Op. Cit.
July/August 2000 A Warm FuzzieI read your "Millennium Man" piece and felt that you must be named after Abraham Lincoln since some of the stardust of the Gettysburg address fell onto your pen for that piece ... well done!
LARRY PAHL
via E-mail
[Whoever said ego has no place in editing never got such an endorsement. I wonder what the letter writer wants!-Ed.]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Good to be Quoted
The October 15, 1999 edition of the newsletter CONTEXT: Martin E. Marty on Religion and Culture took a now and then look at the issues discussed in the first edition of the newsletter 30 years ago in 1969. Item 13 is this: "The Seventh-day Adventist Liberty cautioned that the Burger Court was becoming 'strict constructionist' in respect to the Constitution. But the Adventists foresaw problems that are still with us: 'If the Court now bends over backward to champion majority rights at the expense of individual rights, certain minorities may be in for trouble.' Prescient."
Context may be accessed at www.contextonline.org.
I appreciate the work of Liberty.
KENT HANSEN
via E-mail
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dispute is not Scientific
Derek H. Davis's article (March/April 2000) on the creation-evolution controversy in the Kansas school system was both enlightening and thought-provoking, as your best articles always are. However, I see some serious problems with the resolution to the issue that he appears to favor.
The crux of the matter is that creationism is not primarily science but an article of faith stemming from a literal reading of Scripture. The empirical arguments that have been marshaled in its support have been comprehensively refuted in the scientific literature, in the overwhelming view of professional biologists, paleontologists, geochemists, and other scientists with relevant expertise.
What creationism and evolution represent, as Davis rightly points out, are "diametrically opposed approaches to apprehending truth." In short, the dispute is fundamentally philosophical, not scientific.
Asking secondary school biology teachers to present creationism along with evolution as alternative and co-equal theories of the origin of species is misguided. First, if the working scientific community is to be allowed to determine the validity of scientific content ( and I don't know who else has the credentials to do it), creationism has no more claim to be studied in a contemporary biology course than the phlogiston theory of combustion in a modern chemistry course or Immanuel Velikovsky's theories in a modern astronomy course. All are of historical interest but are not recognized as valid today by the scientific community. Secondary school biology courses are explicitly presented as courses in contemporary science, and should not be diverted from that intent.
I also would be misguided to ask biology teachers to take the more appropriate approach to the study of creationism and evolution, that is, the comparison of competing world views. To do so competently requires some real sophistication in philosophy, a field not normally required in the training of secondary school science teachers. If Nell Noddings' recommendation (quoted in the article) were to be carried out, all high school teachers would do well to have undergraduate minors in philosophy.
I agree with Davis that the schools should come to grips with this issue in a fair and impartial manner within established Constitutional constraints. I think that would be done best in the high schools by offering comparative philosophy courses taught by appropriately trained teachers.
D.C. CAMPBELL
Toronto, Canada
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let's Explain Evolution
I am writing to take issue with the conclusions reached in Mr. Derek Davis' article "Monkey Fever in Kansas." Mr. Davis states that the Kansas board's strategy is a bad strategy, and that the solution to the problem of church-state conflict in public schools lies in teaching only about religion in public schools, without seeking to achieve a religious mission.
This solution is great as far as it goes, but Mr. Davis seeks to avoid the problem where it exists, namely in the teaching of science, and this is precisely where the Kansas approach seems so sensible. The teaching of naturalism, i.e., that life of all kinds arose by strictly natural causes, allows for no alternative explanation. This absolutely precludes any discussion of creationism or intelligent design in a science class. Teachers today are being muzzled or fired for doing so.
The Kansas approach is to take two controversial scientific positions and make them optional (not prohibited) topics. Further, it does not mandate that some other controversial position be substituted. I believe that the first of these two topics-the big bang theory-has been made optional on sound scientific grounds. There is far from universal agreement on this theory among scientists, and interestingly enough, one of the grounds on which some scientists object to the theory is that it smacks too much of creationism.
The sticking point for people who object to the Kansas approach is making macroevolution an optional teaching, for the very real reason that it is the heart of the Darwinian approach to naturalism. But it is the lack of scientific evidence of r and indeed and abundance of scientific evidence against macroevolution that makes teaching it as optional a rational decision.
In order to have the teaching in the curriculum, evolutionists should at least: explain the total lack of transitional forms in the geologic record where, in theory, they should abound; explain how all vertebrate fossils appear in the record at approximately the same time; explain how mutations, which are almost universally harmful, could improve an organism; explain how, if mutations improve an organism in a straight line, i.e., one little improvement after another, how complex organisms such as the eye could have ever arisen; explain the fact that mathematicians tell us that even within the 4 or so billion years allowed by evolutionists, the probability of life reaching its' present state using naturalistic assumptions is outside the realm of possibility.
These are not religious considerations, and neither are they trivial.
Assuming that the goal to be attained is freedom, and particularly religious freedom, it seems as if freedom should be available to all, including those who believe in a Creator. Teaching macroevolution undercuts the belief of those who believe in a Creator, but also undermines the credibility of teachers (and schools) who are teaching something that cannot be backed by scientific evidence. There is no evidence that any line of scientific inquiry will be or has ever suffered because of the lack of this teaching.
The Kansas approach therefore sets aside what can only create disruption (which it certainly has in the past), and allows teaching to go forward without the intrusion of religion in the class room. This seems to me to be the most practical approach yet offered.
LARRY D. CARR
Petaluma, California
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Retire Sin?
