Is America a Christian nation?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mammuthus:
Hi forgiven

​

I actually started this thread because a guy calling himself Wordswordsman implied that the US is exclusively a Christian nation and that freedom implied freedom to be a christian and nothing else...of course, the same guy claimed he had inherent properties of a deity and that he spoke personally for Jesus Christ...and that I as a scientist and atheist am a sorcerer (I put on a robe once but did not really look like Gandalf)

---

hi mammuthusi don't think any nation, any government, is "christian" in the sense wordssmithman seems to mean... i think (christian worldview) all governments are "of the world" thus can't really be called christiani didn't read this guy's posts but i will say that any thought of a christian or muslim or whatever nation, governed on a theocratic basis, is simply of the world and will in the end commit more atrocities than those that make no such claim... i don't know what he meant by 'inherent properties' of a deity, but i sometimes say that but mean we have all the attriubes of deity, by virtue of being created in God's image... that doesn't make us gods, however... i look purty dang spiffy in a robe myself...

quote:

---

I just wanted some more opinions on the subject as this topic comes up now and then in evolution versus creationism discussions particularly when it relates to teaching in public school.

---

that's a more difficult question, imho... while i believe what i do about 'christian nation', i do believe the us gov't was formed on christian principles, but the founders recognized that if any one group (or denomination) was in the majority they had to rule with the rights of the minority in mind.. as for school curriculum, i see nothing wrong with putting forth a 'theory of evolution' OR a 'theory of creation'... what's the problem?

quote:

---

Also, as the EU is currently formulating a constitution, there is a discussion to inlcude a statement that the EU is a Christian organization...this is being used by politicians as a way of justifying the exclusion of Turkey from the EU.

​

Cheers,

​

M

---

hmmm i hadn't heard this... i think (tho i try to stay out of political discussions) it's fine to form a union with certain standards, certain criteria all members have in common.. but religion has no part of that, imo... money standards, legal rights, human rights, etc are all perfectly fine... to attempt to govern religion by fiat will lead to disaster

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mammuthus:
Also, as the EU is currently formulating a constitution, there is a discussion to inlcude a statement that the EU is a Christian organization...this is being used by politicians as a way of justifying the exclusion of Turkey from the EU.

​

Cheers,
M

---

The really surreal thing is that recently one country stood up for Turkey and argued the case for Turkeys admission....That country was Greece....Greece??!!!

Here goes funkmaster on a tangent again running off topic. However there seems to be a general concensus that everyone knows what Christians believe. I don't go into the science pages saying i know where a scientist is coming from and what he believes or knows. I may have heard some things and have pieces of info and observations of what i think. But do i know? NO! i have made some statements i realize as i type this post that are contradicting myself, i have made statements about what other people believe, so i correct myself. However this is still not right in the future i personally will try to only state what i know or believe instead of assuming that i know what others think and believe.
It's a misrepresentation of anothers beliefs. We should try to stick to what we actually are in the know about when it comes to statements. Don't just say see christians believe this and that, or i shouldn't say science is this or that. We are both misrepresenting the other.
One more note in defense of Christianity, alot of things are done in the name of Christianity that are wrong. Christians make mistakes we get judgemental ect, but just because the word christian got stuck into something doesn't mean it's in accordance with how God would have us act.I apologize for running off the track again i just wanted us to all think about this. ------------------
saved by grace

quote:

---

Originally posted by funkmasterfreaky:
{quotation of entire previous message - deleted - Adminnemooseus}

---

i agree, and in *several* of my posts i've even said something like, "depends on who you ask"... there is no one christian worldview, tho all should agree on the basics... i think we'd be better off, as someone wrote, majoring in the majors and minoring in the minors[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 11-26-2002]

Hi forgiven:I completely agree with everything in your post (except as noted below), outside of a quibble with the statement "founded on Christian principles", as I would argue that "founded on the principles of the Enlightenment" is more accurate. We could argue whether the two statements are equivalent in another thread, perhaps.However, I DO disagree with this bit:

quote:

---

as for school curriculum, i see nothing wrong with putting forth a 'theory of evolution' OR a 'theory of creation'... what's the problem?

