I have been reading about this idea of compartmentalization. The reason for this is that David Barton referred to a time in American history when everyone in politics had to affirm a Christian doctrinal statement in order to serve in public office. In fact, he went on to say that for 200 years it was imperative that voters looked at the private life of an individual to know if he would be fit for public service.
We have now encountered a shift in societal thinking. Now people assert that public and private life are unrelated. This means that many Americans would say that though a man does not operate morally in his private life, he will still perform the duties of his public office morally. The politician may behave and live in one manner, yet that lifestyle will have no effect on his policy decisions. People blindly trust this to be the case when they support Supreme Court Justices. They believe that each Justice is capable of separating their world view (their belief system) from their rulings. This idea of separation is called compartmentalization.
I have heard that Bertrand Russell was one of the early proponents of compartmentalization in politics. He was opposed to the idea that those in political office must affirm Christian principles. In fact, he openly condemned the very idea of Christianity...
“There is something feeble and a little contemptible about a man who cannot face the perils of life without the help of comfortable myths. Almost inevitably, some part of him is aware that they are myths and that he believes them only because they are comforting. But he does not dare face this thought! Moreover, since he is aware, however dimly, that his opinions are not real, he becomes furious when they are disputed.”
Bertrand Russell, Human Society in Ethics and Politics
While America slept, Bertrand Russell (British philosopher, logician, mathematician, historian) was able to influence the landscape of American politics. The attacks from Academia don't end there. Finite human reason and logic are the only basis for intellectualism today. If one looks to any power other than human intelligence alone he is ridiculed and abased. These attacks on Christianity and our Creator are blatant and condemning. Yet Christians sleep.
*Robert Green Ingersoll:
“I do not regard religious opinions…as exotics that have to be kept under glass, protected from the frosts of common sense or the tyrannous north wind of logic. Such plants are hardly worth preserving. They certainly ought to be hardy enough to stand the climate of free discussion, and if they cannot, the sooner they die the better.”
*American political leader, and orator during the Golden Age of Freethought, noted for his broad range of culture and his defense of agnosticism.
We sleep because we have been lulled into compartmentalization. We have bought into the thinking that there is a disconnect between sacred and secular. Sacred is for the church in very compartmentalized ways, secular is for every other area of our lives... work, home, play, etc.,
Let me illustrate by asking how we should apply the following verse:
But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.
II Peter 2:1-2
Monday, February 21, 2011
Thursday, February 17, 2011
February Special
We had a violin concert at the house today as Becky was getting the girls ready for their special music this Sunday. Enjoy!
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
Anti-Evolution Crusade
I have posted the following article in blue ink. The black font is mine.
"Science Guy" Bill Nye: Anti-Evolution Crusade "Horrible"
Opinion by AUSCS
Religion / Religion in Society
By Sandhya Bathija
With Darwin Day (Feb. 12) just around the corner, scientists, educators and citizens across the world are gearing up to celebrate the birth of Charles Darwin and his contributions to science.
As Bill Nye “The Science Guy” recently put it, teachers’ reluctance to teach Darwin’s theory of evolution is “horrible.” Scientific advances that benefit everyone could be at risk if students don’t learn sound science.
“People make flu vaccinations that stop people from getting sick,” he said. “Farmers raise crops with science; they hybridize them and make them better with every generation. That’s all evolution. Evolution is a theory, and it’s a theory that you can test. We’ve tested evolution in many ways. You can’t present good evidence that says evolution is not a fact. ”
The statements made here are pretty bold, however, they are also deceptive. Darwin's theory of evolution regarding changes within a species is not in dispute. What is in dispute is the "origin" of the species. I contend that you can't present any evidence that says origins evolution is a fact.
Additionally, if you were to take Darwin at his word, then you wouldn't care much about whether we could make flu vaccinations. After all, survival of the fittest is all about weeding out the weak. Disease and death is to the advantage of the origins evolutionist and is a valuable tool for natural selection. Finding and using vaccines keeps the weak in the gene pool and hinders our ability to evolve into a stronger species.
