This land's geology being presented in a fair and balanced manner means presenting christian religious beliefs about the creation of the grand canyon on equal footing with scientific explanations supported by actual evidence:
At least, so says the Bush administration.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Or, he wants to not remove a popular item from bookstores whose profits support our national parks.
Dagonee
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
He? I seriously doubt Bush had input about this particular decision, I'm merely talking about his administration.
Second, I predict a book which seriously presented the grand canyon as the work of aliens would be pretty popular, but that doesn't mean it should go in with the science books. This book is being presented as having scientific merit.
Third, I'm surprised how little concerned you are with the apparent lack of review. Something as scientifically questionable as this book should at least have its presence reviewed, and it appears that despite assurances such a review would occur, no such review has happened.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
As ludicrous as I believe the book probably is, does having it for sale at the Grand Canyon gift shop really constitute “presenting” its content?
And please don’t identify stuff like this as “Christian belief” as if it were a universally accepted Christian doctrine.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I've been to the Grand Canyon gift store.
It's a store, with lots of non-scientific stuff around.
The aliens book would be cool, too.
Dagonee
[ November 11, 2004, 02:09 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
Well, they could go ahead and sell it. But, as turnabout is fair play, maybe it should be required to bear a sticker on the cover that says:
"This book contains material on creationism. Creationsim is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."
Posted by Johnny Lee Wombat (Member # 7021) on :
If tax dollars are not available to promote every religious accounting for the Grand Canyon, then this violates establishment, does it not?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Nope. Not even close.
Posted by Johnny Lee Wombat (Member # 7021) on :
Creationism is not a theory.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I wasn't attempting to say its a universal christian belief, but that its a belief almost completely associated with christianity. The chain of progression is that YEC (Young Earth Creationism) implies Christianity on the part of the believer (in almost all cases), not that Christianity implies YEC.
You might read the PDFs at the end of the story, particularly these two:
The book is presented along with science books, and is not clearly separated. To quote from a National Park Service policy (quoted in that second PDF):
quote:Factual information presented will be current, accurate, based on current scholarship and science, and delivered so as to convey park meanings, with the understanding that audience members will draw their own conclusions.
This is in application to their educational programs, of which bookstores are a part. There are several other parts of park regulations which reiterate the same basic position.
Posted by Johnny Lee Wombat (Member # 7021) on :
Do you want a cookie or something to elaborate, Dagonee?
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
quote: If tax dollars are not available to promote every religious accounting for the Grand Canyon, then this violates establishment, does it not?
Taxpayer dollars aren't paying for this, are they? Isn't it paying for itself through the income it generates?
Posted by Johnny Lee Wombat (Member # 7021) on :
Er...they're paying for the bookstore and the venue to present the book?
That is a good point, though.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Oh, and then there's this nice little regulation:
"Items sold in park areas . . . must be approved in advance by the superintendent for appropriateness, price, quality, interpretive value, and accuracy"
Note also that this book doesn't merely advance its own position, it condemns accepted, good science as nonsense:
quote:The mile-deep Canyon itself, which could never have been carved out by the waters of the present river . . .
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
I'm assuming the bookstore itself pays for itself with some left over. I can't see how it would not.
Posted by Johnny Lee Wombat (Member # 7021) on :
Well, given the mishmash of private and public enterprises in public endeavors, both of us could be right.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Do you want a cookie or something to elaborate, Dagonee?
Only if you make a coherent case for an establishment clause violation first.
Dagonee
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Dagonee -- non-scientific stuff, sure, but this isn't non-scientific, its anti-scientific.
edit: for instance, I might expect a science museum to sell cool baubles in addition to science textbooks, but the idea of a science museum selling a book which claimed the moon landing was a hoax, particularly without any labeling setting it apart, is completely different from the idea of selling a cool bauble.
[ November 11, 2004, 02:30 PM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
so censorship is bad when it is right wingers bitching about harry potter books, violent movies, and so forth.
but censorship is good when it is left wingers bitching about conservative books?
