Article: Religion and Science

2+2=5 is not a matter of empirical science.Not only did I outline different steps one may take in terms of demonstrations and presentations, but also what steps one may take should this fail to persuade. And not only did I do this for matters of simple arithematic, but also for matters of scientific knowledge -- at least to the extent that I have anything to offer you for this problem.I no longer believe that I have what you are looking for. All I have left to offer you is my hope that you find that which you are seeking, and I give it to you as a gesture of good will.

I disagree, what I have said is that everyone in a society has a responsibility towards all children in that society. I cannot think of a society who doesn’t believe that a child’s place is first and foremost in the family unit, but if that family unit is incapable of looking after that child then surely social services need to step in.UNICEF explains that: Children are neither the property of their parents nor are they helpless objects of charity. They are human beings and are the subject of their own rights. The Convention offers a vision of the child as an individual and as a member of a family and community, with rights and responsibilities appropriate to his or her age and stage of development. I am not saying that the state dictates exactly what a child is to learn and what it isn’t to learn. I do believe that the state has a responsibility towards the child to ensure that the child is not being deprived of its basic human rights, and a decent quality f education is a basic human right.As far as the state ‘interfering’ in a child’s education, I am not saying that the state should tell parent what they can and cannot teach their children, what I am saying is that the parents should be able to justify to the state what they are teaching their children.Keep in mind thought that I am talking about a child who is not getting any mainstream education. If a child is going to a mainstream school during the day, and then being taught in a fundy environment at night or at weekends, then I have no real problem with that. If the kid is being taught that the Flood occurred 4400 years ago and exactly as the Bible claims, then they would at least have some basic skills with which to question the information with. They would also have access to subject specialists at the mainstream school that they are attending.Adults have the right to be wilfully ignorant, and a great many choose to be so. However, no adult has the right to make a child innocently ignorant. The child has the right to be equipped with the basic core skills that allow it to make informed choices, the adult does not have the right to brainwash a child.I do not see any contradiction, as I am not claiming that the State dictates what a child HAS to learn, the state dictates though how a child should be looked after, and if the parent is not following these laws then the state has to step in. The state would be happy for you to teach a child that the universe is 6000 years old, but only if you can justify it. This would mean, in the eyes of the Scottish Education Authority at least, that materials of a suitable academic standard are provided for the child, materials that help to explain whatever the lesson aim is. Unfortunately for the creationist this means that using the Bible to support the Bible, which is really what it amounts to, is not providing material of a decent academic quality. It is fine if you are teaching a religious studies lesson, say on creation myths, but the Bible is hardly a reliable science or history book. Children are not the property of anyone, they are individuals with their own rights and responsibilities. Adults have their own rights and responsibilities as well, and one of their responsibilities is to look after their children. But, if an adult is abusing one of their children in anyway, then the state exercises its responsibility to look after children. Not providing a efficient quality of education is neglect, if a parent is refusing to bring a child’s standard of education up to the acceptable level set by the state then that adult is failing in its duty to the child.If the state doesn’t monitor our children in some way then the children are left open to all sorts of abuses, most a lot worse than being taught that fairy tales are actually true.Every decent human being is repulsed by child abuse, think about some of the horrendous things that could happened to a child within a family unit, and then think whether the state should monitor how children are brought up or not. What about physical abuse within the family unit, how many children have been saved from that by a conscientious teacher who notices that child A has been coming to school with one or two bruises now and then, or child B is uncharacteristically went quiet for the last week or so? If the state has nothing to do with how children are brought up then we are guilty of neglecting our responsibility towards the children of our society. We have a duty to protect the members of our society who have not yet developed the skills to look after themselves. I think that ‘owned’ is completely the wrong word, how can you own a human being in a free society?A child BELONGS to a family unit, but the child is not a piece of property like a sofa or a watch or a table, you cannot own a child in any way. Of course, we all say that is MY son or MY daughter, but you cannot do what you whatever you want with them. The problem here is that we leave open the possibility of all sorts of serious abuse happening to a child.I am not saying that the gov decides exactly what a parent teaches a child, I am saying though that the gov should insist that a child’s education should be provided at a decent level, and that, if a parent is home-schooling, then the gov should provide help and materials for the parent. The gov should also ensure that the parent knows exactly how difficult the task will be and that the parent justifies everything that it teaches the child. If the parent has good evidence that life was wiped out 4400 years ago by a Flood, then I too would be happy for them to teach that to a child. What I am opposed to is people suffocating their child with ancient mythologies and continually telling the child that these events are all 100% accurate and that there is nothing in the Bible that has ever been disproven.Here