Something good could come of a Tory government in the UK, it seems. The party wants to do away with schools that teach creationism as if it were science.
Michael Gove, the party’s shadow schools secretary, told BBC1’s Andrew Marr that “fundamentalist groups” who taught in a way that undermined “democratic values” would be challenged, and if necessary, closed down.
according to the think tank Ekklesia.
“To my mind you cannot have a school which teaches creationism,” he told the presenter. “And one thing that we will make absolutely clear is that you can not have schools that are set up which teach people things which are clearly at variance with what we know to be scientific fact.
“But critically, inspection is key here,” he continued. “We do have some schools at the moment – independent schools – that have been set up by religious groups. You mentioned Islamic groups. Let’s be clear, there are other fundamentalist groups as well which have schools in the private sector. If those schools are properly regulated and inspected, then we can ensure that anyone who teaches in a way that undermines our democratic values can be brought to public light, challenged, and if necessary, closed down.”
Showing posts with label Creationism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Creationism. Show all posts
Monday, 15 February 2010
Monday, 26 October 2009
Not such intelligent design . . .
Do more than half of British parents really think so-called intelligent design and creationism should be taught in school science lessons?
A survey that the Guardian is citing seems to say so.
If it’s true, then evolution isn’t all it’s cracked up to be, because 54 per cent of the British parents polled don’t seem to have evolved much in the brains department.
However, the statement these parents agreed with, as the Guardian has it, is this: “Evolutionary theories should be taught in science lessons in schools together with other possible perspectives, such as intelligent design and creationism.”
That’s not the same as saying creationism and intelligent design should be taught alongside evolutionary theories. The statement seems to be saying that intelligent design and creationism are going to be taught anyway, and do you think it would be a good idea to have evolution taught at the same time?
One assumes that the Ipsos Mori survey – which questioned 11,768 adults from 10 countries – was a bit more comprehensive in its questioning, but the Guardian story doesn’t make it very clear.
Was there a statement, for instance, that asked you to agree or disagree along the lines of “There should be no place for creationism or intelligent design in the school curriculum”?
Or, better still, “Those who believe in creationism are lunatics. Are you one of them?”
On second thoughts, that might not be an entirely fair question.
A survey that the Guardian is citing seems to say so.
If it’s true, then evolution isn’t all it’s cracked up to be, because 54 per cent of the British parents polled don’t seem to have evolved much in the brains department.
However, the statement these parents agreed with, as the Guardian has it, is this: “Evolutionary theories should be taught in science lessons in schools together with other possible perspectives, such as intelligent design and creationism.”
That’s not the same as saying creationism and intelligent design should be taught alongside evolutionary theories. The statement seems to be saying that intelligent design and creationism are going to be taught anyway, and do you think it would be a good idea to have evolution taught at the same time?
One assumes that the Ipsos Mori survey – which questioned 11,768 adults from 10 countries – was a bit more comprehensive in its questioning, but the Guardian story doesn’t make it very clear.
Was there a statement, for instance, that asked you to agree or disagree along the lines of “There should be no place for creationism or intelligent design in the school curriculum”?
Or, better still, “Those who believe in creationism are lunatics. Are you one of them?”
On second thoughts, that might not be an entirely fair question.
Thursday, 13 August 2009
When the gods had a disco
“The quarrel between religion and evolution has taken an interesting turn,” writes William Saletan in the Slate. “Instead of attacking religion, some Darwinists have embraced it as a product of human evolution. Now they’re debating to what extent this evolution was biological.”
Catholics are fond of telling us that they accept evolution and other aspects of science. They see them as much a part of God’s creation as the “miracles” of the New Testament, the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection.
So for scientists specialising in evolution to look at that idea seems logical. Religion could have had some implications for survival, so it would have been incorporated into our being.
Certainly, some of the things believed in by religionists would have had explanatory value in the past. That awful racket in the sky must have been the gods having a disco, yes? What else?
Catholics are fond of telling us that they accept evolution and other aspects of science. They see them as much a part of God’s creation as the “miracles” of the New Testament, the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection.
So for scientists specialising in evolution to look at that idea seems logical. Religion could have had some implications for survival, so it would have been incorporated into our being.
Certainly, some of the things believed in by religionists would have had explanatory value in the past. That awful racket in the sky must have been the gods having a disco, yes? What else?