If the books sells, then sell it...if people don't buy it and it sits there taking up shelf space, then get rid of it. Censoring it because you don't like its message seems rather silly. Its not like you are requiring the park rangers to teach the theory contained in the book. As for the aliens, if there are any funny books about aliens creating the grand canyon, why not sell it. If they think it can make the park more money, and satisfy the wishes of the consumer they might as well put it out. Thats the fun of capitalism.
It is the parents responsiblilty to tell their children that the violence in movies is not real, and that the sex without consequence on TV (broadcast over public airwaves) is not real, but if someone has a book about the flood in a public park it is no longer the parents job to tell them it is not real...the government should not allow it to be shown.
[ November 11, 2004, 02:32 PM: Message edited by: Lupus ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dagonee -- non-scientific stuff, sure, but this isnt' non-scientific, its anti-scientific.
I'm generally against the government examining the content of materials for availability to the public.
In school settings, obviously, this must be done. And I oppose creationsim being presented as science (although not specific problems with dating theory, etc. being presented). In a bookstore setting, the content restriction should be basic - "is this about the Grand Canyon?" Other considerations would be, "Is this profitable?"
Dagonee
Posted by Johnny Lee Wombat (Member # 7021) on :
I think my question is pretty coherent as it stands. I can restate it as a direct proposition, if it makes you happy, but I'll be pretty much saying the same thing.
Let's see. If tax dollars are able to used for only one religious version of events, then this violates establishment as government is de facto supporting a particular religious viewpoint, and is 'establishing' a religion.
For example, if someone wanted to publish a magazine on a college campus devoted to proselytizing for Chritianity, this is fine as long as tax dollars are available to any group to get their viewpoint out and also proselytize.
Why are you making me type all this crap out? I don't claim to be an expert on any of this. That's why I asked a question.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
This isn't a random bookstore, this is a bookstore that is part of the National Parks Service which has as a part of its primary mission the education of the public about the science of nature, and has established rules regarding that mission which insist on the factual accuracy of information presented by the NPS.
Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
quote:Let's see. If tax dollars are able to used for only one religious version of events, then this violates establishment as government is de facto supporting a particular religious viewpoint, and is 'establishing' a religion.
But tax dolars are not being used to publish the book...it simply being SOLD (which makes the bookstore money) in a publicly owned store.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
quote: Let's see. If tax dollars are able to used for only one religious version of events, then this violates establishment as government is de facto supporting a particular religious viewpoint, and is 'establishing' a religion.
However you haven't established that taxpayer dollars are paying for this or that other religious versions would not be accepted.
Posted by Johnny Lee Wombat (Member # 7021) on :
I'm right with you, Fugu, but the problem is that, legally, I don't think any public organ that disseminates information is protected from having to be 'inclusive' of viewpoints because it's a science book. I'm assuming this is why creationism has to be mentioned in some school textbooks.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
In fact, lets carry this a bit further. Since you say scientific accuracy isn't important as a criterion for determining presence in such a bookstore, and that profitability is, does this mean were none of the scientifically books on the grand canyon were turning a profit you might support removing them from the bookstore? Clearly there are books (such as this one) which are equally "about the grand canyon" under your criteria to replace them, so what criteria/criterion would you use to maintain their presence?
I submit that under close examination we find scientific accuracy is an important criterion, as the NPS has determined and laid out in its regulations.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:This isn't a random bookstore, this is a bookstore that is part of the National Parks Service which has as a part of its primary mission the education of the public about the science of nature, and has established rules regarding that mission which insist on the factual accuracy of information presented by the NPS.
I reiterate, fugu, I'm uncomfortable with government policies that require examination of content to carry out. I recognize a necessary exception for public schools. I don't think the case is nearly as strong for National Park Service bookstores.
In pother words, if the policy requires reading a book and deciding which ones are scientifically valid, I'm not in favor of it.
Dagonee
[ November 11, 2004, 02:37 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Creationism has to be mentioned in no school textbooks. Where on earth do you get these ideas?