---

In the first place, unless you have some new information, there is no "theory of creation" that doesn't directly relate to and depend on a major, unproven/unevidenced presupposition - the belief that God exists. In the US - which is apparently the key gateway for creationists and schools - this God is presupposed to be the Judeo-Christian one. Even IDists, in spite of their constant equivocation as to the nature of the putative designer, are pretty much positing God as the answer (the movement's founders and leading lights, such as Philip Johnson and William Dempsky certainly make no bones about it). As such, any "theory of creation" must, at the minimum:- Start by showing that God does indeed exist. The theory must provide evidence for the existence of a supernatural deity/entity. Only then can you begin to posit various explanations about that deity and its interest in humans to the exclusion of all other organisms - or all other potential organisms on other worlds (the thing that Giordino Bruno was burned at the stake for).- Once the theory has established the existence of the said deity, it must then provide reasons for thinking that this deity is the Christian God. After all, the mere existence of a supernatural deity does not imply that the said deity is the Judeo-Christian one. Some evidence supporting this particular deity over others, such as Allah, Vishnu, Zeus, and the Invisible Pink Unicorn, is necessary at this point.- Finally, once the first two points are shown to be valid, you can start building in explanations for how God created the entire diversity of life on the planet. You will need to show replicatable or at least valid inferred mechanisms for this. The evidence used must include ALL evidence (no fair picking and choosing) and at least provide an explanation for all observed phenomena. If you claim that organisms degenerate over time from the Fall, for example, you must provide testable predictions of what that would look like. If you claim there was a global flood, you must provide POSITIVE evidence that such occurred. You get the picture?Without those two key elements, there can be no scientifically valid "theory of creation" that could be taught in an either/or situation with the scientific "theory of evolution".[This message has been edited by Quetzal, 11-26-2002]

hi mammuthusi don't think any nation, any government, is "christian" in the sense wordssmithman seems to mean... i think (christian worldview) all governments are "of the world" thus can't really be called christianM: Hi forgiven...I don't take Wordswordsman's view of christianity or the government as representative. But I have heard the argument before as a justification for..well just about anything.f:
i didn't read this guy's posts but i will say that any thought of a christian or muslim or whatever nation, governed on a theocratic basis, is simply of the world and will in the end commit more atrocities than those that make no such claim...M: I would only suggest reading his posts if you like Hannibal Lechter movies...the guy was pretty extreme. In any case, when a government claims superiority of its membership over others for religious reasons or non-religious i.e. Stalinist Russia, atrocities will follow.f:
i don't know what he meant by 'inherent properties' of a deity, but i sometimes say that but mean we have all the attriubes of deity, by virtue of being created in God's image... that doesn't make us gods, however... i look purty dang spiffy in a robe myself...M: He was taking it a bit further...and claimed that all other christians were wrong and he was right and that he spoke directly for Jesus...I think robes will be the next big "in" stylef:
that's a more difficult question, imho... while i believe what i do about 'christian nation', i do believe the us gov't was formed on christian principles, but the founders recognized that if any one group (or denomination) was in the majority they had to rule with the rights of the minority in mind..M: I am not sure it was formed entirely on christian principles but I agree with you take on the founders intentions.f:
as for school curriculum, i see nothing wrong with putting forth a 'theory of evolution' OR a 'theory of creation'... what's the problem?M: The problem is that there is no theory of creation. Without a testable and falsifiable hypothesis, creationism is not science and should not be taught as such. It would be better placed in a class on religion or history of religion. That is the crux of the problem. And the problem is not limited to the biological sciences...we should not be teaching non-testable or non-falsifiable hypothesis in a basic physics lecture or chemistry either.Also, as the EU is currently formulating a constitution, there is a discussion to inlcude a statement that the EU is a Christian organization...this is being used by politicians as a way of justifying the exclusion of Turkey from the EU.Cheers,M[/QUOTE]f:
hmmm i hadn't heard this... i think (tho i try to stay out of political discussions) it's fine to form a union with certain standards, certain criteria all members have in common.. but religion has no part of that, imo... money standards, legal rights, human rights, etc are all perfectly fine... to attempt to govern religion by fiat will lead to disasterM: They are actually using religious objections (and it is not from all member states to be fair) to cover political and economic objections...not to mention the xenophobic wings of the various parties (many of which are currently in the various european governments) that win votes by bashing foreigners of any type. By trying to claim the EU as a christian only club, they hope to exclude the Turks without actually saying why they don't want them in. All very cynical...but that is politics.cheers,
M

[QUOTE]Originally posted by joz:
[B]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mammuthus:
Also, as the EU is currently formulating a constitution, there is a discussion to inlcude a statement that the EU is a Christian organization...this is being used by politicians as a way of justifying the exclusion of Turkey from the EU.

