[Search for users] [Overall Top Noters] [List of all Conferences] [Download this site]

Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

Title:Discussions from a Christian Perspective
Notice:Prostitutes and tax collectors welcome!
Moderator:CSC32::J_CHRISTIE
Created:Mon Sep 17 1990
Last Modified:Fri Jun 06 1997
Last Successful Update:Fri Jun 06 1997
Number of topics:1362
Total number of notes:61362

921.0. "Fundaphobia" by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE (Heat-seeking Pacifist) Wed May 18 1994 20:39

As Barry Goldwater has said of the Christian Right: "These people scare
the hell out of me!"

Even though I'm from Arizona, I'm not a Goldwater supporter.  In fact,
he disagreed with everything I ever wrote to him about.  I know what he
means on this issue, though.

Am I "fundaphobic?"  Oh, I guess I am to some degree, unless you count
folks like Tony Campolo, Ron Sider, David Dawson and a handful of others.

Shalom,
Richard

T.RTitleUserPersonal
Name
DateLines
921.1POWDML::FLANAGANResident AlienWed May 18 1994 21:2515
    I am afraid of a movement that will limit what my children can study in
    school, which would force my children to learn that religious myth has
    equal weight to scientific truth, which would dictate which books are
    or are not in the school library, which would make it difficult for my
    children to get condoms if they are going to engage in sexual activity
    and choose not to ask me for them.
    
    I am afraid of a movement that would make it difficult for my gay and
    lesbian friends to live as full citizens.  I am afraid of a movement
    which would try to define what is appropriate for me as a women and
    what is not appropriate for me as a woman.
    
    Does this make me fundaphobic.
    
                                        Patricia
921.2Barry's a very poor spokesperson for your movementFRETZ::HEISERno D in PhoenixWed May 18 1994 21:2917
    Being a Phoenician, I can vouch for the fact that Goldwater has changed
    many of his philosophies over the past decade.  Part of this is because
    of marrying a very liberal woman who is less than half his age.  She's
    influenced him to a point where he's doing commercials in support of
    *Democrat* candidates.  The local GOP is in quite an uproar because of
    his new stances.
    
    You can call it senility, old age, or being henpecked, but the majority
    of Arizonans don't take Barry too seriously anymore.  My sister-in-law
    graduated from Goldwater H.S. last summer and Barry spoke during the
    ceremony.  What I saw was someone who is a shadow of the public speaker
    he used to be.  He couldn't maintain his train of thought, often went
    on tangents and forgot what point he was going to make, and at times
    seemed to forget where he was and what end of the Sundome stage he was
    to leave.  Pretty sad, but it happens to the best of us.
    
    Mike
921.3A mind, instead of a party lineCSC32::J_CHRISTIEHeat-seeking PacifistWed May 18 1994 21:547
    Thanks for the update on Barry.  As I said, I've never been a fan of
    his.  Glad to hear he has mellowed with age.  I've noticed this about
    Billy Graham in recent years as well.
    
    Richard
    Who lived more than 35 years in Phoenix, himself.
    
921.4Billy is one of the great onesFRETZ::HEISERno D in PhoenixWed May 18 1994 22:426
    Richard, somehow I wouldn't associate mellowing with liberalism.  Billy
    Graham is just as fundamental now as he was 30 years ago.  Parkinsons,
    or whatever it is that afflicts Billy now, hasn't changed what he
    believes in and what he stands for.
    
    Mike
921.5FWIWLGP30::FLEISCHERwithout vision the people perish (DTN 223-8576, MSO2-2/A2, IM&T)Wed May 18 1994 22:4511
re Note 921.4 by FRETZ::HEISER:

>     Richard, somehow I wouldn't associate mellowing with liberalism.  Billy
>     Graham is just as fundamental now as he was 30 years ago.  Parkinsons,
>     or whatever it is that afflicts Billy now, hasn't changed what he
>     believes in and what he stands for.
  
        Actually, there are those who claim to detect a shift towards
        liberalism on some issues by Billy Graham in recent years.

        Bob
921.6FRETZ::HEISERno D in PhoenixWed May 18 1994 22:575
    I follow a lot of what he says since I really respect him, and I don't
    sense that shift.  His son, Franklin, is picking up nicely in his
    footsteps as well.  Even looks and talks like him.
    
    Mike
921.7AIMHI::JMARTINWed May 18 1994 23:58106
Re:  Note 921.1                     
POWDML::FLANAGAN "Resident Alien"                    15 lines  18-MAY-1994 17:25

Hi Patricia:

Even fundamentalists don't see eye to eye on everything.  But I would like to
touch on these issues one by one.

>>    I am afraid of a movement that will limit what my children can study in
>>    school, which would force my children to learn that religious myth has
>>    equal weight to scientific truth,

Patricia, I find this very interesting.  Let's forget for a minute that I'm a
Christian, I am just harmless me.  During the mid 80's, the Supreme Court
ruled that Secular Humanism is an established and identifiable religion.  The
same institution that gave us Roe v. Wade.  I have to assume that you are
referring to creationism vs. evolution.  Let's set the foundation here.

1. Evolution is secular humanism; thereby a religion which violates the
   separation of church and state mandate of our constitution.  It is the
   study of the origin of mankind, just as Christianity/Judaim is.
2. Evolution is for the most part based on theory and conjecture, openly 
   admitted by scientists.  Since it is being taught as fact in our schools,
   and it is, I submit to you Patricia, that your children are by your
   definition, being taught myth.  This should have you up in arms.
3. Historians can account for much of the historical aspects of the Bible;
   therefore, your children are being deprived of some historical facts
   that will allow them to make an INFORMED CHOICE.  Sound familiar?

Since I have established that both teachings are based on myth or faith, it
is my firm belief that both should be taught as theory on neither of them
should be taught.  Darwin stated on his deathbed that many of his theories we
espouse to do not complement fact.

    >>  which would dictate which books are
    >>  or are not in the school library, which would make it difficult for my
    >>  children to get condoms if they are going to engage in sexual activity
    >>  and choose not to ask me for them.
    
Patricia, I agree with you.  I would like you to answer this.  Since I don't
hold to these beliefs as you do, I would like to offer an equitable solution
for both of us.  Would you please lobby your congress folks to make public
schools a choice.  And would you please ask them to stop extorting money 
from people like myself who do not wish to support the public schools and 
choose not to avail myself of their services.  They're asking me to keep my
opinions to myself but for some reason they have the gall to insist I pay for 
it.  That to me is the fairest way of doing it.  Thank you.
Note: I attended the Framingham Public Scools from K-12.

>>    I am afraid of a movement that would make it difficult for my gay and
>>    lesbian friends to live as full citizens. 

I agree.  If you deny a gay individual a job, what do you have?  A homeless
gay individual.  Doesn't make sense.  I speak on this not as a Christian but
as one who espouses to the bill of rights.  Patricia, property rights are the
core of what this country is founded.  Ben Franklin once said, "He who 
relinquishes a little freedom for a little bit of security deserves neither."
As a private property owner, you do not have the right to tell me who I may
or may not rent to.  If I want to be a shallow bigot that is my perogative.
Whether I think gay living is normal/abnormal, moral/immoral is immaterial.
I have always taken the position that I never stay where I'm not wanted, 
(except for C-P because I love you guys anyways!!)  I hope you understand 
the concept here.
  
 >>   I am afraid of a movement
 >>   which would try to define what is appropriate for me as a women and
 >>   what is not appropriate for me as a woman.

I believe you are referring to abortion here.  Again Patricia, I can't stop
what is happening as I am outnumbered on this issue by a democratic majority.
I have to respect this because 1 person 1 vote is what our democratic system 
is made of.  But again, for the love of pete, why are you extorting money 
from those who do not wish to avail themselves of these services.  Governor
Weld is allowing Medicaid to fund sex changes for crying out loud!!  We have
to draw a line somewhere.   You cannot expect people who are forced to waste
money on these programs to not have a beef.  
    
>>    Does this make me fundaphobic.
    
No Patricia; however, I brought up this issue and you took offense to it some
time ago.  You asked me to refrain from using the term "Welfare Magnet", so
I will say this the best way I can.

Patricia, the Judeo/Christian ethic is just that, an ethic.  An atheist can be
a strong believer in this just as a Muslim can.  It is a fancy term for loving
thy neighbor and respecting your fellow man.

As a fundamentalist, somebody who believes the scriptures to be what I believe
and nothing more, I see many many many fringe groups who do not believe in
the Judeo Christian ethic.  I believe this ethic is what we are striving for.
Without it, there is no peace; only anarchy...kind of like what we see in the
inner city today.  

It is my belief that not all religions are good.  I believe evolution is 
only one form of secular humanism, but it rears its head in many other forms.
I don't think it's necessary to name them because we have seen them here in
C-P bantered and argued time after time.  

Patricia, as a fundie, I see changes over the last twenty years...bad changes 
that are polluting the minds of our youth.  If majority rules, then fine, but
I should have the right not to be part of it either.  I am being forced to 
foot the bill and I resent it!!

-Jack


921.8Billy is no less vitalCSC32::J_CHRISTIERetiring C-P ModeratorThu May 19 1994 00:3011
Graham has gone on record as denouncing as immoral the use of nuclear weapons.
It's not a huge step for one who calls himself a Christian, but it's a start.
The power to inflict death on a foe is something not even many liberals would
be willing to relinquish.

I heard Billy preach not too long ago on Genesis 19.  He didn't mention
gays or homosexual acts once.  He went for the real message of Genesis
19, which has been discussed at length elsewhere within this conference.

Richard

921.9well...TFH::KIRKa simple songThu May 19 1994 01:5415
re:  Note 921.7 by Jack

> 1. ...
> 2. ...
> 3. ...
> Since I have established that both teachings are based on myth or faith, ...

In your own mind, perhaps.

Peace,

Jim

p.s  postulate, hypothesis, theory, law; all have very specific definitions in 
science.
921.10JULIET::MORALES_NASweet Spirit's Gentle BreezeThu May 19 1994 04:123
    .9
    
    Intellectual verbosity does not make one right.
921.11CSC32::J_CHRISTIERetiring C-P ModeratorThu May 19 1994 04:255
    Actually, the one to which .9 refers is far more verbose.  .9
    demonstrates great economy of words.
    
    Richard
    
921.12please cite the decisionLGP30::FLEISCHERwithout vision the people perish (DTN 223-8576, MSO2-2/A2, IM&T)Thu May 19 1994 10:5811
re Note 921.7 by AIMHI::JMARTIN:

> During the mid 80's, the Supreme Court
> ruled that Secular Humanism is an established and identifiable religion.  

        I've seen this several times, but I've never seen the case
        citation.

        Could you provide it, please?

        Bob
921.13JUPITR::HILDEBRANTI'm the NRAThu May 19 1994 13:185
    I had quite a fondness for Barry Goldwater. Read and enjoyed his book
    "Conscience of a Conservative". The idea that mellowing in old age
    , linked with liberalism and senility is funny and accurate!
    
    Marc H.
921.14AIMHI::JMARTINThu May 19 1994 14:1627
    Bob:
    
    I will have to research that, I'm not sure when it happened but I
    believe it was around 1986 or 7.
    
