God Being Kept Out of Universities

[BrianC]

Ben Stein made a movie that comes out in February 2008 called Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. He goes and interviews tons of university professors and researchers and most admit that they will not hire anyone that even has a hint of a belief in a god. Others are told to keep their mouth shut. Others are fired or denied tenure. It's pretty rampant. Science ridicules the Intelligent Design crowd by flat out lying and saying it's not science and they have no researchers and no research. They all admit this on the video. Many professors tell how they were fired when they professed a belief in God. Sounds like an interesting movie. Here is the link for a 7 minute trailer for it, and the website is listed below it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iV8sN1UngFY
www.expelledthemovie.com

[ClockwrkOrangeS4]

Interesting for sure.

I love the Ferris Bueller reference at the end.

[jones4stangs]

Peer review is a bitch!

I don't see it any different than a Christian preacher who would state and then try to prove the bible is not the word of God with the bible itself. How much trouble would he have getting and/or keeping a leadership job in a church? Would you lead ear or respect anything else that came out their mouth?

Where's the surprise what someone who goes against the tenants of their field of study is shunned and passed over?

[BrianC]

Peer review is a bitch!

I don't see it any different than a Christian preacher who would state and then try to prove the bible is not the word of God with the bible itself. How much trouble would he have getting and/or keeping a leadership job in a church? Would you lead ear or respect anything else that came out their mouth?

Where's the surprise what someone who goes against the tenants of their field of study is shunned and passed over?

Science and religion in a church are two completely different things. In science it is possible to find truth and absolute fact. It is also possible to interpret those facts different ways. The evolutionists interpret them one way, while the creationists interpret them another way. Evolutionists never argue on the facts with creationists, because the creationists use the same facts. It would be pointless to do so. The evolutionist would give his interpretation and the creationist would give his, and nothing would be solved, except that the creationists would have a more solid, believeable and more statistically possible explanation that fits better (which is why creation theory never changes, but evolution theory constantly changes).

If evolution is the only thing taught for 100 years and science suddenly finds that evolution is incorrect, then scientists are going to have to come up with a new theory. The only other theory is creationism. So, for years, scientists will have this completely incorrect world view from which they interpret ALL of their data, and this will hinder science for that 100 year stretch, and longer. But suddenly, when it's disproven and creationism is brought in, the world view changes and the interpretation of the data it completely turned around backwards. Research would make much more sense once it's established what the true interpretation is.

That's just a for instance of why it is important to show both theories and the data behind them. If one is correct, people need to have another to fall back on, and if both are presented, people can make an educated decision for themselves. They don't need an anti-God scientist to give them his biased opinion on the matter. They're smart enough to figure it out on their own when presented with the data. What a bunch of arrogant, self-serving idiots. They think they have it all figured out, yet they constantly have to adjust their theory. Yet creationist's theory is constant and unchanging, because it was so well structured after they figured it all out. Gee...that should say something right there. But evolutionists don't want to admit that, of course. Make's them look bad. This is why the creation model is superior to the evolution model.

[exlude]

Creationist use the same facts, except when some of those facts argue against Creationism. Then they ignore them. By ignoring them, they do have a decently solid, believable argument. But when you take all the facts into account, their argument becomes a straight out lie.

The fact that creation theory never changes is an argument to its weakness in lieu of developing data.

[Mr Majestyk]

Creationism never changes because the basis on which it stands, God, never changes. Evolution presumes that facts known to or which could be learned by man are all that exists, and that nothing outside of man's perception can take place. God is no way limited to what man is capable of grasping, and understanding that leaves me with no problem accepting creationism.

[exlude]

Yes, and any evidence that may contradict what the Bible has to say was put on Earth by the Debil.

[Mr Majestyk]

The debil didn't put jack chit on the earth....he's not a creator of anything, but rather a destroyer.

[Zarathustra]

Good, that's the way it should be.

[White trash wagon]

Frankly, unless your studying theology, religion has no place in a college. These people are adults, and have likely already made up thier minds about religion & flavor of religion. College is a place for adults to better themselves & prepare for a career. Religious studies have no relevance to this endeavor. Of course, you can elect to take relgious courses as an elective if that suites you. You can always go to a religious oriented college if you like, there are PLENTY of those.