​

Cheers,
M

---

The really surreal thing is that recently one country stood up for Turkey and argued the case for Turkeys admission....That country was Greece....Greece??!!!M: LOL! I missed that...ah well, EU politics are profoundly comical..especially debates about the CAP...I guess next they will assign Berlusconi as head of the EU anti-corruption office

hi quetzalwhat does the word 'theory' mean to you? i mean, what differentiates a theory from a science? we've all hear 'the theory of gravity'... what exactly does that mean? does it mean that at some time in the future it may be disproved? just asking.. are these acceptable?theory- a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action
- an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances -- often used in the phrase 'in theory'
- a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena
- a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation
an unproved assumption : CONJECTURE
- a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subjectaccording to one of those, 'scientifically acceptable' is a criteria, but not in all of them.. i read words like "hypothetical" and "hypothesis assumed" and "view" and (*gasp*) even "belief"let me ask you, does the phrase 'theory of creation' fit within *any* of the above? no? not even the first? ok then...

quote:

---

, outside of a quibble with the statement "founded on Christian principles", as I would argue that "founded on the principles of the Enlightenment" is more accurate. We could argue whether the two statements are equivalent in another thread, perhaps.

---

These are definately now where near the same absoluted oposited ends of the spectrum. To me Christian principles would imply belief and trust in God, to seek his wisdom and counsel in all things. And to me Enlightenment means man can enlighten himself by knowledge (which is i must point out a quite different thing than wisdom)and his ability to reason. That the answer is just out there, until we find it, where a Christian might say the answer is out there, until God reveals it to us in his perfect time.
Now maybe my definition of enlightenment is wrong. If so please correct me. So unless i'm wrong on my definition i see no equivalency here. One says I can the other says if it's God's will.

quote:

---

as for school curriculum, i see nothing wrong with putting forth a 'theory of evolution' OR a 'theory of creation'... what's the problem?

​

In the first place, unless you have some new information, there is no "theory of creation" that doesn't directly relate to and depend on a major, unproven/unevidenced presupposition - the belief that God exists. In the US - which is apparently the key gateway for creationists and schools - this God is presupposed to be the Judeo-Christian one. Even IDists, in spite of their constant equivocation as to the nature of the putative designer, are pretty much positing God as the answer (the movement's founders and leading lights, such as Philip Johnson and William Dempsky certainly make no bones about it). As such, any "theory of creation" must, at the minimum:

---

Okay this I personally have a problem with. For a couple of reasons,- one being that i don't believe anything should be taught in the public schools about the beginnings of the earth. What do kids need of this kind of knowledge? Now if you want to go and learn about these things after highschool go to a university and study it. So this shouldn't even be an issue. If kids ask about it tell them their are lots of theories and a public library. Let's use the schools to hone reasoning and social skills, instead of supressing and destroying as it does right now.-my second reason if we somehow need one after the first is that despite the general concencus around here, evolution is full of holes and questions itself. And is based around the unproven/unevidenced pressuposition that God does not exist. At least when i was in school they gave no indication of God and it was delivered to me as fact, that i was a monkey. Now this word fact, is an abused word. I'd personally like to start a whole new thread and hash out a definition for the words "fact" and "proven". Unfortunately these usedto be functional words, that like the rest of this language has become near useless.

quote:

---

- Start by showing that God does indeed exist. The theory must provide evidence for the existence of a supernatural deity/entity. Only then can you begin to posit various explanations about that deity and its interest in humans to the exclusion of all other organisms - or all other potential organisms on other worlds (the thing that Giordino Bruno was burned at the stake for).

---

If you are going to teach an evolution then we must start by showing that God indeed does indeed not exist. We must also provide observable evidence of nothing exploding into organization , we must show an observable evidence of this concept of species drastically changing into another species. We must also now show that indeed matter (after we show where it came from) can form itself into intelligence. Can create mind. As i've seen it said before.

quote:

---

- Once the theory has established the existence of the said deity, it must then provide reasons for thinking that this deity is the Christian God. After all, the mere existence of a supernatural deity does not imply that the said deity is the Judeo-Christian one. Some evidence supporting this particular deity over others, such as Allah, Vishnu, Zeus, and the Invisible Pink Unicorn, is necessary at this point.

​

- Finally, once the first two points are shown to be valid, you can start building in explanations for how God created the entire diversity of life on the planet. You will need to show replicatable or at least valid inferred mechanisms for this. The evidence used must include ALL evidence (no fair picking and choosing) and at least provide an explanation for all observed phenomena. If you claim that organisms degenerate over time from the Fall, for example, you must provide testable predictions of what that would look like. If you claim there was a global flood, you must provide POSITIVE evidence that such occurred. You get the picture?