is an example of what I would not like a child to be taught as a fact. In a post I made to Faith I asked what evidence do we have for a human being living to 969 years of age. Her answer, was to quote from the Book of Genesis. Now, I would be appalled if any parent would think that would be a decent answer to give to a child with a developing mind. Of course the answer to my question should really have been given with some support external to the biblical texts, but this is not how a fundy thinks. What answers to any questions would a child actually get, apart from a circular one? Well, what I am talking about is the extreme cases of garbage being taught. The 6000 year old universe for example, the 969 year old man, the Flood, the heliocentric system, mosaic authorship of the torah, and Garden of Eden myth. I am talking about scenarios similar to 2+2=5.There is no compromise to 2 + 2 = 5, 2 + 2 does not = 5, the Flood did not happen, people do not and never have lived to 969 years of age, there was no Exodus as described in the Bible, there was no Conquest as described in Joshua 1-12, Moses did not write the Torah (the Bible doesn’t actually claim that he did). There is no compromise required here. The gov’s job is to provide protection and support for all of it’s citizen’s as well. The gov is put there by the inmates so there has to be some trust in the person you vote for. If the person you are going to vote for says that if they get into gov they will ensure that all children have access to a decent education, then you cannot complain. I am not saying that the gov should raise children, but they should make sure that there are services available that try their best to ensure that a child has a decent start in life. Children are not property though. Do children in the USA never get taken off their parents? Yes, it is this being a part of you that is the bond, it is a bond though, nothing more, a very strong bond as well, But you do not own that child, you are responsible for it, and I wouldn’t underestimate the strength of that bond between a parent and a child. The problem that could appear here though is that not all parents treat their children within the laws of their society.If we use the suicide cult example again, we all say that this is unacceptable, that the parent would be breaking the law to teach a child this. But, hw would anyone know that the child was being taught this is we allow parents carte blanche in regard to their children? They don’t have that right at all, they have to live within the parameters of the laws of the society that they are living in.
It *appears* that in America it is not against the law to fail to provide your child with an efficient education, while, in the UK, education is seen as a right of the child and it is against the law to withhold a decent education from your child.I see where you are coming from, I just don’t agree with it. Perhaps it is because I have been brought up in society where education is compulsory and that there are laws to enforce this. Because in the UK it IS a criminal offence! I am talking about the deliberate teaching of untruths as being facts. 2 + 2 = 5 will never be true. There was not a Flood as described in the Bible, teaching that there was is exactly the same as teaching 2 + 2 = 5.Try this scenario out.You have a problem with your computer, you phone a repairperson to
have a look at it, they fix it and then present you with the bill: Young’s Easy Computers Bill for repair of Personal Computer. parts $20 Labour $20 Total to Pay $50Would you just pay them the $50 dollars? But the parent is only doing their best if they are not being wilfully ignorant of the subject, and as we have seen all too often here at EvC, parents are being wilfully ignorant. The fundy starts form the premise that the Bible is 100% accurate and that any information that contradicts the Bible is wrong, they are not even interested in addressing the contrary information. Now, this is fine for an adult, they can do what they please, but a child doesn’t deserve to be fed BS, they deserve a balanced, good quality education, it is a basic right. This all depends on at what age they are allowed to interact with other kids and if the other kids have not been similarly brainwashed. It was an extreme example to illustrate exactly how dangerous Faith’s attitude towards society’s responsibilities COULD actually be. She says that it is no damn business of anyone else’s what a parent teaches a child, so the example was to highlight that it actually is everyone’s business. If parents do have carte blanche over their child’s education then what is to stop this comet cult’s teachings? Granted it was an extreme example, but it would still be a possibility. And not providing your child with an efficient education is also criminal behaviour, at least in the UK it is. But it is a criminal act in the USA isn’t it? These people could always go to a country where it isn’t wrong to teach their children that they will have commit suicide when the next comet appears. But, as I keep going back to, I am talking about teaching things that have been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be utterly untrue. By all means teach YEC, but teach for what it is, a belief. The last part of your sentence supports exactly what I have been saying. How can the government identify outright negligence if a parent has the right to bring up their children as they please? How do we know if they are being neglected if no one takes an interest in them?Surely if the child is the property of the parent they can do what they want with it? I threw out an old computer monitor last week because I wanted a better one. But, the kid will eventually face emotional turmoil when they realise that their parents have been lying to them for years. It is an emotional experience when you find out that your parents misled you.There is one point in the last quote that horrifies me: A brianiac about science the kid will not be, but a productive member of science the kid could be. I am literally shocked by this.Why should the kid NOT have the chance to be the brainiac?Why should the kid’s life be altered by a parent who chooses to be wilfully ignorant? In Scotland, we believe that everychild has the right to an education, all children should be given the best opportunities possible in their lives so that they can realise their full potential. Why