    Order of Science:  Theory
    		       Hypothesis
    		       Test
    		       Conclusion
    
    Evolution has not passed the test stage in many many areas.  Remember
    Dr. Leakey's discovery in the Paluxi River in Texas.  Happened in the
    seventies.  Apparently she found dinosaur fossils that throw Darwins
    evolution of man chart into total oblivion.  You cannot determine
    facial hair from a skull, Carbon 12 is an unreliable age determining
    method..... The list goes on and on.
    
    All this to say, your kids are being lied to.  I don't know the reason,
    I can speculate, that's all.  Policies in education need to be made on
    sound, rational wisdom.  I don't see evolution as having anymore
    validity than creation that's for sure.  But what really gets me is
    that we are subjecting our children to secular humanism (religion), 
    and bunking the teachings of the Bible.
    
    -Jack
    
    
921.15GRIM::MESSENGERBob MessengerThu May 19 1994 14:4847
Re: .7 Jack

>During the mid 80's, the Supreme Court
>ruled that Secular Humanism is an established and identifiable religion.

This is OK with me.  If Digital wanted to fire for me for being a secular
humanist I'd like to be able to sue on the grounds of religious
discrimination.  Strictly speaking, though, I don't think Secular Humanism
meets most tests for being a religion, e.g. it doesn't advocate the worship
of or service to supernatural forces.

>1. Evolution is secular humanism;

Not true.  Secular humanists believe in the theory of evolution, but not
everyone who believes in the theory is a secular humanist.

> thereby a religion which violates the
>   separation of church and state mandate of our constitution.

If Secular Humanism were taught in the schools as a religion it would
violate the separation of church and state.  Teaching evolution is not the
same as teaching secular humanism.

>  It is the
>   study of the origin of mankind, just as Christianity/Judaim is.

The difference is that evolutionists study the origin of mankind on the
basis of science instead of supernatural forces.  If the only reason for
believing in a theory of the origin of mankind is religious belief then it
should not be taught in the public schools.

>2. Evolution is for the most part based on theory and conjecture, openly 
>   admitted by scientists.  Since it is being taught as fact in our schools,
>   and it is, I submit to you Patricia, that your children are by your
>   definition, being taught myth.  This should have you up in arms.

"Myth" is not the same as theory and conjecture.  There is a lot of
scientific evidence backing up the theory of evolution.

>3. Historians can account for much of the historical aspects of the Bible;
>   therefore, your children are being deprived of some historical facts
>   that will allow them to make an INFORMED CHOICE.  Sound familiar?

I would have no objection to children being taught biblical facts that can
be verified by historians.

				-- Bob
921.16AIMHI::JMARTINThu May 19 1994 15:206
    Bob:
    
    Nothing is cut and dry, I admit that.  How do you feel about the NEA
    and federal government extorting money from fundies who ddon't wish to
    partake of their, "services"?
    
921.17TFH::KIRKa simple songThu May 19 1994 15:2535
re: Note 921.14 by Jack

>    Order of Science:  Theory
>    		        Hypothesis
>    		        Test
>    		        Conclusion

Not quite.  It's more like:

			Hypothesis
			Test
			Theory
			Prediction
			Law

A hypothesis is generated, tested, and changed according to test results.
When it stands very well with observed phenomena it becomes a theory.
A well-formed theory will have predictive powers, that is, it can explain 
phenomena beyond the subset with which it was tested.  A good theory can 
predict heretofore unknown phenomena.  Einsteins' theory of relativity 
predicted the bending of light waves due to a gravitational field.  It was 
verified by observing the apparent position of the planet Mercury during a 
solar eclipse.  Creation "science" in general does not have good predictive
powers.  "God made it so" is not predictive. 

A good theory with a good predictive track record and tie-ins to different
areas of science can become accepted as a Law, such as Kepler's Laws of
planetary motion. 

Darwin's theory of evolution is just that, a theory; stronger than an 
hypothesis, not yet accepted as a law.

Peace,

Jim
921.18AIMHI::JMARTINThu May 19 1994 15:444
    Good points.  So what do you say when your son or daughter caomes home
    and unequivocably states, "Daddy, we evolved from apes."
    
    -Jack
921.19AIMHI::JMARTINThu May 19 1994 15:4420
    
Bob:
    
    I put a string in SOAPBOX and got this so far.
    
    
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "Secular humanism may be a religion for purposes of First Amendment."
    			-Grove v. Mead School District, 1985
    
    
    This was obviously a stretch of the word religion, as our FF used it;
    but nontheless, it is recognized as a religion today, as is atheism:
    
    "Atheism may be a religion under the establishment clause."
    			-Malnak v. Yogi, 1977
    
    
    -steve

921.20GRIM::MESSENGERBob MessengerThu May 19 1994 15:5314
Re: .16 Jack

>    Nothing is cut and dry, I admit that.  How do you feel about the NEA
>    and federal government extorting money from fundies who ddon't wish to
>    partake of their, "services"?
    
I think most of us find ourselves having to pay taxes to support things we
don't agree with.  I don't object to that as long as the government is
subject to the collective will of the people through the democratic
process.  As a citizen my vote is to continue funding the NEA, and my hope
is that NEA grants will be awarded on the basis of artistic merit rather
than politics.  I respect your right to vote the opposite way.

				-- Bob
921.21AIMHI::JMARTINThu May 19 1994 16:2624
    Yes, that is understood and is the beauty of a democracy.   I don't
    really have too much of a problem with most things unless they are 
    used to break the natural law of God.  That is the thorn in my claw
    with the abortion issue.  
    
    My personal opinion, and that's all it is.  Most teachers are
    dedicated, most teachers do the best they can, and yes alot of them are
    not appreciated.  I have alot of respect for teachers and believe the
    world needs more of them.  The NEA to me is nothing but a bully bureau.
    Bob, if you only knew some of the things that go on with that
    organization... In the 80's they were known as second to the pulit
    bureau as a recognized pressure group.  As you can see, I believe the
    NEA, The Teamsters...their all bad apples who have no interest in
    anybody but themselves.  This is really a different topic all together. 
    But what I'm really trying to point out here is to Patricia and others,
    things are not as black and white as you think.  There are some things 
    that are simply BAD for this country.  I hate to see pressure groups
    make chumps out of anybody and I hate to see social agenda groups
    steamroll over your children for their betterment.
    
    So Patricia, are you willing to relinquish me from a facism I am not
    willing to be part of?
    
    -Jack
921.22CVG::THOMPSONAn AlphaGeneration NoterThu May 19 1994 16:397
    RE: .20 and .21

    Somehow I think you are talking about 2 different NEAs. One is the
    National Endowment for the Arts and the other is the National Education
    Association. Suggest you figure out who'se referring to which.

    			Alfred
921.23FRETZ::HEISERno D in PhoenixThu May 19 1994 16:5887
    Re: Science & The Bible
    
    I wholeheartedly recommend the book "Genesis & The Big Bang" by Dr.
    Gerald Schroeder on Bantam Books.  This man *isn't* a Christian, but an
    internationally known and respected (i.e., world class) nuclear physicist.  
    Don't let that scare you away from it though, his presentation is 
    down-to-earth.  Reading this book will most certainly change your thinking 
    about the Bible and Science disagreeing.
    
    For instance, from Einstein's Theory of Relativity time dilates relative 
    to mass.  It is interesting to compare the mass of the universe to the 
    mass of the Earth.  If one takes the '16 billion years' observed by 
    scientists, and divides it by the expansion factor 10^12, the result is 
    0.016 years, or 6 days, as described in Genesis 1!  A very provocative 
    analysis.
    
    As for evolution, let's examine its fruit.  First let's see what the
    Bible says about fruit:
    
Matthew 7:17-20
"-Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth
forth evil fruit.
-A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring
forth good fruit.
-Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the
fire.
-Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them."

    Evolution has provided a basis for atheism, pantheism, humanism, communism, 
    fascism, "New-Age" cults, and any other philosophy or religion that denies 
    the existence of God.  Not every evolutionist is an atheist or Communist, 
    but every atheist, pantheist, or humanist is an evolutionist by necessity.  

    In addition, evolution is the alleged cause for many of the evil and
    dangerous practices of this century.  Racism is one obvious example. 
    The subtitle of Darwin's "Origin of Species" was "The Preservation of
    Favored Races in the Struggle for Life."   In a later book, "The
    Descent of Man," Darwin wrote that natural selection would eventually
    eliminate what he called "the savage races" in favor of "the civilized
    races of men."  In addition to Darwin, Thomas Huxley, Herbert Spencer
    and most Post-Darwin evolutionary scientists were racists.  This
    continued until World War II and Hitler emerged.  Hitler's actions gave
    racism a bad reputation among the educated.   It's interesting to note
    that Hitler himself was a devout evolutionary pantheist, deeply
    involved in the occult and imperialistic social Darwinism.

    Another "fruit" of evolution is the secular psychological counseling
    and psychiatric treatment with roots in the theories of Sigmund Freud. 
    Freud himself based his theories and techniques on Darwin, Lamarck, and
    Ernst Haeckel.  These theories have long been rejected by modern
    evolutionary biologists.  Despite that, the leaders of modern
    psychology (J.B. Watson, B.F. Skinner, Carl Rogers, etc.) have built on
    Freud's theories, and his atheism, even while rejecting much of his
    psychoanalytical theories.  All of this has had a devastating effect on
    religion, morality, the traditional family and time-honored values.

    The modern promotion of "alternate sexual orientations" is based on
    pseudoscientific theories in evolutionary logic.  Supporters take a
    leap of logic in stating that heterosexuality cannot be the norm for
    mankind since we have trees and flowers with male and female
    characteristics.

    Abortion is another "fruit" of evolution.  Pro-choice supporters today
    base their beliefs that the fetus hasn't evolved into a human being so
    it is fair game if the mother so chooses.  As we all know, Paul Weiss
    has easily put this view into question using nothing but common sense
    and logic.

    Evolutionary philosophy has been at the roots of both World Wars.  In
    the name of Social Darwinism, it has been responsible for unrestrained
    capitalism, while monopolizing and exploiting human and natural resources.
    Evolution is responsible for liberalism in biblical studies.  It has
    caused a shift in law and political science away from their original
    foundations in biblical and constitutional principles.  

    Finally, the overall breakdown in our traditional moral structure in
    society had evolutionary philosophy at its roots.  Its attempt to
    replace belief in a Creator with belief in animalistic psychology makes
    man forget that he will have to answer to that Creator some day.  As a
    result, the drug culture is flourishing, and sexual promiscuity abounds.
    And why not?  If man is merely an evolved animal, he may as well act
    like one.

    The fruit of evolution is corrupt and is proof alone that it is a false
    theory.
    
    Mike
921.24this is not the creation/evolution topicTFH::KIRKa simple songThu May 19 1994 17:2510
re: Note 921.23 by Mike "no D in Phoenix" 

>    Re: Science & The Bible

This is not really the topic of this discussion.  
I replied to Jack simply to clear up some word definitions.
    
Peace,

Jim
921.25GRIM::MESSENGERBob MessengerThu May 19 1994 17:3031
Re: .22 Alfred

>    Somehow I think you are talking about 2 different NEAs. One is the
>    National Endowment for the Arts and the other is the National Education
>    Association. Suggest you figure out who'se referring to which.

