follows. That's all.)
"Science and religion are not equal and should not compete at all." (Blatantly false. They are competing, even if they should not. That's why someone starts a thread like this. We're here. We're in it. .. As far as equal, I did not say they were equal, rather I provided they could be treated as equal, and I also included that they could be treated separately.)

About your last statement: The secular and sacred coexist in this country. You want your favorite to dictate policy for the secular society over and above the choice of other Americans. And, what? Ignore those who hold things sacred? We all live here. And, we're here not just to serve you.

Your ability to bandy words such as ancient, ignorance, and bigotry does not make you a better person than people you don't want to have a say.

[beam me up scottie]

43. Nice try, Ned,

but I have no tolerance for people who oppose secular society.

Or their tactics of equating religion with science and using hyperbole to vilify the separation of church and state.


I consider people who would choose "sacred" ignorance and bigotry over science and reason to be enemies of democracy, liberalism and humanity in general.

You want your favorite to dictate policy for the secular society over and above the choice of other Americans.

Damn straight.

Keep it in your church and you can practice whatever you want and call it by any name you choose.

THAT is what freedom OF religion means.

Ignore those who hold things sacred? We all live here. And, we're here not just to serve you.

Speaking of ignoring things, in case you missed my meaning, I have the RIGHT to be FREE from YOUR religion.

Right now, I'm NOT free of it and I have no intention of stopping MY crusade to get it out of MY life and out of MY government.

THAT is what freedom FROM religion means.




Serve me?

Makes me a better person?

What the hell are you talking about?

That makes absolutely no sense.





As for the Vatican, aren't they still telling people in AIDs ravaged countries that condoms spread the disease and that only abstinence will protect them?

Yes, I think they are.

And aren't they still crusading against women's rights, and more specifically, against birth control and a woman's right to choose?

Yes, I think they are.

And aren't they still teaching that homosexuality is a sin?

Yes, I think they are.

And don't they still actively oppose stem cell research?

Yes, I think they do.

And how about those women priests?



Yeah, you've come a long way, baby.:eyes:

[Festivito]

45. Ned? Is this cross-posted, or do you just ramble for fun.

Your first statements don't seem to address what I said.

Then you quote me, and say you want your way. You seem to want free-religion zones in churches, like Bush wants free-speech zones within barricades. That might be what freedom of religion means to you -- not me.

Actually, you don't have freedom from religion. The word "from" is not in the 1st amendment. Like we don't have freedom of silence, freedom from speech, instead we have freedom of speech. If it gets too loud, either change the Constitution or move.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Yes, the Catholic church, among others, have some untenable positions that I would fight, lest they become law in America. But, I will also defend their right to practice their religion. And, even though I disagree with them vehemently, I will allow them to introduce their ideas, wants, desires into the record of this nation and even accept such unthinkable idea's ascension into law for as much as those laws do not conflict with my rights and the rights of others.

I will also fight for the rights of minorities in the face of control by the majority. But, that is for a different discussion.

[beam me up scottie]

46. Do some more research, I DO have the right to freedom FROM religion.

Anyone who thinks otherwise is seriously deluded, needs to go back to school and/or adjust their meds.

And you will be the one moving-cuz this ain't the United States of Jesusland, no matter what they promised you.

You seem to want free-religion zones in churches

Let me get this straight, you're whining because I support freedom of religion in churches?

That's not enough, is it?

You want the right to make laws based on religious beliefs.



Don't like the fact that we have the RIGHT to be free from your religion?

Buy some land, stick a flag in it and declare it a theocracy.

But don't think you're going to do it here, in MY country.

I will allow them to introduce their ideas, wants, desires into the record of this nation and even accept such unthinkable idea's ascension into law for as much as those laws do not conflict with my rights and the rights of others.

How revolting.

You allow, enable and support the American Taliban's "right" to persecute GLBT people, women and non-christians.

People like you are why they've been so successful.

People like you are why I will never stop fighting them.

I will also fight for the rights of minorities in the face of control by the majority

:spray:

ROFLMAO !!!

All you've done in this thread is fight AGAINST the minority FOR the majority.

Bravo, brother, the Amerikkkan Taliban thanks you!

Onward christian soldier!


:rofl:

[Festivito]

47. Wow, ridicule and rambling personal attacks. How droll.

Not one bit of reasoning in your entire last post.
And, the statements about what I said, are wrong. The quotes are correct. Perhaps omitting an important part. But, your comments show lack of understanding, or purposeful twisting.

I do not believe that you are being genuine.

[beam me up scottie]

48. Oh, I'm as genuine as they come.

Trust me.

