Why have political discussions?

[Anonymous]

Does anyone think they are going to change people's opinions in these discussions?

Are EB, AL, EE, Mod-Mod, Lao and Traci all going to nod their heads in agreement on some previously controversial topic?

If not or never, what do you hope to gain in pursuing these threads?

[Anonymous]

I guess there's no point whatsoever.

Even worse, political discussions bring out the fringe. CDBoard had polls, and we saw that the mainstream voice (by votes) didn't match the shouted voice (by posts).

The rabid anti-Israel rhetoric couldn't keep up with the votes of the reasonable who saw Israel as a flawed but otherwise western state.

The screaming Creationists/prayer in school people turned out to be only about a quarter of our population, not the 75% they would have you think.

Talking to the screamers has ceased to be interesting. Can we have our polls back? Anybody willing to buy CDBoard from Traci?

[Anonymous]

The CDBoard polls were flawed. I voted often in the same poll for whichever side seemed to be losing.

[E. Blackadder]

In fact, some of my opinions have changed; and Lao has quit arguing a few things (although not recently).

So, yes, we're not just shouting at each other. Is it gloves-off? Sure. Perhaps even beyond that.

But some of us are here to distill truth in this crucible. And of course, we like a good argument.

[G. Ringo]

I think we have clarified what our differences are, even where we have not (and often have not even attempted to) change anyone's mind.

For example, we have clarified that creation and evolution, respectively, are basic beliefs and values important to religious and secularist people, respectively. They are no minor points that may be conceded.

And I think that we have defined what is the division over educational policy. Nobody is saying not to teach what the other side believes. The issue is advocacy of a particular view. There is a fundamental disagreement over whether the "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment should be interpreted narrowly or should be interpreted to require Government neutrality rather than advocating any particular view, religious or secularist. Nobody will compromise on this issue because it is a big money issue, since it determines whether taxpayers will foot the bill for secularist schools. Everyone wants to send his children to a school promoting his views. For religious people, everyone admits that that must be a private school. Secularists, however, want public schools to promote their views.

I have not seen any screaming by creationists. The evolutionists are the ones who resort to personal insults. Those are not gratuitous invective. An important argument for their biased interpretation of the First Amendment is that creationists are "childish"; i.e., not competent to exercise First Amendment rights.

[Anonymous]

I have not seen any screaming by creationists. The evolutionists are the ones who resort to personal insults. Those are not gratuitous invective. An important argument for their biased interpretation of the First Amendment is that creationists are "childish"; i.e., not competent to exercise First Amendment rights.


I take that as a personal insult! :wink:

I think most "evolutionists" don't really have a problem with anyone's first amendment rights. Say what you want, teach your children what you want. No problem there.

I think most evolutionists (and some enlightened creationists) see the argument in a different light: teaching creation in public schools is teaching religion. (There is no such thing as "scientific creation".)
Teaching religion in public schools is bad, because (1) it excessively entangles government and religion. Even from a solely Christian point of view, there are a lot of ways to interpret religion. Catholics & Protestants used to come to blows over it when religion was allowed in schools. And Christians are divided over a literal vs. a non-literal interpretation of the bible.

Also, don't forget (2), which is that the constitution and the founders expressly require the separation of church and state.

"Evolutionists" don't have any problem with creation theories, just their location. They are only religious theories, and they belong solely in the church.

OTOH, science belongs in the science class, and evolution is science. You could have a religion that teaches 1+1+1=1, but that wouldn't prevent math teachers from teaching 1+1+1=3, because math is taught in math class. History class doesn't teach that on some particular day, Christ ascended into heaven. That isn't history, it is religion. They do teach that Christ lived, as an important historical figure, but any religious interpretation is best left to the parents, the preacher, and the church.

OUTSIDE of public schools.

Exercise your First Amendment rights, but don't forget the rest of the Constitution.

[The Mister]

On 2001-09-14 14:43, Anonymous wrote:
...You could have a religion that teaches 1+1+1=1...