I was wondering why Jack suddenly brought up the National Endowment for the
Arts.  I'm not familiar with the National Education Association: is that
the teacher's union?  If so, it's a union and naturally will do what it
thinks is best for its members.

Re: .23 Mike

>    For instance, from Einstein's Theory of Relativity time dilates relative 
>    to mass.  It is interesting to compare the mass of the universe to the 
>    mass of the Earth.  If one takes the '16 billion years' observed by 
>    scientists, and divides it by the expansion factor 10^12, the result is 
>    0.016 years, or 6 days, as described in Genesis 1!  A very provocative 
>    analysis.
    
Unless Dr. Schroeder is saying that animals appeared on the earth two days
after vegetation appeared on the earth, or that vegetation appeared before
the sun and the moon were created, I don't see how his analysis valididates
the Genesis account of creation.

>    The fruit of evolution is corrupt and is proof alone that it is a false
>    theory.
    
Gee, now why don't I find that convincing? :-)

				-- Bob
921.26AIMHI::JMARTINThu May 19 1994 18:0715
    All:
    
    Sorry, I was referring to the National Education Association and no, it
    is not permissable for them to look out for their members at the cost
    of quality education.  This is a public service paid for by the cities
    and towns, not a private business.  Unions in schools have as much
    validation as unions in the marines...None!!
    
    The point here is this...Please, for the sake of our kids, don't be
    like an ostrich and put your heads in the sand for the sake of
    ideology.  Question authority, question leadership, fight for what you
    believe in regardless of what side, but don't hinder the rights of
    others to lobby for what they believe to be quality education.
    
    -Jack
921.27education is very importantTFH::KIRKa simple songThu May 19 1994 18:1113
re: Note 921.26 by Jack
    
>    The point here is this...Please, for the sake of our kids, don't be
>    like an ostrich and put your heads in the sand for the sake of
>    ideology.  Question authority, question leadership, fight for what you
>    believe in regardless of what side, but don't hinder the rights of
>    others to lobby for what they believe to be quality education.
    
I agree, 100%.

Peace,

Jim
921.28HURON::MYERSFri May 20 1994 01:178
    > Intellectual verbosity does not make one right.

    Neither does ignorant brevity... :^)
    
    Now don't get upset... I just can't help but see the Yin-Yan of things
    sometimes.
    
    Eric
921.29BIGQ::SILVAMemories.....Fri May 20 1994 15:2560
| <<< Note 921.7 by AIMHI::JMARTIN >>>



| Patricia, I agree with you.  I would like you to answer this.  Since I don't
| hold to these beliefs as you do, I would like to offer an equitable solution
| for both of us.  Would you please lobby your congress folks to make public
| schools a choice.  And would you please ask them to stop extorting money
| from people like myself who do not wish to support the public schools and
| choose not to avail myself of their services.  

	Jack, would you be willing to lobby for churches paying taxes? Why
should they get any type of break? Also, would you be willing to do the same
thing you ask of Patricia for any taxes that you think are good than someone
else may not? Kind of a hard thing to ask someone to do Jack.

| >>    I am afraid of a movement that would make it difficult for my gay and
| >>    lesbian friends to live as full citizens.

| I agree.  If you deny a gay individual a job, what do you have?  A homeless
| gay individual.  Doesn't make sense.  I speak on this not as a Christian but
| as one who espouses to the bill of rights.  Patricia, property rights are the
| core of what this country is founded.  Ben Franklin once said, "He who 
| relinquishes a little freedom for a little bit of security deserves neither."
| As a private property owner, you do not have the right to tell me who I may
| or may not rent to.  

	In this state (and in many others) that is not true. IF you live in the
dwelling, you are correct. If you do not, you are wrong.

| If I want to be a shallow bigot that is my perogative.

	Jack, how can you even say this? I never would have expected this from
you.

| Whether I think gay living is normal/abnormal, moral/immoral is immaterial.

	If that really were the case, then you would have no reason to NOT rent
to someone who is gay, lesbian or bisexual. So are you telling us you would
rent to one of us? BTW, if you would not rent to one of us, is it because of
your own feelings or because you honestly believe God would not want you to
rent to a gay, bisexual or lesbian?

| I have always taken the position that I never stay where I'm not wanted,

	That is one approach to take Jack. In a lot of cases this is the best
thing. But in a lot of cases this is NOT the best policy. Where would people of
colour be today if they followed your position? 

| >>   I am afraid of a movement
| >>   which would try to define what is appropriate for me as a women and
| >>   what is not appropriate for me as a woman.

| I believe you are referring to abortion here.  

	Maybe even a woman's role in the church and in the marriage. 



Glen
921.30Some 'Fundaphobia' In MeLUDWIG::BARBIERIFri May 20 1994 15:5422
      I have a certain amount of 'fundaphobia.'  It is based on
      my belief that a part of fundamental Christianity is and
      will continue to desecrate the separation of church and
      state so as to fulfill some of their agenda.  I think some
      of their desires are good and some are not.  But, the old
      adage "the ends [satisfying their agenda] justifies the
      means [destroying wall of separation of church and state]"
      is wrong.
    
      As one specific example, I am a seventh-day Sabbathkeeper.
      It is my personal belief that I cam called to rest a certain
      way on sundown Friday to sundown Saturday.  I do not believe
      it is right for this belief of mine to be legislated so as
      to be shoved down anyone else's throat.  _However_, there are
      movements for Sunday laws.  I think this is wrong and in fact
      I find it peculiar that some people would try to legislate 
      something the word of God itself never called for.
    
      The day is coming when this country will legislate Sunday-
      keeping.
    
                                               Tony
921.31HYLNDR::TRUMPLERHelp prevent truth decay.Fri May 20 1994 17:5631
    Re the topic:
    What .1 said.
    
    Re .14:
    This is off-topic, but these are common misconceptions.
    >Remember
    >Dr. Leakey's discovery in the Paluxi River in Texas.  Happened in the
    Methinks you refer to the so-called man-tracks in Glen Rose, Texas.
    (Not, to my knowledge, discovered by any of the Leakey clan, who work
    in Africa.)
    
    Did you know that John Morris of the ICR wrote that these were not to
    be used as evidence against evolution? [1] (These tracks, folks, are dino
    tracks: three-toed, etc.  There are also a few fairly obvious forgeries
    dating from early this century.)
    
    >facial hair from a skull, Carbon 12 is an unreliable age determining
    >method..... The list goes on and on.
    First, the method is Carbon-14 dating, and second, it is quite reliable
    within defined parameters.  Third, the age of the Earth (and, by
    extension, the time needed by evolutionary theory) does not depend on
    the reliability of C-14 dating.  (It depends on K/Ar, Pb/Pb, and Rb/Sr
    dating, which yield concordant results of about 4.5 billion years. [2])
    
    You want to discuss more, do it in Soapbox.
    
    Mark
    [1] Strahler, _Science and Earth History_ cites a Morris article in
    either _Impact_ or _Acts and Facts_, both ICR periodicals.
    I can find out exact details if you wish.
    [2] Dalrymple, _Age of the Earth_.
921.32HYLNDR::TRUMPLERHelp prevent truth decay.Fri May 20 1994 18:0314
    Re .23:
    
    Please take your (inaccurate, vitriolic) mis-conceptions of evolution
    to Soapbox.  I can come up with an equally inaccurate, vitriolic
    description of Christianity.  Shall I post it in BIOLOGY?
    
    Specifically,
    >Evolutionary philosophy has been at the roots of both World Wars.
    What does evolutionary philosophy have to do with evolutionary science,
    and why does the invalidation of one (based on philosophy, not
    evidence) invalidate the other (based on evidence)?
    
    Mark
    
921.33CSC32::J_CHRISTIERetiring C-P ModeratorFri May 20 1994 18:309
    .31 & .32
    
    Hello, Mark.  Can't remember seeing you here before.
    
    Welcome to the CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE conference.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    
921.34JULIET::MORALES_NASweet Spirit's Gentle BreezeSat May 21 1994 00:123
    .28
    
    :-)  I actually like it.
921.35HURON::MYERSSat May 21 1994 02:218
    I fear any movement that determines to define what constitutes *MY*
    family, and how I should worship *MY* God and raise *MY* children. I
    respect those who share *their view* of Jesus' message, but I fear
    those that wish to legislate that view. 

    You can't legislate morality... you can only teach it.

    Eric
921.36POWDML::FLANAGANResident AlienMon May 23 1994 13:5022
    Jack,
    
    Public schools are a choice.  You have the right to send your children
    to whatever school you like.
    
    By the way, public education isn't about you having the kind of
    education you specifically want for your children.
    
    Public Education is about the benefits to society as a whole of having
    a population that is educated.  The best public education system is the
    one that can educate the entire citenzenry especially those who would 
    not have access to a education if there was not public education.
    
    If you desire to participate in the benefits of american society, than
    you must pay your taxes for that including taxes for public education.
    
    I do not approve of diverting funds from public to private education. 
    That is just one more scheme to take from the majority and give to the
    priveledged.
    
    Patricia
    
921.37CVG::THOMPSONAn AlphaGeneration NoterMon May 23 1994 14:1922
    
>    If you desire to participate in the benefits of american society, than
>    you must pay your taxes for that including taxes for public education.

    I would agree 100% if you removed the word "public" as I wholeheartedly
    agree that all must be educated.

>    I do not approve of diverting funds from public to private education. 
>    That is just one more scheme to take from the majority and give to the
>    priveledged.

    Ignorance or bias? I'm not sure which. Many of the poorest in our
    society scrimp and save to afford private education. The refusal
    of some to support *all* of the children in our society is a real
    shame. I regard those who oppose public funds for private schools
    as being at best anti education and at worst racist. Because quite
    simply it is the minorities who are hurt worst by their actions.
    But we've been through this before.

    			Alfred


921.38POWDML::FLANAGANResident AlienMon May 23 1994 14:387
    Alfred,
    
    I wholeheartedly disagree with your opinion but as always respect it as
    your opinion.
    
    Patricia
    
921.39with Alfred on this oneLGP30::FLEISCHERwithout vision the people perish (DTN 223-8576, MSO2-2/A2, IM&amp;T)Mon May 23 1994 14:5223
re Note 921.38 by POWDML::FLANAGAN:

>     I wholeheartedly disagree with your opinion but as always respect it as
>     your opinion.
  
        I must state that on this issue I strongly agree with what
        Alfred said.

        We must have public education -- no doubt.

        But I do not agree with the claims that public education
        would fail, or would be used only by the poorest of our
        society, if individual parents could choose to apply the
        public funds spent on their children at either private or
        public schools.

        I actually think the opposite would occur:  private schools
        would be able to serve much more of the poor population, and
        the general quality of both the private and public schools
        would increase through greater availability of alternatives
        and educational experimentation.

        Bob
921.40PACKED::COLLIS::JACKSONLive freed or live a slave to sinMon May 23 1994 14:5242
My own view is that education should be the goal of
society with respect to children - not indoctrination
(defined by society at large and those in power).

As I understand the Bible, it is the parents who are
given the primary responsibility for educating (or seeing
to the education of) their children.  We pay taxes to
enable this education.  As it is currently setup in
most places, this money is restricted to be used for
government run schools.

