A Christian republic (POLL)

[knapplc]

I believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I want schools to teach my belief alongside accepted science and other religious beliefs.

 

This is OK with everyone, because I believe it. Teaching religious beliefs in school is a valuable way to spend our education dollars.

[funhusker]

 

 

 

BOSTON — At the rightmost edge of the Christian conservative movement, there are those who dream of turning the United States into a Christian republic subject to “biblical laws.” In the unlikely figure of Donald J. Trump, they hope to have found their greatest champion yet. He wasn’t “our preferred candidate,” the Christian nationalist David Barton said in June, but he could be “God’s candidate.”

Consider the president-elect’s first move on public education. Jerry Falwell Jr., the president of Liberty University, the largest Christian university in the nation, says that he was Mr. Trump’s first pick for secretary of education. Liberty University teaches creationism alongside evolution.

 

 

Ha ha! I like how the NY Times author throws in the sentence at the end about—dramatic pause—teaching C R E A T I O N I S M ! Like that's some sort of bad thing. Is it more open minded to teach creationism alongside evolution, or to only teach evolution?

Some of us just don't think it's that implausible for a higher power to have had a hand in creating our vast world that is teeming with life systems and organisms so incredibly complex that we are barely scratching the surface of understanding them. Is it more likely that (1) the universe was created and nurtured by a higher power of some sort?—or that (2) the universe sprang from a point of singularity which expanded greatly with conditions just right so that life sparked into existence and somehow became able to reproduce and eventually evolved into mankind and all life on earth?

What about those of us who think (1) is just as likely as (2)? Are there words in our Constitution that make (2) the official government position, and forbid us from studying (1)? Would such study be "respecting the establishment of religion"? Maybe we should have school vouchers so people are free to study these things without subsidizing those who prefer not to study them. At least that way those studying creationism wouldn't bother the ones who prefer not to ponder such things.

 

 

 

 

What you are describing is not what creationism is.

 

 

Yes, it is.

 

cre·a·tion·ism krēˈāSHəˌnizəm/ noun the belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution.

 

 

Evolution, on the other hand, is verified scientific theory with mountains and mountains and mountains of evidence and successful prediction modeling, so as to be without question.

 

 

 

Why do people always assume that evolution and creationism are mutually exclusive? Wouldn't an omniscient creator be smart enough to give plants and animals the ability to adapt over time?

 

 

Because a belief that the Earth is 10000 years old, and an evidence based theory that it is billions of years old ARE mutually exclusive.

 

Edit: "intelligent design" is all well and good, it's what I believe. But I don't see the need for it in Science class since there is no science behind it. Only religious faith. Now the idea of teaching "creationism", as in a literal Biblical timeline of 6000 or so years has zero place in a science classroom since there is "mountains and mountains and mountains" of evidence saying it is hogwash.

[zoogs]

The fundamental thesis here is that Betsy Davos, Trump's pick for education secretary, is pushing education reform with the personal goal of advancing the role of Christianity in American communities -- based on her statements, background, and history.

 

We can agree or disagree about how appropriate, positive, or nonalarming development this is for the public official at the head of the Department of Education.

 

If you believe the thesis is inaccurate about Ms. Davos, or if you believe the vast majority of Republicans will staunchly oppose her nomination, by all means, explain your position. Thus far the alarm in your own reaction to this has outweighed any such explanation.

[BigRedBuster]

I think she will obviously have a strong opinion towards implementing possibly some aspects of charter schools that hopefully can improve public schools.

 

She obviously can't go away with public schools and quite frankly, the vast majority of her job is to improve public schools. That's very different than a state legislature that really doesn't work directly with the school systems but just funds them.

 

Four years from now the vast majority of students will still be educated in public schools.

 

Her work before with charter schools was her chance to work directly with trying to improve education. We can argue all day if charter schools are good or bad.

 

However, now her job is to work with public schools.

 

Believe me, there are enough people in this country with access to the court system who would oppose her turning them into christian schools.

[BigRedBuster]

Am I just in love with this choice? No. But their are way worse choices in his administration to worry about.

[knapplc]

Am I just in love with this choice? No. But their are way worse choices in his administration to worry about.

 

We could walk and chew gum at the same time.

[zoogs]

Do we have different ideas of what "school choice" means?

