Important story out of Florida that shows why the discussion of teaching evolution matters.
I know some people think, "this isn't a political issue, and it shouldn't be part of the presidential debate." That's what I heard when it came up in the GOP debate.
But the fact is, the reason creationists bring this issue up is that they want creationism taught in public schools. It's not enough to talk about it in the pulpit. They want it to be in the curriculum.
In Florida, the debate is distracting from the issue of science education. The sate recently revised its science standards to clarify the place of teaching evolution in the state curriculum. The educators who framed Florida's new science standards worry that the old argument over evolution is overshadowing a more important issue: the sorry state of science education in Florida's classrooms.
Updated standards, they say, would bring focus and depth to science instruction.
"I think it's a tremendous improvement over what we have now, and I hate to see it rejected on the basis of how evolution is treated," said Alice Winn, a biology professor atFlorida State University who helped write them. "That would be a complete travesty."
As the article explains, educators "cringe" when they hear things like this: "I have no problem with them hearing about evolution. I just don't want them to hear a one-sided fact," said LeVon Pettis, a Panhandle father who may look for private schools for his daughters if the standards are adopted as is. "If you're going to teach evolution, then also throw in creationism and intelligent design," said the pastor of Evangel Worship Center in Marianna.
This is the strategy... to put creationism on an equal footing with evolution by teaching them side by side. Evolution has long been controversial in the classroom and in the courtroom. The 1925 Scopes "Monkey Trial" inTennessee saw a biology teacher charged with a crime for teaching Darwin's theories. Eighty years later, a federal judge ruled against a Pennsylvania school board that mandated teaching intelligent design alongside evolution.
State Rep. Marti Coley, R-Marianna, who represents nine Panhandle counties, said her part of the state is "very conservative" and that the revised standards clash with many residents' beliefs.
Coley has urged the state board to ensure evolution is taught as a theory, not a fact. She said she and other lawmakers will push to make such a requirement state law if the board approves the standards as is.
"I think it would be irresponsible to present it like that in our public schools," Coley said.
Florida Citizens for Science, which favors the changes, says 10 school boards in North Florida have passed resolutions opposing the new standards. The association keeps track on its Web site under a headline that reads, "Those not in favor of a good science education, raise your hand."
It'll be interesting to see if Florida sticks to its plan to develop reasonable and rigorous science standards--or if they cave to the anti-science religious extremists.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Teaching evolution is teaching science; teaching science is teaching evolution
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
21 comments:
Re "[evolution] isn't a political issue, and it shouldn't be part of the presidential debate"
Theoretically, evolution should not be a political issue, because it's an education issue. However, Christian fundamentalists have made this a political issue, therefore it has to be part of the presidential debate.
Here is an Obama quote that I lifted from the BNF site:
"Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all . . . Politics depends on our ability to persuade each other of common aims based on a common reality. It involves the compromise, the art of what's possible. At some fundamental level, religion does not allow for compromise. It's the art of the impossible. If God has spoken, then followers are expected to live up to God's edicts, regardless of the consequences. To base one's life on such uncompromising commitments may be sublime, but to base our policy making on such commitments would be a dangerous thing."
To substitute evolution for the passage about abortion, we have this (please excuse its clunkiness that results from the substitution):
"I may be opposed to teaching evolution for religious reasons, but if I seek to coerce a State Board of Education to revise its standards according to my religious beliefs, demanding that my religious belief system be treated as if it is a fundamental concept underlying all of biology, even though it is not supported by multiple forms of scientific evidence, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will. I have to explain why the teaching of evolution violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all."
And as far as presenting "intelligent design" as an alternative to evolution as an explanation of the origin of life ... well, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005) thoroughly exposed "intelligent design" for what it is, a form of "creationism" which, when presented as an alternative to evolution, violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
I hope that the good people of Florida don't end up throwing their hard-earned money down that route again, as that case was so thoroughly researched, documented, and thought-out, it would be safe to say that it's iron-tight.
Sometimes the only thing that separates the Christian fundamentalist movement in the U.S., from the fundamentalist religious movement being carried out by the Taliban in Afghanistan, is that we are a nation of laws, and as such, the rule of law in the U.S. supercedes religious "laws."
Linda
Brilliantly argued, Linda.
Thanks for contributing.