I'm not new to this battle, and I'm certainly not new to this forum.

You might call me a veteran.

And I view anyone who doesn't support the COMPLETE separation of church and state as my enemy.

As well as the enemy of my GLBT friends.

[Festivito]

53. I find you shooting separation of C&S and yourself in the foot.

.. and you don't realize how. Nor, would you know why.
It's good that you vent though.

[beam me up scottie]

86. You're absolutely right.

Expecting Americans to abide by and protect the Constitutional separation of church and state is futile.

What was I thinking?

[TallahasseeGrannie]

57. Yikes

:nuke: :hide:

[beam me up scottie]

88. Sorry, Grannie.

I just get SO furious when I think about the fact that the ONLY reason homosexuals are not afforded the same rights heteros are, is because of religious beliefs.

Women are having their right to choose taken away from them by lawmakers and PHARMACISTS, for f*ck's sake, because their religious beliefs won't allow them to dispense morning after pills and RU486.

My friend, Danca, is being told he can forget all about the great promise of stem cell research, because people believe their god wouldn't like it.



The fact is, separation of church and state is a myth.

A wonderful ideology, but nothing more than a fantasy for idiots like me who believe in the Constitution.


All men are clearly not equal in America.

And some people are determined to make sure it stays that way.

[NMMNG]

105. You must be related to my nutjob coworker

The one who loudly sings hymns and/or yells "Amen/Praise the Lord" to the TV every minute of her shift. When I told her that it disturbed me she told me that "If it bothers you you can quit".

She turns the workplace into her extension church, and tells me that I'm supposed to quit if I don't like it. I don't recall singing hymns and watching church TV being in her job description.




Yes, the Constitution guarantees "freedom of religion", but that merely means people have the freedom to practice religion. That does not mean that they have the right to force it upon others. Go to church all you want. Roll in the aisles and speak in tongues. Have your friends over to your home for Bible study. But expect that there will be limits to what you can do in public and to others, just as with any other behavior.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

55. Although I understand his point regarding science

there can be no doubt that science IS a legitimate academic area. We need to teach it not only for understanding of the natural world, but to prepare kids for jobs in the sciences.

Religion is also a legitimate academic area, but we just can't get into that with publically funded school dollars unless it is comparative religion classes, or comparative culture.

Although I am a Christian, I don't want anyone teaching my grandchildren, who will enter school in 3 years, that the Bible is literal. That's my option and I option out of that one.

T-Grannie

[Goblinmonger]

37. Have you done any reading at all

about the 1st amendment? If so, go back over your notes. Science does not come into the first amendment because it isn't a fucking religion. I am seriously amazed at the lengths people will got to defend their religion. Somebody likes ID but dislikes that science proves it is a crock of shit--science is a religion. Somebody things that Noah's ark really happened and science proves that is bullshit--science is a religion. IT ISN'T A RELIGION. Get over it.

The first amendment says you can practice whatever religion you want. It just can't be part of the government. That is for the benefit of the government AND the religion.

Science is not part of the mix.

As to correcting their mistakes--I'll go with science on that one. Religion is pretty scary in that regard.

[Festivito]

42. You might read again. I did not, here, state that science is a religion.

I asked if science and religion could be treated as equals when conflict arises. Not that they are equals, or need be equals in order to be treated as equals.

I did not figure out what ID means.

Aside, I don't mind someone being a little crass and rude, but, please don't repeat the same stuff over and over.

[Goblinmonger]

49. Well, yes you did.

Someday we may revoke the 1st and make science the preeminent religion.

Kinda sounds like it to me.

ID=Intelligent Design

If science and religion aren't equals, then why should they be treated as equals? What possible theory is there in the 1st Amendment that says that government should give religion as much weight as science? For that matter, what is there in the 1st Amendment that indicates religion should be given any weight within the government at all?

What about all the things in religion that are not possible. Should the government give credence to the fact that rabbits chew their own cud since it is in the bible? Should government stay away from shellfish since it is in the bible? Should government use 3 as Pi since that is what it says it is in the bible?

There is a free exercise clause and an establishment clause. Both of those deal with religion. Neither of those deal with science. To claim that religion needs to be treated equally with science by the government is a crock.

[Festivito]

58. Well, don't wet your pants over it.

Hey, if a majority of voters decide something, do we follow it? No matter how stupid?
If we don't follow it, are we deriding democracy? (I'd think yes.)

So, what? Do we all have to follow you, because your feelings for science are so strong, your feelings for the veracity and self-examination science provides is so strong? Because, you have strong feelings, we all must bow, to you? Because you can see no problem with science, and will see no problem with it even if such problem stares you in the face, you won't see it, you'll just bow and worship science and bellyache that everyone must yield to your better judgment because you love science that much that it must be better than anything else, because you love it. And, on and on and on.