should a kid be condemned to serving up Big Macs when they may have been able to achieve far more if they had received a decent start in life? By depriving them of a suitable education, the fundy parent has put their kid at a disadvantage, they have effectively neglected their child, and thus, they have abused that child. That depends greatly on the age of the person being forced into believing this, and it isn’t solely literal creation model we are talking about, we are talking abut the whole caboodle.A child will learn more up to the age of 5 than it does in the rest of its life, these are the years when the foundations are laid down, the next few years are extremely important in the intellectual development of the child. If these years are polluted continuously with misinformation then the child will not be a well-adjusted individual. The turmoil that the child will encounter when they realise that mummy and daddy are basically selfish ignoramuses will be extremely upsetting and confusing, this is a period that child does not necessarily have to go through, this is, IMO, child abuse. Yes, but children were still abused. Actually, to be historically accurate, adults were abused as well! As for the world not ending, well Christianity was pretty much solely responsible for leading us into the Dark Ages, and Christianity did hinder human progress for centuries, so there are some good examples from history for us to keep in mind when we allow children to be taught BS. Well, I disagree about the child not being affected deeply by finding out that their parents did not do what was best for them, and essentially force fed their faith on to their children instead of teaching a faith as a faith. I am afraid that abuse is not limited to physical injuries. Would you not count emotional turmoil as abuse, can people not be psychologically abused?Plus, psychological abuse CAN lead to physical abuse. But they are guilty of being wilfully ignorant. Look at the fundies we have had here at EvC, they openly declare that they are not interested in looking at evidence that contradicts the Bible, they just wont entertain the thought that the Bible is not 100% accurate.They may believe that the Bible is true, but they are far from honest in their approach to concluding that. Anyway, what they are doing really is teaching their faith to the child, what say does the child have in this? What choice did you or I or millions of other people have when they were a child have when it came to going to church on a Sunday morning (and during the week as well)? What say does a baby Jewish boy have in whether or not he wants to be circumcised? Kids all over the world are being mutilated because of the beliefs of their parents, the child is an individual who has no say in whether they want their body deliberately altered or not. In a school? It is nothing to do with whether I like it or not, it is adhering to law. I also know for a fact that deliberately brainwashing a child can be an intensely disturbing experience for a child, and an adult for that matter, so I deem it in my eyes as abuse. This is obviously a cultural difference then, because in Scotland it actually is a crime. Education is compulsory here, you can send your child anywhere you want to be taught, or home school, which is actually becoming more popular in Scotland, but you have to provide an efficient education for that child, and 2 + 2 = 5 is not efficient. If your culture is against the law of the land that you choose to live in then you need to alter your culture or you need to move to a country that will be conducive to your beliefs. The UK welcomes many different people’s to its shores, but you have to respect our laws or you get punished. A Muslim moving here for example, is free to do anything at all that doesn’t break our laws, there are things they cannot do, they cannot move here and then take 4 wives, there are certain laws that regarding the slaughter of animals as well that need to be observed. If the fundy Christian moves here then they will have to educate their children to a level that is acceptable to their local education authority, or they could ultimately have their children taken away from them (only after every alternative avenue is exhausted). Yep, I am a dictator who has the best interest of the child at heart. I am a dictator who wishes to ensure that all children have access to a decent quality of education, that all children have an equal chance in life, and that everyone in society if free and not a piece of property that can be treated basically as a parent wants to. The feeling is mutual, so I am going to simply put this down to cultural differences.I live in a country where the government has a duty to everyone in society, part of that duty is to ensure that every child has access to a decent quality of education, this is compulsory as we believe in equal opportunities for all. I live in a country where every member of society can get help of some sort from the government, an individual could in theory receive free health care, a free place to stay, could be given a respectable amount of money to spend each week, there are all sorts of benefits we can for free if we need help. I cannot speak for everyone, but certainly the vast majority of people that I know take an interest in the rest of the members of their society, and they would be appalled to know that a child is not receiving a decent education. Not receiving a decent education, or at least not having that opportunity, is something that is totally alien to us Brits, there would be a public outcry here if any children were being denied that opportunity. Even if a child is not that capable, there are many specialist schools for them to attend, and if a specialist school is a distance away then the government will pay for travel and accommodation to make sure that child has the same opportunities that every other child has.I cannot comment on the American system because I don’t know very much about it, but from what I have read here, I am astounded that it appears that the average American doesn’t seem to really give a shit about anyone else! That’s is what it APPEARS like to me, not necessarily the truth, but you seem quite happy to leave each other alone to get on with things. This is up to you, but I hope you can at least see where I am coming from and why I find this American 'laissez faire' disturbing.Brian.