 

To me it's at least the decline in the prevalence of public schooling by promoting the use of public funds to be used as "school choice vouchers" for private school tuition. The obvious benefit to the Davos agenda being that in many parts of the country, this would mean public funds being spent on religious school tuition.

 

To be absolutely clear I have no problem with the existence of a Catholic private high school. I would have a problem with public money being used to pay for sending kids there.

 

Here's coverage on how it was run in Indiana under Mike Pence. So, I have serious reservations both about the expansion of these tactics, and of the intent behind it. And I do not believe it's inaccurate to surmise that this is how Ms. Davos intends to steer the Dept. of Education. Indeed, I find the notion that she would play a traditional and status quo role in her new position very hard to credit. If those were indeed Trump's intentions, he would nominate someone in a more traditional mold -- who perhaps has a background in education administration.

 

I mean, the job of the EPA head, one might say, is to improve the protection of the environment. It's fair to surmise different intentions there based on the choice, wouldn't you say?

[NUance]

 

 

 

 

BOSTON — At the rightmost edge of the Christian conservative movement, there are those who dream of turning the United States into a Christian republic subject to “biblical laws.” In the unlikely figure of Donald J. Trump, they hope to have found their greatest champion yet. He wasn’t “our preferred candidate,” the Christian nationalist David Barton said in June, but he could be “God’s candidate.”

Consider the president-elect’s first move on public education. Jerry Falwell Jr., the president of Liberty University, the largest Christian university in the nation, says that he was Mr. Trump’s first pick for secretary of education. Liberty University teaches creationism alongside evolution.

 

 

Ha ha! I like how the NY Times author throws in the sentence at the end about—dramatic pause—teaching C R E A T I O N I S M ! Like that's some sort of bad thing. Is it more open minded to teach creationism alongside evolution, or to only teach evolution?

Some of us just don't think it's that implausible for a higher power to have had a hand in creating our vast world that is teeming with life systems and organisms so incredibly complex that we are barely scratching the surface of understanding them. Is it more likely that (1) the universe was created and nurtured by a higher power of some sort?—or that (2) the universe sprang from a point of singularity which expanded greatly with conditions just right so that life sparked into existence and somehow became able to reproduce and eventually evolved into mankind and all life on earth?

What about those of us who think (1) is just as likely as (2)? Are there words in our Constitution that make (2) the official government position, and forbid us from studying (1)? Would such study be "respecting the establishment of religion"? Maybe we should have school vouchers so people are free to study these things without subsidizing those who prefer not to study them. At least that way those studying creationism wouldn't bother the ones who prefer not to ponder such things.

 

 

 

 

What you are describing is not what creationism is.

 

 

Yes, it is.

 

cre·a·tion·ism krēˈāSHəˌnizəm/ noun the belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution.

 

 

Evolution, on the other hand, is verified scientific theory with mountains and mountains and mountains of evidence and successful prediction modeling, so as to be without question.

 

 

 

Why do people always assume that evolution and creationism are mutually exclusive? Wouldn't an omniscient creator be smart enough to give plants and animals the ability to adapt over time?

 

 

Because a belief that the Earth is 10000 years old, and an evidence based theory that it is billions of years old ARE mutually exclusive.

 

Edit: "intelligent design" is all well and good, it's what I believe. But I don't see the need for it in Science class since there is no science behind it. Only religious faith. Now the idea of teaching "creationism", as in a literal Biblical timeline of 6000 or so years has zero place in a science classroom since there is "mountains and mountains and mountains" of evidence saying it is hogwash.

 

 

Perhaps you should let the good folks that wrote the dictionary definition above LINK know about the 10,000 year constraint. Then they could change the definition they publish so you will be correct.

 

Is their a definition of creationism that requires a belief that the earth is 10,000 years old? (I'm asking for real. I don't know of one.)

[Saunders]

Do we have different ideas of what "school choice" means?

 

To me it's at least the decline in the prevalence of public schooling by promoting the use of public funds to be used as "school choice vouchers" for private school tuition. The obvious benefit to the Davos agenda being that in many parts of the country, this would mean public funds being spent on religious school tuition.

 

To be absolutely clear I have no problem with the existence of a Catholic private high school. I would have a problem with public money being used to pay for sending kids there.