Isn't it funny that the same people who complain about the state of U.S. education are the same ones who demand that teachers tell kids that a 70-million year old dinosaur lived a few thousand years ago?
Say, mark, how do they calculate that anything is 70 million years old? There is a lot about radiometric dating that is extrapolation --and subject to miscalculation--yet these humongous numbers are rattled off as though some truly reliable study had proved conclusive. Not so. The creationists know science --and they have credibility in their PhD's (and MD's) from secular colleges --and their leadership in scientific careers--thus proving, you don't have to swallow darwin to be a seriously successful and knowledgeable scientist. You have to know it to refute it--and they do.
In one of the Carolinas, the science ed. leadership told their teachers to not get into debates with creation scientists because they would lose. So debates that used to be held on college campuses are now difficult to schedule --because the evolutionists know these debates made inroads against Darwin orthodoxy being taken for granted.
Anonymous, you're an idiot. You take the range of legitimate scientific uncertainty and--talk about extrapolation--conclude that it must mean the bible is literally true. Creationism isn't science, end of discussion.
I didn't use the "range of legit.scientific uncertainty" to assert that the Bible is true. I used it to assert that Darwinian orthodoxy is a heretofore unproveable doctrine of the scientific education establishment --not necessary to believe this doctrine for the successful mastery of any field of science.
Linda, this statement of yours is amazing to me: "Sometimes the only thing that separates the Christian fundamentalist movement in the U.S., from the fundamentalist religious movement being carried out by the Taliban in Afghanistan, is that we are a nation of laws,...."
Good grief, what kind of Christian fundamentalists do you know??? Would they make you wear a burka? prevent you from going to work as a woman--even if you were a doctor which they sorely need there. Would they shoot adulterers in the public square? Would they commit honor killings against a woman who is raped? Do they want such laws to be laws in the USA?
Such hyperbole you use to foment hatred against fundamentalists --all because many of them don't think Darwin has the answer to life's origins?? Wow.
O I forgot. The reason you hate these fundamentalists and liken them to Taliban is that they would make it illegal to kill babies in the womb. Yeah yeah yeah --I know --not really babies -- just "fetuses" --which means "young ones."
Dear anonymous Christian fundamentalist supporter,
Good Grief.
Who, besides you, said anything about hatred for Christian fundamentalists? I think they're ridiculous. I think fundamentalism in any religion is absurd. I can't hate anything that's that absurd.
Nobody can respond to anything put out by fundamentalists, because they have utter certainty that they know the one, true way to God, and everyone else is going to hell in a handbasket, unless, of course, the non-believers are saved by the true believers.
Good grief, Charlie Brown, or whoever you are. Try not to get your hair all tied up in knots over science that refutes your beliefs and supports knowledge about life and the world we live in that doesn't support your beliefs.
In the meantime, I do not converse with idiots. This, by the way, is not a conversation. It is a response to your twisting around, and misrepresenting, what I wrote about evolution, creationism, and intelligent design.
Christian fundamentalists should be ecstatic that religious beliefs cannot be used as a basis for policy in our country. Otherwise, every fringe, quack, cult-like belief system could step in and try to undo a system that works just fine for all people, instead of fine only for one particular set of religious beliefs.
Furthermore, if you were really concerned about hyperbole, you wouldn't engage in it yourself. So don't.
Linda
If someone said of Catholics or Jews --or almost ANY other people group --that they were like the Taliban, or ridiculous or absurd, you'd call that person a prejudiced bigot. At least rude. You seem all the more prejudiced because your descriptions don't fit.
How are "fundamentalist Christians" like the Taliban at all? You seem to define the word "fundamentalist" as anyone who is as dangerous and extreme in cruelty and denial of religious freedom as Islamic extremists.
"Fundamentalist" was the name embraced by evangelical Bible-believers early in the 20th C (at least then) to describe Christians who believed there were certain "fundamentals" of the Christian belief that properly define "christian." They called more liberal Christians
"modernists." Examples of the "fundamentals" of the faith would be the inspiration of Scripture, the virgin birth, deity, crucifixion, resurrection and return of Christ. They tended to be conservatives on all the social issues. Today's evangelicals were yesterday's fundamentalists --and some churches still claim the word to define their Bible-based beliefs.