Yes, I would agree that many of the views are attributable more widely than simply the Fundamentalists or Bible Literalists, and even extend beyond those who are simply Christian. For example, I myself believe that there has been a deterioration in morality and the role of religion in the general lives of the citizens. Then for one extreme example, the Unification Church considers itself very pro-family, is decidedly anti-feminist, and bill themselves as anti-Communist because they are pro-God, yet of course many people would classify them as part of the New Age Movement, which is normally regarded as politically leftist. (In truth, I believe the goal of the Unification Church is closer to that of an absolute world theocracy, where the absolute leader passes leadership down to one of his sons, from one generation to the next -- similar to the Egyptian pharohs -- which doesn't easily fit any of the normal labels one might use to classify movements. However, it seems highly unlikely that they will ever be able bring anything even remotely resembling this to pass.)Culture is complex, and likewise, movements are complex -- particularly those which are decentralized and not subject to will of any given authority. Many of the positions which one would use to characterize a given movement are often shared with other movements which may be more broader still, or which may actually stand in opposition to the movements which share some of the same positions. But to characterize a given movement, one typically must characterize the positions taken by those who are a part of that movement, while trying at the same time not to exaggerate the relevance of any given position.

I agree with you with regard to the point that children are not the property of their parents. However, their parents are their legal guardians, and so long as it cannot be legally shown that they are guilty of either abuse or neglect, the state has no right to remove the children from them, or to constrain their rights of guardianship.Moreover, if the state mandates certain standards of education and enforces them, then the children are not being deprived of a decent quality of education. However, if you are truly interested in children who are being deprived of a decent quality of education, there are plenty of public schools which are desperately in need of your attention, or at least the attention of someone who can improve the conditions at their schools, particularly inner city schools in places like Chicago. The fact that you are so focused on the children of Fundamentalists as opposed to children going to inner city schools would seem to suggest that it is not the quality of education which you are truly concerned with.By depriving Fundamentalists of their rights as citizens, our actions will only serve to further alienate them, and magnify the sense of alienation which they pass on to their children. This will serve no one's interests.This message has been edited by TimChase, 06-28-2005 12:44 PM

