My Kids Learn About God and the Bible

[berni_mccoy]

In CHURCH and at HOME. We review our faith and beliefs at HOME on a regular basis and the kids attend teachings of our FAITH when we got to mass.

I have no such desire for them to receive religious teachings in PUBLIC school.

In fact, as a Catholic, I'm worried that this "intelligent design" concept won't be consistent with with our beliefs. Why do a few zealots think they can teach my kids FAITH? Who IN THE HELL do they think they are?

Anyone else who is religious feel this way?

[bryant69]

1. That's my concern too

I mean once you start teaching Christianity in the school, the obvious question is what form of Christianity? (along with, of course, why do non-Christians get the shaft).

Doesn't seem likely that my particular faith would come out well in that situation.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Why Syzygy]

2. I'm so sorry.

I gave up religion. But welcome to our side.

ps. It's called "secular". We don't need none of your "religion".

[madrchsod]

3. that`s where i learned back in the 50`s

sunday school and my folks...

[BlueEyedSon]

4. Please make it everyones concern. Please.

As an atheist, they won't even listen to me.....

[ClassWarrior]

5. And the zealots are trying to teach your kids faith in a shrouded...

...manipulative, dishonest way, at that. What kind of religious value is THAT??

NGU.

[tanyev]

6. Ra-men!

In spite of my recent flirtations with the church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, I am mostly a Lutheran and I went to a Lutheran elementary school. To be honest, the only time I remember learning about the Genesis stories were in our religion class. We used regular science textbooks and probably did the same kind of science stuff that kids in the public school did.

[Zynx]

7. I'm Catholic and feel exactly the same way.

[PsychoDad]

8. Well said.

I agree with your views. My children learn their religion at home and at masjid from people who's views I approve of, not at a public school where the state decides which religion to teach.

Peace

[Bridget Burke]

9. If the Religious Right had its way....

Your kids would be persecuted for Popish Error. The extremists RR'se have roots in an archaic Catholic-hating form of Protestantism.

Keeping Church & State separated is good for both sides. And the RC church made its peace with science a couple of centuries ago.

[vicman]

10. The problem could be that

the people trying to force religion into secular and public life tend to identify themselves as "evangelical" Christians, and they believe their main purpose in life is to "evangelize," which, according to one dictionary, means, "1. To preach the gospel to. 2. To convert to Christianity." "Evangelism" is further defined as, "1. Zealous preaching and dissemination of the gospel, as through missionary work. 2. Militant zeal for a cause."

So you see, these people exist soley for the purpose of teaching YOUR children and wouldn't mind converting YOU in the bargain. They may claim to respect your religion, but I would be skeptical of that claim.

Ye shall know them by their works.

[expatriot]

11. i certainly wish more people who were religious felt that way. thank you.

and on a side note, I love your signature chart. very revealing.

[KittyWampus]

12. Intelligent Design Does NOT Require Any Mention Of Faith Or Belief

or a Creator-Being.

Just because the Fundies say it... doesn't mean they are representing ID correctly any more than the NeoCons represent American Democracy or its principles in an accurate way.

All ID says is Nature has an inherent capacity for developing ever more complex manifestations of Intelligence.

The fact that Consciousness exists supports this angle more than Neo-Darwinism and its underlying Philosophy of Materialism.

Also, the fact that Reality has been proven to be Non-Local also supports ID more than Neo-Darwinism and its assumption that the Material World is all there is and Life and the Earth are just relicating machines.

[vicman]

15. Have you heard of a French chap

by the name of Henri Bergsen? He wrote a book early in the Twentieth Century titled "Creative Evolution." He tried to deal with this topic of evolutionary science from a philosopher's perspective. It's a very worthwhile read, very well written, but, when it's all said and done, even he couldn't make that dog hunt. The problem with ID is that it addresses a poetical element that resides in certain human beings, but it has nothing to do with objective reality. Scientifically, it's a worthless construct because it leads us nowhere, doesn't get us one micron closer to uinderstanding complex manifestations of biological life or the interrelatedness of those manifestations. If you want to leave God out of it, fine. But then it needs to be taught in poetry or philosophy class, not in a science classroom.

[KittyWampus]

17. Consciousness and Information are certainly two areas capable and worthy

of objective study. How about we get on with it? :)

That the Universe is Non-Local (not bound by space-time) means we need to start branching Scientific Inquiry into newer territory not the same Materialistic Box/Coffin that it's been bound by for the last 200 years or so.

[vicman]

21. 200 years is not a long time.

Scientific Inquiry was bound in a much tighter box/coffin for thousands of years prior. We haven't even given the new kid on the block his due hearing. Let's see where this "evolution" thing goes before we through the baby out with the bathwater. We can revisit this in a millenium or so. Or maybe not. Reminds me of an old song, "All we are saying, is give Darwin a chance..." oh, wait, maybe I disremembered the exact lyric....

[vicman]

23. That would be

"throw"

I'm a bad typist.

[berni_mccoy]

18. ID doesn't jibe

Catholic schools actually TEACH evolution because it is an OBSERVABLE phenomena.

Many Catholic monks have written about the SCIENCE of EVOLUTION.

Catholicism has come a long way in acknowledging SCIENCE as a GIFT from God to allow us to understand His Great Creation.

Intelligent Design is an inherent BELIEF that goes without saying. It does NOT need to be TAUGHT.

Any TEACHINGS about ID are just PHILOSOPHICAL CONSTRUCTS, something the Catholic Church has moved away from (others include hell, purgatory, limbo, etc).