As for your belief that religion and politics don't mix --you had better watch Amazing Grace and the Amistad movies. Both show how Christianity played a role in the abolition of slavery --influencing government and gov't officials. So did another film I saw tonight that featured the role of the "foot-washers," the Quakers or Friends church, that aided the underground railroad.
Did I call you an idiot? I did not. Did I get my hair tied up over science? Indeed not.
If anyone seems riled, it's you. I'm quite calm about evolution and its inclusion in schools. However, noone has a right to take my dime to teach my child that it's a fact that life started without God, by spontaneous emergence of a one-celled creature after a big bang. They can say this is what Darwin theorized --and explain it --but they don't have the proof that life started that way, nor can they prove there is no Divine Being. Intelligent Design people think the evidence for design and thus a designer is everywhere in the universe. Behe wrote as much in his classic "Darwin's Black Box," about DNA and his view that what we know about it is evidence for an intelligence behind life.
They aren't saying the God of the Bible is that designer.
Creationists, however, would say the Bible is true --but that doesn't mean they are insisting that the Bible's creation story be taught in science class. Every educated person, however, should read Genesis 1 and 2 and some other parts of the Bible in lit class -as part of being 'educated.' So much other lit and history, art and music, are enhanced by Biblical knowledge.
You are right, anonymous. Our religious fundamentalists in America do not push for the same social changes that the religious fundamentalists in the ME do. That they do not does not mean that a comparison is false.
In the debate about evolution, creationism, and intelligent design, because our religious fundamentalists are unable to make the case for teaching intelligent design as a legitimate scientific theory, they instead push their religious beliefs onto others by taking advantage of our poor general participation in our democratic voting process and electing their minions to our local and state boards of education, who then make curriculum decisions in a top-down manner that promotes their religious fundamentalist beliefs.
This is exactly what happened in the Dover, PA school district. Fortunately, a secular parent group that recognized this ploy for what it was and went to the trouble of taking it to task through our legal system, overturned this religious fundamentalist ruse to turn one public school system into a Sunday school system. In this case, which tested the constitutionality of intelligent design being taught in our public schools, there was an extraordinary amount of real discussion about the science of evolution. The community's intelligent design proponents' claim that ID is a scientific idea that is being unfairly maligned was thoroughly debunked. To allow ID to be treated as science would open the door to other equally unscientific belief systems, such as astrology, to be given equal weight.
Thank God reason won out over religious hysteria, as we can all agree that our public schools should not devote resources to teaching every belief system that exists in our huge secular nation; to do so would turn them into a sort of madrassa-system which, those of us who understand the true roots of terrorism, know to be dangerous systems of promoting propaganda at the expense of true knowledge, knowledge about our world and each other that would result in better understanding and less fear and animosity. An enormous amount of expert testimony was admitted by the presiding judge into this case, testimony that scientifically undermined ID's arguments that it is scientifically credible.
I encourage you to do some reading on this case. Reason won over hysteria. I am unable to address your points in your posts, as they are not based on reason. You have every right to your personal belief system, even when that belief system is seen by reasoned people to be idiotic. Our public schools are not the place to present religious ideas (unless they are presented within the context of a class about religion), which may seem idiotic to reasoned people, such as intelligent design. And to not teach our nation's children about the science behind the theory of evolution is to intentionally make them uninformed about our natural world, not in a dissimilar way that the ME's madrassas teach its students that westerners, and Jews in particular, are evil-doers.
Please spare me the trouble of having to gloss over a description of your religious beliefs and how you think they should influence our public school curriculum. I won't bring my religious beliefs into this discussion, and I expect the same level from you. We do not need a mini-religious war here. We've already got our hands, and our resources, consumed by those in various places around the world.
Linda
One more thing, anonymous, which I should have included in my last post. I do not want your children to spend time in a public school system "studying" my religious beliefs, beliefs that I have given enormous and careful consideration to, beliefs based on my experiences in life and on my personal upbringing. By the same token, I do not want my children to "study" your religious beliefs in school, unless it is in the context of studying world religions.
I may give permission to my children to visit your place of worship with you. You may give yours the same freedom to visit my place of worship with my family. This can be a very good way for all of us with different religious beliefs to learn about each others' beliefs and to develop a level of respect for our individual rights to choose our own religius beliefs. Just don't present anybody's religious beliefs as scientifically-based in a public school setting, schools which we are both paying for.