Tim.Neither Brian or I have suggested removing children from a home or constraining their rights of guardianship. Where does this come from?If you will do a survey of current threads here at EvC, you will find that many involve a conflict where people holding strong religious beliefs are trying to impose those beliefs on the general public inspite of the body of evidence showing those beliefs are unfounded.In Kansas there is an attempt to insert ID and Creationism into the general curiculum. There is the movement to impose restrictions on the rights of homosexuals. There is the imposition on rights of free speech related to pornography.The key point is that there is no evidence, no scientific reasoned approach to those actions. It is an insistence that 2 + 2 = 5 should be recognized as a valid position.How should such situations be handled?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

1. If Brian is suggesting that Fundamentalists are guilty of abuse or neglect, the removal of custodianship is the proper legal recourse.2. If either of you are suggesting that Fundamentalists not be permited to home school their children even though they are satisfying state-mandated standards, then this constitutes contraint upon their rights of guardianship.I realize what is going on in Kansas, particularly with respect to the attempt to insert ID and Creationism (or at the very least Creationist criticism of evolutionary science into the curriculum). I also realize that the very same thing is being attempted in thirty-nine other states. And I am as opposed to it as you are, as should be evident from both:1. Message 1
2. Message 180However, this is not what Faith has been proposing -- she has been proposing an alternative which I believe we should listen to and respect as an expression of her rights.As for both pornography and gay rights, I would regard both issues as being off-topic. People may agree with regard to the issues which we have been discussing while disagreeing with respect to other issues.Finally, no one has been insisting that 2+2=5. There have only been certain individuals who have been insisting quite vehemently upon treating others as if they were advocates of the view that 2+2=5. This does not even rise to the level of a strawman attack, nor can it serve to facilitate communication. And it most certainly will not change anyone's mind.This message has been edited by TimChase, 06-28-2005 01:40 PM

If someone holds a belief that is factually incorrect, how should they be dealt with? You might consider them OT but in fact, they are the very heart of the original topic title. People, based on their religious beliefs, ones not backed by evidence, are attempting to convince the general public that incorrect beliefs should be granted the same weight as ones supported by evidence.Is a belief that the universe is 6000 years old less incorrect than the belief that 2 + 2 = 5? That is your assertion. Brian has suggested other remedies such as requiring that the children also receive instruction that counters the misinformation. TTBOMK, neither of us has suggested that Fundamentalists should not home school their children any way they want. Brian has suggested that if incorrect information is taught, for example that the universe is 6000 years old, that additional instruction be provided to counter the misinformation.I have not even touched on that area. Instead, I have simply asked how the product of such training should be dealt with.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I'll ask you the same question that I asked others: How do we know children are being neglected or abused if we adopt a policy of laissez faire? How can the government intervene if children are not monitored?In Scotland, the government does have that right and I think this is where the conflict over this issue is coming from.Do you know if the American govenerment has a policy of compulsory education and that the education must be an efficient one, or is the USA pretty much too complex for an overall policy like that? This is really what I am saying, the govenrment should provide support for home-schoolers or whatever to ensure that all children are given an equal chance in life. By all means teach YEC to your kids, but you cannot teach it as a fact because it is a belief. Well since you do not know my background I can forgive you for not knowing that I actually am truly interested in helping children receive a decent education, that is the main reason why I became a high school teacher. I don't have any plans to work in the USA at the moment, so hopefully others can help the Chicago schools. The Fundy concern is within the context of the discussion. I am interested in all children receiving the same opportunities in life, I thought that much would have been apparent to everyone, even the people who disagree with me. Remember that all rights come hand in hand with responibilities, so are you seriously saying that in America it is the right of an adult to deliberately mislead their children, is it a right to deliberately deny your child a decent education?It is difficult for me to fully appreciate this point because in the UK no one has this right, children are seen as individuals with rights and responsibilities of their own. Hopefully their children will be able to see what selfish ignoramuses their parents were trying to be and then they would enusre that when they have their own children that they will feel a better sense of responsibility to them.Brian.