If we vote that 3 will be used for Pi, I know I'd still use Pi for as much as it could keeping myself out of jail. I'd also start talking about how democracy fails humans and use that as a case. But, I have faith that democracy won't do that. And, you should also.

I still think that people should have the right to choose, right or wrong. Not as you would, that science should be the default, unequally superior -- because, you, want it to be. You seem desperate to stop religion. I understand, because of the current problems we have. But, I don't think these problems are problems of religion, science, humanity, nor democracy, it is money.

We need to focus on the money. Not divide ourselves into the hands of the corrupt whom we fight together. We can win the kool-aid-Christians back. We need to win them back, for their sakes, and for our own sake.

(Thanks for the ID.) (Oh, your other post was a LOL.)

[Goblinmonger]

71. Too late; It's already running down my leg

You don't have to follow me. But how about the constitution?

I agree that people should have the right to choose. The problem is that religion should not be included in the public (i.e. government) sector. The constitution tells us so. You can believe what you want. You can use 3 for Pi if you want to; you'll just get a low score on your SAT. But what you can't do is have the government support your religion in any way.

Science is not a religion. It is not included in the 1st Amendment discussion. I put a lot more "faith" in science than I do religion. Perhaps you don't. I have no problem with that. But I DO have a problem with you thinking that your religion gets to be equal to science in the eyes of the government. That is not constitutional.

[Festivito]

82. Your faith in science is more important than other people's faith, huh?

Some people, like yourself, are more equal than others, I suppose.
People should have a right to choose, what, until they choose what you don't want?

You keep repeating that science is not a religion, is not a religion, is not a religion.
Therefore it's not constitutional, it's not constitutional, it's not constitutional.
Do you repeat it to convince me, or yourself?

If you had more faith in your reasoning, you'd give some reasoning.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

85. well, yes. Because belief in santa claus, the tooth fairy, great pumpkin

and the bible should fade as you grow up. today's religions are collections of fairy tales, especially christianity.

It is not a belief or some sort of faith to trust in science. Logic, rational thought and hard work and research have nothing at all to do with faith.

Faith is properly defined as the unwarranted belief in something that is unprovable and unproven. Science lives and dies on theories, tests of theories, proofs and the willingness to open your mind to figure out why the theory did not work.

[Goblinmonger]

87. OK, here is my reasoning.

See if you can follow it.

Religion, compliments of dictionary.com

Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.

Science, also from dictionary.com

The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.

OK. Those two things are not the same. Can you see that? Do we now agree that science is not a religion? It has NOTHING to do with supernatural powers.

Now, on to the constitution. Here is the establishment clause and free exercise clause of the First Amendment. As a matter of fact, it's short, so here's the entire first amendment so there is no confusion.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Notice two things:
1. Religion IS mentioned in the first amendment.
2. Science is NOT.
Since we have previously established that science is not the same thing as religion, it logically follows that the first amendment has NOTHING to do with science. Still with me? Good.

Now here is where it gets a little tricky, so read slowly. The first amendment says that government should not ESTABLISH a religion nor should it prohibit FREE EXERCISE of religion (that is why we usually refer to the establishment clause and the free exercise clause). If the government were to give religion(s) equal status with science (again, not a religion definitionally), they would be "entangled" (an important word for constitutional scholars) with religion and that would be against the first amendment. Now, you are free to EXERCISE your religion. You ARE NOT free to have government validate your religion.

Your faith in science is more important than other people's faith

Notice in my post that I use quotation marks around "faith." That is a sign of irony/sarcasm. See, I was using a little play on words. Woooooooosh. Sorry; I thought I was responding to someone who actually got sarcasm. My bad.

Some people, like yourself, are more equal than others, I suppose.
People should have a right to choose, what, until they choose what you don't want?

You can worship anything and anyone you want in the privacy or your own home, in your church, or anywhere else it is legally allowed. I could care less. Worship Jesus, L. Ron Hubbard, Barbara Streisand, Allah, me--I don't care. You are free to do that. But guess what? I am also free to not worship any of those. I am free to be an atheist. That is in the constitution, too. And further more, your worshipping shouldn't trump anyone elses. If the government gets involved and validates your worship/religion, that pretty much screws the rest of them, now doesn't it.

Because again, and I hope you remembered from the beginning, science isn't a religion. People that say that are usually either stupid or pushing a religious agenda. When people want Creationism/Intelligent Design in schools, they say that science is a religion so Creationism should be taught, too. I tend to call that utter bullshit and completely false.

