New Ohio law allows students to be scientifically wrong.

[Shad]

Are some people simply anti-religious? Because that has no place in a society of religious tolerance.

Yes.

 

[ecco]

There have been court cases involving religious freedoms in schools recently, such as lawsuits to prevent students from praying, but also doing things like requiring a student to recite the Muslim call to prayer. So there are real religious freedoms that are being trespassed upon.

Uh huh!

High schoolers had to recite Islamic prayer in class, make prayer rugs as homework, websites say
Our ruling

DownTrend.com’s headline read, "Students In Fla. High School Forced To Recite Islamic Prayer, Make Prayer Rugs." This makes it sound as if students were being indoctrinated into a religion, and that's not the case.

Instead, students were studying the religion of Islam as part of a world history class. According to a district investigation, pupils were assigned to make prayer rugs as an art assignment. The district recommended a different art assignment be made from now on.

As for reciting the pillars of Islam in class, only one student complained his class was made to read the shahada. The investigation cited a notable lack of evidence that anyone was forced to recite a prayer.

The statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. We rate it Mostly False.
​

Maybe you should research facts before posting.

However, here is an indisputable fact:

Since 1954 no atheist can ethically pledge their loyalty to the US because Christians, led in large part by the Knights of Columbus, added the words "under God" to the pledge.

 

[ecco]

Are some people simply anti-religious? Because that has no place in a society of religious tolerance.

This is really funny. You cited a problem with school children being forced to recite a Muslim prayer.

The Politifact article I excerpted showed that the story was overblown. The same story was also in the (rag) Washington Times.

Florida father furious at school lesson: ‘Muhammad is the messenger of God’

Mr. Wagner also complained that the first 100 pages of the of the religious-based chapters that deal with Judaism and Christianity are missing
​

Why would an atheist (or as you put it - someone anti-religious) be upset that "religious-based chapters that deal with Judaism and Christianity are missing"? That makes it quite clear that the complainer, Mr. Wagner, is probably a Christian.

You really need to research before posting. Attributing nonsense to "anti-religious people" when in fact the problem stemmed from a Christian makes you sound really biased.

 

[ecco]

Yes.

See post # 183

 

[Jose Fly]

"God did it" does not conform to academic standards or relevance in science.

And it's also an expression of the student's religious beliefs, which according to the bill means the teacher is prohibited from penalizing the student for expressing it (e.g., giving him an F).

"I believe that science is wrong" may be an expression of a genuine religious belief, but a student can't be rewarded or penalized for religious content.

Not sure where you got "I believe science is wrong" from, but it's not any example I've posted.

The student has to meet academics standards and relevance. This is clear in the law.

It's not a law, it's a bill.

The argument that the teacher cannot give an F because it would penalize the student for religious content does nothing more than betray a lack of reading comprehension.

So you're also of the mind that giving a student an F (for whatever reason) is not penalizing the student. That's a rather interesting argument.

It's not a valid argument supporting the answer that "The Earth was created 10,000 years ago." To give other than an F would be to reward the student for religious content and that is prohibited by the law.

So now you appear to agree that grades are a form of penalty and reward, whereas just earlier you asserted that giving an F wasn't a penalty. Which is it?

 

[dybmh]

There have been court cases involving religious freedoms in schools recently, such as lawsuits to prevent students from praying, but also doing things like requiring a student to recite the Muslim call to prayer. So there are real religious freedoms that are being trespassed upon.

I personally have no problem with kids praying at school. I can see that it's a complicated issue relating to dollars and cents. But at the end of the day, I kinda like it.

Of course, you and I agree that no one should be forced to pray anything. Qur'an or otherwise.

More specifically an essay or an art piece that contains religious content such as a depiction of Jesus or discussion on Qu'ran is something a student should be allowed to submit if he has the choice of expression. There are many ways that religious content may be acceptable in the completion of assignments. And students should be penalized when their content is relevant and satisfies academic standards but happens to contain religious content. You mentioned poems and that's another example of of a place where religious content shouldn't be either penalized or rewarded. A poem about Buddha, for example, would contain what people would call religious content, but the poem should be judged by academic standards and relevance rather than religious content. This seems obvious to me, so I do wonder why don't others see this as obvious?