Scott

[Mr Majestyk]

Religion has a place in college, in a historical context at least.

[White trash wagon]

Religion has a place in college, in a historical context at least.

In a history class, I would agree with that.

Scott

[Mr Majestyk]

In regard to the OP topic:

At state-supported schools or those that are in receipt of any federal dollars for research, etc., not hiring or retaining a professor or any other university employee based on their religion would be a blatant violation of that individual's civil rights, the same as basing said policy on race, national origin, disability, etc.

[Brain_Mach1]

College is a place for adults to better themselves.... Religious studies have no relevance to this endeavor.
Now that was funny! :D

The majority of Christians belong to denominations which do not teach 6,000 year old earth so the Creationist/Evolutionist arguments from further above are not very relevant to Christianity and universities.

Something I find interesting is that education post Roman Empire was maintained (as much as was maintained) not by secular governments but by the Church. The universities which followed we created by or supported by the Church (look at the earliest universities of Prague, Paris, Oxford, those in Italy).

Even looking at the founding of the oldest universities in the colonies shows an interesting trend towards religion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonial_Colleges

To remove Christianity from universities is to deny their origin.

[jones4stangs]

Now that was funny! :D

The majority of Christians belong to denominations which do not teach 6,000 year old earth so the Creationist/Evolutionist arguments from further above are not very relevant to Christianity and universities.

Something I find interesting is that education post Roman Empire was maintained (as much as was maintained) not by secular governments but by the Church. The universities which followed we created by or supported by the Church (look at the earliest universities of Prague, Paris, Oxford, those in Italy).

Even looking at the founding of the oldest universities in the colonies shows an interesting trend towards religion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonial_Colleges

To remove Christianity from universities is to deny their origin.
Nice post.

[White trash wagon]

Now that was funny! :D

The majority of Christians belong to denominations which do not teach 6,000 year old earth so the Creationist/Evolutionist arguments from further above are not very relevant to Christianity and universities.

Something I find interesting is that education post Roman Empire was maintained (as much as was maintained) not by secular governments but by the Church. The universities which followed we created by or supported by the Church (look at the earliest universities of Prague, Paris, Oxford, those in Italy).

Even looking at the founding of the oldest universities in the colonies shows an interesting trend towards religion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonial_Colleges

To remove Christianity from universities is to deny their origin.

From a historical standpoint your correct, However, times change, we learn. We no longer burn people alive for being "heretics".

In the past most governments were given thier orders by the church, we've learned it's better to seperate government & religion.

In the past the church used to regulate science, as in when Copernicus was burned alive for saying the earth rotated around the sun, or Galilieo was arrested & imprisoned for saying the same. We've also learned to seperate science from religion.

In the modern world, colleges are for futherance of your career,few degree plans require religious classes. Any reference to religion other than in a historical context is of no use to someone studying biology, finance, business, medicine, etc, etc.............

Scott

[Brain_Mach1]

Um, check your facts. Different people can find different motives based on the same facts (religious v. atheist) but your facts are really messed-up.

The separation of church and state is not from church ruling the government but the government ruling the church. The English government had laws such as the Act of Uniformity and the Test Acts to limit the rights of Catholics or other non-Anglican groups. The King of England was the head of the Church and the people. The Church was not the head of the king and the people.

Copernicus died from a stroke induced comma (far from being burned at the stake). :eek: He was never persectuted, arrested, etc. His work was denounced after his death. Hold what opinion you want, but at least come close with the facts.

If your understanding of the Copernicus affair is so far outside of the ballpark, the intricuses of the Galileo are too suttle. Heck, his imprisonment was house arrest. The instricacies go into his personal relationships with the church leaders.

The first, and unsually only, religion/science example people go to is Galileo and it was had more to do with personalities. The stories, like the above, about Copernicus tend to be outright false.

