LGP Political Discussion Thread - Latest news at top

[Sarcastic]

btw, I'm not attacking religion even. I think that some of Church's beliefs need to be altered.

[ExPatriatePen]

btw, I'm not attacking religion even. I think that some of Church's beliefs need to be altered.

Good luck with that.

I don't think there are more than one or two people on LGP who would argue that the earth is 9000 years old. I believe if you give people the right education they'll make good decisions.

[Sarcastic]

I think the Church NEEDS to update their beliefs. What I'm proposing is actually beneficial for the institution. I see a lot of people saying they're atheists these days, more than ever. Same in Britain.

[Sarcastic]

And I say that as a loving Catholic.

[tifosi77]

To me, Rubio is saying that children should be taught different viewpoints and be able to make up their own minds. (the only other option is that they should be taught only one viewpoint and TOLD what to believe.)

Maybe it's my own personal bias, but I read it as a ham-handed way of getting around being on record as saying the Earth is only a few thousand years old.

EPP, we disagree.

Should they be told it's OK if they believe some mumbo jumbo that earth is 9,000 years old for religious reasons? I don't think it's OK. It's creating morons who don't believe in science, to put it bluntly. We either stay ignorant with our heads in some book or we advance the civilization.

Religion is a matter of belief. Science is a matter of fact. When the two contradict each other, I know which one should prevail.

[Shyster]

Religion is a matter of belief. Science is a matter of fact. When the two contradict each other, I know which one should prevail.

According to you, but not necessarily everyone else. Personally, I firmly believe that for the vast, vast majority of people and professions, it matters bugger-all whether the Earth is 9,000 or 4.5 billion years old. I have better things to do than worry about someone else’s notion of the age of the universe. As Jefferson said, “[I]t does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” I only care if whoever it is wants to somehow force me to accept their own position.

Personally, I think the answer Rubio gave was about as good as it gets for how a politician would answer that question. Just about any politician is going to have constituents who go by the scientific age of the earth and constituents who age the earth by the boundaries of their religious faith (which not necessarily be Christianity). For example, my understanding is that Hinduism believes that the Earth is way older than science does and is over a trillion years old.

[Ossa]

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_an ... ingle.html

[Sarcastic]

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/11/rubio_and_obama_and_the_age_of_earth_politicians_hedge_about_whether_universe.single.html

"Writing in the New York Times, Juliet Lapidos points out that 58 percent of Republicans believe in creationism, as do 46 percent of all Americans."

That scares the hell out of me. 2012 and some of us cling to a book written a couple thousands years ago instead of accepting what latest science findings have to offer.

[Gaucho]

46 percent?

[tifosi77]

Religion is a matter of belief. Science is a matter of fact. When the two contradict each other, I know which one should prevail.

According to you, but not necessarily everyone else. Personally, I firmly believe that for the vast, vast majority of people and professions, it matters bugger-all whether the Earth is 9,000 or 4.5 billion years old. I have better things to do than worry about someone else’s notion of the age of the universe. As Jefferson said, “t does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” I only care if whoever it is wants to somehow force me to accept their own position.

Personally, I think the answer Rubio gave was about as good as it gets for how a politician would answer that question. Just about any politician is going to have constituents who go by the scientific age of the earth and constituents who age the earth by the boundaries of their religious faith (which not necessarily be Christianity). For example, my understanding is that Hinduism believes that the Earth is way older than science does and is over a trillion years old.

No, not according to me. Facts are facts.

It goes to the fundamental problem that arises at the confluence of religion and observable fact. Someone who believes the Earth is only 9,000 years old has no business representing the country as part of the House Science Committee, or the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee. I'll be all for rescinding that position the instant they begin teaching Darwinism in Sunday school.

If you choose to believe those things in your private life, fine. I've no quarrel with that. But the moment the suggestion is raised that religion and religious-based doctrine has [i]any place at all in a public educational context...... I'm sorry, but that cannot be allowed.

And since you bring up Thomas Jefferson, it is important to remember that he was a staunch advocate of total and absolute division between religion and public education, particularly at the younger ages when children'd minds "are not sufficiently matured for religious enquiries". Shoot, when TJ was the rector of UVA the school didn't even appoint a chaplain at a time when it was commonplace for religious leaders at other institutions to be university presidents and theological classes were compulsory.

[Gaucho]

[ExPatriatePen]

The censorship of information is but the first step of a propaganda campaign.

There's a complete difference between the teaching of various "schools of thought" and the presentation of a belief system as fact.

Many societies, cultures and governments over the years have tried to suppress religious belief systems, almost all have succeeded only in spreading those beliefs further through underground means.

Shed the light of day on them, it's the quickest way to show them for what they are.

[Gaucho]

Censorship?

[ExPatriatePen]

Censorship?

Yes censorship, the purposeful withholding of information.

I'm glad that my son was taught that some religions believe in creationism. He saw weighed that against the science he was also taught and it helped him form is his religious belief system. ( which, since his mothers family were devote Catholics, helped to show him the problems with blindly following that faith.)

So yes, censorship.

[Gaucho]

I'm sorry, I'm not sure what exactly you are referring to?

I am, btw and in case you're wondering, against censorship in any way, shape, or form. But you should know that.

[Shyster]

It goes to the fundamental problem that arises at the confluence of religion and observable fact. Someone who believes the Earth is only 9,000 years old has no business representing the country as part of the House Science Committee, or the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee. I'll be all for rescinding that position the instant they begin teaching Darwinism in Sunday school.

And how much of the business of those committees deals with this question of cosmology? Is a religious person incapable of voting on or otherwise overseeing anything scientific? If so, why? What if the topic in question—let’s say funding for cancer research—has absolutely nothing to do with the age or creation of the universe?

Let me be clear here. I don’t give a flying crap what anyone thinks, and I did clearly say that “I only care if whoever it is wants to somehow force me to accept their own position.” There is a stark difference between people having religious beliefs—even going so far as to reject science in holding those beliefs—and people trying to force others to accept their views. If Rubio wants schools to teach creationism, I would have a problem with that. But if Rubio himself personally believes in creationism, I don’t give a flying eff. Good for him.

And while I’m not personally religious myself in the least (and am certainly not a Christian), I do not—as Ossa and Gaucho seem to be saying—think less of people who are. There are personally rational reasons that someone may choose to embrace the tents of a religious faith. For example, that religion might give them a context for their own existence, a moral code to follow, and a measure of assurance for the future—all things the universe itself doesn’t seem included to provide on its own. It doesn’t mean that they’re stupid.

Finally, the libertarian in me must point out that if government gets out of both the “school” and “science” businesses, then this question is moot, as absolutely no one would be forced to fund any program or attend any school with which they disagree.

[Sarcastic]

I think I understand what EPP is trying to say and it's not a bad point, but I see the danger of the country being taken over by religious fanatics. We've gotten close enough for my taste already, if you look at the Republican party. 46% of people in this country if that number is correct. That's not funny.

"There's a complete difference between the teaching of various "schools of thought" and the presentation of a belief system as fact."

If they would differentiate that, then OK. But what happened with Sunday schools? Not all kids come from Christian homes so not all students should be forced to learn about this particular religion (unless they want to and take a course later in college). What if you have a native Indian kid or something else who worships a tree or a bear spirit. I had a Hawaiian g/f who's "spirit" was a shark. There isn't one religion and not everyone is religious, so I don't see religion as admittable in schools, unless we're talking a speciality (Catholic, in this case) school.

[Gaucho]

I do not—as Ossa and Gaucho seem to be saying—think less of people who are.

I didn't say you do, not at all.

[columbia]

The point is that a supposedly rational person is pandering to people who believe that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old.

It's disturbing.

[Ossa]

I do not—as Ossa and Gaucho seem to be saying—think less of people who are.

I didn't say you do, not at all.

Ditto. I just posted a link. I wasn't referring to your previous post.

[MRandall25]

Sarcastic, are you really saying that people who believe in some form of creationism are "religious fanatics"?

Get off your high horse. You're being offensive and close-minded. I can take some stuff as a Catholic, but you're crossing the line.

[Shyster]

I do not—as Ossa and Gaucho seem to be saying—think less of people who are.

I didn't say you do, not at all.

Ditto. I just posted a link. I wasn't referring to your previous post.

Sorry, I misphrased that sentence. My impression is that you and Gaucho seem to think less of religious persons. If I am incorrect, please correct me.

[Gaucho]

I agree with Shyster that people can believe in whatever they please in their private lives as long as they don't go and preach about it to me. But I also agree with tifosi that religious beliefs and creationism have no place in public education. This doesn't mean that kids shouldn't learn about religion at school, if that is what EEP was getting at. Au contraire, it's very important to get a sense of what these loonies are going on about.

[Ossa]

I do not—as Ossa and Gaucho seem to be saying—think less of people who are.

I didn't say you do, not at all.

Ditto. I just posted a link. I wasn't referring to your previous post.

Sorry, I misphrased that sentence. My impression is that you and Gaucho seem to think less of religious persons. If I am incorrect, please correct me.

No, not at all. I'm a Christian and I guess you could describe me as a "religious" person (I personally don't like to use the word religious). I posted the link because I think it is interesting that atheists (Richard Dawkins) who praised Obama and gave him pass. Then, attack Rubio for saying essentially the same thing that Obama said four years ago. IMHO, I don't like Rubio and don't agree with Young Earth Creationism, but I really don't have a problem with what he said. I don't understand what all the fuss is about.

[ExPatriatePen]

Exactly Gaucho, teach them both and let THEM decide which one holds up to scrutiny.

By the way, you can't say that creationism has "no place" in public school and then say that they should be taught that the "school of thought" on creationism should be discussed.

Discussing different "schools of thought" is what the educational system is all about. That is the place it should have in the public school system.