I agree with everything you said here.

Are some people simply anti-religious? Because that has no place in a society of religious tolerance.

Well... yes. A lot of people are anti-religious. I'm not. I just see it as yet another hurdle for teachers. But as I have been shown... I was being a little foolish. Teachers are more mature than me, and they know how to handle snarky smug students and/or parents regardless of whether religion is involved.

 

[nPeace]

@Bob the Unbeliever you have been proved wrong over and over again, but that doesn't stop you from continuing to make claims with no basis whatsoever, and worst yet, no Biblical support, knowledge, nor scriptural understanding.
What sense does it make to say something, when it's not going to be considered, but just responded to with rants, and unsupported assertions? That would just be arguing.

If you are willing to consider whether you are wrong or right, I would prove that you are wrong, but you don't consider that you are wrong. You just say whatever... regardless.

 

[nPeace]

I understand that's what you believe.


Fair 'nuff.


Do you believe those Christian scientists who do see the idea of LUCA as accurate are "true Christians" (for lack of a better term)? Do you believe they're risking their salvation in doing so?

My understanding of true Christianity is given here.

 

[ecco]

@Bob the Unbeliever you have been proved wrong over and over again, but that doesn't stop you from continuing to make claims with no basis whatsoever, and worst yet, no Biblical support, knowledge, nor scriptural understanding.
What sense does it make to say something, when it's not going to be considered, but just responded to with rants, and unsupported assertions? Do you just like to argue?

If you are willing to consider whether you are wrong or right, I would prove that you are wrong, but you don't consider that you are wrong. You just say whatever... regardless.

I would be glad to offer my services to judge whether or not you have proven @Bob the Unbeliever wrong.

 

[Jose Fly]

My understanding of true Christianity is given here.

Thanks for posting that, very helpful.

From what I can tell, it would seem that (according to the criteria you laid out in that post) a scientist who saw the idea of universal common ancestry as accurate could potentially be a follower of Christ, provided they 1) didn't get involved in "politics, wars, etc.", 2) engaged in discipleship, and 3) took care of the needy. The only potential issue would be with #4, being united in divine/scriptural teachings, which would come down to how the scientist reconciled their views on evolution with scripture.

Do I have that right?

 

[ecco]

My understanding of true Christianity is given here.

Having some time to kill, I followed your link. During a quick reading, this...

The world uses "Christian" to apply to anyone who professes to believe in Jesus - that includes prostitutes, and people living all manner of debauch lifestyles.
That's not what Christian means. A Christian - rightly defined - is one who follows Jesus Christ's example (way of life), and teachings. Such a person lives by the principles and standards set down in the Bible.

...caught my eye.

What's interesting is that you think you have the right to define what a Christian is. You don't. If that part of your post was wrong, then one can conclude that the entire post is wrong.

 

[Jose Fly]

Having some time to kill, I followed your link. During a quick reading, this...

...caught my eye.

What's interesting is that you think you have the right to define what a Christian is. You don't. If that part of your post was wrong, then one can conclude that the entire post is wrong.

Well to be fair, I did ask @nPeace a question about "true Christians". It wouldn't be fair to ask someone "what do you think a true Christian is" and after they answer, come back with "Who do you think you are, that you get to define what a true Christian is?"

The obvious reply there is, "If you don't want me to tell you what I think a true Christian is, then don't ask me in the first place."

 

[Sunstone]

I think this thread tells me that a whole lot of people here on RF struggle to even barely understand legal writing.

As for myself, I studied for two years to become a paralegal back in the day when I thought I might want to be one. I have taken around a dozen courses in the law. And while I am not a lawyer -- not even close to being a lawyer -- I would definitely read and interpret the statute as @Polymath257 suggests it should be read. He's pretty much nailed it, in my opinion.