Posted by Architraz Warden (Member # 4285) on :
For the record, having been to that and many other Arizona book / gift shops, I'd be shocked if there aren't several books containing stories regarding the Native American myths and tellings of the creation of the Canyon. Probably something involving Coyote digging it since he's a creator and trickster (and what's more entertaining than imagining the first explorer pondering how to cross it?) Seeing as Native American and Christian beliefs are very very prominent, I have no problems with the book store selling such things. There is a great deal of effort expended by public and private parties to paint Arizona as a land of disbelief, greater powers and magic. Besides, how many Islamic or Buddist tales outline the creation of the Grand Canyon that would be sellable in a Grand Canyon bookshop?
Feyd Baron, DoC
Posted by Johnny Lee Wombat (Member # 7021) on :
I know, blacwolve. I've already agreed that what I'm saying is not fact from previous posts.
However, for my own personal edification, I am curious as to if, or how, establishment interacts here, if tax dollars are used in some combination in the operation of the bookstore.
If only we had someone who was training to be a lawyer who perhaps had some personal history with the first amendment who could set us straight!
[ November 11, 2004, 02:42 PM: Message edited by: Johnny Lee Wombat ]
Posted by Johnny Lee Wombat (Member # 7021) on :
I believe there are several states where such is the case, Fugu. Didn't Kentucky just do that? Or am I just not understanding the situation?
edit: quick googling brought up this link, for starters.
[ November 11, 2004, 02:50 PM: Message edited by: Johnny Lee Wombat ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I should reiterate I don't have a problem with selling a book which conveys the notion that the grand canyon was formed by the flood of the bible, or rather I don't think such a thing should be forbidden.
The issue for me is that it presents the notion that the grand canyon as formed by the flood of the bible as a scientific notion, and directly dismisses actual scientific notions.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Fugu, I know that technically you are correct about what your chain of progression implies. However, I am asking you to use different phrasing as a courtesy to those of us who are tired of having the name of our religion used as if it were synonymous with things we completely disagree with. Some people do think that being a Christian means being anti-science. And I’m so tired of having to assert that it doesn’t. Along with reminding people that not all Christians are Republicans, it’s about to drive me mad. Is a little disclaimer, acknowledging that you know that, really so much to ask?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Dagonee -- so you disagree with the park service putting signs around the park stating historical events that happened at certain places? Or that give factual information about plants? These are all examples of content based decisions for presentation using government monies that are not in the schools.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I should reiterate I don't have a problem with selling a book which conveys the notion that the grand canyon was formed by the flood of the bible, or rather I don't think such a thing should be forbidden.
The issue for me is that it presents the notion that the grand canyon as formed by the flood of the bible as a scientific notion, and directly dismisses actual scientific notions.
Is that your issue with the book? Or where it is in the bookstore?
Dagonee
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I think that selling the book with or without label setting it apart in the bookstore would be wrong. I think that selling it with a label setting it apart would be less wrong.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:so censorship is bad when it is right wingers bitching about harry potter books, violent movies, and so forth.
but censorship is good when it is left wingers bitching about conservative books?
Lupus, that's an interesting comment. I take it that you consider biblical literalism to by synonymous with political conservatism?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dagonee -- so you disagree with the park service putting signs around the park stating historical events that happened at certain places? Or that give factual information about plants? These are all examples of content based decisions for presentation using government monies that are not in the schools.
No - because these are signs produced by the government. These should never convey religious belief, although acknowledging important and relevant religious beliefs would be acceptable (as long as done fairly). This is information produced by the government to carry out a specific government purpose. I would categorize this under the same type of exception as school textbooks.
The books are published by someone else. If you want to extend the school analogy, excluding books from the school library based on content is generally bad; selecting textbooks based on content is generally good. Excluding books from the NPS bookstore based on content is generally bad; selecting information to put on signs near natural phenomenon is generally good.
Dagonee
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
According to the NPS, the primary mission of the bookstores includes educating the public about the science behind the grand canyon, same as the signs. Why do you disagree?
