Darwinian religion

By Diogenes (articles ) | Aug 03, 2006

Read the front-page story in today's New York Times, and you'll have no trouble discerning which side of the Kansas educational battle represents "the good guys." The Times account is distinctly unsympathetic to the "conservatives," who are opposed, of course, by the lib... wait, check that, by the "moderates."

Having won a key vote, the "moderates" have promised, the Times tells us, "to work swiftly to restore a science curriculum that does not subject the Biblical account of Creation to critical attack."

Oh wait; that's not what the story said. They want a curriculum "that does not subject evolution to critical attack."

So it's OK, you see. Questioning the accuracy of the Bible is scientific reasoning. Questioning the accuracy of evolutionary theory is blasphemy.

Sound Off! CatholicCulture.org supporters weigh in.

All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!

Show 10 Comments? (Hidden)Hide Comments
  • Posted by: - Aug. 04, 2006 6:33 PM ET USA

    Oops. At the USCCB homepage, you need to click 'Church Documents' on the left and then 'Bishops' Statements'. In the many dozens of 'Statements & Speeches' listed, try to find one bearing on school choice or home schooling.

  • Posted by: - Aug. 04, 2006 6:22 PM ET USA

    In the months following Everson & McCollum in 1947 & 1948, the National Catholic Welfare Conference, a forerunner of the U. S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, published a denunciation of both opinions & proclaimed the determination of America's Catholic bishops to oppose the holdings until they were overruled. That original holy zeal is gone. Try this: Go to the USCCB site, click on the 'Statements & Speeches" button, & try to find any statement or speech on school choice or home schooling.

  • Posted by: - Aug. 04, 2006 10:36 AM ET USA

    You are not correcting anything, hUMPTY dUMPTY. You are not the only J. D. here. I am well aware of the historical points you make. Just. Stewart made them & others in Schempp. Your historical points are, as they say, 'history' themselves. The Sup. Ct., unfortunately, has ignored them. If you mean to suggest that the Sup. Ct. would allow a state today to establish a religion again, you are out of touch. Your point, please? Sit & watch the "partial & evolving" jurisprudence go our way?

  • Posted by: - Aug. 04, 2006 9:16 AM ET USA

    --And many priests frown upon the true Catholic response to public education: home school. It's growing, and it upholds natural law and the Catholic principle of subsidiarity... If we did not subject our children to these Godless schools we would not be having this debate.

  • Posted by: - Aug. 04, 2006 6:46 AM ET USA

    Correction: The U.S. Constitution and the 1st Amendment do not prohibit the states from establishing a state religion. Many of the states had "Official" Religions for decades after adoption of the Bill of Rights. The First Amendment pertains to Federal Authority. It was not until the 14th Amendment, after the Civil War, that the Bill of Rights was applied to the States. The application of the 1st Ten Amendments to the States is still partial and evolving. JD BC '56

  • Posted by: - Aug. 04, 2006 12:16 AM ET USA

    Yes, PseudoDi, it's very disheartening to hear the snoring and find all the deaf ears. What's even worse is the incredible lack of effort from the USCCB. Too bad it's only a fraternal--collegial--association. An institution with some backbone that vigorously professes our faith is sorely needed.

  • Posted by: - Aug. 03, 2006 5:55 PM ET USA

    I hear snoring from the hapless benches in Canada and North America.

  • Posted by: - Aug. 03, 2006 5:40 PM ET USA

    agree with Norwood. I might add: ... and "sex education" is catechesis.

  • Posted by: - Aug. 03, 2006 5:11 PM ET USA

    In a 1963 Supreme Court dissent that our bishops long ago should have placed prominently in all diocesan education programs, former Justice Potter Stewart made a profound & prescient point that might be the same as Uncle Di's. In Abington School District v. Schempp, he wrote, "[A] refusal to permit religious exercises ... is ..., not ... the realization of state neutrality, but rather ... the establishment of a religion of secularism ..." The U. S. bishops have abandoned the cause practically.

  • Posted by: - Aug. 03, 2006 3:29 PM ET USA

    Nicely put, Uncle Di. You get to the root. The 1st Amendment of the Consti'n of the USA does indeed prohibit the establishment of a state religion. Nothing whatsoever in the Consti'n, however, obligates or authorizes the establishment of a state culture. But that is just what the U. S. Supreme Court set out to accomplish post-WWII in the Everson & McCollum cases. The quest continues, aided by the NYT, NEA, et alii. Secularism is the target culture, & it replaces church w the public school.