Why are government run schools the best?  From what I
have seen and heard, they usually aren't the best.  That
is why I'm willing to spend a few thousand dollars next
year to send my daughter to a school with *less* facilities
than the government run school.  The reason?  The school
I'll send my daughter to will

  - pray
  - learn about God
  - read the Bible
  - be more discipline minded
  - educate her better

than the public school.  Why is it that we as a society
attempt to force people (financially) to indoctrinate their
children by sending them to schools where

  - their values and beliefs can and are ridiculed by
    those in power
  - values are often either not taught or wrongly taught
  - the sexual agenda of our country is forced upon my
    daughter with AIDS teaching and sexual classes (even
    some supposedly abstinence-based classes only give
    lip service to abstinence)

The hearts and minds of the next generation are the responsibility
of PARENTS, not the GOVERNMENT.  But we have setup a system where
the government continues to assume more and more responsibility
to the detriment of us all.  God help us.

Collis
921.41GRIM::MESSENGERBob MessengerMon May 23 1994 14:588
Collis,

It sounds like you do want your daughter to be indoctrinated while at
school, but you want her to be indoctrinated with your values rather than
the values of secular society.  Under the circumstances, sending her to a
private school sounds like the appropriate thing to do.

				-- Bob
921.42POWDML::FLANAGANResident AlienMon May 23 1994 15:0519
    Public funding for private education might do a wonderful job of
    pulling all the gifted and talented poor and minority children out of
    the public school system.  The task of public education in our poorest
    schools would become even more impossible.
    
    
    What we need to do as a society is not divert money from public
    education but put more money into public education and create
    excellence in our public education systems.  Parents who want a
    specialized education setting for their children can provide for
    private education.  Religious organization that want to encourage
    religious educations for  those who want that kind of education but
    cannot afford it should be able to provide scholarships for all who
    want that kind of education.  "Christians" who believe in the value of
    a specialized "Christian" education for all families wanting such an
    education should make sure all families wanting such an education are
    able to provide it for their children.
    
    Patricia
921.43AIMHI::JMARTINMon May 23 1994 15:1844
    Patricia:
    
    I respect your opinion, I hope you don't mind since you are asking me
    to foot the bill that I dissent of things as I would hope you don't
    mind the Christian Coalition exercising their right to free speech,
    petition, and democratic process.   
    
    Our public school system is failing in the scope of the world and is
    producing non competitive students.  This isn't conjecture, this is
    fact.  President Clinton recognized this immediately and never had the
    intention of sending Chelsea to the public schools.  I credit this to
    Outcome based education, fear of the Judeo Christian ethic, Unions, and
    liberal policies.  Patricia, I think your children deserve better.
    
    Glen:
    
    For the last year, I've been renting my townhouse to an unmarried
    couple.  Very nice people and very respectful of the property.  I
    cannot determine what is right for them, they have to determine it for
    themselves.   However, if I chose not to rent to them, that is my right
    as a property owner, just as it is your perogative not to rent to me.
    I will say you made some good points though.  For example, I could 
    peacefully picket an abortion clinic, yet I am most certainly not
    wanted there.  You're right, it isn't always expedient to stay away
    from where you are not wanted.
    
    Mark Trompler:
    
    Thanks very much for correcting me on those points.  Like you, I am
    only interested in fact, not propoganda to push an agenda. 
    I think I need to point out however, the dialogue regarding evolution
    was placed in here only in the interest of comparing evolution with 
    creationism as a theory, not as a diversion to get into an evolution
    argument.  I believe the point was made that the public school system
    is in fact funding the teaching of evolution as a theory, valid as a
    theory, yet much of it unsubstantiated.  The fear of teaching
    Christianity as an elective course baffles me and I believe the two of
    these topics hold equal validity for being taught in the classroom.
    Sorry if it offended you.  You will find that discussions will have to
    sidetrack every once in a while to make a point.
    
    Rgds.,
    
    -Jack
921.44CVG::THOMPSONAn AlphaGeneration NoterMon May 23 1994 15:1936
    
>The task of public education in our poorest
>    schools would become even more impossible.

    Why? 

    
>    What we need to do as a society is not divert money from public
>    education but put more money into public education and create
>    excellence in our public education systems.  

    There are very few government run schools who have problems that more
    money will fix.

>Religious organization that want to encourage
>    religious educations for  those who want that kind of education but
>    cannot afford it should be able to provide scholarships for all who
>    want that kind of education.  

    And many do provide help. But given our present tax structure this
    gets harder and harder each year.

>"Christians" who believe in the value of
>    a specialized "Christian" education for all families wanting such an
>    education should make sure all families wanting such an education are
>    able to provide it for their children.

    Honest people who want me to support their government run schools
    should provide my child the same assistance that they demand I give
    their children. I think that the way we differ is that I want the
    whole community to support the education of all the children while
    you just want the community to support those choosing government run
    schools. Why should I be more willing to help your children then you
    are to help mine?

    			Alfred
921.45LGP30::FLEISCHERwithout vision the people perish (DTN 223-8576, MSO2-2/A2, IM&amp;T)Mon May 23 1994 15:2015
re Note 921.42 by POWDML::FLANAGAN:

>     What we need to do as a society is not divert money from public
>     education but put more money into public education 

        But this part we have been doing and are doing!  Public
        education is *more* expensive than private education -- it
        already *is* getting the bulk of the per-pupil expenditures
        in this country.  We seem to have reached a point of
        diminishing returns as far as money-per-pupil is concerned.

        I certainly agree that more excellence is needed, but it
        would not appear that money is the dominant factor.

        Bob
921.46end of this ratholeHYLNDR::TRUMPLERHelp prevent truth decay.Mon May 23 1994 15:5220
    Re .43:
    I do not want to rathole the topic either, but there is much misleading
    information on evolution floating around, and I fell it necessary to
    correct it "in public," rather than let it be perpetuated.
    
    Contrary to your assertion, there is a large body of evidence that
    supports the theory of organic evolution.  If you want to discuss this
    evidence, send me mail, or go to Soapbox.
    
    Biblical Creationism, on the other hand, is not a scientific theory
    (more correctly: no such non-falsified theory has ever been proposed
    by its proponents in any of their publications), and is wholly
    religious in nature.  As such, it should not be taught in public
    schools.
    
    I have no objection to comparative religion courses.  But science class
    is for teaching science, and public schools are not there for the
    teaching of any single religious view.
    
    Mark (already in the Intro topic)
921.47AIMHI::JMARTINMon May 23 1994 16:0512
    So if I take an anthropology course and I ask the instructor when 
    Hesperopithicus man existed, he/she will tell me that that version of
    man was built up from the tooth of an extinct pig and really has no 
    basis of scientific fact, right?
    
    No need to answer this, it is more a point than a true question.  I
    submit to you that there is alot of hanky panky going on in the
    classroom with this subject.  I choose to disbelieve the teaching that 
    we are part of the animal world at a higher point of evoltuion.  I
    don't believe that conforms to being made in the image of God.
    
    -Jack  
921.48Education/EvolutionSTRATA::BARBIERIMon May 23 1994 17:0820
      Hi,
    
        Education:
        I heard that the government wants to outlaw homeschooling.
        I hope to begin homeschooling my children.  I can't believe
        the government might get that intrusive (actually I do 
        believe it).
    
        Patricia, I echo other's remarks about public education.  I
        don't think the problem is money.  Besides, we have a terrific
        deficit these days.
    
        Evolution/Creationism:
        There are plenty of scientific/theoretical things that suggest
        a 6000 year old history of the universe.  Creation by Deity is
        no more and no less a hypothesis of beginning than anything else.
        Its a presuppositon either way and either way, we can see if
        scientific data contradicts.
    
                                                    Tony
921.49AIMHI::JMARTINMon May 23 1994 17:256
    Tony:
    
    The homeschooling lobby is powerful in this country and has alot of
    support on the local levels and congress.  
    
    -Jack
921.50CVG::THOMPSONAn AlphaGeneration NoterMon May 23 1994 17:423
    FWIW, there is a home schooling conference at CRONIC::HOME_SCHOOLING
    
    		Alfred
921.51HURON::MYERSMon May 23 1994 18:4726
    RE: Note 921.40 by PACKED::COLLIS::JACKSON 

    Collis,

    You are lucky to live in a country where private schools are even
    allowed, let alone held on such a high pedestal. 

  >- the sexual agenda of our country is forced upon my
  >  daughter with AIDS teaching and sexual classes (even
  >  some supposedly abstinence-based classes only give
  >  lip service to abstinence)

    I'm not sure that "forced" is all together true. I believe the school
    will respect your requests to have your daughter sit out of classes
    that discuss sexually related health activities. 

    I have to chuckle though with your use of the word "indoctrinate" with
    regard to an educational system that is often criticized for allowing
    too much free thinking and lacking any foundation (or doctrine). But
    it's fun to play with charged words like "forced", "indoctrinate",
    "agenda".

    Hmmm, is multi-culturalism the opposite of indoctrinating our children
    in the American culture?

    Eric
921.52I LOVED the ending!BIGQ::SILVAMemories.....Mon May 23 1994 19:0611


	RE -.1


	Eric.... really nice note..... you said so much with just a few words.
Thanks for writing it.


Glen
921.53HURON::MYERSMon May 23 1994 19:3512
    RE Note 921.52 by BIGQ::SILVA

    Before you love me too much, let me say that I don't like the concept
    of "multi-culturalizm" as espoused by many within academia. I find it
    more divisive than inclusive. However, I don't want my kids to be
    tought that George Washington could not tell a lie, and that Lincoln
    freed the slaves unconditionally. (I read the emancipation proclimation
    once and was suprised to find that it applied only to slaves within
    states rebelling against the Union. It had no affect on slavery within
    the states and territories not in rebellion.)
    
    Eric  
921.54sighHYLNDR::TRUMPLERHelp prevent truth decay.Mon May 23 1994 19:5663
    It seems some want to debate creation/evolution here.  (For those not
    interested, tell the others to take it to mail or Soapbox.  I'm
    willing to go to a different forum, but I will not let incorrect,
    ignorant, or misleading statements go unanswered here.)
    
    Re .47:
    Ah, good old Nebraska Man.  Let's see, a scientist once hypothesized
    that it might have been human, and, in relatively short order (unlike
    Piltdown Man, which took longer), was shown to be wrong.  Sounds like
    science at work to me.
    
    Have you heard any scientist or science teacher say recently (last
    10-20 years) that Nebraska Man was a real hominid find?  If so, who
    and where? If not, on what basis do you perpetuate this story?
   
    >classroom with this subject.  I choose to disbelieve the teaching that 
    >we are part of the animal world at a higher point of evoltuion.  I
    Allow me to correct another misconception about evolution. There is
    *no* "evolutionary ladder."  There are no "higher" and "lower"
    animals.  Evolution describes a bush, growing and changing through
    time.  There is no conception of "lower" or "higher" except perhaps in
    terms of complexity, which does not necessarily increase over time.
    
    >I don't believe that conforms to being made in the image of God.
    Is God male or female (or are we really not physically in the image
    of God, rendering this complaint somewhat impotent)?
    
    Does God have backaches? Bad knees? Does He get hiccups?
    
    Re .48:
    <on homeschooling>
    I don't believe the government should legislate/regulate against
    homeschooling.  If I had to, I'd think about doing it.
    