By the way, I had 12 years of private religious schooling and bachelors degree from a public university (Texas A&M). I do read history with a Catholic slant, but the first point is to get the facts straight before trying to determine motive.

[flashstang04]

By the way, I had 12 years of private religious schooling and bachelors degree from a public university (Texas A&M). I do read history with a Catholic slant, but the first point is to get the facts straight before trying to determine motive.


Aww A&M? I was starting to really like you too! ahh well... :D

[White trash wagon]

Um, check your facts. Different people can find different motives based on the same facts (religious v. atheist) but your facts are really messed-up.

The separation of church and state is not from church ruling the government but the government ruling the church. The English government had laws such as the Act of Uniformity and the Test Acts to limit the rights of Catholics or other non-Anglican groups. The King of England was the head of the Church and the people. The Church was not the head of the king and the people.

Copernicus died from a stroke induced comma (far from being burned at the stake). :eek: He was never persectuted, arrested, etc. His work was denounced after his death. Hold what opinion you want, but at least come close with the facts.

If your understanding of the Copernicus affair is so far outside of the ballpark, the intricuses of the Galileo are too suttle. Heck, his imprisonment was house arrest. The instricacies go into his personal relationships with the church leaders.

The first, and unsually only, religion/science example people go to is Galileo and it was had more to do with personalities. The stories, like the above, about Copernicus tend to be outright false.

By the way, I had 12 years of private religious schooling and bachelors degree from a public university (Texas A&M). I do read history with a Catholic slant, but the first point is to get the facts straight before trying to determine motive.

The seperation of church & state came only after 1500 years of the Catholic Pope running politics in Europe. Even then, there wasn't TRUE seperation of church & state for another 200 years.
The king of England was the head of the Anglican church only AFTER Henry broke with Catholic church and then formed the church of England (Anglican church).


You are correct about Copericus, but the only reason he was never persecuted was his book: "De revolutionibus" on heliocentric theory (earth revolves around the sun) was it was published the day he died.

However, the fellow I was thinking of was a Coperican follower & mathematician named Giordano Bruno, who WAS burned at the stake nearly 70 years later on Feb 17, 1600. The list of heretical charges against him included supporting Coperican theory.

The Catholic Church's 1758 Index of Prohibited Books omitted the general prohibition of works defending heliocentrism,[26] but retained the specific prohibitions of the original uncensored versions of De revolutionibus and Galileo's Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems. Those prohibitions were finally dropped from the 1835 Index.

In 1633 Galileo Galilei was convicted of grave suspicion of heresy for "following the position of Copernicus, which is contrary to the true sense and authority of Holy Scripture,"[25] and was placed under house arrest for the rest of his life. In 1633 Galileo was well known enough that even the church had to step lightly in persecuting him.

All this was church doctrine based on: Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, and I Chronicles 16:30 state that "the world is firmly established, it cannot be moved." Psalm 104:5 says, "[the LORD] set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved." Ecclesiastes 1:5 states that "the sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises."

So my assertions stand, but thank you for making me research my own mistake.

Scott

[Brain_Mach1]

The seperation of church & state came only after 1500 years of the Catholic Pope running politics in Europe. Even then, there wasn't TRUE seperation of church & state for another 200 years.
The king of England was the head of the Anglican church only AFTER Henry broke with Catholic church and then formed the church of England (Anglican church).First, there is no document calling for the separation of Church and State in the US. Read the 1st Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Second, the British monarchy did not want a separation of Church and state, they wanted control of the church. Look at the fate of the monastic properties in Britain, they were seized by the government.

In Britain at the time of the creation of the Bill of Rights, you had to be a member of the Church of England to hold public office, get a government job, etc. This is what the Test Acts in England demanded (look it up before responding). Second, the English government regulated the worship services of the Church which is what Act of Uniformity covered (again, look this stuff up).