 

Here's coverage on how it was run in Indiana under Mike Pence. So, I have serious reservations both about the expansion of these tactics, and of the intent behind it. And I do not believe it's inaccurate to surmise that this is how Ms. Davos intends to steer the Dept. of Education. Indeed, I find the notion that she would play a traditional and status quo role in her new position very hard to credit. If those were indeed Trump's intentions, he would nominate someone in a more traditional mold -- who perhaps has a background in education administration.

 

I mean, the job of the EPA head, one might say, is to improve the protection of the environment. It's fair to surmise different intentions there based on the choice, wouldn't you say?

If you have a problem with giving public funds to private schools, you can discard the vouchers and just give parents a tax credit instead since they're already paying for the local schools.

 

I've gone to both public and private schools, and my oldest kid goes to a public school (1st grade) and my youngest goes to a private school/daycare. Each area is different, and people should be able to choose. For me, I remember my private schooling being much, much better from a learning standpoint than public school. When my parents could no longer afford it and I had to go to public school, I was so far ahead of the other kids, it lead to me slacking off because I wasn't learning.

 

I'm thankful that our public schools here are really good though. It saves me a ton of money.

[funhusker]

 

 

 

 

 

BOSTON — At the rightmost edge of the Christian conservative movement, there are those who dream of turning the United States into a Christian republic subject to “biblical laws.” In the unlikely figure of Donald J. Trump, they hope to have found their greatest champion yet. He wasn’t “our preferred candidate,” the Christian nationalist David Barton said in June, but he could be “God’s candidate.”

Consider the president-elect’s first move on public education. Jerry Falwell Jr., the president of Liberty University, the largest Christian university in the nation, says that he was Mr. Trump’s first pick for secretary of education. Liberty University teaches creationism alongside evolution.

 

 

Ha ha! I like how the NY Times author throws in the sentence at the end about—dramatic pause—teaching C R E A T I O N I S M ! Like that's some sort of bad thing. Is it more open minded to teach creationism alongside evolution, or to only teach evolution?

Some of us just don't think it's that implausible for a higher power to have had a hand in creating our vast world that is teeming with life systems and organisms so incredibly complex that we are barely scratching the surface of understanding them. Is it more likely that (1) the universe was created and nurtured by a higher power of some sort?—or that (2) the universe sprang from a point of singularity which expanded greatly with conditions just right so that life sparked into existence and somehow became able to reproduce and eventually evolved into mankind and all life on earth?

What about those of us who think (1) is just as likely as (2)? Are there words in our Constitution that make (2) the official government position, and forbid us from studying (1)? Would such study be "respecting the establishment of religion"? Maybe we should have school vouchers so people are free to study these things without subsidizing those who prefer not to study them. At least that way those studying creationism wouldn't bother the ones who prefer not to ponder such things.

 

 

 

 

What you are describing is not what creationism is.

 

 

Yes, it is.

 

cre·a·tion·ism krēˈāSHəˌnizəm/ noun the belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution.

 

 

Evolution, on the other hand, is verified scientific theory with mountains and mountains and mountains of evidence and successful prediction modeling, so as to be without question.

 

 

 

Why do people always assume that evolution and creationism are mutually exclusive? Wouldn't an omniscient creator be smart enough to give plants and animals the ability to adapt over time?

 

 

Because a belief that the Earth is 10000 years old, and an evidence based theory that it is billions of years old ARE mutually exclusive.

 

Edit: "intelligent design" is all well and good, it's what I believe. But I don't see the need for it in Science class since there is no science behind it. Only religious faith. Now the idea of teaching "creationism", as in a literal Biblical timeline of 6000 or so years has zero place in a science classroom since there is "mountains and mountains and mountains" of evidence saying it is hogwash.

 

 

Perhaps you should let the good folks that wrote the dictionary definition above LINK know about the 10,000 year constraint. Then they could change the definition they publish so you will be correct.

 

Is their a definition of creationism that requires a belief that the earth is 10,000 years old? (I'm asking for real. I don't know of one.)

 

Nuance, it isn't about the Webster definition. It is about people teaching a literal Biblical history because "they can".

 

http://creation.com/6000-years

[BigRedBuster]

It's their school and they are teaching it along side evolution.