Tuesday, 23 June 2009
The preposterous Mr Poots
Unless he’s changed his wacky views since I last read anything about him, Northern Ireland has as its Environment Minister a man with some strange notions. His name is Edwin Poots.
Apart from his rather cute and memorable monker, Mr Poots has weird ideas – ideas that make you wonder what sort of environment he thinks he’s presiding over.
For Mr Poots, you see, believes that the world was created in six days, until the Lord got knackered and shagged out and decided to put his feet up for a day (and who can blame the old geezer?).
Then God had a change of mind, and decided to use his spare time to create some pillocks.
Unless Mr Poots has changed his wacky views, Mr Poots is one of them.
Apart from his rather cute and memorable monker, Mr Poots has weird ideas – ideas that make you wonder what sort of environment he thinks he’s presiding over.
For Mr Poots, you see, believes that the world was created in six days, until the Lord got knackered and shagged out and decided to put his feet up for a day (and who can blame the old geezer?).
Then God had a change of mind, and decided to use his spare time to create some pillocks.
Unless Mr Poots has changed his wacky views, Mr Poots is one of them.
Tuesday, 9 June 2009
Does God hate penguins too?
Everyboby loves a penguin, except maybe the creepy one in Wallace & Gromit's The Wrong Trousers. But in Bremerhaven Zoo, in northern Germany, two homosexual penguins have hatched an egg that was abandoned and are now rearing the chick.
All together now: "Ahhhhhhh!"
"Z and Vielpunkt, both males, gladly accepted their Easter present and began straight away with hatching the egg," the zoo said. "They are behaving in the same way as one would expect a heterosexual couple to" (bickering, presumably, and arguing over the remote control). "Both happy fathers are now diligently handling the everyday care of their adopted offspring," the zoo announced.
Z and Vielpunkt are part of a six-strong gay community among the zoo’s collection of endangered Humboldt penguins. In 2005 four Swedish females were introduced in an unsuccessful and controversial attempt to "cure" them, but the six males just flounced off muttering something about fish.
If barking mad evangelical Christians insist that God Hates Fags, then presumably God hates Z and Vielpunkt and the rest of the gay penguins who have turned Bremerhaven into an outpost of the Castro too!
Yet if homosexuality isn't "natural", how come we see it occurring naturally in penguins and many other species, like apes and dolphins? They do not have free will and therefore haven't chosen to deviate from God's pre-ordained sexual path. Their behaviour is motivated by natural instinct.
"Homosexuality is nothing unusual among animals," said the Bremerhaven zoo spokesman. "Sex and coupling up in our world do not necessarily have anything to do with reproduction."
This demolishes the argument of Christian numpties everywhere that homosexuality is unnatural. It clearly is natural and has always been part of the evolutionary journey on Planet Earth, no doubt playing some vital role in securing the sociability and success of the higher species, including mankind.
If God Hates Fags, then He hates all mankind and everything else He created, which begs the question, why did the silly old sky-fairy bother with the Creation in the first place?
Tuesday, 31 March 2009
Did Darwin kill God?
Science and the Bible are incompatible, but the book can usefully be read as fiction in parts.
A campaign is now under way to convince people that religion and the fact of evolution by natural selection are compatible. They are not. Indeed there is a programme called Did Darwin Kill God? tonight on BBC2 TV to convince people of the notion that the two are compatible.
Evolution is compatible with religion but not evolution by natural selection. An element of chance is central to natural selection but any element of chance would destroy a detailed plan of any god.
It is necessary to choose between the facts of science and religious fiction.
A campaign is now under way to convince people that religion and the fact of evolution by natural selection are compatible. They are not. Indeed there is a programme called Did Darwin Kill God? tonight on BBC2 TV to convince people of the notion that the two are compatible.
Evolution is compatible with religion but not evolution by natural selection. An element of chance is central to natural selection but any element of chance would destroy a detailed plan of any god.
It is necessary to choose between the facts of science and religious fiction.
Tuesday, 27 January 2009
All things vile and horrible . . .
It’s now emerged that the conservationist, TV presenter and documentary maker Sir David Attenborough (pictured) gets hate mail because he doesn’t credit God for all things bright and beautiful in the world.
“They tell me to burn in hell, and good riddance,” he says.
When viewers ask him why he doesn’t credit God for the flora and fauna, “They always mean beautiful things like hummingbirds. I always reply by saying that I think of a little child in East Africa with a worm burrowing through his eyeball. The worm cannot live in any other way, except by burrowing through eyeballs. I find that hard to reconcile with the notion of a divine and benevolent creator.”