[Festivito]

89. You keep reverting back to tricks of obfuscation.

. Choosing and copying only one of several definitions so as to try and not understand me.
. Repeating the same assertion over and over and over.
. Stating the obvious.
. Blatantly false statements.
. Plain condescension.
. Inexact logic.

I want to help this country out of a tough spot.
You only seem work at making yourself look like you've proved something.

Your not wishing to re-examine and explore, but only to justify and persuade, makes me wonder why you might have responded to my branch. No matter, I've said what needs to be said.

SOME THOUGHTS:
You claim that science cannot be like a religion lest they become entangled. Well, my fellow DUer, they are entangled, within our schools. The question ought be how do we resolve this tangle, not how does one side gain the upper hand.

Your use of faith was not irony. You do have faith in science. So do I.

Atheism/Atheist, neither are in the Constitution.

Whereas I have heard that there are claims that ID is science. I know of nowhere that ID proponents say that science is a religion. I would like to know where that occurs. I think you've fabricated that.

I also think that you have no intention of furthering our cause.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

91. there was no obfuscation in the previous post. None. it was clear,

informed, concise and rational.

What is the reason for your wish to mix faith and science? Are you trying to drag down science by making it the dirty equal of religion? By tying it to science, are you trying to raise it from the mud and filth where it belongs? Or do you wish to simply confuse the issue to further YOUR cause, the promotion of fairy tales as truth?

[Festivito]

95. How trite an intrusion. My statements stand.

Last paragraph:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=62547&mesg_id=62742

Just for you:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=62547&mesg_id=62916

[Goblinmonger]

97. Obfuscation?

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

Let me point out some irony to you before I get rolling, because I have some stuff to say to your post.

Here's the irony:
Definition of obfuscation:

To make so confused or opaque as to be difficult to perceive or understand

Something you indicate is a "trick" of obfuscation:

Stating the obvious

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
Stating the obvious is a trick of obfuscation. Let me quote one more time from The Princess Bride, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

Now, to quote another great movie, "Allow me to retort."

Choosing and copying only one of several definitions so as to try and not understand me.

If you have a problem with my definition, them please indicate what the problem is and offer another definition. Then we can argue over the definitions. I would love that. I debated and coached debate at the college level for over a decade. I would love to get into yet another topicality debate. But, if you had taken the second it would take to look at my definitions from dictionary.com, you would find that I TOOK THE FIRST DEFINITION FOR EACH WORD. Please, tell me why that would be a problem. And again, please feel free to offer your own definition.

Repeating the same assertion over and over and over.

Let me define something for you. I am using the second definition because the first doesn't help us at all, but I will include both because you clearly can't access dictionary.com Assertion:

1. The act of asserting.
2. Something declared or stated positively, often with no support or attempt at proof.

Please, indicate to me what I stated positively in my previous post WITH NO SUPPORT OR ATTEMPT AT PROOF. I think you will find that a difficult task.

Blatantly false statements.

OK, tough guy, now it is getting personal. You are calling me a liar. Please specifically show me what was "blatantly false" in my post. Until such a time, stop claming I am a liar.

Plain condescension.

You know what? Guilty. But I find it ironic, again, that condescension is a "trick" of obfuscation since I deliberatly dumbed down my post because you were acting so damned obtuse. Though maybe you aren't all that smart, in which case, I apologize. Though I don't believe that is the case.

Inexact logic

Again, tough guy, it's time to put up or shut up. What, specifically, is my inexact logic. If you can find it in you, I would appreciate the specific fallacy you think I am committing when you give me the examples.

Here's another irony: YOU accuse ME of assertions when YOU make SEVERAL CLAIMS with no proof whatsoever. Nice job. Well played. (Again, guilty of condescension, your honor.)

I want to help this country out of a tough spot.

How is that, exactly? By bringing on another theocracy? Because that seems like what you want. You want the government to put religion on an equal basis with science. Sounds like Puritan times to me. You remember how FANTATICALLY that worked out, don't you? In case you don't, I have two words for you: Witch Hangings. Fun times. Oh, and didn't we bomb the shit out of Afghanistan in order to remove a theocracy?

You claim that science cannot be like a religion lest they become entangled.

Dude, seriously, go to Sylvan Learning Center and take a reading comprehension class. I said that government and religion cannot become entangled. It is a constitutional demand. It is the fucking Lemon test for Christ sake. You seriously haven't heard of that?

Your use of faith was not irony. You do have faith in science. So do I.