Linda
Intelligent design is simply creationism, repackaged in an attempt to place it in public school curriculums, masquerading as science. As long as there are courts in this country that respect that we are a nation of laws, not religious laws but constitutional laws, those who wish to turn our rule of law into their personal God's law will be prevented from doing so.
We have a rich heritage of immigrant people fleeing oppressive religious states that base their system of laws on the laws of one particular set of religious beliefs as interpreted by one set of religious leaders with inroads to the political apparatus of that state. I make no apologies when I say that I am among those Americans who do not want to see this happen in the U.S.
The theory of evolution and all of the work begun by Charles Darwin in the area of natural selection is scientifically based. It is part of our body of scientific knowledge now widely recognized as legitimate by the scientific community. Evolution and creationism/intelligent design are not in the same category. Evolution belongs in the category that includes the theory of relativity, string theory, the theory of universal gravitation, and other scientific theory that have mathematical and logical explanations, that can be witnessed through scientific experimentation and empirical observation.
Creationism is a myth that is found in all cultures worldwide, that arose in these cultures when primitive people lacked the ability to witness the world through science. All creation stories are beautiful and worthy of being retold to our children, just as all the myths that humanity has collected over the centuries are cherished and shared. Myth, however, is not science, and if it is to be presented to our children in a public school setting, it should be presented within the context of myth or literature, as stories that attempt to satisfy human longing for answers to complex questions about our natural world.
Someone might believe with all the certainty (s)he has in one set of religious teachings that intelligent design is rooted in science. It is not, though. And the best explanation that I know of that demonstrates clearly and unequivocally that intelligent design is not science, is the body of writing that came out of the Kitzmiller vs. Dover case in 2005. If one chooses not to read that, then fine. That is a choice that some will make. Nonetheless, creation stories should not be included in discussions of evolution. They belong with the stories about walking on water and feeding 4000 with seven loaves of bread.
Thank-you for posting and commenting on the Florida story, Dave. It's always enlightening to learn just what the obstacles are in the thinking many of us have to our being able to collectively address the real and complex problems facing the world today. This discussion has inspired me to write more, but in a different venue, on the topic of evolution vs. creationism.
Linda
Well, I had hoped this was over, but I really should pass this on re: "Good grief, what kind of Christian fundamentalists do you know??? Would they make you wear a burka? prevent you from going to work as a woman--even if you were a doctor which they sorely need there. Would they shoot adulterers in the public square? Would they commit honor killings against a woman who is raped? Do they want such laws to be laws in the USA?"
The Christian fundamentalists in the following link place their particular religious laws over our federal employment laws, which prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of sex, among other things.
http://www.ksdk.com/news/watercooler/hot_topics_article.aspx?storyid=140252
Their religion does not allow for a female to referee a boys' basketball game. The reason: God says that a female cannot have authority over a male.
You just cannot make this stuff up!
By golly, even though Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, this school has decided that the laws of their religion trump our Civil Rights Act.
Unbelievable.
Well, anonymous, I hope you can at least recognize now how problematic it is for religious fundamentalists to get into positions where they think they can actually influence public policy. To use your own phraseology: "Good grief, what kind of Christian fundamentalists do you know??? Would they prevent you from going to work as a woman?" Actually, yes, anonymous. They would, and they did. Hopefully, somebody on their school board does not share in this idiocy, and recognizes that no matter how these religious nuts feel about women refereeing their sons' basketball games, they're just going to have to suck it up and play under the rules of the Civil Rights Act, along with the rest of us non-idiotic citizens.
Linda
All churches, Linda, have a right to church law (free exercise of religion) that may not be the same as federal law re: hiring practices. E.G. they DO get to discriminate for religious beliefs, sexual orientation, lifestyle code of conduct. They hire people who live by their codes of conduct and share their doctrinal beliefs.
They are entitled to believe this way and hold their standards --and there are plenty of games for the women to ref where people do NOT believe this way.
Incidentally, this was not your typical protestant evangelical school but a Catholic school--ousted by the pope.
My church treats women equally; we have a Biblical rationale for doing so. However, other Bible-believers do not believe this way because of some of St. Paul's teachings on the subject. Freedom of conscience and freedom of religion mean the feds shall not impose their laws onto the churches and religious institutions --except for certain circumstances --like polygamy, ritual sacrifice of animals, female mutilation, burying live wives with dead husbands, forced marriages. I don't know what they did with the marijuana smoking religions.