---

For one you don't prove God again I say God proves God. And once he's proven and you know his characteristics you will know which God he is. I can say this, being a thing I am in the know about happening to know this here God personally. Now after you have been made right before God he will give you wisdom and understanding, to go along with accumulated knowledge and can put it to use. Otherwise you must provide POSITIVE evidence that God does not exist and that nothing can organize itself into a very complex something without an intelligent creator. This is very difficult i would imagine with even an intelligent being, creating a very wonderous something out of nothing.As artists in our we house we know that something does not create itself. Even if there are materials laying around. The guitar does not get up and play a beautiful song. Nor do the brushes decide to paint a beautiful and inspired work. Nor any work of any kind. These do not come into existance without someone to create them. Without these key elements there can be no scientifically valid theory taught in the public school systems.Let me just make my first point clear. Up until a university level there is no reason to study the beginnings of earth. The idea of the public schools should be to help our children learn how to think and reason, (whereas so far it is what to think), this should be first, and then of course mathematics, how the scientific method works, the understanding of language, the social history of the planet. So now they can go and choose their study, the school system has given them ability to use their reasoning skills basic knowledge and hopefully social skills if the whole thing were to be a complete success. Here we can begin to put these things to use in what field we so choose. So there is no need to teach either theory a very simple, reasonable, solution to this whole problem. The school system has much larger problems than this.------------------
saved by grace
{Fixed quote structure - AM}

​

[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 11-26-2002]

[QUOTE][B]Up until a university level there is no reason to study the beginnings of earth.[/QUOTE][/B]Then how will the public be able to appreciate new findings about the early Earth?The point of the educational system is to make people literate enough to understand the world around them. If historical geology, and most importantly of all, evolution, are not taught and taught well the general public will remain illiterate in one of the most important principles of science, and Creationism will continue to thrive on this ignorance.

quote:

---

Originally posted by funkmasterfreaky:
... Otherwise you must provide POSITIVE evidence that God does not exist.

---

It is impossible to prove non-existence. But as it is possible to prove existence, go prove the existence of God. It's your claim, not mine, so prove it. [B][QUOTE]The guitar does not get up and play a beautiful song. Nor do the brushes decide to paint a beautiful and inspired work. Nor any work of any kind. These do not come into existance without someone to create them.[/B][/QUOTE]What about Intelligent Designers? Or are they an exception? There must be a point in which you accept existence without cause...

Funkmasterfreaky:

quote:

---

And is based around the unproven/unevidenced pressuposition that God does not exist.

---

No it isn't. How many times have you been told this? Either prove that evolution is based on atheism or shut up about it.

quote:

---

At least when i was in school they gave no indication of God

---

Funny that. I bet they didn't mention God when they taught you to solve quadratic equations, so presumably quadratic equations are also based on atheistic assumptions.

quote:

---

and it was delivered to me as fact, that i was a monkey

---

Crap science teacher you had then. Monkeys have tails. I presume you don't? Or did your teacher not really say that at all?Forgiven: when scientists use the word theory, they have a very specific meaning in mind, and it's not the one you'll find in a generalist dictionary.[This message has been edited by Karl, 11-27-2002]

Hmm, wonder why we're trying to get into arguing dictionary definitions. Nothing else to address in that post, or are you going to get around to it eventually?However, to forstall any further definitional equivocating, I'll explain what I mean when I use the word "theory" in relation to science, okay?I use "theory" in this context in the sense of a scientifically acceptable principle that can be used to explain a vast body of facts, and is supported by an overwhelming body of evidence. A scientific theory represents the current best effort to understand and explain a variety of what appear to be interrelated natural phenomena. A theory can be used as a framework both to develop and understand new ideas (hypotheses, to use the correct term), and make predictions of future observations. A theory is NOT, however, immutable. If new experiments, observations, or evidence are derived, a theory CAN be overturned, modified, or simply "folded in" as a special case of a NEW theory that better explains the observations.Under that definition, the "theory of creation" is completely misnamed. Better, perhaps, would be to call it the "idle speculation of creation" or perhaps (to be kind), the "faith of creation".Now, would you care to address the actual substance of my previous post?