I'm glad I have you around to tell me when I was being ironic and when I was not. Trust me, I was. This is a LONG STANDING argument in R/T. If you aren't aware of it, stick around and you will. The argument is that many people use "faith" and "belief" interchangably. Faith is most often used to indicate the second of the definitions and not the first:

1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

Then people try to use it in the context of the first. THEN they use that to show that atheism or science is a religion because there is "faith" involved (when THAT faith is definition 2 and not definition 1). In short, it is a complex word fuck by people trying to prove what you are trying to prove.

Atheism/Atheist, neither are in the Constitution.

Nice. Good job. And your point is? That doesn't deny the establishment clause. About half of the founding fathers were deists and most of the rest didn't give a damn about religion. Again, what is your point?

Whereas I have heard that there are claims that ID is science. I know of nowhere that ID proponents say that science is a religion. I would like to know where that occurs. I think you've fabricated that.

Holy crap, dude. Did you even look? I entered "science is a religion" into google (with the quotation marks). Here are a couple gems from the first page of results. Actually do some research before you spout nonsense. I'm sure you will enjoy these. They sound like your crowd.
http://www.reformed.org/apologetics/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/apologetics/Richard_Dawkins/barlow_science_a_religion.html
http://my.opera.com/reincarnut/blog/show.dml/204591
http://schools.moe.edu.sg/rjc/subjects/english/gp/downloads/religion-necessary.htm

I also think that you have no intention of furthering our cause.

"OUR cause"? Got a turd in your pocket? (My wife tells me that is a rural North Dakota phrase and the correct wording is "Got a mouse in your pocket?".) If you mean the establishment of a theocracy in the United States like it seems you are arguing for, then HELL NO I don't want to futher YOUR cause. MY cause is to actually defend the constitution and the rights granted in ALL of it including the first amendment.

[Festivito]

99. I'm more certain you want debate more than understand.

That may be fine for you. So, we argue to two different ends. Such will not be productive.

Yes, I think the argumentation we've had here has brought some confusion. And the omissions I related, bring a certain opacity in each post. The word obfuscation seems fine for this.

This shows itself where you revel in science not being in the 1st, then claiming atheism is. That was blatantly false and poor logic.

There is a difference between calling someone a liar and pointing out something as untrue. Calling something untrue is different from calling it a lie. I did not call your statement a lie. I did not call you a liar.

You're right. I could have googled. Although, the list it gives is mostly arguing that science is not a religion. The ones you gave me, one had no "science" on the page, one is a Junior College essay site(for those who don't like to write, I imagine), and the third is someone's blog. For what it's worth: I'm not arguing science to be a religion, just that it may work well for us to apply it as one for the 1st amendment. (Remember, if we work to two different ends, this may not ever make sense to you as it does to me.) Also, I think you've applied a wrong pre-judgment of my position on ID in every one of your posts replying to me. That would be your problem.

I want to invite the religious back into the Democratic party, where I feel they belong. Your cause seems to want to defend your view of the 1st and debate your view in order to win debate. You'd be right that we don't have a cause. Which is too bad, because I think you and I could benefit from what I am attempting, along with a whole nation and even a world of people.

[Goblinmonger]

102. Why are those two mutually exclusive?

Why can't I want understanding, but want to get it through logical discourse? Why does my differing with you mean that I don't understand you? Are you so obtuse as to think that the only people that disagree with you are those that don't understand the pearls of wisdom that you drop on our laps?

Where did I claim that atheism was included in the first amendment? I know that word isn't in there. But the first amendment DOES protect my right to be an atheist. "free expression thereof." That EQUALLY means your right to be religions and my right to be a-religious. If you don't think so, you are scary and need to read about 1st Amendment rights. The ACLU would be a good place to start.

You didn't just say that something I said was untrue, you said that I was putting forth "blatant falsehoods." Where I come from, that means the person is lying. I don't know any different interpretation of that phrase.

If you think that science isn't a religion, then why would you want to argue it is for applying the first amendment. If it isn't a religion, the establishment and free exercise clause have no bearing on it. The only reason to claim it is "for the sake of argument" is to show that religion should be on par with science in the government which means that science is a religion. Seriously, don't you get dizzy running in circles all the time. It either is or isn't a religion. I have shown it isn't. Stop applying the establishment and free exercise clause to science. It MAKES NO SENSE.

If the religious want to come back to the Democratic Party? First of all, I didn't know we kicked them out. There seem to be plenty of theists on here and this is a pretty liberal site even as far as the Democratic Party goes. You mean the moderates? The fundies? Well, they can be Democrats as long as they respect the 1st Amendment. That seems hard for a lot of them. It seems hard for you.

I don't want to win an election when the result of that win is a democratic party that doesn't stop the theocracy from coming back into existence (and I would argue it pretty much is).