Quite! And a few other things, too. I mean a lot of other things. Scores. Hundreds. Too numerous to mention.
Well said, Sir David!
The Telegraph tells us:
In an interview with the Radio Times, Sir David, 82, attacked the “terrible, terrible” fact that some British state schools are allowed to teach children that creationism and evolution have equal merit.
“It’s like saying that two and two equals four but, if you wish it, it could also be five. This is one of the errors. Evolution is not a theory. It is a fact, every bit as much as the historical fact that William the Conqueror landed in 1066. Indeed, more so, because all we have to tell us about William are a few bits of paper here or there – not very much at all. For evolution we have much more evidence: palaeontology, embryology, biology, geology.
“Darwin revolutionised the way we see the world fundamentally, but his basic proposition is still not taken on board by a lot of people.” Sir David acknowledged, however, that “it would be a very bold scientist, and certainly not me, who believes it’s the be-all and end-all”.
Tuesday, 6 January 2009
In the beginning . . .
How do you define creatoinism? We know what most people understand by the term: they mean hard creationism, the world made literally in six days some six thousand years ago, and all that (even if they don't believe it literally).
Then we get so-called intelligent design. All this means, surely, is that the world did come about as a result of conscious creation, but has evolved the way our science tells us is the most likely scenario. It just had a guide, that’s all, a creator.
So far, so seemingly reasonable.
In today’s Guardian, however, Thomas Crowley seems to be making the case for teaching this in schools, although he does add that
However, he ends thus:
OK, so we can’t explain how the universe evolved from nothing (if it did), so let’s put forward another half-baked theory, and say that, since we can’t explain it, we'll allow this theory into our thinking. Why should creationism – even of the “soft” variety that would let in some of our current scientific explanations – trump the idea that the universe is just, say, a big thought in the brain of a turtle?
What Crowley doesn’t say is that scientists dismiss creationism not because they can’t prove there’s no god (no one can prove there’s no god), but because the theories we have make more sense, and over the centuries have methodically dismissed theories that preceded them – theories that would have seemed the only logical explanation at the time until knowledge filled the gaps.
By all means let’s cover in class the fact that many people believe in this stuff. That, after all, is part of studying belief. However, it’s worth repeating something we said last September:
Then we get so-called intelligent design. All this means, surely, is that the world did come about as a result of conscious creation, but has evolved the way our science tells us is the most likely scenario. It just had a guide, that’s all, a creator.
So far, so seemingly reasonable.
In today’s Guardian, however, Thomas Crowley seems to be making the case for teaching this in schools, although he does add that
it should still take only a small amount of total class time to discuss. And it is essential for any teacher to point out that, even if “soft creationism” and “intelligent design” are true, they cannot be considered science until they make predictions that can be falsified.
However, he ends thus:
But as long as science cannot explain how our universe evolved from nothing, scientists should not be so quick to dismiss the “soft form” of creationism. And the subject certainly does not warrant arrogance from those who seem to think that scientific materialism is the only logical option for the 21st century.
OK, so we can’t explain how the universe evolved from nothing (if it did), so let’s put forward another half-baked theory, and say that, since we can’t explain it, we'll allow this theory into our thinking. Why should creationism – even of the “soft” variety that would let in some of our current scientific explanations – trump the idea that the universe is just, say, a big thought in the brain of a turtle?
What Crowley doesn’t say is that scientists dismiss creationism not because they can’t prove there’s no god (no one can prove there’s no god), but because the theories we have make more sense, and over the centuries have methodically dismissed theories that preceded them – theories that would have seemed the only logical explanation at the time until knowledge filled the gaps.
By all means let’s cover in class the fact that many people believe in this stuff. That, after all, is part of studying belief. However, it’s worth repeating something we said last September:
So let’s talk about creationism in class. It’s an itch waiting to be scratched. It’s there. You can’t avoid it. It’s part of the “where did we come from?” question. But it should have been nipped in the bud in early schooling, like the existence of Santa Claus and fairies at the bottom of the garden and a moon made of green cheese and little green men on Mars.
It is a useful vehicle for exploring how early people probably formed models of the world and had to fill in the gaps. But let’s not waste too much time on it in science lessons that should be spent exploring science and the scientific method.
Friday, 7 November 2008
Creationism in the classroom
About a third of British teachers think creationism or its pal, intelligent design (creationism but it all took a lot longer), should be taught alongside evolution in classrooms.
