[Vision2020] Re: Religious Diversity Education

Thu, 05 Jun 2003 22:16:34 +0000

Luke et. al.

The words "under God" I believe were added to the pledge of allegiance in 
1954, I'm pretty sure.  Check on this!

Some schools start every school day with the pledge, so it is not recited 
"once a week" as you suggest.
But you demonstrate the kind of extreme all or nothing thinking I mentioned 
when you state that it "does not matter" that the pledge is recited in the 
public schools when they are being taught that there is no God in science 
classes.  Why do you say it does not matter?  Even assuming your claim that 
the science classes teach there is no God, I think it reasonable to assume 
that many sincere students and teachers of many faiths regard the reference 
to "under God" in the pledge to be of great significance for their faith, 
and the overall moral and spiritual orientation of the public schools as 
they serve society.

At best your case that the public schools teach there is no God should be 
qualified to state that God's existence is acknowledged in the public 
schools in some situations, while in other situations God is either not 
mentioned, or to take your position, there is an active agenda to teach 
there is no God.

I'll skip the debate on whether the science of evolution of valid.

I don't know the actual content of public school courses everywhere, of 
course.  But I do know what is taught in evolutionary biology regarding homo 
sapiens etc.   And I am fully aware of the advocacy for atheism that you 
CLAIM is taught, so I do not know what you mean by saying I have blinders on 
about what is taught in public schools.

Let me offer one debate on the nature of God that may illustrate that there 
are sensible differences of opinion on spiritual ideas that render anyone 
proving their point of view is the only true interpretation rather unlikely.

Consider the issue of evil and Gods all powerful nature.  If God is all 
powerful, can he choose to be evil?
If he can choose to be and does so, he will no longer be all good.  But if 
you say he cannot choose to be evil, then God ceases to be all powerful.  Of 
course you can say God could be evil if he wanted, but he always chooses to 
be good, so his goodness nor his power are limited.  But when you claim God 
is all powerful and all good, and there is evil in the world God created, it 
is difficult to avoid putting responsibility onto God for this evil.  The 
standard answer is to point to disobeying angels or humans who bring evil 
into the world with the free choice God gave them.  But if God is all 
powerful he knew what the choice would be before he made humanity.  So how 
then is he not responsible when he knows the outcome will be evil?  The 
"problem of evil" is answered by some theologians by limiting God's power in 
various ways.

This very simple and brief example of the potential for reasonable 
disagreement about the nature of God I offer to suggest there there is not 
just one truthful way of viewing God.  Or if there is, human beings can't 
figure it all out.   So it is sensible to accept reasonable disagreements on 
the nature of God, and avoiding asserting that your interpretation has to be 
the only correct one.

Ted

>From: "Luke" <lukenieuwsma@softhome.net>
>To: "Ted Moffett" <ted_moffett@hotmail.com>
>CC: "vision2020" <vision2020@moscow.com>
>Subject: [Vision2020] Re: Religious Diversity Education
>Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 15:24:03 -0700
>
>Hello, Ted:
>
> > I really doubt that the words "under God" will be removed by law from 
>the
> > pledge of allegiance soon.
> > Why do you say this?  What evidence do you have?
>
>Well, for one, the fact that someone actually tried it. In our relativistic
>age, some people like to argue that the name "God" is too religious. For
>example, a Hindu would be insulted; the official total of Hindu gods has
>risen to 30,000,000. Our society today likes to make the exception the 
>rule,
>and sooner or later the Supreme Court will make a ruling taking out "under
>God."
>BTW, it was added around1930; previously there was no "under God." What 
>goes
>in
>can be taken back out.
>
>
> > But the point is, how can you say the schools deny God's existence with
> > millions of students all over the US saying this pledge with the words
> > "under God."  Sounds like acknowledging God's existence to me.
>
>It doesn't matter if they say once a week the word "God" when they are 
>being
>taught that there is no god in their science classes all year.
>
>
> > You have an extreme interpretation of what it means to believe in God 
>that
> > forces you to take extreme positions.  Like your position on biology and
> > evolution.  Science does not deny the possibility of the soul and an
> > afterlife.  This is a matter of religious faith.
>
>The two are intertwined. Science is directly connected to religion; there's
>no coincidence that most of today's leading Darwinists are convinced there
>is no God. They believe we came from monkeys, and the only logical
>conclusion to evolutionary thinking is not that there is probably no God,
>but that there IS no God. You should check out the past debates between 
>Will
>Provine and Philip Johnson, and you will hear exactly what I am saying,
>except not from a Christian but from an atheist, Mr. Provine!
>
>
> > said, a matter of religious faith.  Many very brilliant scientists who
> > believe in evolution are also Christians.  They have a different view of
> > these issues that allows them to accept the science of evolution and
>believe
> > in Christ.
>
>That doesn't make evolution true. Due to irreducible complexity, gene
>density, and DNA, we can know for certain that evolution doesn't work.
>
>
> > I do not have any blinders on.  I am open to many interpretations of the
> > world around me on issues of science, spirituality and God etc.
> >
>
>Ah, you have proved my point. Your blinders kept you from seeing the actual
>point of what I was saying. What I said was that you had blinders on
>regarding what is actually taught in the public schools.
>
> > Thanks for the exchange.  I hope your faith serves you well!  I just 
>wish
> > you would with a bit more humility consider that other faiths might have
> > value and truth that you are not acknowledging.
>
>I'm not saying that my faith is great because Luke Nieuwsma believes it; 
>no,
>I am saying that God's sacrifice is so great, so wonderful that it is free
>to all men; this is not
>pride, this is called certainty. Ergo, I claim that Jesus Christ is the 
>only
>way to happiness, joy, and salvation.
>
>
> > The world does not have to be an all or nothing proposition on issues of
> > spirituality and faith.
>
>Whoop! There goes absolute truth. There goes logic.
>Ted, it rather does have to be this or that. I've said it several times, 
>but
>I'll say it again.
>1)There is absolute truth. Either something is true, or it is false. Easy 
>to
>understand.
>2)Therefore, there can only be one true religion, though many false ones.
>You cannot have two contradictory religions (e.g. Christianity and 
>Buddhism)
>true at the same time. So no, all ways do not lead to God. And no, we're 
>not
>all on the same road. Either you're on the straight and narrow, or you're 
>on
>the broad and crooked.
>
>Take care, and God bless,
>
>Luke
>
>
>
>_____________________________________________________
>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>                http://www.fsr.net
>           mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com
>ЇЇЇЇЇЇЇЇЇЇЇЇЇЇЇЇЇЇЇЇЇЇЇЇЇЇЇЇЇЇЇЇЇЇЇЇЇЇЇЇЇЇЇЇЇЇЇЇЇЇЇЇЇ

_________________________________________________________________
STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail