Christian Fundamentalism = Anti-intellectualism = Societal slide to the Dark Ages

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-04-2009
Christian Fundamentalism = Anti-intellectualism = Societal slide to the Dark Ages
63
Wed, 02-20-2013 - 12:12pm

Christian Fundamentalsts are Driving Our Country Into the Dark Ages

I read this article today and I have to say that I agree.  While the Catholic church in a surprising (to me) reversal of their traditional protection of the lesser and weak of society, has been much in the news in their attempts to dismantle the single greatest step forward in medical care in this country because they don't want women--any women--to take birth control, even if the church isn't paying for it.  But they really AREN'T the worst of the bunch.  The so-called "fundi-gelicals" are the worst, for their insidious inroads into local politics and their attempted domination of the House and Senate with their Tea Party idiots.

<p>But I agree, they are leading us to intellectual ruin.  In another generation or two, if they are left unchecked, US children will rank among the lowest and least educated in the world.  Already they are all but dismantling true science education by trying to force creationism--the magic science--into the classroom.  Our children can barely read, they consistently fall behind most every other 1st world country in math and science.  And we're abdicating our nation's food sources to Monsanto and corporate farming.

<p>I had a dream a week ago that I was a very old woman, telling my great grandchildren about how I used to be able to vote.

************

Kitty

"If you can't annoy somebody with what you write, I think there's little point in writing."-- Kingsley Amis, British novelist, 1971 t .

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-14-2011

Puss wrote:

Partly. I also worry about those who read my post and figure they have to defend all of Christianity against someone who probably isn't Christian. I am Christian. My post was very specifically NOT about Christianity in general, but those Christians who an awful lot of other Christians never speak out against, but often attempt lamely to distance themselves from any time there is real criticism to be made. Unless the rest of us Christians speak out against these alleged 'fringe members'--who have a crapton of political clout and who have all but destroyed any hope of real education at the public level--then we are all to blame for their existence AND their influence.

Christianity does not deserve defending if we remain silent and accepting of those sects within it who would destroy it and this country in its name.

I have been surprised by the number of Christians who have agreed with me when I've shared the same sentiments.  The vocal minority have the power right now, and if the rest of us don't speak up, we will all get screwed.

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-23-2001

Wrong, The fear is it would kill evolution which is not true, That's the ignorance.  Creationism is already discussed in the classroom, Bible class may be on it's way in. 

Lol, Charlatans and incompetent teachers, What a poor generation we're raising! 

 


 


iVillage Member
Registered: 02-04-2009

jamblessedthree wrote:
<p>Wrong, The fear is it would kill evolution which is not true, That's the ignorance.  Creationism is already discussed in the classroom, Bible class may be on it's way in. </p><p>Lol, Charlatans and incompetent teachers, What a poor generation we're raising! </p>

No, I'm not wrong.  This is no "theory of creationism".  The word 'theory' when used with real, actual science does not mean the same thing it means in colloquial English.  A scientific theory means that an hypothesis has been confirmed and accepted as established explanations for scientific phenomena.  Gravity *is a theory.*  Evolution is a theory--backed by evidence and tests in which the results can be duplicated over and over.  

There is no scientific basis for creationism.  It's simply people trying to force the poetry and folk tales which comprise the two completely different accounts of creation in the Bible into some kind of stand-in in place of real science.

The Bible was never intended to be a geology text.  Attempting to force it into that role is to ignore the entire point of the Bible.  And of creation, for that matter.  The Bible is not a science book.  The creation stories are not, cannot and were never intended to be taken literally.  And those who try to force it into those roles are teachers of lies.

************

Kitty

"If you can't annoy somebody with what you write, I think there's little point in writing."-- Kingsley Amis, British novelist, 1971 t .

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-08-2009
Yeah, when we have legislators who think women's bodies can shut down pregnancies in the case of "legitimate rape," or that the fetus is the "largest organ" in a pregnant woman's body," and we have supposedly educated news anchors who can get on national television and wonder whether asteroids approaching earth's orbit are caused by global warming, then we have a problem. A very serious educational problem. Creation stories have their place in public schools. I teach them in history classes. My kids learned some of them in Latin class, and in world literature classes. They are often profoundly and meaningful beautiful stories. But they have no place in science classes.
iVillage Member
Registered: 10-23-2001

Right, The libs that pretend there's a war on women and the fantaticals that keep their panties in a bunch!  Lol!  You do know, The RCC is making strides in suing the federal government and protecting their fundamental rights, don't you? 

Church history is older than Medeival history, Or so the theologians say. 

 


 


iVillage Member
Registered: 01-08-2009
Politics aside, the problems I cited remain. People who are in a position to make policy seem ignorant of basic scientific facts about human biology. People who interpret and report on these facts seem to be engaging in some form of "magical thinking." And yes, I am quite aware of the trajectory of church history, having earned a PhD in the subject some twenty years ago, having taught it for a quarter century, having published fairly extensively on the subject, and now an a proud Doktor-Mutter of three budding Church historians.
iVillage Member
Registered: 10-23-2001

Puss, I don't think the bible was ever intended to be taken literally either, There are many interpretations of it over the years too.  But place a bible in a classroom and ask a student to compare parts of it to popular/modern culture and poof, You've got a class!  Those are the thoughts of acatual educators anyway. 

 


 


iVillage Member
Registered: 01-08-2009
I don't see how anyone can claim to be educated in the western tradition without having read the Bible, since it informs so much of western art, literature, and music. But it should not be dictating what goes on in science classrooms.
iVillage Member
Registered: 02-04-2009

jamblessedthree wrote:
<p>Puss, I don't think the bible was ever intended to be taken literally either, There are many interpretations of it over the years too.  But place a bible in a classroom and ask a student to compare parts of it to popular/modern culture and poof, You've got a class!  Those are the thoughts of acatual educators anyway. </p>

If I gave the impression that my objections were to comparative literature and history, I apologize.  I believed then (as now) that my rather pointed use of science terms and discussing how there is no "theory of creationism" would make it plain to anyone reading that my objection is to using the Bible as a science text.

I will work harder to make myself clear.

************

Kitty

"If you can't annoy somebody with what you write, I think there's little point in writing."-- Kingsley Amis, British novelist, 1971 t .

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-08-2009

You were perfectly clear to me. Others appear confused.

Pages