I love and value your magazine and the issues that you address with great energy and insight. There is one issue, however, that I have not seen addressed with regard to separation of church and state.
It appears that the state controls the church with regard to one of the vital functions of the church: marriage. Almost all ministers I know state very clearly that the marriage service is a service of worship. However, without a license from the state ministers of the church cannot engage in that form of worship. I have read that in some countries marriage must first be performed by the state before the "ecclesiastical" wedding is performed.
For the most part, this is not problematic for the vast majority of couples getting married. There is a rising phenomenon in our culture, where legal marriage is out of the picture because of the negative financial impact. As a result some couples simply choose to live together outside of the blessing of the church and the state.
What is the church to do? Should it stand by and watch as some senior couples begin to "live together in sin?" Should the church condemn them. How about the couple who is willing to get married in the church so there is a sense of God's blessing on their union, but no legal license? Is a minister duty bound to only perform marriages when the state issues a license? Where is the separation of church and state in this marital issue?
Could it be that the church needs to challenge the state with regard to the rite of marriage? Certainly there are issues that are related to legal marriage: property, health benefits, insurance coverage, and inheritance. Such things are granted only by means of a legal marriage recognized by the state. But there are times when people do not want any of these things.
It seems to me that there is a clear and easy answer to this issue. The church performs church weddings while the state performs state weddings. Anyone who want both can have both. Anyone who wants just one, could have just one. As it stands, a minister could be jailed or fined for performing a marriage and asking God's blessing on a couple who dearly love the Lord, want to be together to serve the Lord, and simply do not want the blessing of the state.
JAY MARTIN
via E-mail
[There is need for caution here. Jesus directed us to "render unto Caesar" what is his. The civil rights and obligations of marriage are not the church's purview unless they deny the sanctity and spirituality demanded by God. Yes, the church is the proper institution to formalize the spiritual bond of matrimony, and yes the state can set the legal guidelines for that union to function within society.
The example given merely underscores what many have found through the centuries: standing on principle often carries a cost. "Living in sin" to avoid a tax trap is still sin.-Ed.]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Back to Basics
I am somewhat concerned with recent articles enumerating apparent obstacles to religious liberty around the world. The symptoms listed; "extremism," "nationalism," "secularism," and "proselytism," and later "religious fundamentalism," are held to be attitudes inimical to global "religious liberty." I disagree most strenuously with that idea. To target these "isms" for "political incorrectness" or eventual abolition could place us in the bull's-eye of political policies and manipulated media opinion as holdouts of "extremism," "proselytism," and "religious fundamentalism" for resistance to global harmony and world peace.
I appreciate the reprints of articles from the denomination archives by champions of Liberty in the past. Right and Wrong behaviors are specified in the 10 Commandments and duty to God and man. The real heart of the matter is addressed by Ezekiel where God is said to write His Law on the hearts of His subjects. No combination of innovative legislative statutes or multiplication of laws is going to solve an iota of the human dilemma in the absence of God's Holy Spirit in human thinking. Fixating on proscribed 'isms' endlessly evolving in legislative subcultures is dodging the real problem, a supremely Spiritual Problem. The Scriptural basis of Liberty can be readily supplemented by review of documents consulted by the US Founding Fathers and their writings and testimonies in establishing the US Constitution as the Supreme Law of the land.
R. GILBERT
Egnar, Colorado
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beware!
Both Christians and non-Christians are being punished because they object to required religious rites that are mandatory in such public places as the public schools.
This occurs mostly in southern states, where religious fundamentalists are experts at demeaning those who disagree with their so-called religious philosophy. In the past some "used" the Bible to justify the inhumane practice of slavery. They have abused and persecuted those who would take advantage of the Civil Rights Laws. Now some of these "Christians" are reviving tactics of Hitler and the KKK to propagate their religious propaganda. Many of the fundamentalist clergy aid and abet this unconstitutional harassment; as do the politicians with "religious" amendments and unconstitutional laws. Beware when religion becomes political and when politicians become religious.
The First Amendment insures that we will have freedom of religion, but more important, it guarantees that we will have freedom from religion.
MELVIN S. FRANK
Poland, Ohio
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point Taken
For a number of years I have received your publication and have read it with great interest. I am in thorough accord with your basic position, there should be a complete separation between the State and the church. However, the State is obligated to protect and preserve the "freedom of religion" of all individuals regardless of which particular religion they select to join, and this includes the right of an individual to take part in the organization of churches within his or her religion. Thus the State is to protect and preserve the rights of members of a particular religion to organize and function through churches.
The purpose of this letter, however, is to call to your attention a statement in the article written by Albert J. Menendez and Edd Doerr appearing in the September-October 1999 issue of liberty. In this article the authors state as follows:
"Between 1775 and 1791 Americans conceived, fought for, and established a new nation. This new nation, as Thomas Jefferson explained in the Declaration of Independence in 1776, was based on the proposition that all persons are created equal, that they have inherent natural rights to "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness," that "to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed," and that "it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish" any form of government that does not secure the rights of the people."
The interesting thing to me about this particular statement made by these authors is that they eliminate the reference in the Declaration to the Creator. They substitute for the Creator the statement that they (all persons) "have inherent natural rights" to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
It seems to me that this type of erroneous quoting of the Declaration has opened the door to the position taken by our Supreme Court to the effect that the acknowledgment of the existence of the Creator is a religious belief which is prohibited by the First Amendment. Thus the doors of our government are wide open to the theory of Evolution since our government is prohibited from acknowledging the existence of our Creator.
ROBERT C. CANNADA
Jackson, Mississippi