However, the fellow I was thinking of was a Coperican follower & mathematician named Giordano Bruno, who WAS burned at the stake nearly 70 years later on Feb 17, 1600. The list of heretical charges against him included supporting Coperican theory.I see you are using Wikipedia now. Let's see what else it has to say

According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "…in 1600 there was no official Catholic position on the Copernican system, and it was certainly not a heresy. When…Bruno…was burned at the stake as a heretic, it had nothing to do with his writings in support of Copernican cosmology."[7]

Similarly, the Catholic Encyclopedia (1908) asserts that "Bruno was not condemned for his defense of the Copernican system of astronomy, nor for his doctrine of the plurality of inhabited worlds, but for his theological errors, among which were the following: that Christ was not God but merely an unusually skilful magician, that the Holy Ghost is the soul of the world, that the Devil will be saved, etc."[8]

However, the webpage of the Vatican Secret Archives about Bruno's trial provides a different perspective: "In the same rooms where Giordano Bruno was questioned, for the same important reasons of the relationship between science and faith, at the dawning of the new astronomy and at the decline of Aristotle’s philosophy, sixteen years later, Cardinal Bellarmino, who then contested Bruno’s heretical theses, summoned Galileo Galilei, who also faced a famous inquisitorial trial, which, luckily for him, ended with a simple abjuration." [9]
Do you agree with the Catholic Church or with the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. If you say the Catholic Church, realize that the Church did apologize in the affair. There have been and still are people being put to death for crimes in the US who are innocent. This does not help the dead.
In 1633 Galileo Galilei was convicted of grave suspicion of heresy for "following the position of Copernicus, which is contrary to the true sense and authority of Holy Scripture,"[25] and was placed under house arrest for the rest of his life. In 1633 Galileo was well known enough that even the church had to step lightly in persecuting him.
House arrest is not imprisonment. In your Wikipedia studies, you also left out parts such as: It (heliocentrism) was consequently termed heretical by the Qualifiers, since it contradicted the literal meaning of the Scriptures, though this position was not binding on the Church.

Did you know that the public defender is an invention of the Italian Inquisition? Where would we be if we had seperation of Chruch and State?

So my assertions stand, but thank you for making me research my own mistake.
Kepler burnt. NOT! (a previous post by you)
Copernicus burnt. NOT!
King Henry VIII wanting seperation of Church and State. NOT EVEN CLOSE!
Bruno burnt for supporting Copernicus, some truth. ;)
US seperation of Church and State. Show me a document!

Bruno was executed by secular authorities (yes, there must be a seperation of Church and State, but know what this means) for many issues. History is not as simple as most people would have you believe.

Please continue using Wikipedia. It is a great start for research. But read the entire article and use it as a start to your research, not an end.

[White trash wagon]

Brian, most western governments do practice seperation of church and state, which you seem to support.

There is no specific section of the constitution that specifically bans mixing church and state however, the constitutional framers had this in mind.

To have a faith based (no seperation) government, a state religion would have to be chosen. The first amendment specifically prohibits this: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

The author of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson wrote in an 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association: I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."

Moreover James Madison (author of the bill of rights) wrote: ”total seperation of the church from the state." "Strongly guarded . . . is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States," Madison wrote, and he declared, "practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government is essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States."

Madison and Jeffeson cowrote the Virginia Statute of Religius Freedom, that stated: Government involvement in matters tends to end in the restraint of religion.
Civil rights do not depend on religious beliefs, and what a person thinks is no business of the government's

In 1971 the Supreme Court ruled that "The US Government cannot have excessive entanglements with religion".

As to Giordano Bruno, he was tried, convicted, imprisoned for over 8 years, and sentenced to death by the church. He was handed over to secular authorities for execution. Secular execution of church mandated death sentences was standard practice then since the church knew that violated the sixth commandment.

As to Bruno's specific charges, It is often maintained that Bruno was executed because of his Copernicanism and his belief in the infinity of inhabited worlds. In fact, we do not know the exact grounds on which he was declared a heretic because his file is missing from the records.

However, Italian researcher Luigi Firpo, states one of the charges was: Claiming the existence of a plurality of worlds and their eternity. That is Copernican theory.

Scott

[poopnut2]

Religion and Creationism or Intelligent Design is not a science. Science by definition is the application of the scientific method. Religion and it's beliefs have nothing to do with that. It's all based on faith and faith alone, and any doubt in those beliefs is considered heresy.