[Landlord]

NUance, the dictionary definition is not helpful here. When we are talking about creationism within the context of discussions centered around politics/policy/public education, this is what we're talking about, as it encompasses the vast majority of "creationist" thought:

 

 

 

 

Young Earth creationism (YEC) is the religious belief[1] that the Universe, Earth and all life on Earth were created by direct acts of God less than 10,000 years ago.[2] Its primary adherents are those Christians who subscribe to a literal interpretation of the creation narrative in the Bible's Book of Genesis and believe that God created the Earth in six 24-hour days.[3][4] In contrast to YEC, old Earth creationism is the belief in a metaphorical interpretation of the Book of Genesis and the scientifically-determined estimated ages of the Earth and Universe.[5]

 

Since the mid-20th century, young Earth creationists—starting with Henry Morris (1918–2006)—have devised and promoted a pseudoscientific explanation called "creation science" as a basis for a religious belief in a supernatural, geologically recent creation.[6] Evidence from numerous scientific disciplines contradicts YEC, showing the age of the universe as 13.8 billion years, the formation of the Earth as at least 4.5 billion years ago, and the first appearance of life on Earth as occurring at least 3.5 billion years ago.[7][8][9][10][11]

 

 

 

Also, how can you ask, "Why do people always assume that evolution and creationism are mutually exclusive?" when the definition that you linked included a sentence saying, "...rather than by natural processes such as evolution."?

 

It's fine to believe in creationism if you want. Any kind of creationism. But that is a spiritual belief - it is not, whatsoever, a scientific believe, and thus doesn't have room in a public curriculum.

[TonyStalloni]

The fundamental thesis here is that Betsy Davos, Trump's pick for education secretary, is pushing education reform with the personal goal of advancing the role of Christianity in American communities -- based on her statements, background, and history.

 

We can agree or disagree about how appropriate, positive, or nonalarming development this is for the public official at the head of the Department of Education.

 

If you believe the thesis is inaccurate about Ms. Davos, or if you believe the vast majority of Republicans will staunchly oppose her nomination, by all means, explain your position. Thus far the alarm in your own reaction to this has outweighed any such explanation.

Sorry Zoogs...“we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy." Good old Nancy Pelosi said it first so it must be true.

[The Dude]

 

BOSTON — At the rightmost edge of the Christian conservative movement, there are those who dream of turning the United States into a Christian republic subject to “biblical laws.” In the unlikely figure of Donald J. Trump, they hope to have found their greatest champion yet. He wasn’t “our preferred candidate,” the Christian nationalist David Barton said in June, but he could be “God’s candidate.”

 

Consider the president-elect’s first move on public education. Jerry Falwell Jr., the president of Liberty University, the largest Christian university in the nation, says that he was Mr. Trump’s first pick for secretary of education. Liberty University teaches creationism alongside evolution.

 

 

Ha ha! I like how the NY Times author throws in the sentence at the end about—dramatic pause—teaching C R E A T I O N I S M ! Like that's some sort of bad thing. Is it more open minded to teach creationism alongside evolution, or to only teach evolution?

 

Some of us just don't think it's that implausible for a higher power to have had a hand in creating our vast world that is teeming with life systems and organisms so incredibly complex that we are barely scratching the surface of understanding them. Is it more likely that (1) the universe was created and nurtured by a higher power of some sort?—or that (2) the universe sprang from a point of singularity which expanded greatly with conditions just right so that life sparked into existence and somehow became able to reproduce and eventually evolved into mankind and all life on earth?

 

What about those of us who think (1) is just as likely as (2)? Are there words in our Constitution that make (2) the official government position, and forbid us from studying (1)? Would such study be "respecting the establishment of religion"? Maybe we should have school vouchers so people are free to study these things without subsidizing those who prefer not to study them. At least that way those studying creationism wouldn't bother the ones who prefer not to ponder such things.

Jesus Christ.

[JJ Husker]

This is so out of control it's laughable. Vouchers=Religion based education for everyone?

 

Like unreligious people are all of a sudden going to send their little Johnnys and Sallys to a religious school because they can use that voucher anywhere. What a joke. All vouchers do is give families the opportunity to attend any school they want, letting those who need a better option obtain it and, yes in some cases, helping Christian (or whatever religion) parents send their childRen to a religious school that traditionally charge for attendance. Can somebody explain to me the inherent problem with giving people more options for the educational choice and preference? Or do we need to force kids into secular education even where it sucks? Seems some people fear presenting more information.