Yet some Religious Right-oriented state legislators across the country want to derail the teaching of evolution and weaken science education in public schools. We are barely into 2011 and, according to the National Center for Science Education, already four states are pondering anti-evolution bills, including: New Mexico, Oklahoma (where there are two anti-evolution bills!), Missouri and Kentucky.
All of these measures are carefully crafted with creationist code language intended to sidestep decades of federal court decisions preventing creationism from being taught in public schools. These courts have ruled time and time again that creationism is religious dogma and our Constitution prevents our public schools from favoring any religious belief.
"creationist code language"?
By the way, can someone show me where our Constitution prevents our public schools from favoring any religious belief?
The latest bill, out of New Mexico, HB 302, would allow teachers to inform students “about relevant scientific information regarding either the scientific strengths or scientific weaknesses” pertaining to “controversial” topics. The bill would protect teachers from “reassignment, termination, discipline or other discrimination for doing so.
The Oklahoma Senate bill, SB 554, provides that teachers and administrators be free to inform students about “relevant scientific information regarding either the scientific strengths or scientific weaknesses of controversial topics in sciences,” where such topics “include but are not limited to biological origins of life and biological evolution.” The bill also ensures that teachers not be disciplined for teaching science in this manner.
Oklahoma’s House Bill, HB 1551, sponsored by the Religious Right favorite Sally Kern, an avid anti-evolutionist, requires that teachers be permitted to teach the “scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories.”
And why is it that teachers shouldn't be permitted to teach "scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories"?
Missouri’s HB 195 uses similar “academic freedom” type language, calling on teachers to encourage students to explore “scientific questions, learn about scientific evidence, develop critical thinking skills, and respond appropriately and respectfully to differences of opinion about controversial issues, including biological and chemical evolution.” The bill also requires teachers to find “more effective ways” to teach scientific controversies.
And why is it that teachers shouldn't encourage students to explore "scientific questions, learn about scientific evidence, develop critical thinking skills, and respond appropriately..."?
Kentucky’s HB 169, the first anti-evolution bill of 2011, would allow teachers to “use, as permitted by the local school board, other instructional materials to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review scientific theories in an objective manner.”
And why is it that teachers shouldn't be permitted to "help students understand, analyze, critique, and review scientific theories in an objective manner?
Most of these bills are similar to legislation introduced in past years that have failed to become law. The bad news is that those who want our public schools to adopt poor science standards just won’t go away.
If you live in any of these states, let your state legislators know you want strong science standards in your home state.
"Strong science standards" apparently means everything occurred "accidentally". If it didn't occur accidentally then it is not to be considered science.
As “The Science Guy” said, “”Science is the key to our future, and if you don’t believe in science, then you’re holding everybody back.”
I doubt that anyone is claiming they "don't believe in science". Here again they are twisting the truth to propagate their agenda. An agenda that is a direct attack on the Lord Jesus Christ as the Creator and sustainer of all life. How can we as believers bury our heads in the sand and pretend that Satan is not at work in this world?
The information in this post came from the following link...
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/science-guy-bill-nye-anti-evolution-crusade-horrible
"Science Guy" Bill Nye: Anti-Evolution Crusade "Horrible"
Opinion by AUSCS
Religion / Religion in Society
By Sandhya Bathija
With Darwin Day (Feb. 12) just around the corner, scientists, educators and citizens across the world are gearing up to celebrate the birth of Charles Darwin and his contributions to science.
As Bill Nye “The Science Guy” recently put it, teachers’ reluctance to teach Darwin’s theory of evolution is “horrible.” Scientific advances that benefit everyone could be at risk if students don’t learn sound science.
“People make flu vaccinations that stop people from getting sick,” he said. “Farmers raise crops with science; they hybridize them and make them better with every generation. That’s all evolution. Evolution is a theory, and it’s a theory that you can test. We’ve tested evolution in many ways. You can’t present good evidence that says evolution is not a fact. ”
The statements made here are pretty bold, however, they are also deceptive. Darwin's theory of evolution regarding changes within a species is not in dispute. What is in dispute is the "origin" of the species. I contend that you can't present any evidence that says origins evolution is a fact.