[Festivito]

103. Well, it's not working, is it? Maybe that's why.

Even if I explained everything again, I do not think that you would understand my point.
Even if I answered every question with a clear essay, I do not think you would see what I'd be saying.
You make lots of assertions, but I don't think that you could even come close to stating my point.
I do think my point has been made, albeit, over several posts.

Maybe at a different time, in a different thread.
But, this is no longer productive.

[Goblinmonger]

104. Whatever makes you feel good, I guess.

I would hazard to guess that people reading this little discussion would agree that my posts have been ABUNDANTLY clear and between the two of us, YOU are the one that is making baseless assertions.

I understand what you are saying. So did BMUS. It scared the crap out of both of us. I hope it scares the crap out of others, too, because what you are saying allows the theocracy to take a stronger hold on our country which IS NOT a good thing.

[Goblinmonger]

50. As for being crass and rude

1. I haven't even gotten started yet.
2. I was NOT repeating myself. I used fuck, shit, and bullshit. All distinctly different curse words.

[varkam]

38. I wonder what such a society would look like...

where religion would always trump science. Where faith would always trump rationality, reason and evidence. I wonder what our life expectancies would look like. I wonder how many new patents there would be for things ranging from safer airbags to new medications that save lives.

When it comes to innovation and invention, religion is stagnant. I really don't see how or why religion should come into conflict with science, but when it does (such is the case the ID), then it acts as a stumbling block for progress. All of a sudden some school districts have to start talking about ID even though there is no data to support it's underpinnings, and touting it as an empirically rigorous theory. Faith and evidence aren't the best of bedfellows - even definitionally speaking.

But once theists start coming out against things like stem-cell research (which could actually save the lives of people who are suffering now) and abortions (which there is data to support the notion that unwanted children - children who would've otherwise been aborted - are much more likely te become criminals), then I tend to get a bit miffed. You don't agree with stem-cell research and abortions? Fine. Don't use any medical advances that arise from the former, and simply don't have the latter. But to stand in the way of other people and tell them 'No' because some ancient collaborative work says it's wrong? That's just fucked up.

And by the way, I'm no constitutional scholar, but I don't believe Christianity was made this nation's pre-eminent religion by virtue of constitutional right - hence freedom of religion

[Festivito]

44. Perhaps you should post your own thread on this.

I had suggested science trumping religion, or science and religion being treated as equals, but not religion trumping science. I can only surmise you might have misread the prior post. But, who cares, I like hypotheticals.

Not all religions are anti-science. Under real 1st amendment rule, the currently loud religions which are anti-science in many areas, would be usurped, and good science would possibly rule the day.

My contention throughout this thread has been that the currently loud religious are funded with illicit money. That money makes them louder than they should be.

We need to attack the money, not divide and misunderstand ourselves unnecessarily.

[varkam]

64. Any religion that creates

A dogmatic mindset in it's followers is already hostile to science, IMO.

[Festivito]

83. Therein would science seem hostile unto itself.

Judging by your rather dogmatic support of science.

[varkam]

90. So you are taking my own personal flaws

And extending them to the entire entity of science? Even if I am not the best friend of religion, and even if I am the most thick-headed science apologist, surely you would admit that calling science and it's method dogmatic (at least when compared to religion) based on my own predispositions is a bit silly.

It would be like me inferring from Fred Phelps that all religions hate gay people. Not very smart, right?

[Festivito]

93. You missed the irony. And then banged it on yourself. Not so!

I found the turnabout ironic, meaningfully poignant, and even a little cute. And, turnabout seems fair play, at least here.

Then you suggest that I would surely admit that calling science, AND it's method, dogmatic, at least when compared to religion(to science or to method, must mean both) based on your own predispositions(which could be described if not hyperbolized as dogmatic), albeit errantly self-directed and misunderstood, as silly. Well, no.

Science has its dogmas(read: firmly held beliefs and tenants) surrounding observation, hypothesis, experimentation, etc. Saying it does not, is a silly game of semantics. Saying it does is not a silly game. It's a step toward understanding.

[varkam]

98. What I take dogmatic claims to mean are...

those claims that are beyond challenge. Part of the very foundation of science is the repeated challenging of ideas and theories - see also, falsification. Nothing is ever *proven* with the scientific method and nothing is beyond challenge. To say that is dogmatic, I think, is a woeful ignorance of what dogma actually means.

[Festivito]

101. When applied, nothing human is beyond challenge.

Yet, science has held bad ideas and theories for long long times.
And, religion has challenged and dropped bad ideas that were religious dogmas.