    <on the age of the universe>
    Is it your assertion that the Universe is 6000 years old?  Do your
    age-determining methods agree (within a reasonable error) on this
    age?
    
    There is much evidence that suggest the Earth is more than 6000 years
    old.  Tree ring sequences, ice cores drilled from Greenland and
    Antarctica, and varves (ancient lake-bed deposits) all indicate ages
    well in excess of 6000 years, and are not explainable by any reasonable
    mechanism taking less than 12,000, 70,000, and 20,000,000 years,
    respectively.  Never mind radiometric dating techniques.
    
    If you think Creation happened 6000 years ago, you would also do well
    to explain why we can see stars that are further than 6000 light years
    away without resorting to the Omphalos argument [1], or the arguments
    of Barry Setterfield, now discredited by most Creationist authorities.
    [2]
    
    Mark
    [1] Philip Gosse, _Omphalos_.  The theory that God created everything
    with the appearance of age.  Generally dismissed as theologically
    unsound, since God is put in the role of deceiver, and scientifically
    unsound, since it is equally compatible with the idea that the Universe
    was created last Tuesday.
    [2] Barry Setterfield is an Australian Creationist who claims the speed
    of light may have been higher in the past.  His selective choice of
    data and fairly clear misuse of statistics has largely discredited his
    arguments even among Creationist experts.  Material trying to support
    his work does turn up from time to time in Creationist journals.
921.55AIMHI::JMARTINMon May 23 1994 21:235
    Just as an FYI, to be made in the image of God doesn't preclude form,
    it means being made as a Spiritual being.  It states later in Genesis
    that man was formed out of the dust of the earth.
    
    -Jack
921.56Einstein's Theory of Relativistic TimeFRETZ::HEISERMaranatha!Mon May 23 1994 21:277
>    If you think Creation happened 6000 years ago, you would also do well
>    to explain why we can see stars that are further than 6000 light years
>    away without resorting to the Omphalos argument [1], or the arguments
>    of Barry Setterfield, now discredited by most Creationist authorities.
>    [2]
    
    
921.57a perennial favoriteTFH::KIRKa simple songTue May 24 1994 02:238
Re: evolution/creation "science"

Perhaps the discussion of this tangent would be better served in topics 564 or 
850.

Peace,

Jim
921.58PACKED::COLLIS::JACKSONLive freed or live a slave to sinTue May 24 1994 13:2911
  >It sounds like you do want your daughter to be indoctrinated while at
  >school, but you want her to be indoctrinated with your values rather than
  >the values of secular society.

Yes!  Exactly.

Government continues to try and grab control of our lives.  The latest
grab is the health care industry.

Collis
921.59PACKED::COLLIS::JACKSONLive freed or live a slave to sinTue May 24 1994 13:3914
    >You are lucky to live in a country where private schools are even
    >allowed, let alone held on such a high pedestal. 

This is true.  

I am also unfortunate to be living in a country where
non-public schools are discriminated against in the area
of funding and where the public schools practically outlaw
the teaching and practice of religion despite requirements
in the Constitutions of all 50 states that require us to
be faithful in teaching our offspring the blessings of
God.

Collis
921.60GRIM::MESSENGERBob MessengerTue May 24 1994 16:0515
Re: .56 Mike

>                  -< Einstein's Theory of Relativistic Time >-

As I understand it, time dilation affects the passage of time as
experienced by an object travelling at close to the speed of light.  From
the point of view of an observer on the earth it will still take light
xxx million years to reach the earth from a star xxx million light years
away.

Anyway, if the universe were really 6,000 years old according to
Einstein's theory of relativity I'm sure Stephen Hawking would have
mentioned it in his book "A Brief History of Time". :-)

				-- Bob
921.61FRETZ::HEISERMaranatha!Tue May 24 1994 16:3514
    Re: Stephen Hawking
    
    One of the top nuclear physicists in the world stated Einstein's Theory
    of Relativity as the reason why the universe appears older than it is. 
    Time changes according to mass and gravity, it is not constant.  What
    looks like a 16B year old universe from Earth, will not look like that
    from Pluto, or Andromeda, or whatever vantage point you select.
    
    Dr. Gerald Schroeder is the physicist.  MIT-grad, worked for the DoD
    for a number of years, and now lives in Jerusalem.  He published
    "Genesis and the Big Bang" from the perspective of Judaism (i.e., not a
    Christian) and is on Bantam Books (i.e., secular press).
    
    Mike
921.62HURON::MYERSTue May 24 1994 16:367
    > I am also unfortunate to be living in a country where
    > non-public schools are discriminated against in the area
    > of funding
    
    True,... you'll get no argument from me there. 
    
    	Eric
921.63GRIM::MESSENGERBob MessengerTue May 24 1994 17:1410
Re: .61 Mike

>    Time changes according to mass and gravity, it is not constant.  What
>    looks like a 16B year old universe from Earth, will not look like that
>    from Pluto, or Andromeda, or whatever vantage point you select.
    
This doesn't change the fact that from the point of view of the Earth the
universe is 16B years old and not 6,000 years as claimed by the Bible.

				-- Bob
921.64sounds like bunk to me...TFH::KIRKa simple songTue May 24 1994 17:2819
re: Note 921.61 by "Maranatha!" 

>	What looks like a 16B year old universe from Earth, will not look 
>	like that from Pluto, or Andromeda, or whatever vantage point you 
>	select.
    
To the best of my knowledge this is simply not true.  (Information from 
Voyager wold seem to discount this claim.)  This also seems to imply that 
the apparent age of the universe varies with earth's orbit around the sun 
(which changes our vantage point.  Further the sun is travelling quite 
quickly as our galaxy spins and travels with our local supercluster.)

Our vantage point is CONSTANTLY changing, with no apparent breakdown of the 
apparent age of the universe.  Has this been published in any reputable
science journal?

Peace,

Jim
921.65The Word Is ExplicitSTRATA::BARBIERITue May 24 1994 18:1726
      Hi,
    
        I see no problem with God creating things in a 'mature' or
        older looking state.
    
        For example, in the creation record, it is said that God said
        "Let there be light" and there was light.  There was a lesser
        light during the night.  So where did this lesser light come
        from?  Well, from the moon and stars.  Therefore, God is letting
        us know from the Word itself that He created stars (at least in
        part) for the purpose of providing light.  I would then expect that
        when God spoke the stars into existence, somehow earth was
        receiving their light.  God being a deceiver?  Plausible, if the
        written record is not explicit, but it is!
    
        Think about the trees.  Do you think they were all seeds in the
        ground?  On what basis?  Adam was an adult as was Eve.  Why 
        wouldn't God create adult trees?
    
        Nothing is too hard for the Lord and if He explicitly stated that
        the stars were created to provide light, the word itself is 
        explaining away the possibility of deception.  It tells you clearly
        that the light was there to begin with upon time of creation.
    
                                                    Tony
    
921.66FRETZ::HEISERMaranatha!Tue May 24 1994 18:4411
>This doesn't change the fact that from the point of view of the Earth the
>universe is 16B years old and not 6,000 years as claimed by the Bible.
    
    Well how does the point of view relate to the age of the Earth itself?
    As I posted from Dr. Schroeder before:
    
    Since (from Einstein's Theory of Relativity) time dilates relative to 
    mass, it is interesting to compare the mass of the universe to the mass of 
    the Earth.  If one takes the '16 billion years' observed by scientists,
    and divides it by the expansion factor 10^12, the result is 0.016 years, or
    6 days, as described in Genesis 1! 
921.67GRIM::MESSENGERBob MessengerTue May 24 1994 18:596
Re: .66 Mike

I don't understand Dr. Schroeder's argument.  Is he saying that the
universe is six days old?  From what perspective?

				-- Bob
921.68FRETZ::HEISERMaranatha!Tue May 24 1994 19:3413
>I don't understand Dr. Schroeder's argument.  Is he saying that the
>universe is six days old?  From what perspective?
    
    well there are many aspects to his presentation.  The bottomline to
    what he presents is that those of us in opposition over Genesis and the
    Standard Model theory are actually in agreement without realizing it. 
    He reconciles the two stances using known and proven laws of physics.  
    
    The world was creating in 6 days as the Bible says.  The relation
    between the estimated age of the universe and the expansion factor
    support this.
    
    Mike
921.69GRIM::MESSENGERBob MessengerTue May 24 1994 21:3515
Mike,

I guess Drs. Schroeder and Hawking will have to battle it out.
Schroeder's argument makes no sense to me.

Maybe Dr. Schroeder is saying that if the entire universe is considered
as a single massive object, from its point of view the universe is six
days old.  This wouldn't change the fact that from the earth's point of
view the universe is 16 billion (or whatever) years old.  It wouldn't
validate the literal Genesis creation story, in which vegetation *on
earth* is created on the third day, sea creatures on earth on the fifth
day, etc.  It also wouldn't account for the age of the earth being 6,000
years.

				-- Bob
921.70Hawking, Weinberg, and Nahmanides all describe the same thingFRETZ::HEISERMaranatha!Tue May 24 1994 21:4832
    "At the briefest instant following creation all the matter of the
    universe was concentrated in a very small place, no larger than a grain
    of mustard.  The matter at this time was so thin, so intangible, that
    it did not have real substance and form and to become tangible matter. 
    From the initial concentration of this intangible substance in its
    minute location, the substance expanded, expanding the universe as it
    did so.  As the expansion progressed, a change in the substance
    occurred.  This initially thin noncorporeal substance took on the
    tangible aspects of matter as we know it.  From this initial act of
    creation, from this ethereally thin pseudosubstance, everything that
    has existed, or will ever exist, was, is, and will be formed."
    
    - Nahmanides, "Commentary on the Torah", Genesis 1:1, written 1200 AD.
    
    "The present universe, according to current cosmological understanding,
    is the result of a Big Bang, a massive expansion from a single point. 
    While the conditions that existed prior to the appearance of energy and
    matter are not known, we can attempt to describe them at the briefest
    instant following the beginning, at about 10^-43 seconds after the
    start.  That time reads as one 10 millionth millionth millionth millionth 
    millionth millionth millionth of a second.  The universe was then the
    size of a speck of dust.  It would have taken a microscope to study it. 
    Now, 15 billion years later, even telescopes are not powerful enough to
    reach its limits."
    
    - Dr. Gerald Schroeder, "Genesis & The Big Bang", summarizing Hawking's
    "A Brief History of Time" and Weinberg's "The First Three Minutes", p. 65.
    
    Schroeder further quotes Carl Sagan on p. 60 saying that without
    astronomical technology advances, we wouldn't know the universe is
    expanding.  Shame on Mr. Sagan.  All he had to do was read Nahmanides'
    commentary.
921.71GRIM::MESSENGERBob MessengerTue May 24 1994 22:124
Nahmanides must have been a remarkable person.  Did he also believe that
the universe was 6,000 years old?

				-- Bob
921.72tunnelling down the ratholeTFH::KIRKa simple songTue May 24 1994 22:3511
re: Note 921.70 by Mike "Maranatha!" 

>    This initially thin noncorporeal substance took on the tangible aspects 
>    of matter as we know it.  

I certainly would not consider the entire mass of the universe compacted down 
into a singularity "thin".

Peace,

Jim
921.73I'm a Fundaphobe!VNABRW::BUTTONAnother day older and deeper in debtWed May 25 1994 11:2744
	I guess that I "suffer" from acute Fundiphobia.