Having said that, y'all should keep in mind that in the end, the law is what the courts say it is -- no more and no less. And courts have now and then been known to interpret laws in ways that are wildly different from anything a sane person would interpret them.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

@Bob the Unbeliever you have been proved wrong over and over again,.

Nope. I'm going to need some PROOF of that ludicrious claim.

I have shown you to be almost entirely unfamiliar with your own bible-- too many times to count.

But. You think that snakes talk, that a rudderless wooden boat could stay afloat on a world-spanning ocean, and that you can magically speak to the Ultimate Creator of Everything-- who in turn gets really concerned about what sort of clothing you wear...

So, honestly you have all the credibility of a box of crayons.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

My understanding of true Christianity is given here.

Wow. Just.... it's as if God Himself has abdicated the job, and placed you-- and only you-- directly in charge of the entire Universe. And everyone else on the planet is wrong except you-- especially the roughly 3+ billion christians, the majority of whom do not agree with you....

That is the degree to which your Hubris has expanded to.

And you claim to have "proven me wrong".... !!!

Just.... <shaking my head> wow.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Wow. Just.... it's as if God Himself has abdicated the job, and placed you-- and only you-- directly in charge of the entire Universe. And everyone else on the planet is wrong except you-- especially the roughly 3+ billion christians, the majority of whom do not agree with you....

That is the degree to which your Hubris has expanded to.

And you claim to have "proven me wrong".... !!!

Just.... <shaking my head> wow.

Well to be fair he did say " you have been proved wrong over and over again,." I guess taking personal credit for such a claim would have strained even his credulity.

 

[Polymath257]

Having said that, y'all should keep in mind that in the end, the law is what the courts say it is -- no more and no less. And courts have now and then been known to interpret laws in ways that are wildly different from anything a sane person would interpret them.

I just want to second this one. What a court decides may have little or nothing to do with any 'clear reading' of the statute.

 

[nPeace]

Thanks for posting that, very helpful.

From what I can tell, it would seem that (according to the criteria you laid out in that post) a scientist who saw the idea of universal common ancestry as accurate could potentially be a follower of Christ, provided they 1) didn't get involved in "politics, wars, etc.", 2) engaged in discipleship, and 3) took care of the needy. The only potential issue would be with #4, being united in divine/scriptural teachings, which would come down to how the scientist reconciled their views on evolution with scripture.

Do I have that right?

I don't think you can make a fight out of this, but I will play the unsuspecting fish, and bite.

I'll answer with what Jesus said, in the verse mentioned in the post - John 8:31, 32
Jesus said, a person who listens to him, and remain in his word, they will know the truth, and the truth will set them free. He didn't specify exactly what the truth sets one free from, but one's experience does verify the fact that there is no end to philosophy, in this world.

So it's like this scenario ...
A person you listen to tells you many things, and at no time have you seen that what he tells you is not true.
Then you hear this philosophy. Most people are claiming, no, it's not a philosophy, or religion, but truth.
You however, realize it is a philosophy. How? By considering that it does not stand up to the truth. Primarily because it bears the marks of a doctrine of men. If you want to know what the marks of a doctrine look like, which I know there if no if here , we can discuss it.
So, you reject it, and this is because you have been set free, by knowing the truth. Why? Because of listening to the one who has never lied to you.

Answering as a fish that does not take the bite though, I would say, it's simply a matter of what evolutionary biologist Masatoshi Nei, whom I quoted earlier said... any time a scientific theory is treated like dogma, you have to question it. .... Most people have not questioned it. Most textbooks still state this is so. Most students are educated with these books.

You have to question dogma. Use common sense. You have to think for yourself, without preconceptions. That is what’s important in science.

This is what knowing the truth teaches those who listen to it, and are set free from it.
So, in either case, it is a matter of considering what has been laid out on the table, and weighting it. If it goes up, you know what material it falls into.