This is according to a poll of more than 1,200 teachers. The poll was published to coincide with a week of UK TV programming dedicated to the evolution debate. The poll also showed that nearly a third (30.1 per cent) of schools already consider creationism or intelligent design to some extent during science lessons.
Nearly 50 per cent of teachers also agreed with Professor Michael Reiss’s sentiment that excluding alternative explanations to evolution is counterproductive and alienates pupils from science.
Almost 9 out of 10 (87.9 per cent) teachers took the view, pragmatically, that they should be allowed to discuss creationism or intelligent design in science, if pupils raise the question.
This was more or less Reiss’s position. He didn’t actually say creationism should be taught in science lessons, but his belief that it should be discussed got scientists twitching, and he eventually stepped down from a post as a director of the prestigious Royal Society, which said at the time:
And, of course, talking about it in class is OK. It’s a legitimate subject. “Look, kids, people once believed that Earth was created in six days by a deity. It probably seemed a plausible explanation at the time. There are many who don’t believe this, however. Many don’t even believe there is a God, but no one can know for sure. But the evidence for the creation of the universe is overwhelmingly . . .”
That’s teaching about it, not teaching it as fact. It's the way RE should be taught. It’s interesting to talk about in class, no doubt, as one might talk about characters in mythology, without trying to say they actually existed or exist.
Let’s hope that’s only as far as it goes.
This is according to a poll of more than 1,200 teachers. The poll was published to coincide with a week of UK TV programming dedicated to the evolution debate. The poll also showed that nearly a third (30.1 per cent) of schools already consider creationism or intelligent design to some extent during science lessons.
Nearly 50 per cent of teachers also agreed with Professor Michael Reiss’s sentiment that excluding alternative explanations to evolution is counterproductive and alienates pupils from science.
Almost 9 out of 10 (87.9 per cent) teachers took the view, pragmatically, that they should be allowed to discuss creationism or intelligent design in science, if pupils raise the question.
This was more or less Reiss’s position. He didn’t actually say creationism should be taught in science lessons, but his belief that it should be discussed got scientists twitching, and he eventually stepped down from a post as a director of the prestigious Royal Society, which said at the time:
As a result, Professor Reiss and the Royal Society have agreed that, in the best interests of the society, he will step down immediately as director of education – a part-time post he held on secondment. He is to return, full time, to his position as professor of science education at the Institute of Education.
And, of course, talking about it in class is OK. It’s a legitimate subject. “Look, kids, people once believed that Earth was created in six days by a deity. It probably seemed a plausible explanation at the time. There are many who don’t believe this, however. Many don’t even believe there is a God, but no one can know for sure. But the evidence for the creation of the universe is overwhelmingly . . .”
That’s teaching about it, not teaching it as fact. It's the way RE should be taught. It’s interesting to talk about in class, no doubt, as one might talk about characters in mythology, without trying to say they actually existed or exist.
Let’s hope that’s only as far as it goes.
Tuesday, 14 October 2008
"Creationist psycho bitch"
If you’re depressed at the thought of Sarah Palin becoming the next US vice-president, cheer yourself up with this story – Obama defends “creationist psycho bitch” remark – from the Daily Mash.
I'm sure Palin is a lovely woman (not!) . . . but this is hilarious!
__________
Hat tip: NSS Newsline.
UPDATE: See the latest Jesus and Mo offering. It's a hoot.
DEMOCRATIC candidate Barak Obama last night claimed he was quoted out of context after describing Governor Sarah Palin as a “creationist psycho bitch”.
He dismissed the “phoney outrage” of the Republican camp, insisting the remark was not intended to do anything other than draw attention
to Governor Palin’s insane beliefs and ugly, bitch-like qualities.
Senator Obama said: “I was simply implying what a stupid, horrible, terrifying freak she is. I can’t help it if people decide to take that literally.
“I was using a metaphor to make the important point that if you want another four years of psychotic, blood thirsty creationists who love sucking the oil industry’s big fat cock, then vote for my opponents.”
He added: “I did then go on to say that if Jesus came down from heaven and told me I would have to fuck either Sarah Palin or a pig, you'd have to drag me off the pig.
“Now that doesn't mean I'm comparing Governor Palin to a pig. What I am saying is that if it’s a straight choice between Governor Palin and a pig, I’m fucking the pig.
“If I then went on to say that I’d rather fuck a dead pig than Governor Palin, that should not be construed in any way as a personal attack.”