	One of the major barriers to my becoming a Christian is that I am
	genuinely afraid of people who claim that the earth is only 6000
	years old. (BTW Bob - reply .63 - the bible does not make this
	claim: it is made be those who have added the ages of all the
	major players and believe them).

	I fear for a future in which the truth of evolution would be
	forbidden and the myth of creation propogated should such believers
	gain power. I fear for the temporal "damnation" which would be
	meted out to those daring to question the myth. Or to hold that
	Moses was not - could not have been - the author of the Pentateuch.
	Or to fail to see the so-called Jesus prophecies in the OT. Or
	to understand why God's perfect creation is so full of flaws.

	To Tony (reply .65): Your claim that God created mature object
	reminds me of my sister's favourite anecdote:
	About 25 years ago, on a visit to us in England, she and her
	husband - both devout RC Christians but with a healthy scepsis
	of the creation story - were having dinner with the local priest.
	My sister, pregnant at the time, expressed her trepidition that
	her child might be expected to believe that God created a world
	6000 years old with apparent 4 thousand million year old wrinkles.
	The priest told her that this was, inded, the case and that God's
	purpose was to establish a barrier to faith which, if it is
	surmounted, deepens the faith and enriches to soul.  The dinner
	was served in a beautiful room with magnificent furnishing. The
	table at which they ate was a stately refectory table of massive
	mahogony with five enormous carved legs (one in the middle) to
	support the weight of the board and the scrumptious spread. My
	sister remarked on its beauty and questiond how old it was.  The
	priest, in a very sour voice, told her that it was a damned
	imitation and that, as soon as he found a genuine replacement,
	he was going to have it burned. He found no problems with a faked
	earth, but a mere table...

	Frankly, I still have difficulty in believing that there are still
	those who have faith in a 6000 year-old earth. If I did not meet
	it so often here and in pamphlets (mostly from JWs) I would think
	it was a send-up. But I know that it's not: and that scares me.

	Greetings, Derek.
921.74the big stretch theoryDNEAST::DALELIO_HENRWed May 25 1994 11:5143
  Just a few comments;

 Re 6000 yrs : The age of the universe.

 Not necessarily so, according to a certain Bishop Ussher, he added up
 the years of the geneologies from Adam on and came up with a creation
 date of 4004 BC.  

 However :

 In the beginning God created the Heavens and the earth...

 The creation of the heavens (pl) here are distinguished from the creation
 of the earth. Some have conjectured that perhaps one of the heavens was
 a dwelling place of atomic and sub-atomic particle energy pools (from
 the first creative act of God). Then matter with form was fashioned
 from these pools, "without form and void - Tohu v' bohu".  (chaotic and
 without form).

 Assuming the tremendous amounts of power necessary for the fashioning
 and forming of matter from particle pools, there could have been, according
 to the theories of "modern physics" a logrithmic compression-decompression of 
 time, such that billions of years would fit into a 24 hr (marked by Our 
 Heavenly Father) period of time, which decompressed into a 24hr day equaling
 a 24 hour day by the 6th day.
 
 This is a "sanctified" view (if you will) of the big bang theory.
 Those of you who have studied modern physics, what would/might have happened
 to the function of time as the particle pools decompressed? (reforming as
 atoms).

 Is this a big stretch? 
 "Hey its possible" - Judy who?   

 The laws of creation are unknowable by the scientific method, since no one
 on earth was there when it happened.
 Its like trying to figure out how to build an automobile by reading the
 owners manual. 

 Can we suspend judgment and Trust our Heavenly Father.
 
 Hank
921.75COMET::HAYESJSits With RemoteWed May 25 1994 11:5110
    re:  .73  Derek
    
    Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe the earth is only 6000 years old. 
    We believe the earth is millions of years old.  From Bible chronology,
    we say that mankind started a little over 6000 years ago.  I don't
    believe you have seen any tract or publication from Jehovah's Witnesses
    that says any different.
    
    
    Steve
921.76CorrectionVNABRW::BUTTONAnother day older and deeper in debtWed May 25 1994 12:0715
    Hi Steve!
    
    Of course, you are right. I was too hasty in my generalisations. Sorry.
    
    However, they do not believe that man evolved some 2-3 million years
    ago, and accept the Genesis stories as "pure gold".
    
    It would be fair to say that I have found less aggressiveness in the JW
    form of fundamentailism than in some others. A tendency to ignore or
    misrepresent evidence is, however, common in my experience. Only
    marginally less frightening.
    
    Greetings, Derek.
    
    
921.77No hard feelings, of course.COMET::HAYESJSits With RemoteWed May 25 1994 12:4733
    re:  .76  Derek

    Hi Derek!
    
    >Of course, you are right. I was too hasty in my generalisations. Sorry.
    
    I kind of figured you hastily lumped us in with the 6000 year old earth    
    folks.  I just wanted to make our position clear for others who are
    reading this file.


    >However, they do not believe that man evolved some 2-3 million years
    >ago, and accept the Genesis stories as "pure gold".
    
    Yes, we do believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, and
    as such it is truthful and accurate.  Obviously, your opinion is not
    the same as ours.
    
    
    >                                             A tendency to ignore or
    >misrepresent evidence is, however, common in my experience.
    
    Well, that cuts two ways, Derek.  I think you ignore the overwhelming
    evidence of creation.  And I think your using the word "misrepresent" 
    is uncalled for; it sounds like an accusation of dishonesty.  It's your
    choice to believe what you to believe.  It's not hurting anyone
    for you to believe the things you do.  And that goes for our case, too.
    We'll just have to agree to disagree, because I don't think either one
    of us is going to change his mind.


    Steve
921.78Not sure how long Our Creator took, it's not necessary to know.RDGENG::YERKESSbring me sunshine in your smileWed May 25 1994 12:4925
Derek,

To reiterate Steve's words, Jehovah's Witnesses have no pamphlets or tracts
that show that the earth is only 6000 years old. It is Man who has only
been around for about 6000 years. The Genesis account talks of 6 creative
days, and day can mean an age of varying length of time. For example, when
we speak of "in Shakespeare's day" we are not talking about a literal 24 hour 
period. So to with the Genesis account, it is written so that all can
simply understand the order of the the different stages that took place
in the creation account. Interestingly, science agrees with the order
of these steps and also that there was a beginning (big bang theory).

Also note that on the sixth day, Adam observed and named all the animals.
This would be quite remarkable for a human to accomplish within a 24 hour
period. As well as feeling the loneliness and need for a companion (Eve),
this would come from observing the animals pairs over a long period of
time.

Another thing of note, is that the Bible indicates that the 7th day is
still ongoing. Steve and myself are looking forward to the time when
Jevovah pronounces it good as he did with the previous 6 days or ages.

Phil.
 
921.79RDGENG::YERKESSbring me sunshine in your smileWed May 25 1994 13:1017
re .78

  Derek,

  Looks like I'm a bit slow in typing, it seems you and Steve have had
  a conversation before I could type in my reply -).

  There is a book that will show that as Jehovah's Witnesses we have
  looked into creation & evolution, it is well written with references
  to many scientists and there journals and well worth a read. Next
  time a Jehovah's Witness calls why not ask them to obtain a copy for
  you. It's commonly called the Creation book, and they should be able
  to get you a copy in the langauge of your choice. If you have any 
  difficulties, then I will be willing to forward you one via mail with
  no cost as long as you are interested in reading it.

  Phil. 
921.80No offence intended.VNABRW::BUTTONAnother day older and deeper in debtWed May 25 1994 14:0650
	Re: .77 Steve.

	I promise you, I had no intention to offend with the use of the
	word misrepresent. I kicked out others (like distort, falsly use,
	etc) before I used it. Words like tendentialize are weighty and
	weighted and I was at a loss to find a better. I imply no dis-
	honesty but, rather, an overeagerness to mak a point to the
	extent that an agenda peeks through.

	Let me give an example (which also speaks to Phil [.78] Hi Phil!)

	I have a pamphlet at home which lists ten stages of creation starting
	with #1: A void, #2: land, #3 water and ending #10: Man. The pamphlet
	then does the maths and comes up with factorial 10 = 3628800 and
	represents this as the chance against someone guessing this order.

	Now (leaving aside the fact that Ge 1 and Ge 2 present different
	orders and that neither of them are 100% correct IMO) just applying
	logic to the list provided in the pamphlet, any fool would put
	void first and man last with land and water and a couple of other
	positions easy to stab at.  This reduces the "miracle" from
	3.6 million to one down to around factorial 5 or 120:1.

	I tested this by writing each position on a card without numbering
	them, mixed them well and asked several people to set them in
	a logical sequence. My son (13 at the time) came up with 6 in the
	"right" position. The highest was 7 and the worst 4. To add sugar
	to the cake, I asked our JW visitor to do the exercise. She came
	up with 6! A logical sequence of 6 only leaves 4 to be guessed at
	giving a chance of 24:1 for the miracle. Even after this, she       
	insisted on the enormity of this miracle.

	>Well that cuts both ways, Derek. I think you ignore the over-
	>whelming evidence of creation.

	Two points.
	Sure it cuts both ways. That maybe did not show through in my first
	note, but if the creationists are right and I am wrong that does
	not make me less frightened. I would still be a Fundaphobe

	Also: I most certainly do not ignore the evidence for creationism.
	I have weighed it most carefully and found it wanting. I continue 
	to seek.
    
    	I just saw Phil's .79.  Thanks for the offer, Phil. I will try with
    	our local group. I usually prefer to read thia stuff in English
    	but, if they have it in German, I'll take that, too. Only if they
    	do not have it at all will I come back to your offer. Thanks a lot.

	Greetings, Derek.
921.81POWDML::FLANAGANResident AlienWed May 25 1994 17:195
    Derek,
    
    I agree with your points.  I fear a school system in which children too
    young to comprehend are presented with myth and fact mingled together
    without any context as to how to separate the two.
921.82plurality is a good thingLGP30::FLEISCHERwithout vision the people perish (DTN 223-8576, MSO2-2/A2, IM&amp;T)Wed May 25 1994 17:2518
re Note 921.81 by POWDML::FLANAGAN:

>     I agree with your points.  I fear a school system in which children too
>     young to comprehend are presented with myth and fact mingled together
>     without any context as to how to separate the two.
  
        Patricia,

        Myth and fact are hard even for adults to separate, and
        reasonable people might differ on how they would separate
        them.

        One of the reasons I think a plurality of schools is
        important is to *preserve* plurality.  I believe society is
        strengthened by plurality.  And it shouldn't be just the
        better-off who have access to a plurality of schools.

        Bob
921.83POWDML::FLANAGANResident AlienWed May 25 1994 17:2914
    Bob,
    
    I too believe in a plurality of schools.  I just don't believe public
    funds should be used to pay for them.
    
    I believe in adequate public education for all children.  Not excellent
    education for uppper class and middle class children and poor education
    for poorer children.  I also believe a good education for poor children
    is and should be much more costly than a good education for middle
    class children.  
    
    The opposite is the case today in our public schools.
    
