ian5

I'm not sure this is really that important for this dialogue, but I'm not sure that you can but the Law of Gravity and the Theory of Evolution in the same category. I'm not really sure what I believe in terms of 7 day creation vs. evolution - I don't think there is enough evidence to decide either way. I think for the most part it is rather irrelevant to the way that we live our lives. But anyway. . . The Law of Gravity is much more testable than the Theory of Evolution is. We can repeatedly drop objects and make measurements and determine that they seem to consistently accelerate and drop at a certain rate. Based on these measurements we can make predictions about what is going to happen to an object under certain conditions. This is true for many fields of science - genetics, biology, chemistry, etc. This is why we can create much of the machinery we create, chemicals we create, etc. etc. Many of the theories that we have concocted have ended up breaking down - in fact, I think most of them have at some point, and we have had to refine them. We can make a lot of predictions with Newton's law, but once you get down to a certain scale they just aren't that applicable anymore. To my knowledge (and please, I would be sincerely interested in hearing information to the contrary) we don't really have the same kind of tests and measurements to confirm the theory of evolution. Personally, I think much of it seems really far-fetched. The human body is very complex and it seems doubtful that some of the systems that have evolved within our bodies would have evolved. There is way too much co-dependency. On the other hand, there seems to be evidence that suggests that our understanding of the creation story is quite accurate either. What boggles my mind sometimes is that we seem to limit ourselves to these two possibilities. Probably in part because nobody has come up with anything better. But perhaps it is also because the debate has become more than about a simple theory - it has become a religion for some. People cling to the Theory of Evolution more out of a rejection of Christianity than out of a conviction that it is true. And perhaps this isn't applicable to this thread, but at some level to teach the Theory of Evolution as if it were the only possibility seems like plain bad science. I'm not saying that schools should push the Biblical creation story, but I think we need to be a bit more honest about how certain we are about this theory. I think the certainty of it has been overblown. Yes, there are some aspects of it that seem plausible, but there are difficulties as well. There is a lot that it doesn't seem to explain, and I don't think we have dealt with this with a great deal of integrity - perhaps on either side. Ian

Maybe I've become too much of a liberal, but yes, everything can affect a person's health. Yes maybe we should leave everyone to take responsibility for themselves. But so far we haven't seen people do that. We are still smoking, we are still eating absolute crap that is poisoning our bodies, and we still make choice upon choice that has resulted in the slow deterioration of our bodies. Yet somehow, we claim to have advanced as a society. The result is that our health care system has taken a massive beating. Rather than spending money on doctors to heal people with illnesses beyond their control, we are forced to spend scads of money treating people with lung cancer and heart disease. What is scary is that knowing all of this I will be next. Further, doesn't it seem that the higher cost of healthy food results in a system where the rich can get healthier and the poor have no choice but to eat poison? Is this another example where long life and prosperity is relegated to the wealthy? Ian

You have pointed out that there is a concept of ethics and morality that transcends religion and is shared by all civilized peoples. You can speak from a ethical/moral viewpoint that comes from your religious teachings without using religious imagery. Preston Manning was able to do this quite well.The reason religion needs to be pushed to the background in our society it is because of its exclusive nature. Your Bible tells you that I will burn in hell because I do not believe in Jesus even if I live a moral/ethical life that is equal to any good Christian. Modern Christians have tried to forget about that little detail of their faith because they know our society could not function if people from different religious backgrounds do not respect each other. Yet those exclusive teachings are always there and, as a result, any outright use of religious imagery or teachings in public institutions is inherently coercive. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yes... I think what I was saying that indeed outright use of religious imagery or teachings in public institutions is inherently coercive. Further, absolute restriction of any religious imagery is coercive against faith. I think the point I was trying to make is that we can talk all we want that our ethical and moral worldviews transcend religion and is shared by civilized people, but I'm not sure this is entirely the case. Further, I think such a statement is a little presumptuous. Although I would agree that we all share a great deal of common ground, I would maintain that there are still differences. To state that all civilized people share a certain common ground is perhaps unfair. Within our continent there are varying views on many issues - capital punishment, gun control, treatment of animals, abortion, same sex marriage, and more. Don't make too many assumptions about where I am on these issues - I won't tip my hat at this point. But this fact alone suggests that not all 'civilized' people hold to the same transcendent concepts of ethics and morality. Perhaps I'm making more of this than I should - taking the letter rather than the spirit of your argument. Emmanuel Kant was one of the initiators of the modern movement - he suggested that belief be jettisoned but the Bible still maintained as a standard of morality and ethics. But it strikes me that in the pluralistic society of our day that just doesn't fly. Many have moved beyond using this as the authority on ethics and morality, and many disagree with many of the ethical and moral claims it is said to make. Most of this to say that I think we are fooling ourselves to think that we can educate our children in a worldview neutral fashion. The way we educate our children makes a statement about what we believe about the world. This being said, I am pretty okay with the dominant worldview being taught in our schools not being Christianity. Too much coercion has already occurred in the name of Christianity. I really appreciate your thoughts and your comments. I have been learning a lot from the insights of the people in the discussion here! Ian