So, in a nutshell, it is just a matter of people choosing their system of belief. In other words, a Christian who listens to truth, and is led by truth, will be set free, and not be misled by doctrines of men - philosophy... which the theory of evolution evidently falls into.

Actually, many "Christians" who agree on most things, including the Trinity, will disagree with those "Christians" who accept that belief system. They call them out too.

 

[nPeace]

Nope. I'm going to need some PROOF of that ludicrious claim.

I have shown you to be almost entirely unfamiliar with your own bible-- too many times to count.

But. You think that snakes talk, that a rudderless wooden boat could stay afloat on a world-spanning ocean, and that you can magically speak to the Ultimate Creator of Everything-- who in turn gets really concerned about what sort of clothing you wear...

So, honestly you have all the credibility of a box of crayons.

See what I mean.
Just in this one post you tell me that I believe things I don't even believe, and when I say no, that is wrong... you got it wrong, you claim you are right. LOL

In other words, you are so right about what you think the Bible says, and what others believe, no one can prove you wrong... and you repeat that, despite. LOL

Wow. Just.... it's as if God Himself has abdicated the job, and placed you-- and only you-- directly in charge of the entire Universe. And everyone else on the planet is wrong except you-- especially the roughly 3+ billion christians, the majority of whom do not agree with you....

That is the degree to which your Hubris has expanded to.

And you claim to have "proven me wrong".... !!!

Just.... <shaking my head> wow.

Wow is right. LMHO

 

[Jose Fly]

I don't think you can make a fight out of this, but I will play the unsuspecting fish, and bite.

LOL....nah, no interest in a fight here, just hoping to understand.

I'll answer with what Jesus said, in the verse mentioned in the post - John 8:31, 32
Jesus said, a person who listens to him, and remain in his word, they will know the truth, and the truth will set them free. He didn't specify exactly what the truth sets one free from, but one's experience does verify the fact that there is no end to philosophy, in this world.

So it's not clear what specific "truth" Jesus was talking about, correct?

So it's like this scenario ...
A person you listen to tells you many things, and at no time have you seen that what he tells you is not true.
Then you hear this philosophy. Most people are claiming, no, it's not a philosophy, or religion, but truth.
You however, realize it is a philosophy. How? By considering that it does not stand up to the truth. Primarily because it bears the marks of a doctrine of men. If you want to know what the marks of a doctrine look like, which I know there if no if here , we can discuss it.
So, you reject it, and this is because you have been set free, by knowing the truth. Why? Because of listening to the one who has never lied to you.

This is the part I'm not getting. It seems like you're saying that everything that "bears the marks of a doctrine of men" is automatically not true. ("it does not stand up to the truth. Primarily because it bears the marks of a doctrine of men").

Does that mean nothing "men" say is true?

Answering as a fish that does not take the bite though, I would say, it's simply a matter of what evolutionary biologist Masatoshi Nei, whom I quoted earlier said... any time a scientific theory is treated like dogma, you have to question it. .... Most people have not questioned it. Most textbooks still state this is so. Most students are educated with these books.

You have to question dogma. Use common sense. You have to think for yourself, without preconceptions. That is what’s important in science.

As I said when you first quoted Dr. Nei....I agree with what he's saying.

This is what knowing the truth teaches those who listen to it, and are set free from it.
So, in either case, it is a matter of considering what has been laid out on the table, and weighting it. If it goes up, you know what material it falls into.

So, in a nutshell, it is just a matter of people choosing their system of belief. In other words, a Christian who listens to truth, and is led by truth, will be set free, and not be misled by doctrines of men - philosophy... which the theory of evolution evidently falls into.

On what basis does evolutionary theory fall into the category of "philosophy"?

Actually, many "Christians" who agree on most things, including the Trinity, will disagree with those "Christians" who accept that belief system. They call them out too.

Oh sure, and that's kinda the point of my inquiry. I'm basically trying to find out if you see evolutionary theory as a salvation issue, and whether a scientist who sees universal common ancestry as accurate is therefore not a "true Christian".