I dealt with this issue in a fair amount of detail in: Message 190Given the context of both the paper as a whole and of the forum, I believe that it should be fairly clear that the focus of the discussion is evolution. If you insist on bringing in more points of disagreement, you will only lose potential allies for your cause. By insisting on bringing in other issues, in essence, you are insisting that individuals convert to a much larger part of your political ideology. However, it is possible for many people disagree on a great many issues (or at least seem to, or disagree with respect to the details -- and then get bogged down in them) and yet build coalitions around issues upon which they agree. Judging from one of Bryan's most recent posts, it would seem that he would virtually require people to switch from Christianity to some other religion. I do not believe this has much chance in our country for the forseeable future. ... and this can be opposed without insisting upon ideological conformity among all those who oppose it. I would regard both views as false. Nevertheless, there is a great deal of different between them.Finally, with respect to the call for "... instruction that counters the misinformation," such is the function of state standards of education. If you find these lacking, then I would suggest raising the standards or requiring tests. But I do not believe that any sort of counter-indoctrination is required, and I believe that the insistence on it would be both counterproductive and discriminatory.This message has been edited by TimChase, 06-28-2005 02:53 PM

There is clearly much more which could be said and already has been said. For the most part, I may need to get to this post at a later point. However, given the growing Young Earth Creationist movement in England, I do not believe that the UK's approach to education is necessarily one which we should be emulating.Would you Adam and Eve it?
By Stephen Tomkins
BBC NEWS | UK | Magazine | Would you Adam and Eve it?

I have no problem with Christianity at all, although my motivationary techniques may need a bit of honing. But, seriously, I have no problems with any faith, although certain cults do give me some cause for concern.What I do have objections to is teaching a belief as fact.The universe being 6000 years old is a belief not a fact.The Israelite Exodus (at face value)is a belief not a fact.The military conquest of Canaan is a belief not a fact.Jesus rising from the dead is a belief and not a fact.Religious beliefs are not facts, they are things that are taken on faith. Christians beleive that Jesus rose from the dead, they don't know that He did.Brian.

HI,Yeah Monty White is well known here, he gave some lectures at Stirling Uni, which is about ten miles from where I live. I didnt even bother going to see him but I know some peole who did !The YEC isnt really taken seriously in the UK and it will never catch on.In the last two years I must have tutored at least 50 trainee church of scotland trainee ministers, and the young earth does get mentioned at seminars. Hand on heart, not one of them takes it seriously.Brian.

Personally, I think that with rare exceptions(and I am not one of them), everyone's motivational techniques could use some honing. But it is a skill acquired through practice.As for the question of beliefs which do not correspond to facts, the simple fact that someone believes something to be the case also implies that they regard it as a fact that it is the case -- although they may reserve the term "fact" for those beliefs which they regard as having a higher level of justification.Additionally, a great many people have compartamentalization. No doubt I have some. But I believe that the practice of dialogue is one of the best tools for overcoming that compartmentalization. It teaches you to see things from inside another individual's context, permitting you to see what insights they have, and then integrate them with your own set of insights. And even when you believe that there are no insights to be acquired by engaging in dialogue with another individual, you can still practice your skills at dialogue.This message has been edited by TimChase, 06-28-2005 05:33 PM