Additionally, if you were to take Darwin at his word, then you wouldn't care much about whether we could make flu vaccinations. After all, survival of the fittest is all about weeding out the weak. Disease and death is to the advantage of the origins evolutionist and is a valuable tool for natural selection. Finding and using vaccines keeps the weak in the gene pool and hinders our ability to evolve into a stronger species.
Yet some Religious Right-oriented state legislators across the country want to derail the teaching of evolution and weaken science education in public schools. We are barely into 2011 and, according to the National Center for Science Education, already four states are pondering anti-evolution bills, including: New Mexico, Oklahoma (where there are two anti-evolution bills!), Missouri and Kentucky.
All of these measures are carefully crafted with creationist code language intended to sidestep decades of federal court decisions preventing creationism from being taught in public schools. These courts have ruled time and time again that creationism is religious dogma and our Constitution prevents our public schools from favoring any religious belief.
"creationist code language"?
By the way, can someone show me where our Constitution prevents our public schools from favoring any religious belief?
The latest bill, out of New Mexico, HB 302, would allow teachers to inform students “about relevant scientific information regarding either the scientific strengths or scientific weaknesses” pertaining to “controversial” topics. The bill would protect teachers from “reassignment, termination, discipline or other discrimination for doing so.
The Oklahoma Senate bill, SB 554, provides that teachers and administrators be free to inform students about “relevant scientific information regarding either the scientific strengths or scientific weaknesses of controversial topics in sciences,” where such topics “include but are not limited to biological origins of life and biological evolution.” The bill also ensures that teachers not be disciplined for teaching science in this manner.
Oklahoma’s House Bill, HB 1551, sponsored by the Religious Right favorite Sally Kern, an avid anti-evolutionist, requires that teachers be permitted to teach the “scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories.”
And why is it that teachers shouldn't be permitted to teach "scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories"?
Missouri’s HB 195 uses similar “academic freedom” type language, calling on teachers to encourage students to explore “scientific questions, learn about scientific evidence, develop critical thinking skills, and respond appropriately and respectfully to differences of opinion about controversial issues, including biological and chemical evolution.” The bill also requires teachers to find “more effective ways” to teach scientific controversies.
And why is it that teachers shouldn't encourage students to explore "scientific questions, learn about scientific evidence, develop critical thinking skills, and respond appropriately..."?
Kentucky’s HB 169, the first anti-evolution bill of 2011, would allow teachers to “use, as permitted by the local school board, other instructional materials to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review scientific theories in an objective manner.”
And why is it that teachers shouldn't be permitted to "help students understand, analyze, critique, and review scientific theories in an objective manner?
Most of these bills are similar to legislation introduced in past years that have failed to become law. The bad news is that those who want our public schools to adopt poor science standards just won’t go away.
If you live in any of these states, let your state legislators know you want strong science standards in your home state.
"Strong science standards" apparently means everything occurred "accidentally". If it didn't occur accidentally then it is not to be considered science.
As “The Science Guy” said, “”Science is the key to our future, and if you don’t believe in science, then you’re holding everybody back.”
I doubt that anyone is claiming they "don't believe in science". Here again they are twisting the truth to propagate their agenda. An agenda that is a direct attack on the Lord Jesus Christ as the Creator and sustainer of all life. How can we as believers bury our heads in the sand and pretend that Satan is not at work in this world?
The information in this post came from the following link...
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/science-guy-bill-nye-anti-evolution-crusade-horrible
Saturday, February 5, 2011
Criminal
I can't help it, I had to laugh.
The Fire Department has been given a hard time the last couple years, even to the point of being called "Union Thugs". Politics aside, that was the first thing I thought of when I saw this cartoon...
The Fire Department has been given a hard time the last couple years, even to the point of being called "Union Thugs". Politics aside, that was the first thing I thought of when I saw this cartoon...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)