The future arrives. Nothing is certain. Nothing.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

92. Have you ever taken a science class? Have you learned the scientific

method? Have you experimented in a chemistry lab, or experienced the elation that comes with scientific findings matching up with the underlying theory?

[Festivito]

94. Have you ever considered a course in etiquette?

Answer your own yet unanswered branches. Your interjections are disruptive.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

96. interjections? or observations?

You have yet to answer anyone's questions related to your position. You do not support them, you merely attack and accuse. People here repeatedly try to engage in conversation, in discussion, but you treat it as an attack, no matter who is involved. It seems as the only person on this thread who is continually disrupting conversations is you. Too bad. I guess your positions simply cannot stand up to any review.


now, if you would point out any unanswered questions on this thread directed to me, I will be glad to take the time and provide an answer. Without rancor, which seems beyond your capacity.

[Festivito]

100. Here's the response to you that you did not answer.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=62547&mesg_id=62650

I still think that you are only creating diversions.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

107. now it is answered, but for the problem inherent in your question.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

106. You miss the whole point of the first amendment.

Take a look at the colonial history leading up to the 1750s-60s. Several states outlawed puritanism, others banned other sects, still others would arrest Quakers. Many of the larger towns had not just blue laws, but prayer laws, and if they found you outside of church on sunday (ALL DAY) you would be fined an beaten. Fear and religion ruled the day, and led to Cotton Mather's attack on women, which was repeated on a smaller scale elsewhere.

ben Franklin, John Adams, Tom Jefferson and Tom Paine all saw the corrosive, destructive force of organized religion and worse, state or city sponsored religion. In that context, today's 1st amendment has a whole differnent look to it. Even after the revolution several states attempted to install a state religion, Pennsylvania, South Carolina and Virginia, each of which failed. North and South Carolina attempted to force the country to underwrite their chosen faiths. Luckily that failed.

You are making a deliberate, unsupported and frankly ignorant step of equating science and religion, then mixing the two topics while erroneously analysing the constitution. WHat you do is far worse than mixing apples and oranges, it is an effort at willful deceit. You should be ashamed of yourself.

I will repeat SCIENCE IS NOT A RELIGION. your effort to equate the two is no better than what Jerry Falwell and Oral Roberts and Joh Dobson do, when the facts and the laws are against them, they throw up shit and pray that it sticks.

The problem is religions is destructive, dangerous, and deceitful in every and any form. You are trying to pull down science to the gutter level of religion. Another problem is that you are woefully ignorant of the constitution.

I'd suggest you get online and read the damned thing. The whole thing. When you do, you will find this little gem hidden in the text:

Article 1, Section 8, Par. 7 " The congress shall have Power to:

. . . . To Promote the Progress of Science and Useful Arts. . . . "

missed that, did you? Shame on you.

Science is based on rational thinking, the creative application of brain power to a set of facts and circumstances. Religion is the brain-deadening effort to replace rational thought with something called blind faith.

does science make mistakes? Sure. Trial and error is one scientific method and relies on hundreds of mistakes in order to find out the proper answer. The whole basis of science lies in taking a theory, testing it and poking holes in it until it is proven.

Does religion make mistakes. none they like to admit. And their mistakes have killed more millions and millions of innocents than anything else.

[beam me up scottie]

36. BRAVO !!!

Best post championing why we must fight superstition and anti-intellectualism EVER.

We need to wake up and arm ourselves. Not with guns, but ideas and answers. We need to bring the battle back to where to where it belongs - the future of our country. We need to recognize that we are in a war and that we need to fight back.

Yet ANOTHER reason why we should be able to recommend individual posts.

:applause:

[varkam]

39. Maybe I'm a bit jaded but...

We have currently, and have had for some time, ideas and answers. We've been shouting them at the top of our lungs.

They're not listening.

They're sticking their fingers in their ears and going "Nah nah nah nah nah, I can't hear you!"

I swear, it's like talking to a effing brick wall with these people.

[beam me up scottie]

40. I'm ready to bail on the whole country.

Seriously.

A very powerful vocal minority is calling the shots and at least half of the sheep don't know, don't care or are actually supporting them.

Science takes us one step forward and what happens?

Forget about two steps back, it gets whacked upside the head with a 25 pound bible, blackening both eyes and getting a serious concussion that gives it amnesia.

Or are we the ones who have amnesia?

I can't remember.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

54. I think the voices are growing louder and more people are listening

Every time the religious rightists goosestep over more rights, they piss more people off.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

23. I don't think you can stop

religious leaders from preaching conversion is the path to god; that is the nature of their religion. Even the Elks try and get new members. Same with the teaching of the Bible to their children. (as long as it is not in school.) But when they use their pulpit to energize their congregation politically, they need to pay taxes.