Why? Christianity has no problem with the age of the universe, the TOE or evolution. Christianity even believes 2 + 2 = 4. No one, except the Fundamentalists has insisted on ideoological conformity. They are free to believe any fantasy they wish. However, even if there was a concensus that the universe was 6000 years old, it would not make it fact. These are NOT extraneous issues. You touch on the root cause later when you bring up compartmentalization. If the Fundamentalist/Literalist could compartmentalize their beliefs there would be no issue, but they cannot or willnot and so they push to get incorrect material taught to kids, to deny folk rights and to stifle free speech.They believe the Bible over reality (well, not the whole Bible, they're pretty selective about which parts they'll believe and which parts they ignore). No one is asking them to give up Christianity. Hell, I'm a Christian. No one is asking them or their church to perfom gay marriages. No one is even asking them to believe the universe is billions of years old.They are not even being asked to stop teaching wrong information. They are still free to teach falsehoods to their kids, friends, acquaintances, shout it out in their pulpits. Just stop trying to impose such incorrect information on the rest of society.The question is, how does the rest of society protect itself from such people?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I am going to limit this particular post to one issue: how many issues are "non-extraneous" in the defense of evolutionary theory in our schools. I will deal with another issue in a later post. I believe I am now beginning to understand. You are opposed to Fundamentalism imposing a rigid ideology upon the rest of society. Certainly seems like a worthy goal. Now as both you and I are aware, evolution is under attack in approximately forty states. Moreover, this is strategically regarded as the next big "battle," one intended to undercut the Separation of Church and State in a fairly fundamental way, and which may seriously damage science well beyond the realm of evolutionary theory. You and I are both agreed that this is therefore a fairly important issue.So both of us wish the build some kind of a movement. So good so far.But now it comes to a matter of strategy -- how are we going to build this movement?Well, you are opposed to Fundamentalism, and I like to think of myself as pro-Science, although there are other issues for me, such as the Separation of Church and State itself.So what sort of agreement are you going to expect from people before you would have them work with you? How about the equality of the sexes? Sounds good so far. How about the right to publish pornography? Well, you might lose a few religious people there, but those are the breaks, eh? How about reproductive rights? Might lose a few Catholics there -- but after all, reproductive rights are something which Fundamentalists are opposed to, so you should be able to convince enough people that it must be good. Partial-birth abortions? Sex education in schools? Well, why not? Elimination of the death penalty? All in the name of opposing Fundamentalism. The right for homosexuals to have intimate relations? Well, we should certainly be open-minded and accepting. The right for homosexuals to get married? Won't that make a some Fundamentalists angry! Euthanasia? Why sure! Ecological concerns? Well, we do know how Fundamentalists generally interpret that bit about Man having dominion over the animals. The list does seem to be getting long, but if someone doesn't agree with you on every point, its their problem.On all of these positions, Fundamentalism tends to take the opposite position, and does so on religious grounds. By your reasoning, these are not extraneous. But if this is the case, then the set of views which are not extraneous consists of a mirror image of all the positions upon which Fundamentalists tend to agree.In all honesty, this is beginning to look like an ideology to me -- and it will tend to alienate moderate conservatives, some moderate liberals, large numbers of Catholics, a great many churches, and, well, while you are at it, who are you to decide that these are the only issues to be included in the ideology? Perhaps an atheist who is convinced that there is no God would like that included to. Afterall, as far as he sees it, the non-existence of God is a fact, and if people don't recognize as much, then he tell them they might as well be insisting that 2+2=5. But will this really win him a good number of converts? Besides, as far as he is concerned, it is the belief in God that has gotten us into this mess in the first place! Oh, that atheist, he is a bit of a trouble-maker, so why don't we just send the atheists home. But now you have just lost about half your scientists -- they might have come in rather handy when it came to defending evolution.But you didn't mean to include all those issues? OK. Which issues are extraneous, and which are not? And what if there is more than one person in your movement, and that person insists on a different list of non-extraneous issues?If evolution is the next big battle, and if it is as strategically critical to dismantling the Separation of Church and State as a great many Fundamentalists believe, then we can't really afford a great deal of non-extraneous issues which may alienate various groups who might otherwise work with us. With the Separation of Church and State in place, a good number of these other issues may be much easier to defend, but if it falls, it will be that much easier for Fundamentalists to impose their vision of how society should be organized upon the rest of us.