Does the school HIRE the ass'n to provide the refs? or is it that the members of the athletic league hire the ass'n? St. Mary's may have to come up with refs and competitors for St. Mary's games who will respect their beliefs. It's too bad --because the kids are the losers. But the Federal gov't has to have their way, don't they? God forbid that anyone should ever tell a woman she shouldn't ref boys' games! That will scar her for life if she can only ref girls' games! Feminists, arise! Take to the streets for the case of the 5 women refs in that athletic ass'n.! PUnish the religious school and do not let their kids compete if they won't have women refs!
Honestly, this is feminism gone awry.
No, barb. This is the Civil Rights Act gone ary. Or rather than use the term "gone awry," I prefer to say the Civil Rights Act in action.
The reason this religion gives for not allowing a female to referee a boys' basketball game is that, according to their interpretation of their god's law, females are not permitted to be in positions of authority over males. Like it or not, that is one of the basic tenets of the Taliban cult in Afghanistan, which results in women not being able to earn income, go to school, obtain health care, and so on.
According to this religious cult's teachings, females must remain in employment conditions that are subservient to those held by males.
Here's a more reasonable response to this act of discrimination, one that goes beyond "feminism gone awry:" "We view officials not as male or female, Hispanic or African-American or Asian-American. We view officials as officials. Discrimination against our officials is something we can't be party to."
I did some of my growing up in the Jim Crow South. I've heard every explanation imaginable for discrimination. "Feminism gone awry" in a case of disallowing a woman to do her job, simply on the basis of gender, strikes me as moving backwards toward "the good ole' days," rather than forward toward more enlightened days.
Linda
Usually, people who believe on the basis of the Bible that women should not have authority over men, confine it to their churches and schools --they would not have a woman principal. Some will not have a woman on the Board of Elders or as a pastor. Most will allow women to teach boys through high school, at least, but some will not let women teach men in their churches. St. Paul had a clear teaching to this effect but said, "I don't allow...." It was in a letter to Timothy.]
On the other hand, Paul also wrote, "IN Christ there is no male nor female, slave nor free, jew nor gentile --but all are one in Christ Jesus." And He said that in the last days, God's spirit would be poured out on our young men and young women and they would prophesy (tell forth the Word)--which usually means preaching or teaching. That's one reason my church does not make a distinction between men and women--except to say that men are heads of their homes as Christ is head of the Church, His bride.
Our pastor suggests that since we resist the curse of the Fall of man in every other way, we ought to also resist it in the area of female subjugation -- We are always rightly seeking to get back to Eden--or as Christ prayed, "Thy will be done on EARTH, as it is in HEAVEN." We know women were not subjugated until the Fall and the Curse. Since we resist pestilence, disease, death, and try to make labor easier and childbirth easier, so ought we resist oppression of women.
Jesus was respectful of women, though they weren't chosen as the 12 --had they been so chosen, it might have brought disrepute on his ministry in that day and age, for Him to be traveling around with women in His immediate entourage. He had more important work than challenging all the cultural traditions of His time on earth --He challenged the most important --His teachings have led to civil rights for all--the Golden Rule principle.
I would also remind you that Jesus elevated women when he said that Mary could sit and listen to him teach along with the men--even though her sister wanted her in the kitchen. He said Mary had chosen the better activity. Yet, I have certainly been grateful for the women I know who love domestic arts for that takes a servant's heart --also lauded and demonstrated by Christ.
And a last word on your claim that evolution is more scientifically valid/science-based than is Intelligent Design or Creation Science --(which are not identical.) All Creation scientists are ID theorists who say the Designer is God. Not all ID theorists are young earth creationists; I understand that some ID theorists DO believe in Darwin's evolution as God's method. (Or maybe they have to say that to keep their jobs.)
The ID people are mostly saying that there is design rather than random, evolutionary happenstance behind our existance. They are saying that design of the complexity we see in the universe and in nature requires a designer. Many ID theorists would be Bible believers --some of the major ID people are Catholic intellectuals and yes, REAL scientists who REALLY understand the issues. The issue for the ID people is not to prove Genesis and again, not all of them would say Genesis is historical fact.
