Charles Darwin film 'too controversial for religious America'

[HAL 9000 96]

It should never have the same platform as science, not in name or in education. In fact, I am having trouble allowing for creationism at all. It's like I am supposed to accept that people are allowed to lend credence to all sorts of ideas simply because one can pronounce some spiritual inspiration for it. Hello, that's insane!

Which is why theology is best served in a theology class and science is best served in a science class.

[pedroh 21]

it's not as baffling when you were raised in a country with a true separation of church and state. My beliefs and my reasoning are never at conflict, and I would think any well reasoned man can be a strong believer without any problem. I don't see I question a lot of things about the catholic faith... and, luckily I wasn't raised with a fundamentalist background, where I do have to agree 100% to it in order to be considered a 'true catholic', if someone was raised like that, good for them.. but, being religious does not equal to blindly agree to something

-Who is talking about Church and state and why do you keep steering in that direction?

-who questioned whether a well reasoned person could not be a believer in general?

-Who suggested one must agree 100% with the RCC to be a true believer?

Every time I think we are done with this sub-topic you keep throwing odd stuff up.. almost like you are debating yourself as they are points I never brought up.

My simple question was "How does one associate them self with a religion they (seemingly) have little in common with (save Capital punishment).

Now you claim:

"I don't see I question a lot of things about the catholic faith"

So let me ask ...(if you care to answer).

Do you agree with Church teaching on.....

Male only Priests?

Ban on Gay marriage?

Overall view of Homosexuality?

Abortion?

Birth control?

Pornography?

Celibate Priests?

Infallibility of the Pope?

Purgatory?

Immaculate Conception?

Virgin Birth?

Resurrection of Christ?

Assumption of Mary?

Miracles of Christ?

Do you recite the Apostles Creed... and believe it?

Actually Pedroh, I don't really ask you to answer these as it might be to personal but I would bet you would have a whole lot more "No's" (you don't agree or accept) than "yes" which if correct, does beg the question:

"What exactly is a Catholic anymore?".

is there a specific catholic model? if you're out of that model, or answer more NO's than YES', are you not considered a real catholic? do you have to blindly believe all the things that a religion tells you in order toe be cosnsidered a 'religious person'?

plus.. why are you changing the topic to religion, we're debating about the scientifical proof of evolution..

[Peikko 1,575]

It should never have the same platform as science, not in name or in education. In fact, I am having trouble allowing for creationism at all. It's like I am supposed to accept that people are allowed to lend credence to all sorts of ideas simply because one can pronounce some spiritual inspiration for it. Hello, that's insane!

Which is why theology is best served in a theology class and science is best served in a science class.

I would have trouble accepting creationism as theological. In the modern it's nothing but superstition in my book. One could of course have a very educational class about the emergence of belief systems and the historical context of biblical stories. That would even be interesting

Edited September 16, 2009 by Madame Cleo

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Joseph, like many Fundamentalists cannot get past believing in a literal understanding of the Book of Genesis. That's the brick wall that keeps them from accepting the Theory of Evolution.

Literal or not, what is the value of the Book of Genesis or any other book of the Bible?

What makes it more important to you than, say, the Book of Jack and The Beanstalk?

Both are fairy tales.

There is value in truth, which is what the Book of Genesis contains. Truth, however, is not synonymous with fact. That's where Fundamentalists get tripped up on.

[HAL 9000 96]

it's not as baffling when you were raised in a country with a true separation of church and state. My beliefs and my reasoning are never at conflict, and I would think any well reasoned man can be a strong believer without any problem. I don't see I question a lot of things about the catholic faith... and, luckily I wasn't raised with a fundamentalist background, where I do have to agree 100% to it in order to be considered a 'true catholic', if someone was raised like that, good for them.. but, being religious does not equal to blindly agree to something

-Who is talking about Church and state and why do you keep steering in that direction?

-who questioned whether a well reasoned person could not be a believer in general?

-Who suggested one must agree 100% with the RCC to be a true believer?

Every time I think we are done with this sub-topic you keep throwing odd stuff up.. almost like you are debating yourself as they are points I never brought up.

My simple question was "How does one associate them self with a religion they (seemingly) have little in common with (save Capital punishment).

Now you claim:

"I don't see I question a lot of things about the catholic faith"

So let me ask ...(if you care to answer).

Do you agree with Church teaching on.....

Male only Priests?

Ban on Gay marriage?

Overall view of Homosexuality?

Abortion?

Birth control?

Pornography?

Celibate Priests?

Infallibility of the Pope?

Purgatory?

Immaculate Conception?

Virgin Birth?

Resurrection of Christ?

Assumption of Mary?

Miracles of Christ?

Do you recite the Apostles Creed... and believe it?

