News-Record.com

I'm reminded of the politics a century ago surrounding the word "Bolshevik." As I understand it, this word translates from Russian as "Majority."

All well and good... except that the Communists in Russia (and the expatriots who were living in exile before 1917) had in fact split. The smaller faction decided to take the name "Majority." Quite a propaganda coup, useful at the time the Russian Empire disintegrated.

Sounds like the Christian Right Wing has accomplished very much the same thing. They have assigned themselves the name "Messengers of the Good News," when in fact, their message is one of mixed fear and loathing.

I know several true "evangelicals." They are all about love, grace and peace. And they have absolutely no use for this political BS that the "Evangelical" pundits and politicians spew in the media on the hour every hour.

One hopes that the folks who exude decency and love will win out over those who are determined to legislate their way to heaven (or wherever it is their legislation aims to land us).

On the other hand, as long as no oath of religious loyalty is required of citizens, isn't democracy about gaining support for one's policy opinions and electing those who would implement them? How does enacting a particular political stand on one of these issues cross the line of separation of church and state?

I do admire the pastor refusing to use his pulpit, though, for narrowly partisan politics. That is different from the savvy marketing and propaganda machine launched by right-wing Republicans. It shouldn't cross the threshholds of the churches, but I think people have a right to believe (even nonsensically) their personal points of view are "holy" versus someone else's.

That doesn't mean those who disagree shouldn't fight tooth and nail in the public square to refute their ideas! The messy business of democracy demands exactly that.

"On the other hand, as long as no oath of religious loyalty is required of citizens, isn't democracy about gaining support for one's policy opinions and electing those who would implement them? How does enacting a particular political stand on one of these issues cross the line of separation of church and state?"

Well, how about the efforts in Kansas to get the state school board to eliminate evolution from the curriculum and put Kent Hovind and his bushel of fellow nuts in charge of government-supplied science? Would you consider that "crossing the line"?

Or what about mandated prayers in schools? Or handing out Federal money, no questions asked (in effect), to discrimiatory churches?

Just wondering...

"That doesn't mean those who disagree shouldn't fight tooth and nail in the public square to refute their ideas! The messy business of democracy demands exactly that."

What we have is a skewed system, Freddy. Democracy can only work properly when the electorate is smart enough to detect and reject BS. This is why the original electorate was only land-owning males, and it's why a top-notch educational system is the most vital thing a Democracy can support. "Messy business of democracy"? Boy, THERE'S the understatement of the year from a non-government employee if I've ever heard one!

Heard an American prof on the BBC last night who wrote a book about the need to question our assumptions about democracy being the be-all, end-all. The dangers of plebescite are exactly as you point out, Eric. That's why our framers wisely provided checks and balances. But even those have been circumvented over the years, including by Jefferson himself! Jacksonian democracy is what we devolved into.

The school board in Kansas, I fear, is in their rights to make stupid curricular choices. It seems mightily unfair and frankly galling to the scientifically-minded, but if the board was elected, unless there are laws allowing intervention from a higher-level post/board--- them's the breaks; until they get voted out, a la Pennsylvania's similar brouhaha. Do you propose we have a National Department of Education that actually enforces curricular specifics? Would you have a national mandate to teach one particular reading of evolution?

School prayer, however, crosses the line I suggested. There is no way to compose any ritual that would not exclude and thereby put undue pressure on non-believing or simply principled, self-conscientious believers. It smacks far too much of state-approved religion, which is strictly verboten by the First Amendment. Ditto handing out moneys to churches, especially if the organizations main mission suported by such dollars is to proselytize.

"Do you propose we have a National Department of Education that actually enforces curricular specifics? Would you have a national mandate to teach one particular reading of evolution?"

Our current national department of education is (sad to say) just as vulnerable to politics as any other portion of our government.

I have a question -- how many "particular readings" of science are you aware of? Here I was, silly me, thinking that science was an objective endeavor. Have I been deluding myself all these years? Would a basic mandate to teach primary and secondary students in public schools generally-accepted principles of science really result in that much variance? Would you object to that concept, state-rights issues aside?

There is, I admit, at least something approaching a single "generally accepted principle" of all evolutionary theories. There are several of the latter. Exactly how that principle is elucidated is what you seem to want to mandate. My point is, who would decide on the be-all, end-all wording and the approved style of its presentation (students learn as much from the manner of teaching as the content)? What contexts would be supplied to offer the variations researchers keep hypothesizing as to its implications?

Science is not a monlithic pronouncement. It is a set of guidelines for multitudinous investigations. Thus, the "readings" I refer to are the many verbal descriptions and explanations of data, from the many lines of inquiry informed by these scientific guidelines. Of course there are conflicting interpretations of data; that's what makes scientists interested in pursuing new branches of thought!

The numbers and measurements spawned in experiment are "objects", and each researcher strives for as much "objectivity" in his gathering and interpretation as possible (preferably via double-blind studies), but if there were only absolutely objective results 100% of the time at the start of any line of inquiry, science wouldn't continue, would it?

What "evangelical" brings to mind is a group of like-minded believers who share a gnawing fear or this life and dsitrust of everyone "different", and who would prefer it all was blown to smithereens so they could join Jesus in heaven. They feel an honest need to spread their doctrine, because any sane person would not want to be among those "left behind" or consigned to hellfire; thus, many are sincerely anxious to save others. The difficulties come when such saving pushes them to try and mandate behaviors and beliefs by laws here on terra firma. They have the right to petition and mobilize politically, but the Constitution as it stands now prohibits the government from taking on their agenda wholesale.

Now, that doesn't mean they couldn't gain enough votes to amend said constitution...

"Science is not a monlithic pronouncement."

I understand this. And this is why I mentioned primary and secondary schools. For an awful lot of those levels of education, the science that would be presented to students has been long-established, and there is virtually no need to be concerned about updates to the material based on scientific upheavals.

In the AP level courses, there might be some concerns, but not when you're talking general biology classes for Freshmen or 7th grade science classes. At those levels of education, where students are in need of concrete concepts and basic information, variations in scientific understanding are virtually non-existent.

IIRC, I never encountered material that has been changed due to front-line research until I was in my Junior year of college.

"but if there were only absolutely objective results 100% of the time at the start of any line of inquiry, science wouldn't continue, would it?"

You always have absolutely objective results from every experiment. That's a basic tenet of science. The changes come from our incomplete understanding of what we observe.

By "results" I mean to include the interpretation of data, not merely the raw data itself. The numbers may be irrefutable (although researchers do find flaws in even the "long-established" measurements from time to time), but the conclusions drawn from them are always subject to debate.

Let's grant that at the lower grades there's not much variation in the story told about the universe and its inhabitants from one science textbook to the next. I still maintain that it is the manner in which this information is communicated by individual teachers that is impossible to keep under one absolute standard. Also, each child will hear and understand this teaching (as well as the reading) according to the influences of class, gender, ethnicity and general upbringing, not to mention their religious training.

How exactly, Eric, should some federal governmental agency oversee and attempt to control the inevitable variations that arise and are bound to create misunderstanding, if not outright rejection, of said data and its "long-established", accepted scientific meaning?

Local control is often misguided, but it is also the most immediately influenced by local concerns when it needs righting.
The wheels grind so slowly at the national level, I can't see how anything could be accomplished without endless spirals of the same sort you and I get into here, magnified!!