Creationists ARE usually thought to be 6-day believers --who hold to the Biblical accounts and young earth history --and interpret data to support that history. And they do it scientifically --with hypothesis, testing, observing and concluding. They are excellent scientists even though they do not interpret the evidence as evolutionists do.
Most people like you who are vitriolic in opposition to ID science, saying it is just imposition of religion, don't understand what they are talking about. It's no more imposition of religion than Darwin's theory was atheistic in explaining how life started without any designer or divine power --just "naturally" by random chance evolutions, all by natural selection without any Providential guidance--Darwin couldn't prove that --but he tried by explaining everything as random in cause. It's the natural conclusion from his theory so the schools are teaching official atheism when they teach Darwin as the whole truth. And they can't prove their atheism --but Darwin's theory suggests atheism --and when you really dare to observe, this emperor is naked.
http://www.leestrobel.com/videoserver/video.php?clip=strobelT1197
This is one good video featuring a physicist on intelligent design.
Dear anonymous and Barb,
I just returned from a mini-vacation in the desert and noticed that you are still both writing about this.
Look, I respect your right to your own opinions. I am simply unable to address any of your points, because of how they are based. No one can argue a point based on religious beliefs. Period.
I will continue to be a card-carrying supporter of NARAL. I will continue to support pro-choice candidates. I encourage both of you to read the Kitzmiller v. Dover case, and all the many good commentaries available in its aftermath. An especially good one can be found in the Dec. 5, 2005 issue of the NewYorker Magazine.
However, I realize your position is such that no amount of consideration will ever cause you to come to a point where you are able to understand the pro-choice position for what it is. It is not, as you seem to think, a position in which non-believers of a certain set of religious laws are supporting the murder of babies as a convenience for people who engage irresponsibly in sex. For you to hold onto that belief is your right, but a decision of yours that I have little respect for, as I consider it to be sloppy, narrow, provincial, and lacking in true compassion, the kind of compassion that Jesus spoke of that is not easy to come to, and that requires us to reach into parts of our humanity often narrowly maligned as not fitting in with rigid constructs for human behavior. Life is very messy, and very harsh. Many people recognize this, and allow for many human choices to be made that, on the surface, appear to violate widely held ideas around right and wrong, but that upon further, careful, deep scrutiny, are not so clear after all.
ID most certainly is nothing more than a ploy to get creationism accepted as science. ID most certainly does not meet the level of scrutiny considered to be legitimate by the scientific community. Yes, life is amazing and miraculous and wondrous, and not all of it can be explained by science. Most scientists will agree to that.
But our creation stories are myths. You can choose to believe otherwise if you wish. Fortunately, our laws are such that we do not allow religious arguments/myths to dictate public policy.
And yes, I believe that people who want to turn our secular, sensible legal system into one that matches up with their private religious beliefs are nut cases. That is my right. Whatever works for you in this lifetime is OK with me.
As far as that Topeka, KS private school basketball ganme is concerned, I offer this. I have more than just a few family members who live in and around Topeka. I lived there for one year, in the 5th grade, during the year that JFK was assassinated. Most of the people in Topeka are very grounded in reality, but there are some who have moved there and brought with them a set of extreme religious beliefs not so different from those that accompanied the Rev. Jim Jones or the David Koresh cults. Their efforts to work their way into the Kansas state public school system to a level where they can determine school policies that go along with their narrow religious beliefs reached a head a few yars ago, and the rest of the more reasonable Kansans stepped in and put a stop to it. This is all available for you to go back and research and read about, if you'd like.
In our country, we are all free to exercise our religious beliefs to the extent that those beliefs do not break our laws. If that doesn't work for a particular cult, then they will just have to consider moving to a part of the world where they can dictate their own set of laws and live according to their narrow belief systems. When a cult reaches a point where females are not permitted to pass judgment on male behavior/actions, that has crossed over some lines that describe what our society finds (un)acceptable.
And it is not unreasonable to use the word "cult" to describe many of the followers of evangelical Christianity, esp the ones who wish our laws to be changed to fit their narrow religious beliefs. If you are offended by that word to describe what may be yourself, then I suggest you take a harder look at your beliefs, and their encroachment into our secular laws.
Namaste,
Linda
Post a Comment