<font size=2>I sit looking 'round
I look at my face in the mirror
I know I'm worth nothing without you
And like one and one don't make two
One and one make one
And I'm looking for that free ride to me
I'm looking for you!

- The Who, "Bargain"

[G. Ringo]

How can I be guilty of a personal insult on "Anonymous"?

I can not tell whether "Anonymous" is opposed to teaching about all the schools of thought (including religions) that have had a major influence on our society or he is just opposed to calling creation "science"--something that no one in this forum or its predecessors has done.

On the other hand, I do not agree that evolution is science. That is a secularist position. I oppose your using my tax money to promote that view. I do not use your tax money to promote my religion. I send my child to a private religious school. I expect you to send your child to a school that promotes your beliefs and values, but I want you to do so at your own expense.

[Dr T Non-Fan]

I don't think public schools can exist with that line of thinking. Maybe it was a sarcastic comment, GG, I'm unsure. There are a lot of subjects that people harbor religious beliefs about. "Boys and girls should be taught the same subjects, in the same classroom." WHAT?! How secularist! That's not MY beliefs! (That's sarcasm.)

Evolution is a theory. By assuming certain things, lots of evidence points to it. Creation is also a theory. By assuming certain things, lots of evidence points to it. Just depends on which assumptions are more believable.

[Laocoön]

People normally only argue about things about which they already have some knowledge and an opinion, so it would be remarkable if the opinions of the arguers were routinely changed. However, arguers can find out enough about the positions of those who disagree with them to be able to decide if the other side procedes from some sort of reason and if their differences matter that much. Mostly, though, arguments are informative for those witnessing them who don't yet have an opinion.

[Anonymous]

I like to read Lao's opinion, so I know what's wrong.

[G. Ringo]

DTNF,

I agree with you, and I was not being sarcastic. I don't believe that any parent would voluntarily send children to a neutral public school permitted under an unbiased interpretation of the First Amendment. I do believe that such an interpretation would lead to the privatization of education.

I also agree with the second paragraph of your post, but secularists have obtained court decisions barring schools from teaching that. Public schools are being forced to teach evolution as fact.

[Anonymous]

GG:

Here's the rub: Evolution is a theory, and there is a ton of SCIENTIFIC evidence pointing toward it.

Creation is a theory, and there is a ton of SCIENTIFIC evidence against it. The only evidence for it is RELIGIOUS.

Should we teach ABOUT religious beliefs? Sure, why not? No rule against that. It belongs in history class.

Should we teach children religious-only, scientifically discredited theories as though there was some scientific support for them, in a science class? Absolutely not. Might as well teach them Piltdown man was real and we really achieved cold fusion. Same thing, because these theories were discredited scientifically.

The scientific method is a way of explaining the world by 1) making many theories, and 2) revising them or discarding them as evidence is found. The reason creation in the last 10000 years has been tossed is that the evidence is against it.

If you teach that recent creation is a viable theory, you are no longer teaching science, you are teaching religion. That's perfectly okay, in a private religious school. It is not okay in a public school.

CREATION THEORIES ARE NOT SCIENCE, THEY ARE RELIGION.

No "secularist" has it out for your religion. They just want your religion (and all others) out of public schools.

RELIGION HAS NO PLACE IN A SCIENCE CLASS.

Religion is based on "faith", right? Science is based on evidence and demonstration. So why does your "faith" need some artificial, faked-up evidence? Isn't faith enough in and of itself?

[Huki]

How about instead of boycotting Laocoon, we boycott Anonymous instead? Registration is quick and painless.

[G. Ringo]

Extrapolating for millions of years from observations over a short period takes a lot of faith.

[Dr T Non-Fan]

Simple assumption required of Creation Theory that allows for dinosaurs and layers of rock, etc.:
Time is not constant.

Or, as an extension, and to channel a former poster: time does not exist; it was invented by humans. Discuss.