Actually Pedroh, I don't really ask you to answer these as it might be to personal but I would bet you would have a whole lot more "No's" (you don't agree or accept) than "yes" which if correct, does beg the question:

"What exactly is a Catholic anymore?".

is there a specific catholic model? if you're out of that model, or answer more NO's than YES', are you not considered a real catholic? do you have to blindly believe all the things that a religion tells you in order toe be cosnsidered a 'religious person'?

plus.. why are you changing the topic to religion, we're debating about the scientifical proof of evolution..

Well stated. Opus Dei and SSPX are not on the same wavelengh as the Claretians and Vincentians, for example.

It should never have the same platform as science, not in name or in education. In fact, I am having trouble allowing for creationism at all. It's like I am supposed to accept that people are allowed to lend credence to all sorts of ideas simply because one can pronounce some spiritual inspiration for it. Hello, that's insane!

Which is why theology is best served in a theology class and science is best served in a science class.

I would have trouble accepting creationism as theological. In the modern it's nothing but superstition in my book. One could of course have a very educational class about the emergence of belief systems and the historical context of biblical stories. That would even be interesting

We can simplify it down to creationism = theology (fine) and (not vs) evolution/big bang = science (fine).

Its a matter of faith vs rational thought when we could get over these silly stupidities imposed on us by our beliefs and find the very best of both.

[Peikko 1,575]

I'm still struggling to allow for creationism in education. I can understand a contextual belief in such things from the times when little of the nature of the universe was understood, but in this day and age this type of belief is most certainly akin to believing now that the earth is flat. It's all very well to believe the earth is flat when no one had circumnavigated the world, but quite another again once people had done so not just once, but time, and time, and time again. Of course, until we actually left the earth and looked down on it, it could have been a moebius strip type trick, but now even that excuse is gone.

Edited September 16, 2009 by Madame Cleo

[pedroh 21]

well creationism as part of a Cosmogony class, of course, with other beliefs of other cultures would be interesting for a cultural studies subject.. but definitely not part of a science class

[Peikko 1,575]

You would create a space for it as a modern belief system, or only as part of an historical perspective? Historically, I can stomach it, but as part of a modern belief system? I am going with the 'not all opinions are equally valid' option on that one.

Edited September 16, 2009 by Madame Cleo

[mawilson 2,133]

Joseph, like many Fundamentalists cannot get past believing in a literal understanding of the Book of Genesis. That's the brick wall that keeps them from accepting the Theory of Evolution.

Literal or not, what is the value of the Book of Genesis or any other book of the Bible?

What makes it more important to you than, say, the Book of Jack and The Beanstalk?

Both are fairy tales.

There is value in truth, which is what the Book of Genesis contains. Truth, however, is not synonymous with fact. That's where Fundamentalists get tripped up on.

Truth? What truth? I don't get it.

[HAL 9000 96]

I'm still struggling to allow for creationism in education. I can understand a contextual belief in such things from the times when little of the nature of the universe was understood, but in this day and age this type of belief is most certainly akin to believing now that the earth is flat. It's all very well to believe the earth is flat when no one had circumnavigated the world, but quite another again once people had done so not just once, but time, and time, and time again. Of course, until we actually left the earth and looked down on it, it could have been a moebius strip type trick, but now even that excuse is gone.

As long as the class is a theology class... sure. Why not?

[Peikko 1,575]

Because it has no place in modern society. As a historical belief system, fine and dandy but as part of the modern world? Nope, crazy and scary crazy at that.

[HAL 9000 96]

You would create a space for it as a modern belief system, or only as part of an historical perspective? Historically, I can stomach it, but as part of a modern belief system? I am going with the 'not all opinions are equally valid' option on that one.

Its their right to learn about Creationism if they so chose. They do not have a right, however, to dictate science curricula if their viewpoint is theological in origin.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It certainly shouldn't have an equal platform, but if the 39% statistic is accurate, that's extremely disturbing and must say something about the standard of public education.

I don't think its any coincidence that slogans and party political soundbites are so prevalent in American politics - to me this comes out of the same stable.

[Peikko 1,575]

What I am saying is, study it as something that was, not as something that is now. Not all opinions are equally valid, not all opinions demand air time.

Rights smites. What about the right not to be indoctrinated into ignorance. If one wants to get there, one should have to forge ones own path. Every child should have that right in public schools.

Edited September 16, 2009 by Madame Cleo

[pedroh 21]

It certainly shouldn't have an equal platform, but if the 39% statistic is accurate, that's extremely disturbing and must say something about the standard of public education.

I don't think its any coincidence that slogans and party political soundbites are so prevalent in American politics - to me this comes out of the same stable.

hey it's America, if you don't like it, leave it

no really.. that is quite scary... to support ignorance is always quite scary