Your last statement regarding the growth of society...I don't agree completely. Society has been growing in many ways, I believe, even though many of us cherish our faith and promote it. It has only been this current wave of fundies that have really set up roadblocks. Well, of course there's the Amish but they keep to themselves. In short, it is not an either/or situation. We can have faith and flourish. But we must hold to the Constitution that protects my right to believe and your right not to. I don't know why those folks don't get that. I mean, look at this situation. If they (RW) hadn't made such stupid noise, you'd be going about your business doing whatever you do rather than protesting their beliefs. So it has been totally counterproductive. I mean, I figured this out when I learned about the Pilgrims in first grade. If I want freedom of religion, it has to stay out of the public square.

[varkam]

11. Tupac Shakur had a tattoo...

Across his stomach - "THUG LIFE". Most people took that to mean that he was personifying the 'gangsta' image. What most people didn't take that to mean was an acronym - "The Hate U Give Little Infants Fucks Everyone"

[mzteris]

16. I agree with a lot of what you say but on one thing I call

BS!!

**Home schooling? Ban it. **

There are more and more LIBERALS HOMESCHOOLING! (Check out our own DU hs'ing group if you don't believe me.)

I'm really too tired to explain to you that the belief that "only fundies" hs is complete and total bs.

Take a look at how many PUBLIC SCHOOL systems are being controlled by the fundamentalists. They have made - and are making - a concerted effort to take over the local school boards precisely because they want to eliminate the teaching of evolution and mandate the teaching of "Intelligent Design". They want to preach "abstinence only" in schools. They want to ban gay clubs.

They LIKE the teach to the test mentality. The unquestioning acceptance of "whatever teacher says is true". They don't want kids to THINK for themselves. Teach critical thinking? Hell no - they most assuredly don't want kids to do that! They might ask embarassing questions. They might not toe the line. They might (gasp!) THINK for themselves!! Can't have that!

No, my friend. LIBERALS should be EMBRACING homeschooling so they can teach their kids the truth. So their kids can actually LEARN instead of memorize and regurgitate.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

24. thank you. I had no idea about that. I learn something daily here.

I always suspected that homeskuling was a neocon-fundie type of thing. it is good to know that is not the case all the time

[TallahasseeGrannie]

26. Let me explain something about that

as a public school teacher in a fairly blue community, you might think that the RW does not extend into my classroom. HA! Think again. While I am protected by all sorts of contractual stuff assuring me academic freedom, do you think I will even do something as harmless as tell my kids to close their eyes and visualize something? Hell no. I'd get a phone call from a fundie parent. Forget reading Harry Potter. Same problem. I have even given up on dinosaurs and kids love them, but I'm too old to deal with the freaking phone calls. I draw the line at evolution. I refer to it constantly, but I don't say the E word. I talk about fossils and the age of the universe, etc. And I push multi-cultural respect all I can. But the fundie agenda reaches into my classroom. Call me a coward, but I have been on the wrong end of parental ire and it just about destroyed me and I'm not exaggerating. It is devastating.

[mzteris]

30. Hey TG -

I appreciate the fact that not all PS teachers are themselves RW - but are constrained by the current "mood" of the Nation.

I also appreciate that you - of nearly all PS teachers I've met in here (DU) - understands what HS'ing is and can be.

Not all HS teachers are good at what they do. Just as not all PS teachers are good at what they do, either. I'm all for more accountability for both parties. The problem IS - it's the people writing the "accountability standards".

The one-size-fits-all educational model just doesn't work. I was talking to a mom just a few hours ago who has sent her son to very expensive private school (they can afford it). He is extremely gifted. The PS school he was going to wanted to put him in "special ed" because they just couldn't comprehend how differently he thinks.

I'm not, as you know, anti-PS - though I know sometimes it "sounds" that way in my zeal to protest the hs bashing that goes on DU. I HAVE a son in PS and graduated a daughter from PS. I HS one of my children because PS wasn't right for him.

I truly fear the RW'ers take over of the PS system. We must make sure that the local school boards are kept out of their hands.

[Goblinmonger]

29. That sounds more like

adminstration than teachers. From working with teachers for many years, you will find that most of them are liberal, and even those that aren't are in it because they like the kids and want to help them be life-long learners that ARE critical thinkers.

Please don't confuse school boards and administrators with the actual people that are teaching the kids in the classroom.

[mzteris]

32. I agree, but

if they're afraid - or not allowed - to teach their kids to think critically, then what is the difference in actuality for the kids?