[gollygee]

19. If that's what it meant, it would be called Intelligence Design

or Design of Intelligence.

It is called Intelligent Design which assumes someone intelligent was involved.

Even the word "design" assumes someone designed it.

[berni_mccoy]

20. Exactly, why not "Omniscient Design"?

God isn't MERELY INTELLIGENT... He is ALL KNOWING (if you believe in our faith).

[PsychoDad]

22. Perhaps,

And I myself agree with the concept of Intelligent design.

But this is simply being used as a smokescreen by Fundi Christian Creationists to get their biblical viewpoint into public schools.

Facts need to be taught in science class, the scientific method, not a philosophy of design, which is what this is.

Churches have vacation bible schools and such. Perhaps they should hold educational seminars on Intelligent design for the public. This should not be publicly funded as science - philosophy maybe, but not as hardcore science.

Peace.

[Hong Kong Cavalier]

28. Uh huh

:eyes:
Time Cube

[HawkerHurricane]

30. Intelligent Design is NOT a scientific theory

It is a POLITICAL movement, hiding behind a psuedoscience to push forth a Religious belief for POLITICAL reasons.
ID can be stated in 3 steps:
1. We don't know how <that> happened.
2. We'll never know how <that> happened.
3. Therefore, God must have made <that> happen.
In any given example, #1 may or may not be true. #2 is almost certainly false. And given that #2 is almost certainly false, #3 is left hanging on air, a 'God of the Gaps' arguement that's looking to reduce God to wherever he may be wedged in.
See also http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html for the 'Wedge Document' which was used as a fund raising tool by the Discovery Institute.

It's not about science, it's about politics. They're using stealth religion to push their political platform. It's dishonest.

[Kailassa]

31. Please define "Nature"?

If you are not elevating nature to the status of an intelligent Designer who is guiding evolution, then evolution already covers this and you are not referring to the theory of I.D. at all.

If, on the other hand, you are wanting it taught that nature is some kind of intelligent entity in its own right that is guiding evolution in a direction of its choice, then that is just one more of many beliefs. You can freely teach it to your children, but not to mine, thank you.

Intentional Design is teaching that there is an entity that is designing and living things to its own specifications. It can never be a scientific theory, because it is based on the notion that some things are too complex to have happened simply through the processes of evolution, and so must have a Designer.
(As in the old illustration used to support this argument, the wristwatch.)
However the Designer is inevitably far more complex than the thing being designed. Therefore, if the eye, wing or whatever is too complex to have evolved on its own, the Designer is far to complex to have evolved on its own, so going by the argument of I.D., the postulated designer CANNOT EXIST.

If the people pushing I.D. wanted to convince thinking people that there is no God, they could not find a better way to do it.

[berni_mccoy]

32. Wow, GREAT argument...

I'll have to remember that the next time someone tries to argue for it in our school.

[Midlodemocrat]

13. As a practicing Catholic, I share your concern.

My children learn about faith at home, and in church. There is no room for religion in the public schools. When my children get older they can take a comparative religion class to expose them to other faiths and beliefs.

I certainly don't want fundie levicticus lovers teaching my children that kind of intolerance.

[expatriot]

14. on another note, rightwingers think that christianity is monolithic

that there is only one correct interpretation of its teachings and that THEIR interpretation is the one correct one. Of course this is one of the reasons why the founders realized that church and state should stay separated because there is always going to be one interpretation of faith in power, being teached, which means that every other interpreation is disempowered which builds political resentment and division.

[mcar]

16. Amen

I feel the same way. It's really a minority of fundamentalists (I won't call them Christians) who want to force creationism down our throats. Unfortunately, they get a lot of attention.

[Renew Deal]

24. Because they are correct about religion and you ar wrong.

Or at least that's how they feel. They think teaching what they want to teach is accurate, so they don't care what you think.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

25. I agree

Evangelicals and fundamentalists believe that the entirety of the Bible is to be taken literally, and therefore, that the earth really was created in 7 days, etc. Most religions realize that the Bible cannot be taken literally. Evangelicals and fundamentalists think they have the right to take their beliefs and force all children to learn them. Thanks to the Republican Party, they have had the chance to shove a lot of their fundamentalist whacko beliefs down our throats.

[Kber]

26. Two thoughts

1) I completely empathize with you. We are also somewhat observant in our religious beliefs and practices and I consider it entirely a private family affair. I am similarly pissed off by efforts to make a cervical vaccine unavailable to my daughter because someone else thinks I need help keeping her a pure virgin until marriage or some such bull. They are advocating that we take girls who are "impure" to the village outskirts and stone them, IMO.

2) Wouldn't any school that teaches intelligent design (a religious, faith based idea) risk loosing Federal money from the No Child Left Behold act? Any thoughts on that angle?

For the record, my local district does not mix religion and education and they teach biology in biology class, including the theory of evolution. Go figure.

[McCamy Taylor]

27. I want to choose WHICH Bible, too. There are more than one.

[OnionPatch]

29. This is exactly why I don't want it taught at school

I'm a Christian but there are a lot of different kinds of Christians and I DO NOT want some fundie nutjob teaching my child in school something we don't believe! For instance, I believe evolution is the workings of God. Are they going to teach her this? I don't think so. And what about kids that aren't even Christian? How self-centered these people are!

[triguy46]

33. Good points, well said

I don't want political advice from my pastor, and I don't want theological advice from my elected representatives.

[kcwayne]

34. My daughter learns REASON, LOGIC, ETHICS and MORALITY at home

because she sure does not learn it at school with a bunch of insecure evangelists who think everyone needs to believe in their dogma.