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
quote: However, I am asking you to use different phrasing as a courtesy to those of us who are tired of having the name of our religion used as if it were synonymous with things we completely disagree with. Some people do think that being a Christian means being anti-science. And I’m so tired of having to assert that it doesn’t. Along with reminding people that not all Christians are Republicans, it’s about to drive me mad. Is a little disclaimer, acknowledging that you know that, really so much to ask?
Not being scrupulous about this sort of thing is directly responsible for a good chunk of burnout. A teacher told once that "those who can, do; those who can't, teach" can laugh it off. Facing that daily gets to be discouraging. Put it in the context of many other negative messages about the slackard no-nothings who go into teaching, and its understandable that people start to get testy.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:According to the NPS, the primary mission of the bookstores includes educating the public about the science behind the grand canyon, same as the signs. Why do you disagree?
Because the policy isn't necessary for a bookstore, and is for the signs.
It's the same type of policies people try to work to exclude books from school libraries.
Dagonee
[ November 11, 2004, 02:54 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Not so.
In a school library, the mission is to provide a resource for students to draw on, not to educate them.
The mission of these bookstores is to educate. Why is this not the mission, as your position seems to be?
Posted by Johnny Lee Wombat (Member # 7021) on :
If there were a non-science section of the bookstore, I think everyone would be happy.
However,given
quote: This isn't a random bookstore, this is a bookstore that is part of the National Parks Service which has as a part of its primary mission the education of the public about the science of nature, and has established rules regarding that mission which insist on the factual accuracy of information presented by the NPS.
regardless of what we would like for bookstores in general, it would seem like the whole bookstore should only be used for 'science', and so the book seems like it shouldn't be there. That is, this isn't a bookstore in general, but a scientific bookstore devoted the Grand Canyon.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: Lupus, that's an interesting comment. I take it that you consider biblical literalism to by synonymous with political conservatism?
That's not fair, Noemon. There is nothing he said that would indicate that he thinks they are synonamous.
But he probably would say that there is a certain amount of correlation (you are much more likely to be conservative if you are a biblical literalist than if you are not), and you probably would to.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Really Porter? It seemed to me that that was exactly what he was saying. He is referring to this creationinst piece as a "conservative book". It seems to me that he's using "conservative" as a synonym for "biblical literalism" here. You don't see it that way? What am I missing (honest question, not being snarky, BTW)?
While all of the biblical literalists that I'm personally aquainted with are politically conservative, relatively few of the political conservatives I know are biblical literalists.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
To continue along, I don't think your objection is dependent upon government production or non-production. For instance, I have no doubt I could find someone willing to independently produce and assume all expenses associated with putting up small plaques in our national parks alleging events which never took place happened at certain locations (with no disclaimers or such, of course).
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I'm confused. Is the issue that this book is sold in the bookstore at all or that it is sold along with all the science books as opposed to being included in the mythology or whatever section? If it's the first case, I don't think that selling this book is a problem. If it's the second, then yeah, they shouldn't be presenting a creationist book as science.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Um now that I go and re-read what he actually wrote, I see what you're saying.
edit: Noemon -- I've sent you several emails over the last couple of days. Have you received any of them?
[ November 11, 2004, 03:25 PM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Not so.
In a school library, the mission is to provide a resource for students to draw on, not to educate them.
The mission of these bookstores is to educate. Why is this not the mission, as your position seems to be?
I’m saying a government book store (i.e., a facility by necessity selecting and rejecting the works of others) ought not to have a mission that requires examination of the content beyond a superficial level. So if the mission as you state it requires such examination, then I consider it an inappropriate mission.
quote:To continue along, I don't think your objection is dependent upon government production or non-production. For instance, I have no doubt I could find someone willing to independently produce and assume all expenses associated with putting up small plaques in our national parks alleging events which never took place happened at certain locations (with no disclaimers or such, of course).