Senator Obama refused to apologise to the Governor, insisting it would take too long to translate the words into her “retarded hillbilly language”.
I'm sure Palin is a lovely woman (not!) . . . but this is hilarious!
__________
Hat tip: NSS Newsline.
UPDATE: See the latest Jesus and Mo offering. It's a hoot.
Monday, 13 October 2008
Freedom Fry
Yesterday evening (on BBC1 in the UK) saw the start of a six-part documentary series, Stephen Fry in America, in which Fry tours all 50 states (plus Washington, DC) of the land of the free in a London black cab!Fry’s love of America (and – according to an interview he’s given to the Radio Times – shame at the “exultant and ignorant arrogance [too often believed by the British] that Americans are ignorant, irony-free and vulgar”) is nevertheless tempered by his dismay on the growing “insistence [there] on equal validity between ‘revealed’ truth and evidence-based truth”:
[This] has meant that evolution is now pitted against so-called “intelligent design”, a barbarously irrational mixture of pseudo-science and fallacious argument that poses itself “innocently” as a credible alternative.
Philosophy and empiricism got America where it is today – it’s incredible to me that there are those who would turn their backs on the spiritual beauties, wonders and truths of the world and face instead the false promises of a preposterous text and even more preposterous commands. Jefferson,
Washington, Franklin, Madison, Adams and Lincoln would all be turning in their graves.
In this blog entry on Fry’s own website, he talks in some detail about his exploits, including an interesting encounter with semi-naked young men from the Church of Latter Day Saints.
I do not find [the Mormon] faith particularly absurd, in the way many mainstream Christians do [. . .] because I find all pretend invisible friends, Special Books and their rules equally ridiculous. Mormon ideas about realms of crystal rebirthing and special underpants are no weirder than the enforcing of wigs and woollen tights on orthodox Jewish women or laws and dogmas about burkhas and Virgin Births. The religion of the Latter Day Saints is not deserving of especial contempt simply because it is newer. It is as barmy as the rest and I cheerfully treat it as such. It has the same impertinent views concerning women and gays, of course, but [nineteen-year-old Mormon] Cody is clearly embarrassed about this and says with a touch of defensiveness, “We aren’t as bigoted as some fundamental Christians.”
Wednesday, 17 September 2008
Reiss steps down
The man who said creationism should be talked about in British science classrooms has resigned as a director of the Royal Society following the storm of controversy that followed his remarks last week.
Professor Michael Reiss, who is also an ordained minister, said creationism should be discussed in science lessons "if pupils raised the issue", according to the BBC.
He didn't actually say creationism should be taught in science lessons, but his belief that it should be discussed got scientists twitching.
The Royal Society says in a statement:
The BBC says the Royal Society "reiterated that its position was that creationism had no scientific basis and should not be part of the science curriculum".
But the society says, "However, if a young person raises creationism in a science class, teachers should be in a position to explain why evolution is a sound scientific theory and why creationism is not, in any way, scientific."
See also this from The Times.
Professor Michael Reiss, who is also an ordained minister, said creationism should be discussed in science lessons "if pupils raised the issue", according to the BBC.
He didn't actually say creationism should be taught in science lessons, but his belief that it should be discussed got scientists twitching.
The Royal Society says in a statement:
As a result, Professor Reiss and the Royal Society have agreed that, in the best interests of the society, he will step down immediately as director of education – a part-time post he held on secondment. He is to return, full time, to his position as professor of science education at the Institute of Education.
The BBC says the Royal Society "reiterated that its position was that creationism had no scientific basis and should not be part of the science curriculum".
But the society says, "However, if a young person raises creationism in a science class, teachers should be in a position to explain why evolution is a sound scientific theory and why creationism is not, in any way, scientific."
See also this from The Times.
How to make God fit science
They're holding a big get-together next year in Rome to discuss both science and theology. According to the Ekklesia think tank, it is an "international conference on 'Biological Evolution: Facts and Theories. A Critical Appraisal 150 years after The Origin of Species', to mark the Darwin celebrations and build the science–theology dialogue".
"The Vatican opposes creationism," says Ekklesia, "which misconstrues ancient texts to deny the findings of the natural sciences and oppose them to divine fiat. However, a few Catholic academics have joined those toying with 'Intelligent Design', a close cousin."
