The Mysterious Disappearance of Freedom of Religion
Stardate 4657.9
Intelligent Design. I am not sure what sort of case folks would have against me saying this is a religious viewpoint and has little scientific basis. Some thing created everything. A great intelligence, deity or whatnot. Religious if you ask me. It is a view shared by millions around the world and is an entirely plausible view when compared to many other views. Evolution? Very scientific to be sure. The Flying Spaghetti Monster and his noodly appendage? The Great Green Arkleseizure sneezing the universe out of it's nose? All valid views on the creation of life, and the universe.
But what do we teach our children? The debate is raging still in the US, as to whether or not this "Intelligent Design" as it is so aptly labelled, should be taught alongside Evolution in science class. I fail to see how a religious view can be taught in science. I fail to see any scientific basis for the theory, so why is there a debate? This is great if you are a born again Christian from Texas, but what if you are not? If they decide that it must be taught in classrooms, then freedom of religion is a thing of the past. By teaching this theory in classrooms, they are forcing a religious viewpoint on children, most of which are at an amazingly impressionable age. This is not right.Religion Faith is something that should be self-discovered, thought out, and reflected upon, not preached in a public school system that should be imparting scientific fact and ideas on children.
Where does it end though? This is one of the big debates now, but politicians all over th eUS are wielding their bibles alongside their microphones. Whether it is debate on anti-choice for abortion, or whether it is saying "under God" in a historic vow, the fact is, Christianity is rearing itself up more and more often in the political decision making process of the US administration. It is absolutely loony to suggest that "under God" only means a Christian God. I fail to understand why there is even an issue with it. They could remove it very easily, and save the entire debate, or they could just agree that my God is included alongside their God (even though my God is way cooler...).
Recently, I read a quote from another story about ex-Judge Roy "Ten Commandments" Moore who was a religious right hero after he refused to remove a monument of the Ten Commandments from his courthouse. He is running for the position of Alabama governor in 2006 apparently. Now the quote went somethign like this (emphasis added by myself):
God is not the source of government. God is not the source of liberty. If God was the source of law, then no man would kill another man. No man would willfully invade another country for greed. Especially the very men who cling desperately to a book that was written 2000 years ago. A christian politician saying God is the sovereign source of government is removing the freedom of religion from the rest of the people. Is this not what the West is trying to remove from the Middle East? The massive religious influence on budding democratic nations? Or is it just removing non-christian religious influence? I always thought that the government was elected by the people or their representatives. The only influence I see is that God may cause a blizzard to stop some people from going out to vote...
The new Supreme Court nominee that Bush has picked is yet another born-again christian with strong convictions towards anti-choice abortion. I have nothing against politicians being Christian, born again, or any other religion, but it is quickly going to erode into another ally int he wilful purge of religious freedom. Laws are being created and passed, based on ONE religious belief system. It should be a democratic government decision and social issues which decide laws, not a religion.
Recently in Canada, Paul Martin and the Liberal minority government passed a bill that legalises gay marriage across our great land. Martin is a devout Roman Catholic and has the good sense to keep his personal religious beliefs out of politics. The Roman Catholic church wants to punish him now, by removing his right to receive communion. Well he did the RIGHT thing. Instead of forcing his personal religious beliefs on a population that largely disagrees with them, he and the government made a choice based on the Charter of Human Rights, and what Canada was telling them. That is the source of government after all. The people. Right?
And now, children everywhere could be learning how God created everything in science class, and that they should go to church on sunday, and when they grow up, they can invade Arab countries because they are pagans.
Intelligent Design. I am not sure what sort of case folks would have against me saying this is a religious viewpoint and has little scientific basis. Some thing created everything. A great intelligence, deity or whatnot. Religious if you ask me. It is a view shared by millions around the world and is an entirely plausible view when compared to many other views. Evolution? Very scientific to be sure. The Flying Spaghetti Monster and his noodly appendage? The Great Green Arkleseizure sneezing the universe out of it's nose? All valid views on the creation of life, and the universe.
But what do we teach our children? The debate is raging still in the US, as to whether or not this "Intelligent Design" as it is so aptly labelled, should be taught alongside Evolution in science class. I fail to see how a religious view can be taught in science. I fail to see any scientific basis for the theory, so why is there a debate? This is great if you are a born again Christian from Texas, but what if you are not? If they decide that it must be taught in classrooms, then freedom of religion is a thing of the past. By teaching this theory in classrooms, they are forcing a religious viewpoint on children, most of which are at an amazingly impressionable age. This is not right.
Where does it end though? This is one of the big debates now, but politicians all over th eUS are wielding their bibles alongside their microphones. Whether it is debate on anti-choice for abortion, or whether it is saying "under God" in a historic vow, the fact is, Christianity is rearing itself up more and more often in the political decision making process of the US administration. It is absolutely loony to suggest that "under God" only means a Christian God. I fail to understand why there is even an issue with it. They could remove it very easily, and save the entire debate, or they could just agree that my God is included alongside their God (even though my God is way cooler...).
Recently, I read a quote from another story about ex-Judge Roy "Ten Commandments" Moore who was a religious right hero after he refused to remove a monument of the Ten Commandments from his courthouse. He is running for the position of Alabama governor in 2006 apparently. Now the quote went somethign like this (emphasis added by myself):
"But I'll tell you what I will do. I will defend the right of every citizen of this state -- including judges, coaches, teachers, city, county and state officials -- to acknowledge God as the sovereign source of law, liberty and government," he said.
God is not the source of government. God is not the source of liberty. If God was the source of law, then no man would kill another man. No man would willfully invade another country for greed. Especially the very men who cling desperately to a book that was written 2000 years ago. A christian politician saying God is the sovereign source of government is removing the freedom of religion from the rest of the people. Is this not what the West is trying to remove from the Middle East? The massive religious influence on budding democratic nations? Or is it just removing non-christian religious influence? I always thought that the government was elected by the people or their representatives. The only influence I see is that God may cause a blizzard to stop some people from going out to vote...
The new Supreme Court nominee that Bush has picked is yet another born-again christian with strong convictions towards anti-choice abortion. I have nothing against politicians being Christian, born again, or any other religion, but it is quickly going to erode into another ally int he wilful purge of religious freedom. Laws are being created and passed, based on ONE religious belief system. It should be a democratic government decision and social issues which decide laws, not a religion.
Recently in Canada, Paul Martin and the Liberal minority government passed a bill that legalises gay marriage across our great land. Martin is a devout Roman Catholic and has the good sense to keep his personal religious beliefs out of politics. The Roman Catholic church wants to punish him now, by removing his right to receive communion. Well he did the RIGHT thing. Instead of forcing his personal religious beliefs on a population that largely disagrees with them, he and the government made a choice based on the Charter of Human Rights, and what Canada was telling them. That is the source of government after all. The people. Right?
And now, children everywhere could be learning how God created everything in science class, and that they should go to church on sunday, and when they grow up, they can invade Arab countries because they are pagans.
posted by Zaphod at 8:20 AM
<< Home