But the plaque availability space is limited, especially when you take into account preservation of scenic views and the natural condition. Bookshelf space in a bookstore, while limited, is not nearly as constrained. And given that it is limited, popularity seems a much more suitable criteria than one requiring content vetting.
Further, the purpose of the plaques is to provide information relevant to items in the immediate vicinity. It is not designed to impart knowledge that is to be taken away. It is also clearly a government message (even if paid for by someone else) and produced by the government.
If the government wants to restrict sales in its bookstores to those books it produces, it’s a different set of policy concerns. As it stands, however, access by members of the public to a forum would be denied based on the content of the book.
Dagonee
Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
quote:Lupus, that's an interesting comment. I take it that you consider biblical literalism to by synonymous with political conservatism?
not exactly...however I'd guess that those that were for biblical literalism would be considered to be conservative (ie: not excepting a more liberal interpretation of the bible)
quote: But he probably would say that there is a certain amount of correlation (you are much more likely to be conservative if you are a biblical literalist than if you are not), and you probably would to.
yep
quote:While all of the biblical literalists that I'm personally aquainted with are politically conservative, relatively few of the political conservatives I know are biblical literalists.
So if someone in your group were to support a biblicaly literal stance, they would be a conservative (since all the biblcal literalists that you know are also conservative)
Overall, things that are reliant on a strictly literal biblical interpretation are more compatable with conservative beliefs than liberal ones. This is not to say all...or even most people under the broad upbrella of conservative beliefs would support this. However, conservative groups are more likely to be in favor of it than more liberal groups.
The same goes with things such as shows that show sex, and such that are broadcasted over the public airwaves (like The O.C.)...except for the positions are reversed. That family group (don't remember the name of it) that releases statements every year about what shows are "bad" is clearly more conservative than liberal.
Overall, I think both groups are being silly. If people want to broadcast shows like 90210 and The OC over the public airwaves, let them. On the other hand, if people want to sell books like that flood book in a public park, then they should be allowed to do that as well.
Whenever a group tries to get a show that they feel is 'immoral' or distorts the line between reality and fantasy, others yell that it is the parents job to tell their children what is true and what is not true. This same argument should hold for books like this flood book. If a parent sees a book that says that the flood caused the grand canyon and they don't agree with it...they can sit their child down and tell them that this is not true, it is just the opinion of some nutty bible thumpers.
Personally, I don't agree completely with either side. Do I think that the flood created the grand canyon? No. Quite honestly, the idea had never crossed my mind. However, if someone wants to sell it in a publicly owned building then they should be able to. The government should not prop it up (ie: pay for publication costs...keep giving it space if it can't sell) but if it is able to make money by being sold in a public place, then that is fine.
The same goes for shows like the OC. I don't agree with the morals that are shown in the show. Nor would I want my children (if I had any) to follow the moral guidelines that are set in the show. However, it makes money and people want to watch it so I think it should be allowed...even though it is being broadcasted over publicly owned airwaves.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
The Bush administration is very anti-science... or rather, they want to suppress science that doesn't support their policy views, and promote instead pretend-science that will. Scientific American has documented it and described it in editorials.
Religion and Science are not pawns of politics. They exist independently of it. Truth is not something that's malleable for the sake of winning power. Truth is just truth. Again and again we see this administration failing to understand that.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Obviously we're not going to agree, Dagonee.
However, I would like to continue the discussion on another tangent: were the book included, what section would you consider it best to place it in (assuming this bookstore has some rudimentary sections on various categories of books)? What sections would it be acceptable to place it in?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
It would be acceptable to place it anywhere.
It should probably be kept in the same place they keep books on aliens building the pyramids.
Dagonee
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
*plans proposal for "Mythology and New Age Ideas" section*
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Since having religious books and scientific books in a private book store doesn't mean that the book store is advocating either view point why is it assumed that when the book store is in the public sector a viewpoint is being advocated?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
When the stated purpose of the bookstore is to educate people about a particular thing.
Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
who says that the entire bookstore is to 'educate'
I have not been to the grand canyon, but I have been to the bookstores of many museums and other landmarks...and much of what is in the bookstores is not educational. They are mostly full of crap that they know parents will buy their kids.
