Originally posted by twhitehead
And for this reason, it is probably best to keep the teachings of known religious personalities out of Schools as there will undoubtedly be conflict over which teachings to allow.
There again "known religious personalities" is very much in the eye of the beholder.
I think astronomer Carl Sagan could be called a "religious personality" for stating that the Cosmos is all that is or that ever was or the ever will be.
That's a pure statement of religious devotion to his ideology. He has a replacement for God, the Cosmos. Many of us would consider that an idol, a replacement for God and a "religious" teaching. Some might regard it as Pantheism.
I have seen on some TV science programs the announcer preaching that we all came from stars. Technically it is true that the substance of our bodies all came from stars. But he seemed to be seizing upon the matter to suggest that physical products of stars are all that we are and we owe our origin to stars even in a spiritual way.
Such an science show personality could be described as a religious personality as well. Stars take the place of a Creator God.
Nevertheless, evolution is not a religion, and teaching it in school is not promoting a religion.
To many people it is. Forget about refering to Wikapedia or the Dictionary. To some people Evolution is a secular religion.
I was specifically referring to the promotion of a specific religion which I believe is not allowed under your constitution.
You are referring to religion and "religious personalities".
Allah or Vishnu or Jehovah may be termed "religious personalities". But teaching that the universe had a beginning implies to most logical people, I think, that there was a Beginner - anyway Somebody bigger than you and I.
I doubt the US will encode in the Constitution that a beginning of the universe cannot be good science because it implies God with many people.
I don't see soon a enforcement that good Science about a cosmological beginning of the universe cannot be taught because it violates the separation of church and state.
Albania, under the Soviet block, had its official religion stated as Atheism.
The US is not that far into anti-theism yet at least.
There is a Supreme Court ruling that says something to the effect that religious implications cannot be grounds to keep good science out of the class room.
Good science cannot be kept out of the class room merely because some of its findings have "religious" implications.
Some Americans interpret "Freedom of Religion" to be "Freedom From Religion".
A state mandated religion is forbidden by our constitution.
any explanation of the origin of the universe or life that shows scientific integrity and credibility can be taught, regardless of theological implications.
The US Constitution cannot be forced to keep good science out, nor to force bad science in.
A free market environment for science education ..."
Some Christian lost Court cases because they were trying to force bad science in. The US Constitution cannot always be relied upon to keep out good science that may have certain theological implications.
And in my opinion within the next 20 to 30 years Intelligent Design as Science will probably make inroads in some states. Some people, including myself, think ID has theological implications, specific "religious personalities" not explicitly endorsed. But I agree that it does not necessarily have to imply "religious personalities". The intelligent agents of nature could be something else beside an intelligent deity.
I would advize you not to gloat prematurely over the state of things in the United States concerning what is taught in Public Schools.
It may be forbidden to proclaim Yahweh or Allah ("religious personalities" ) as the Creator specifically. But good science with what you like to term as "religious" implications are hard to eradicate from our democracy.
I do not think the meaning is as flexible as you would like to make out. Even you would have to admit that the teaching of Theory of Evolution in school does not constitute the promotion of a religion.
Of course you don't.
And on the second point, as long as there are people like Richard Dawkins selling books as best sellers in the US, no, I would not agree that the teaching of Evolution does not promote a religion. What some people propose as a replacement for God can be thought of as religious in spite of what you say.
And a "secular" religion of Atheism or a "secular" religious zeal for macro Evolution in spite of scientific evidence for macro evolution, some people will rightly peg as promotion of religion.
Big Bang cosmology cannot be forced out of the schools because for many it certainly has "religious" implications and conceivably points towards "religious personalities".
And I would say the same thing goes for other disciplines in the humanities.
Now if I lost your line of logic somewhere let me just sum up my reaction to your entire general attitude here -
For me it is more rationale that I love God and serve God as a proper human being than not. To be a proper human being, I think it is far less rationale to be an Atheist or Anti-theist.
This is my general reply to your entire presence in the Spirituality Forum no matter what the subject matter shifts to be from time to time.
Proper human reasoning includes God. Improper human reasoning (whatever the subject matter) excludes God's existence from its thought process.
And as you said you ignore quickly with my preaching, I have a similar feeling towards your posts as well.