However it's all dressed up, science has been traditionally ahead of religion (which is why it didn't accept the theories of the likes of Galileo, to cite just one famous instance), and has then pasted the science into its own thinking. This all just smacks of a way for the Catholic Church to remain vaguely credible and unable to be wrong-footed by science. Keep up with the game.
It's easy, really: just put God far enough back in the scheme of things, and then say he planned it all that way. You can make the existance of God explain anything you wish.
"The Vatican opposes creationism," says Ekklesia, "which misconstrues ancient texts to deny the findings of the natural sciences and oppose them to divine fiat. However, a few Catholic academics have joined those toying with 'Intelligent Design', a close cousin."
However it's all dressed up, science has been traditionally ahead of religion (which is why it didn't accept the theories of the likes of Galileo, to cite just one famous instance), and has then pasted the science into its own thinking. This all just smacks of a way for the Catholic Church to remain vaguely credible and unable to be wrong-footed by science. Keep up with the game.
It's easy, really: just put God far enough back in the scheme of things, and then say he planned it all that way. You can make the existance of God explain anything you wish.
Sunday, 7 September 2008
Creating an impression
Listening to the Today programme on Radio 4 this summer (. . . summer? but that’s another story!), you’d be forgiven for thinking that the UK is America’s 51st state. It irritates the hell out of me every time journalists refer to the US president as simply “the President”, as if he’s somehow our president.
I’m also irritated that Today has been co-broadcast from the US Democratic and Republican conventions. By all means, cover these events, but broadcast the programme from them? Whether or not you believe in the American ideal, and irrespective of how much the “last remaining superpower” influences British and global life, this type of coverage helps only to reinforce the view that the US rules the world, as was demonstrated on 14 April this year, when a Downing Street spokesman said, “We were the fastest-growing country in the US last year.” This notwithstanding that he did then correct himself: “Sorry, the G7.”
What’s really frightening is that the US is so religious.
In the UK, secularists (and some religionists) have argued for decades that church and state should be separate. For a while, it seemed that we were on our way to achieving just that, but now, after eleven years of the Blair/Brown Labour government pandering to religion, we’re further away than ever.
In the US, of course, church and state are separate – though you’d be forgiven for forgetting that at the moment. It depresses the hell out of me how bound up the US is with organised religion, and I’m really disheartened by how their presidential election has become so God-soaked so quickly.
Both the Republican and Democratic conventions exuded Christianity. As we blogged here last month, the Democratic Party organised its first-ever interfaith gathering, at which non-religionist Democrats were specifically excluded, and its 2008 presidential candidate, Barack Obama, has often spoken politically of his deep Christian faith. Then, last week, the Republican Party’s vice-presidential candidate, Sarah Palin, wowed its convention with her Bible-soaked, “hockey mom” speech.
Over at the God’s Politics blog, Jim Wallis in this entry, suggests “Five Rules of Christian Civility” to be followed during the US presidential election campaign:
What strikes me from these “Five Rules” is that, apparently, Christian civility doesn’t extend to non-Christians!
Palin, of course, is a Christian.
She was baptised as a Roman Catholic when just an infant with no say in the matter, then spent nearly 30 years as a member of America’s largest Pentecostal church, the Assemblies of God. Today, she refers to herself as a “generic Christian”, attending independent churches in Alaska. However, she remains connected to the Assemblies of God, regularly addressing pastors’ conferences and ministry students, whom, in June this year, she told:
Palin is against a woman’s right to choose to have an abortion and supports the teaching of creationism as fact in schools. She claims that she has “gay friends” but, considering that she showed no support for equal rights to gay employees in her home state (she vetoed a bill that denied spousal benefits to gay state employees only after the state attorney general pointed out it was unconstitusional), doesn’t believe in same-sex marriage and has ties to conservative anti-gay groups such as the US Family Research Council, she can’t be very close to them. Either that or she’s lying. If it turns out that she does have some gay friends, I can’t bring myself to think what they’re like, the very thought conjuring up the spectacle of those knitting-homo friends Mary Whitehouse once claimed to have!
I sincerely hope people don’t conclude that I’m anti-American. I’m not. But I am depressed. In writing this piece, I’ve read a lot from America that’s upset me. It’s all a far cry from the letter written by Sharon Underwood, which we covered last week. And it’s that letter, which I’ve just reread, that fills me with hope that all is not lost.