I'd say the primary goal of any bookstore at monuments and museums is to provide extra funding to supplement what the government gives the museum/monument to operate.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
One of the purposes is to educate, but its larger purpose is to inspire interest and raise money. Besides a book about a belief as to how the Grand Canyon was created is education.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
A book stating scientific ideas about how the grand canyon formed are completely unreasonable is anti-educational.
Posted by Lost Ashes (Member # 6745) on :
Wouldn't it be a form of censorship to keep it out of the bookstore?
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Personally I don't think its any more anti-educational than a book saying that scientific ideas about how human speech derived from hand signals instead of mothers communicating with their babies are wrong.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
There's a difference between saying an idea is wrong and saying an idea is completely unreasonable.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
The Grand Canyon bookstore is not entirely educational. Unless stuffed animals have an obviously educational purpose.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Non-educational stuff does not compromise an educational mission. Anti-educational stuff does.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
And that's exactly the kind of distinction I find most troubling.
Would you care to make some nice objective standards as to what's considered "anti-educational"?
Dagonee
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Sure. This isn't exhaustive, but it doesn't have to be.
If a work says another work (or a body of work) which may be considered scientific under the standards laid out in Edwards vs Aguillard is prima facie ridiculous, it may be considered anti-educational.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Veeery dangerous road you're heading down.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:"Here we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it."
Thomas Jefferson
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I think less dangerous than the restrictions on plaques put up we already have in place -- and the plaques have far more places they could go than books could be put, because park bookstores must necessarily be kept small to prevent environmental contamination.
Note that my objection is primarily based on that the NPS has abundant regulations which state quite clearly the goals of the park system and its book stores. Education, education, education. Money factors in as well, but the ultimate goal of the system is always education.
Books which not only are not part of but operate against informed education do not have a place in such a book store any more than a plaque claiming a site was where george washington was born (when he wasn't) has a place in a park.
If the purpose changed, what would be appropriate in such a bookstore would change as well.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I tolerate error in abundance, and am generally a champion of private free speech. This is not, however, private speech. This is my speech, and the speech of all of our government. A government over all of us should hold itself to high standards, and one of those standards is as to what constitutes good educational material.
We already have a several frameworks for discerning between things which are and aren not educational in certain subject areas; it is also very possible to discern those things which dismiss things found to be educational under those frameworks.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote: This is not, however, private speech.
That's where your wrong. It is the government distributing private speech. Big difference from non-private speech.
Dagonee
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
As usual, Kipling has something appropriate to say :
quote:GALLIO’S SONG
All day long to the judgment-seat The crazed Provincials drew— All day long at their ruler’s feet Howled for the blood of the Jew. Insurrection with one accord Banded itself and woke: And Paul was about to open his mouth When Achaia’s Deputy spoke
“Whether the God descend from above Or the man ascend upon high, Whether this maker of tents be Jove Or a younger deity— I will be no judge between your gods And your godless bickerings, Lictor, drive them hence with rods— I care for none of these things!
“Were it a question of lawful due Or a labourer’s hire denied, Reason would I should bear with you And order it well to be tried But this is a question of words and names And I know the strife it brings, I will not pass upon any your claims. I care for none of these things.
“One thing only I see most clear, As I pray you also see. Claudius Caesar hath set me here Rome’s Deputy to be. It is Her peace that ye go to break Not mine, nor any king’s, But, touching your clamour of ‘conscience sake,’ I care for none of these things!”
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
Did any of you see the recent Slashdot article that talked about how journalists address scientific issues with regards to "balancing" their articles?
Here's the link they provided. I thought it was an interesting read, and somewhat pertinent to this discussion.
I don't agree with it being lumped in with the scientific books.
But I don't have a problem with them selling it, not when the government in many locations sells thing that refer to Indian Mythology and their creationist ideas. I think it needs to be separated, so that there is less chance of it being mistaken as a scientifically proven theory, though.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)