    Patricia
921.84Preach at the church, teach in the schoolsBIGQ::SILVAMemories.....Wed May 25 1994 18:0111

	Isn't there religious teachings at the curches? It would seem to me
that this would be the better place for this as it would pertain to the
individuals religion, and not subject those of a religion that does not think
another religion is valid to listen to their dogma. I DO like the idea of
offering classes which will teach, not preach, various religions. I think that
would work well.


Glen
921.85CVG::THOMPSONAn AlphaGeneration NoterWed May 25 1994 18:103
    Some of us believe in preach everywhere, teach everywhere.
    
    		Alfred
921.86POWDML::FLANAGANResident AlienWed May 25 1994 18:194
    Some of us believe that that is one of the dysfunctional elements of
    some strands of Christianity.
    
    Patricia
921.87CVG::THOMPSONAn AlphaGeneration NoterWed May 25 1994 18:233
    And some of us believe that it is an important function of Christianity.

    		Alfred
921.88CSLALL::HENDERSONBe thereWed May 25 1994 18:4610

 
  Jesus seemed to apply a certain amount of significance to it as
 recorded in Matthew 28:19 and Acts 1:8.




 Jim
921.89BIGQ::SILVAMemories.....Wed May 25 1994 19:2315


	But you must figure out what you want to do. Is it an all or nothing
thing? If so, it will be nothing. This country is full of many people with
diverse religious backgrounds, some with no religion in their lives. If you
would like to teach about various religions in school (as in an elective), then
I really think there is a chance it will happen. If you want to preach, it
ain't happening. You will also need to take into consideration that
Christianity would NOT be the only thing offered. If you can do that, you have
a chance of getting it into the schools. If you are not willing to compromise,
then I guess it will never happen.


Glen
921.90CSLALL::HENDERSONBe thereWed May 25 1994 19:3611

 Frankly, I would be happy to see the significant role that Christianity
 played in the founding of this country taught in public schools.  It was
 quite clear that upon the founding of this country, that Christianity was
 not simply "another religion".




Jim
921.91BIGQ::SILVAMemories.....Wed May 25 1994 19:3915
| <<< Note 921.90 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Be there" >>>



| Frankly, I would be happy to see the significant role that Christianity
| played in the founding of this country taught in public schools.  It was
| quite clear that upon the founding of this country, that Christianity was
| not simply "another religion".


	It was also quite clear that they were not going to disallow other
religions into this country. 


Glen
921.92R2D2TFH::KIRKa simple songWed May 25 1994 19:4415
are too!

are not!

>are too!!

>are not!!

>>ARE TOO!!

>>ARE NOT!!

.-)

Jim
921.93AIMHI::JMARTINWed May 25 1994 21:2319
    Schools were originally set up to be a forum of free thinking and
    exercise of free speech.  
    
    No offense intended Patricia but it is the individuals of your ideology
    that stifle free thinking and learning from other perspectives.  Are
    you a proponent of greek mythology courses in public schools?  I
    certainly am.  If you really believe the creation point of view to be a
    myth...then you have nothing to be afraid of.  
    
    Our schools are going through great decay as we speak.  What we are
    doing is pouring money into a local beaurocracy that isn't giving our
    children the very best they can offer.  If you want quality education
    for the poor, which I most certainly want, then it might be in our best
    interest to gut the current school system, get rid of the unions, and
    above all, fight tooth and nail against outcome based education.  It is 
    not in our best interest to drag down the achievers to make the non
    achievers feel good about themselves.
    
    -Jack
921.94VNABRW::BUTTONAnother day older and deeper in debtThu May 26 1994 08:3527
	Re .93 Jack.

	>No offence intended Patricia but it is the individuals of your
	>ideology that stifle free thinking and learning from other
	>perspectives.

	I think that you do Patricia/her ideological colleagues a serious
	injustce, Jack. She has made it very clear in these notes that
	free-thinking and learning are an essential part of her ideology.
	She has more than once come under very sharp fire for exercising
	exactly these aspects of her ideology.

	>Are you a proponent of Greek mythology course in public schools?
	>I certainly am.  If you really believe the creation point of view
	>to be a myth...then you have nothing to be afraid of.

	As part of our cultural heritage, it would be difficult to find an
	opponent of teaching Greek mythology provided it is taught as that
	what it is: mythology.

	With the same proviso, you would find few opponents to the teaching
	of creation mythology in schools.

	But I suspect that you would limit this to biblical creationism and
	would not insist on the mythology proviso.

	Greetings, Derek.
921.95sweeping, simplistic solutionsLGP30::FLEISCHERwithout vision the people perish (DTN 223-8576, MSO2-2/A2, IM&amp;T)Thu May 26 1994 10:0825
re Note 921.93 by AIMHI::JMARTIN:

>     If you want quality education
>     for the poor, which I most certainly want, then it might be in our best
>     interest to gut the current school system, get rid of the unions, and
>     above all, fight tooth and nail against outcome based education.  It is 
>     not in our best interest to drag down the achievers to make the non
>     achievers feel good about themselves.
  
        Do you have a reference for what "outcome based education"
        really is?  That term seems to be used a lot lately by the
        right as the name of some horrible conspiracy but it is never
        described (other than by vague inferences such as you made in
        your last sentence).

        I guess I find sweeping, simplistic solutions of the right,
        e.g., "get rid of the unions", to be as unconvincing as
        sweeping, simplistic solutions of the left, e.g., give more
        money to the public schools (and *only* the public schools).

        I think the fault lies primarily with the parents, but that
        doesn't leave any easy target to "get rid of" or "spend money
        on".

        Bob
921.96BIGQ::SILVAMemories.....Thu May 26 1994 15:3013


	Unions and schools should not be. That is unless Unions are willing to
get rid of those teachers that are not good performers. I don't mean instantly,
but put all teachers on notice that if you can't do the job, let us know why.
If it is based on lack of skills, train them. If it is based on troubled
students, weed them out. If it is based on laziness, get rid of them. The way
it stands now, any teacher, regardless of how bad they are, will have a good
chance of keeping their job. This is something that is not acceptable. 


Glen
921.97CSC32::J_CHRISTIEPacifist HellcatThu May 26 1994 16:169
    The U.S. will be better off when schools have black budgets and
    the military has to sell overpriced knicknacks and candy bars as
    fundraisers.
    
    It's too bad that teachers feel they need unions.  It's too bad
    the people who staff the Pentagon don't.
    
    Richard
    
921.98AIMHI::JMARTINThu May 26 1994 17:0959
    Glen:
    
    Excellent, couldn't have said it better.  I agree with Richard also but
    I think it should be pointed out that a great many teachers dislike the
    NEA but are compelled to membership out of fear.  Legalized extortion
    if you will.
    
    This is what my feelings are on outcome based education.
    
    Foundation:  We Must maintain high standards if we are to compete
                 globally and maintain our economic base.
    
    Areas of Agreement:  Control is at the local level.
    
    			 In the info age, the three R's aren't adequate
                         to prepare our youth for the workplace.
    
    Areas of disagreement:  Dumbing down the standards so as to not hurt
    			 self esteem of under achievers.
    
    			 Pace learning to the slowest student.
    	
    			 Doing away with the grading system.
    
    			 Replacing Phonics with Look/Say.
    
    			 Holding to group conformity instead of
    			 individuality, i.e. if the group says 2+2=3,
    			 it can't be wrong.
    
    			 Promoting mediocrity at the expense of excellence.
    
    A recent study showed that Asian and European children generally did
    better then their US counterparts in most subjects, specifically
    math and science but thought that they were not very good and needed to
    study a lot harder.  the US kids scored significantly worse but thought
    that they were very good and felt that they studied, it anything,
    too hard.  So much for self esteem and reality.
    
    Also, if these kids are expected to progress at their own pace until
    they master a subject, what happens at the end of a school year and
    the kid still hasn't got it?  Does this kid stay behind, i.e., failed
    the grade, but just isn't told he failed, or does he get moved on with
    the rest of his class so he doesn't suffer from a poor self image?
    
    This is another example of "it's not my fault, it's the systems
    fault" type of thinking so rampant for the past 30 years.  I think it
    would be much better to testablish clear standards of performance and then
    measure progress against them.  If you succeed you move on, if you
    don't, you fail and try again.  
    
    I struggled as a teenager with Algebra yet I firmly believe that
    standards are the way to go.  
    
    -Jack           
    
    
    
    
921.99BIGQ::SILVAMemories.....Thu May 26 1994 17:4452
| <<< Note 921.98 by AIMHI::JMARTIN >>>




| Areas of disagreement:  Dumbing down the standards so as to not hurt
| self esteem of under achievers.

	Jack, what would you do with those who are "underachievers"? What is an
underachiever in your eyes? 

| Pace learning to the slowest student.

	Same as above.

| Doing away with the grading system.

	I hadn't heard of this. What type system do they want to go to, and who
is the "they"?

| Replacing Phonics with Look/Say.

	I know of phonics, but have not heard of Look/Say. Could you tell me a
little about it and also list the disadvantages between that and Phonics?

| Holding to group conformity instead of individuality, i.e. if the group says 
| 2+2=3, it can't be wrong.

	Jack, this is puzzling. Would you allow the same thing to be done with
your religion (individuality)? Wouldn't that cause riffs in the church?
Especially if it had to do with Doctrine? 

| Promoting mediocrity at the expense of excellence.

	Who has done this? I'm curious. How is this done, with programs,
telling the teachers to drop their level of teaching down, how? 

| A recent study showed that Asian and European children generally did better 
| then their US counterparts in most subjects, specifically math and science 

	I've heard this too.

| but thought that they were not very good and needed to study a lot harder. 
| the US kids scored significantly worse but thought that they were very good 
| and felt that they studied, it anything, too hard.  

	This is news to me Jack. I have heard nothing but the oppisite. Where
did you hear/read this?



Glen
921.100where's the beef?LGP30::FLEISCHERwithout vision the people perish (DTN 223-8576, MSO2-2/A2, IM&amp;T)Thu May 26 1994 17:5511
re Note 921.98 by AIMHI::JMARTIN:

        Jack,

        There's nothing in your summary that I couldn't inferred from
        all the conservative criticism I've seen of OBE.

        Can you point me to where OBE is defined, not what one side
        or the other has to say about it?

        Bob
921.101AIMHI::JMARTINThu May 26 1994 18:2149
    Bob:
    
    Like anything, we get our information from sources we deem reliable.  
    I read the news, I watch the McLaughlin Group, Crossfire, Capitol Gang, 
    David Brudnoy on WBZ, Nightline.  I never actually read documentation
    on it such as Education 2000, Maybe I should.
    
    Let's say for the sake of argument that the points I made can be
    substantiated, would we be in agreement?  
    
    Let me give you an example I saw on Saturday Morning.  Kids were
    watching Sesame Street.  Characters are Big Bird, Natasha, and some
    puppet.  Four items in lesson are:
    
    1. Grape
    2. Pizza
    3. Teddy Bear
    4. Cucumber
    
    	Song:  1 of these things is not like the others
    	       1 of these things just isn't the same
    	       1 of these things is not like the other
    	       And now it's time to play our game.....
    	       It's time to play our game:
    
    Big Bird:  Which one of these things is different from the other?
    
    Natasha:  I say it is the Bear because the other three are food.
    
    Puppet:  I say it's the grape because the grape...(Insert your favorite
             lame unrelative reason here!)
    