I’m also irritated that Today has been co-broadcast from the US Democratic and Republican conventions. By all means, cover these events, but broadcast the programme from them? Whether or not you believe in the American ideal, and irrespective of how much the “last remaining superpower” influences British and global life, this type of coverage helps only to reinforce the view that the US rules the world, as was demonstrated on 14 April this year, when a Downing Street spokesman said, “We were the fastest-growing country in the US last year.” This notwithstanding that he did then correct himself: “Sorry, the G7.”
What’s really frightening is that the US is so religious.
In the UK, secularists (and some religionists) have argued for decades that church and state should be separate. For a while, it seemed that we were on our way to achieving just that, but now, after eleven years of the Blair/Brown Labour government pandering to religion, we’re further away than ever.
In the US, of course, church and state are separate – though you’d be forgiven for forgetting that at the moment. It depresses the hell out of me how bound up the US is with organised religion, and I’m really disheartened by how their presidential election has become so God-soaked so quickly.
Both the Republican and Democratic conventions exuded Christianity. As we blogged here last month, the Democratic Party organised its first-ever interfaith gathering, at which non-religionist Democrats were specifically excluded, and its 2008 presidential candidate, Barack Obama, has often spoken politically of his deep Christian faith. Then, last week, the Republican Party’s vice-presidential candidate, Sarah Palin, wowed its convention with her Bible-soaked, “hockey mom” speech.
Over at the God’s Politics blog, Jim Wallis in this entry, suggests “Five Rules of Christian Civility” to be followed during the US presidential election campaign:
1. We Christians should be in the pocket of no political party, but should evaluate both candidates and parties by our biblically-based moral compass.
2. We don't vote on only one issue, but see biblical foundations for our concerns over many issues.
3. We advocate for a consistent ethic of life from womb to tomb, and one that challenges the selective moralities of both the left and the right.
4. We will respect the integrity of our Christian brothers and sisters in their sincere efforts to apply Christian commitments to the important decisions of this election, knowing that people of faith and conscience will be voting both ways in this election year.
5. We will not attack our fellow Christians as Democratic or Republican partisans, but rather will expect and respect the practice of putting our faith first in this election year, even if we reach different conclusions.
What strikes me from these “Five Rules” is that, apparently, Christian civility doesn’t extend to non-Christians!
Palin, of course, is a Christian.
She was baptised as a Roman Catholic when just an infant with no say in the matter, then spent nearly 30 years as a member of America’s largest Pentecostal church, the Assemblies of God. Today, she refers to herself as a “generic Christian”, attending independent churches in Alaska. However, she remains connected to the Assemblies of God, regularly addressing pastors’ conferences and ministry students, whom, in June this year, she told:
I can do my job there in developing our natural resources and doing things like getting the roads paved and making sure our troopers have their cop cars and their uniforms and their guns, and making sure our public schools are funded. But, really, all of that stuff doesn’t do any good if the people of Alaska’s heart isn’t right with God.
Palin is against a woman’s right to choose to have an abortion and supports the teaching of creationism as fact in schools. She claims that she has “gay friends” but, considering that she showed no support for equal rights to gay employees in her home state (she vetoed a bill that denied spousal benefits to gay state employees only after the state attorney general pointed out it was unconstitusional), doesn’t believe in same-sex marriage and has ties to conservative anti-gay groups such as the US Family Research Council, she can’t be very close to them. Either that or she’s lying. If it turns out that she does have some gay friends, I can’t bring myself to think what they’re like, the very thought conjuring up the spectacle of those knitting-homo friends Mary Whitehouse once claimed to have!
I sincerely hope people don’t conclude that I’m anti-American. I’m not. But I am depressed. In writing this piece, I’ve read a lot from America that’s upset me. It’s all a far cry from the letter written by Sharon Underwood, which we covered last week. And it’s that letter, which I’ve just reread, that fills me with hope that all is not lost.
Monday, 4 August 2008
Muslims "import creationism" into schools
Professor Richard Dawkins, author of (among other things) The God Delusion, has laid into the British education system for allowing creationism to be taught in schools. His anger is also directed at Muslims in Britain, who, he says, are adding to the problem.
His views are made known in today's Daily Telegraph, where he says, "Most devout Muslims are creationists, so, when you go to schools, there are a large number of children of Islamic parents who trot out what they have been taught."
Dawkins, professor for the public understanding of science at Oxford University, says teachers are "bending over backwards" to accommodate these prejudices; the government could do more, but it isn't doing so. It is "fanatical about multiculturalism and the need to respect the different traditions from which these children come".