[poopnut2]

Um, check your facts. Different people can find different motives based on the same facts (religious v. atheist) but your facts are really messed-up.

The separation of church and state is not from church ruling the government but the government ruling the church. The English government had laws such as the Act of Uniformity and the Test Acts to limit the rights of Catholics or other non-Anglican groups. The King of England was the head of the Church and the people. The Church was not the head of the king and the people.

Copernicus died from a stroke induced comma (far from being burned at the stake). :eek: He was never persectuted, arrested, etc. His work was denounced after his death. Hold what opinion you want, but at least come close with the facts.

If your understanding of the Copernicus affair is so far outside of the ballpark, the intricuses of the Galileo are too suttle. Heck, his imprisonment was house arrest. The instricacies go into his personal relationships with the church leaders.

The first, and unsually only, religion/science example people go to is Galileo and it was had more to do with personalities. The stories, like the above, about Copernicus tend to be outright false.

By the way, I had 12 years of private religious schooling and bachelors degree from a public university (Texas A&M). I do read history with a Catholic slant, but the first point is to get the facts straight before trying to determine motive.

The King of England was in charge of the Church of England. Why? Because he broke away from the catholic church because he had to have the churches approval for certain things. He didn't like that when the church would not approve a divorce that the King of England desired.

Your "facts" are false and you appear to only "learn" what you choose.

[Nestromo]

Science ridicules the Intelligent Design crowd by flat out lying and saying it's not science and they have no researchers and no research.

Is the Easter Bunny a science? ;)

[Casper]

In regard to the OP topic:

At state-supported schools or those that are in receipt of any federal dollars for research, etc., not hiring or retaining a professor or any other university employee based on their religion would be a blatant violation of that individual's civil rights, the same as basing said policy on race, national origin, disability, etc.

Sorry, but that's not true, it depends on the charter.

I wonder if there was ever a suit against SMU or TCU for not hiring an atheist...

[Mr Majestyk]

Why don't you sue either or both and report back?

[Casper]

Why don't you sue either or both and report back?

Why should I?

You speculated and I offered the counter relating to charters.

[AL P]

The idea that medieval government somehow controlled the church is absolutely laughable. Some of you people really need to lay down the crack pipe.

[Brain_Mach1]

I agree.

There is no single fact of history, it was different in different places and different times.

In Salzburg, the Bishop had political controlled the region.

In different times of the Holy Roman Empire, the emporer was openly battling the Pope for control in the Church; ie, the Investiture Controversy.

There is no simple, single answer for the entire history of the Church and State in medival times.

[Mr Majestyk]

Sorry, but that's not true, it depends on the charter.

I wonder if there was ever a suit against SMU or TCU for not hiring an atheist...

Sorry, but it is true. For instance, right here in the State of Texas, refer to the rules and regulations of the Texas State University System for an example. Equal Employment Opportunity is the policy of that body, and prohibits illegal consideration of race, creed, color, sex, religion, age, national origin, or disability in personnel transactions.

Not speculation, rather it is fact.

[Casper]

I agree.

There is no single fact of history, it was different in different places and different times.

In Salzburg, the Bishop had political controlled the region.

In different times of the Holy Roman Empire, the emporer was openly battling the Pope for control in the Church; ie, the Investiture Controversy.

There is no simple, single answer for the entire history of the Church and State in medival times.

I would say that the other side of the coin, or the exception if you will, is the Russian Orthodox church, which maintained subservience to the Tsar.

This was one reason for the political dichotomy between Russia and Poland, and why the east never accepted catholicism; the political structure would not permit a foreign ruler like the pope to circumvent the status quo, while in the west the Holy see was an extension of the Pontifex Maximus. Kiev was "the new Rome" in the east, set on seven hills just like the original.

It also explains why the slavic languages split into Latin based (polish) and Greek based (Russian) alphabets.

It's all interesting stuff and defies broad generalizations.

[ModdinArt]

there are schools and there are christian schools. People can still pick whichever one they wanna learn from.