    Big Bird:  Well...YOU'RE BOTH RIGHT!
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I wish I could remember the actual reason here, but I can't. I only
    remember staring at the T.V. and saying...Huh?  Where did he pull that
    one from?
    
    The word "incorrect" doesn't exist anymore.  What a false sense of
    security we are presenting children these days.  The Puppet Was Clearly
    being ambiguous and inane in his response.
    
    You may think its silly but kids are being subjected to this
    constantly!
    
    -Jack
    
    
    
921.102AIMHI::JMARTINThu May 26 1994 19:1085
Re: Note 921.99                        Fundaphobia                         99 of 101
BIGQ::SILVA "Memories....."                          52 lines  26-MAY-1994 13:44

>>| Areas of disagreement:  Dumbing down the standards so as to not hurt
>>| self esteem of under achievers.

>>	Jack, what would you do with those who are "underachievers"? What is an
>>underachiever in your eyes? 

Glen, you are talking to one!  I was very proficient in English but very poor
in math skills, right brained if you will.  My mother sent me to summer school 
and I stayed after school three days a week for extra help...TO CATCH UP to my
peers.  In no way did I slow them down.  I felt rotten of course...the class
dunce.  I believe humility can breed character as well.  It doesn't have to
be all negative.

| Pace learning to the slowest student.

>>	Same as above.

You will find many children dislike school due to boredom and lack of challenge.
It is the responsibility of the students to meet the criteria of a grade
level before moving to the next class.  It is not our job to stagnate 
Johnny in order to make Ralph feel equal.

>>| Promoting mediocrity at the expense of excellence.

>>	Who has done this? I'm curious. How is this done, with programs,
>>telling the teachers to drop their level of teaching down, how? 

Glen, The Wall St. Journal boasts that they gear their paper to a 5th grade
reading level.  This is why it is so appealing to read. 
Yes, there are programs in place to cater to the needs of specific persons.
Our federal government has the odasity to deem certain people "unable" to meet
standards set by school systems and competencies for jobs placement.  These
programs fall under the guise of an umbrella you are well aware of.  I've 
mentioned it quite a bit; two words that begin with the same vowel, promoting
racism, quotas, and insulting to women and minorities.  Apparently I have more
faith in the individual that the establishment does.  I also place blame on 
local schoolboards and most of all, incompetent parents for their ineptitude.

>>| Doing away with the grading system.

>>	I hadn't heard of this. What type system do they want to go to, and who
>>is the "they"?

You will find that "they" are mainly from the liberal establishment, not all
by any means.  Let's say it is mostly those who don't believe in standards.

>>| Holding to group conformity instead of individuality, i.e. if the group says 
>>| 2+2=3, it can't be wrong.

>>	Jack, this is puzzling. Would you allow the same thing to be done with
>>your religion (individuality)? Wouldn't that cause riffs in the church?
>>Especially if it had to do with Doctrine? 

Glen, in a religion the standard of conformity has already been set.  A 
candidate for membership usually has to testify to a statement of faith and
agree to the contents of the same.  A president for example, swears under
oath to uphold the Constitution of the U.S.  If the president doesn't do this,
then by rights he has no business being the president.
One cannot change the laws of science.  2+2 does not equal three.  This is
hypothesized, tested, and proven.  Students can challenge the answer, by all
means.  They don't by majority have the right to make false information truth.

>>| A recent study showed that Asian and European children generally did better 
>>| then their US counterparts in most subjects, specifically math and science 

>>	I've heard this too.

Then do you believe a lowering of standards will change this?  I don't.


| but thought that they were not very good and needed to study a lot harder. 
| the US kids scored significantly worse but thought that they were very good 
| and felt that they studied, it anything, too hard.  

>>	This is news to me Jack. I have heard nothing but the oppisite. Where
>>did you hear/read this?

David Brudnoy on WBZ.  He mentioned the source but I can't remember it.
He may be a cranky old fuddy duddy and you may not like him, but he usually 
doesn't make a statement unless he can back up with a reputable source.

-Jack
921.103BIGQ::SILVAMemories.....Thu May 26 1994 19:55130
| <<< Note 921.102 by AIMHI::JMARTIN >>>



| >>	Jack, what would you do with those who are "underachievers"? What is an
| >>underachiever in your eyes?

| Glen, you are talking to one!  I was very proficient in English but very poor
| in math skills, right brained if you will.  My mother sent me to summer school
| and I stayed after school three days a week for extra help...TO CATCH UP to my
| peers.  

	Is this something that has been taken away? Can you name a school where
this has been done or is it something people have proposed?

| In no way did I slow them down.  I felt rotten of course...the class
| dunce.  I believe humility can breed character as well.  

	I also believe that kids can be cruel, and with some kids, they will be
branded for their entire schooling years. The same thing happens to a lot of
those who are in the upper part of the class. It tends to do more breaking that
helping.

| It doesn't have to be all negative.

	Agreed, but that is something parents need to teach kids at a very
early age.

| You will find many children dislike school due to boredom and lack of challenge.
| It is the responsibility of the students to meet the criteria of a grade
| level before moving to the next class.  It is not our job to stagnate Johnny 
| in order to make Ralph feel equal.

	I agree with this in principle, but I think we may disagree on what
extent this should go to. 

| >>| Promoting mediocrity at the expense of excellence.

| >>	Who has done this? I'm curious. How is this done, with programs,
| >>telling the teachers to drop their level of teaching down, how?

| Yes, there are programs in place to cater to the needs of specific persons.

	Jack, you knew this was coming, but what programs are you talking
about?

| Our federal government has the odasity to deem certain people "unable" to meet
| standards set by school systems and competencies for jobs placement.  These
| programs fall under the guise of an umbrella you are well aware of.  I've
| mentioned it quite a bit; two words that begin with the same vowel, promoting
| racism, quotas, and insulting to women and minorities.  

	I knew this was going in some direction, but never thought this one.
Jack, I guess there will be no changing of your mind, but let me ask you, do
you know of any of these people the government has deemed this way personally?
Do you know what kind of tests they use to measure the people? I'm curious.

| Apparently I have more faith in the individual that the establishment does.  

	Sometimes it's just a matter of finding the right kind of job. I've
known many who people thought just weren't good workers until they got into a
job where they ended up excelling. I agree that tests may not always prove to
be right, but if you had to put a % on them for success, what would that number
be? 

| I also place blame on local schoolboards and most of all, incompetent parents 
| for their ineptitude.

	This is where I would put 90% of the blame. 

| >>| Doing away with the grading system.

| >>	I hadn't heard of this. What type system do they want to go to, and who
| >>is the "they"?

| You will find that "they" are mainly from the liberal establishment, not all
| by any means.  Let's say it is mostly those who don't believe in standards.

	Jack, you seem to have heard this, but you have not pin pointed it to
anyone or any group specifically. If you heard of it then one would think it
came from someone or group. And what type of system do they want to go to?

| >>| Holding to group conformity instead of individuality, i.e. if the group says
| >>| 2+2=3, it can't be wrong.

| >>	Jack, this is puzzling. Would you allow the same thing to be done with
| >>your religion (individuality)? Wouldn't that cause riffs in the church?
| >>Especially if it had to do with Doctrine?

| Glen, in a religion the standard of conformity has already been set.  

	Then why do you get upset when individuals come in and say this or that
is wrong, start their own charter of that religion? Do the words watered down,
not real Christians come to mind? If there was a standard of conformity, there
would be only one religion, only one version of the Bible. So would you care to
try again at answering this?

| One cannot change the laws of science.  2+2 does not equal three.  This is
| hypothesized, tested, and proven.  Students can challenge the answer, by all
| means.  They don't by majority have the right to make false information truth.

	I still fail to see this happen and you have not provided any examples
of this. Your Seaseme Street example kind of blurred out why the 2 were both
right answers. You mentioned the 1st one, but like I said, blurred out the 2nd.
How is anyone supposed to see if they really are the same if you are blurring
them out?

| >>| A recent study showed that Asian and European children generally did better
| >>| then their US counterparts in most subjects, specifically math and science

| >>	I've heard this too.

| Then do you believe a lowering of standards will change this?  I don't.

	I have yet to see where they have. 

| | but thought that they were not very good and needed to study a lot harder.
| | the US kids scored significantly worse but thought that they were very good
| | and felt that they studied, it anything, too hard.

| >>	This is news to me Jack. I have heard nothing but the oppisite. Where
| >>did you hear/read this?

| David Brudnoy on WBZ.  

	Do you have to mention him???? :-)



Glen
921.104AIMHI::JMARTINThu May 26 1994 20:5111
    You're right about the Sesame Street example.  I just couldn't remember
    what the puppet had said.
    
    Suffice to say amongst all this that statistics don't lie.  Our
    children are getting rooked of the quality education they deserve.  We
    are not getting our moneys worth by any means.  President Clinton,
    Jesse Jackson, Al Gore, and every single parent congressional person
    realize this as they are all...ALL sending their kids to private
    schools.  
    
    -Jack
921.105BIGQ::SILVAMemories.....Fri May 27 1994 10:229


	Jack, I guess if we had some proof to back your claims, we could go
from there. But we do not have any real proof.



Glen
921.106POWDML::FLANAGANResident AlienFri May 27 1994 18:0529
    When I was in an education curriculum in the early 1970, MBO was the
    buzz word.  Management By Objectives.  We learned how to state
    Behavoiral Objectives.  By the completion of Unit one, student will be
    able to factor polynomials with a minimum accuracy of 75%.
    
    Isn't that the same thing as Outcome Oriented Education.
   
    The idea is that students should not progress to the next lesson before
    they have mastered the previous lesson.  The problem is that Outcome
    Oriented Education assumes the need for individualized instruction. 
    Not every kid in the class progresses at the same rate.  No student
    goes on from any assignment until she/he has mastered the assignment. 
    Some students may only master 10 assignments a year and the other
    students may master 100. 
     
    
    As far as the Big Bird example is concerned, I think it is great. 
    Teaching children as preschoolers that no important question has just
    one right and one wrong answer.  But you are right.  It is subversive.
    
    It subverts the dualistic, patriarchal, hierarchical, assumptions of
    Western Civilization and classical Hellenistic Christianity.  I can
    imagine big bird asking, Now which one of these images represents
    Goddess/God.  
    
    Oh well!  The diversity of answers is wonderful.  Let's teach kids out
    of the box thinking.
    
    Patricia
921.107JULIET::MORALES_NASweet Spirit's Gentle BreezeFri May 27 1994 18:435
    I read somewhere that Sesame Street is planning on introducing
    homosexual relationships by revealing Bert and Ernies homosexuality and
    the death of one to aids.  Anybody else hear this?
    
    
921.108?CSC32::J_CHRISTIEPacifist HellcatFri May 27 1994 18:445
    Is someone here on the mailing list for an organization called
    "The Sons of Liberty"?
    
    Richard
    
921.109POWDML::FLANAGANResident AlienFri May 27 1994 18:556
    Far out.
    
    I may start watching Seseme Street again.
    What a great idea.
    
    Patricia
921.110CSLALL::HENDERSONBe thereFri May 27 1994 19:0010

 It was denied several months ago by PBS.






 Jim
921.111JULIET::MORALES_NASweet Spirit's Gentle BreezeFri May 27 1994 19:025
    -1
    
    Thanks Jimbo.... I wondered about that.