Science teaching is under threat because the government accepts that theories such as "intelligent design" can be discussed "in the context of being one of a range of views". Teachers are scared of being thought racist, he says.
It's come to something when Dawkins feels he has to make these points. We have an education system that is supposed to educate, and give the best theories that are to hand so far on such subjects as the creation of the universe. And, because teachers (like so many other bodies) wish to kowtow to Muslims, whether because of this silly racism thing (Islam is a religion, not a race) or because they want to seem politically correct, we get our kids being taught creationism (whether the long or short variety).
Islam, along with some types of Christian fundamentalism, is backward-thinking and we have a supine government that allows lies to be taught as facts in a Western country in the twenty-first century. It beggars belief. Or, rather, it buggers belief in anything that's sensible.
His views are made known in today's Daily Telegraph, where he says, "Most devout Muslims are creationists, so, when you go to schools, there are a large number of children of Islamic parents who trot out what they have been taught."
Dawkins, professor for the public understanding of science at Oxford University, says teachers are "bending over backwards" to accommodate these prejudices; the government could do more, but it isn't doing so. It is "fanatical about multiculturalism and the need to respect the different traditions from which these children come".
Science teaching is under threat because the government accepts that theories such as "intelligent design" can be discussed "in the context of being one of a range of views". Teachers are scared of being thought racist, he says.
It's come to something when Dawkins feels he has to make these points. We have an education system that is supposed to educate, and give the best theories that are to hand so far on such subjects as the creation of the universe. And, because teachers (like so many other bodies) wish to kowtow to Muslims, whether because of this silly racism thing (Islam is a religion, not a race) or because they want to seem politically correct, we get our kids being taught creationism (whether the long or short variety).
Islam, along with some types of Christian fundamentalism, is backward-thinking and we have a supine government that allows lies to be taught as facts in a Western country in the twenty-first century. It beggars belief. Or, rather, it buggers belief in anything that's sensible.
Wednesday, 11 June 2008
And on the seventh day God created pillocks
Germans, it seems, have got more sense – even the religious ones. They don't want any of that Genesis rubbish in their backyard, thank you very much.
A Swiss firm wants to construct a "Genesis Land" with a "life-size" Noah's Ark (or "Noah's arch", according to this story at DW-World.de) near Heidelberg, because the area has a lot of water. Well, you would need quite a lot to float a boat that has two of every species on the globe, wouldn't you? Yet these nutters believe it once happened.
Anyway, the firm is called Genesis Land Inc., and it's looking for investors to the tune of about €25 million – a third of the dosh needed for a 50-hectare park.
The story tells us:
Well, in a free world one can't object to the thing itself, any more than one might to Disneyland, as long as it doesn't try to tell people that all it depicts is or was true. But it will try to do that, because that's what these nutters are all about – as well as making big bucks, of course.
Here at Pink Triangle we've often wondered what God did on that seventh day when he was supposed to be resting. Did he just sleep, read Harry Potter, get pissed or play with his Plasticine and create pillocks. Yes, that sounds about right. And lo, the pillocks did go forth and did create religion.
A Swiss firm wants to construct a "Genesis Land" with a "life-size" Noah's Ark (or "Noah's arch", according to this story at DW-World.de) near Heidelberg, because the area has a lot of water. Well, you would need quite a lot to float a boat that has two of every species on the globe, wouldn't you? Yet these nutters believe it once happened.
Anyway, the firm is called Genesis Land Inc., and it's looking for investors to the tune of about €25 million – a third of the dosh needed for a 50-hectare park.
The story tells us:
But religious and political representatives from the state of Baden-Wuerttemberg are less than enthusiastic about a facility inspired by the belief that the earth is around 6,000 years old, and that human beings and dinosaurs co-existed.
"A project like this only gets in the way of our attempts to spread the faith," Hansjörg Hemminger, the Wuerttemberg Protestant Church's Spokesman on World Views told the newspaper Die Welt.
Civic planners, too, are against Genesis Land.
Well, in a free world one can't object to the thing itself, any more than one might to Disneyland, as long as it doesn't try to tell people that all it depicts is or was true. But it will try to do that, because that's what these nutters are all about – as well as making big bucks, of course.
Here at Pink Triangle we've often wondered what God did on that seventh day when he was supposed to be resting. Did he just sleep, read Harry Potter, get pissed or play with his Plasticine and create pillocks. Yes, that sounds about right. And lo, the pillocks did go forth and did create religion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)