In many ways the problem with our health care system is us. As a society we have listened far too long and too frequently to commercials and advertisements selling us poor health. There is a cost attached to the way we eat, act and behave. We have an incredible amount of scientific studies and reports that show that our eating patterns and activity levels are not healthy. We spend a great deal of money treating medical problems that could to some degree have been prevented. I know that eating the food that I eat is not healthy, but I still eat it. Anyways, I think it is a tragedy that we are forced to spend so much on healthcare merely because we (and I definitely include myself in this category) are not smart enough to prevent it. If we looked after ourselves we could focus on helping people with real illnesses. My thoughts. Ian

I would echo Sparhawk's point on this. Giving access to people of a faith to voluntarily gather in a public place should offend no one. However, when religious tradition invades a public school either by activity (morning prayer), or by environment (eg religious posters and items displayed), it becomes exclusionary to those who don't practice the faith. I agree with you. I think one overlooked part of education is ethics and morality. These are not religious issues even though they overlap with religious beliefs. Our children would be better equiped if more time was spent instilling the proper values. Interestingly if you look at most religions and even non-religious people you will see a lot of commonality in core values. If you believe in the separation of church and state, you would agree that the government and the public schools system (as an extension of the government) should not impose a religious practice on anyone. Prayer in schools does exactly that. Even if you make if voluntary, childern will feel akward in opting out if their freinds don't. I think 5 min of reflection in silence in a school in which individuals can use to pray, contemplate morality, or daydream if they so wish, is sufficiently inoffensive. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I think that there are different ideas about what the separation of church and state means. For some this means that there should be no church or religious activities in any state institutions. For others it simply means that the state does not force participation. While not against this, perhaps this reflection time isn't necessary. I'm not sure this is a battle I would choose to fight. I think I would argue for an additional component of moral inspiration or some similar thing. On the other hand, I would contend for the respect of varying religious views. I think this is a very difficult thing to maintain because every teacher has a religious bias or worldview, and this cannot be stopped from coming across in the classroom. Children are very impressionable and very subtle messages can be communicated really easily, both for and against a particular religion. While idealistically I am fully behind the separation of church and state, I am skeptical sometimes as to if this is really possible. There are religious statements and views tied up in so much of what we teach. Is the separation of church and state a pipe dream? Surely by teaching what we teach we are placing a certain worldview above another? As we teach our children about world events, we are making statement and promoting views about those events. How do we stop our schools from being propaganda machines? If we allow religious posters and items to be displayed, we communicate a certain message about religion. On the other hand, to prohibit them communicates a different message. And further, what is intended to be communicated is often different than what is understood. This issue is far from simple. Sorry about the rant... just some thoughts. Ian

I appreciate a lot of the comments that people have posted on this topic. I suppose I should first start by saying that I am a follower of Jesus and prayer is a regular part of my life. That being said, I am a firm believer in religious liberty and would fall on the side of not pulling for mandatory prayer in schools. I do not consider it possible for spirituality to be forced on people - if children do not believe, they do not believe. On the other hand, in the name of religious liberty I would like to speak in favour of allowing religious meetings in schools. I support providing these in an environment where nobody feels coerced to participate. I see no problem with giving equal access to various groups (Muslim, Buddhist, Christian, etc.) In reference to an earlier comment that "the primary purpose of education which is to teach kids the skills they need to survive in our information society." I see this as being somewhat problematic. While I recognize that some may object, I think our education system must cooperate with our families in teaching our children not only the skills they need to succeed in a career, but should also be operative in instilling character in our children. Our schools should teach children honesty, integrity, compassion and kindness. Our children need to become young men and women of character. I am convinced that the future health of our society depends on future generations being more concerned about principles and values than about money and success. We need to be concerned about the greater issues such as the poor, social justice issues, environmental issues, and more. I don't think this is a uniquely Christian idea, but correct me if I'm wrong. Looking forward to hearing comments on this. Ian