I would also like to add to Quetzal's definition that when you begin with a hypothesis it must be both testable and falsifiable if it is ever to develope into a theory.As to the theory of gravity being overturned..yes it is possible.However, you cannot state "theory of creation" as you are not past the hypothesis stage. And to even be considered as a hypothesis you have to state a testable and falsifiable hypothesis which thus far no creationist has ever been able to propose. You cannot even begin to attempt to gather data or develop predicitions or experiments to obtain supporting evidence at this stage.This is not the exclusive domain of the biological sciences but of chemistry, physics etc. as well.As Quetzal pointed out, theories are not immutable. If they were, nobody would continue to study in those disciplines for which theories exist. For example, in Darwin's time genetics was not an established field (Mendel was working on the principles but Darwin never took them into account in developing his theory). As the science of genomics progresses, the data is incorporated into the theory and in cases where there is a disparity (such as the phenomenon of horizontal transfer), research is concentrated to see if it really is a disparity or whether it can be explained by the theory as it stands.Sorry to butt in on you and Quetzal.cheers,
M

Hi Funk,{I'm going to cut bits out to save space where possible. If you feel I missed addressing something, let me know.}Re: Enlightenment. Umm, I was referring to the 17th/18th Century era of major political and social movements, including such concepts as intrinsic human rights, empiricism, deism, newtonian mechanical universe, etc. That was what I was talking about concerning "principles". John could probably give you a much more detailed answer - he knows a lot about the Enlightenment (note the capital "E" indicating a proper noun) philosophers.

quote:

---

i don't believe anything should be taught in the public schools about the beginnings of the earth.

---

Are you talking about the formation of the Earth itself (i.e., accretion disk, etc), or about the beginning of life on Earth?If the former, do you say this because you don't think there's enough evidence? Certainly astrophysicists and astronomers have observed stars (at least) in each stage of their formation to be fairly sure the idea is correct. While some of the details of actual planet formation might be off a bit, the fact that the stellar formation ideas were so close to the mark indicates they're probably not far off on the planetary formation either. If you're indicating the concept is too complicated for a high school student - all I can say is a correspondent of mine wrote a beautiful essay covering the whole thing that I let my 11-year-old read. She not only understood everything, but thought the material presented was "pretty cool". I'd be happy to post it here if you feel the teachers you had didn't present the material very well...If the latter is your contention, I might actually partially agree with you. However, I'd have to say that I haven't seen abiogenesis presented as a "fact" (although given the quality of most textbooks at that level, it wouldn't really surprise me), merely a collection of "probable guesses" as to how it happened. Even if it was presented as "fact", I would personally undertake to let my daughters know where the problems with the various ideas are. But that's just me...

quote:

---

-my second reason if we somehow need one after the first is that despite the general concencus around here, evolution is full of holes and questions itself. And is based around the unproven/unevidenced pressuposition that God does not exist. At least when i was in school they gave no indication of God and it was delivered to me as fact, that i was a monkey. Now this word fact, is an abused word. I'd personally like to start a whole new thread and hash out a definition for the words "fact" and "proven". Unfortunately these usedto be functional words, that like the rest of this language has become near useles

---

Nowhere, in anything I have ever written or read has anyone stated that "evolution proves that God doesn't exist". Even the most vocal opponents of theism (such as Dawkins) never go so far as to state "science disproves God". You'll need to provide a reference or twelve that this is a foundational principle of evolution before your argument is even remotely valid.As to the monkey bit, again no evolutionary biologist (or ANY biologist, as far as that goes) has EVER stated that you are a monkey. Again, references required. Also, simply not claiming God as a working hypothesis is NOT equivalent to proclaiming God doesn't exist. Any science teacher who did that in class would be rightfully censured - as the entire question is unaddressable by science. Which was, of course, my point in the post to which you replied.

quote:

---

1. If you are going to teach an evolution then we must start by showing that God indeed does indeed not exist. 2. We must also provide observable evidence of nothing exploding into organization , 3. we must show an observable evidence of this concept of species drastically changing into another species. 4. We must also now show that indeed matter (after we show where it came from) can form itself into intelligence. 5. Can create mind. As i've seen it said before.

---

There are so many strawmen in this paragraph I'm not sure where to begin.1. How do you prove a negative? Since nothing in evolution even addresses God, gods, goddesses, demons, ghosts, spirits, witches, whatever, why does evolution have to disprove the existence of these things? This is YOUR problem - not science's. Why not try and actually show God exists. Remember, we're talking about the difference between teaching a science in science class, and teaching religious beliefs. That was forgiven's contention, after all - that there was no difference between the science of evolution and "creation science".2. Where in anything any biologist has ever written do you see the contention that "nothing exploded into organization" (which I'm not sure I even understand)? Once again, you've misrepresented science to create a strawman. If you're arguing about the Big Bang, you need to address your problem to the physicists - who are going to start by beating you over the head with the question of what "nothing" means.3. "Species drastically changing to another species"? What is this - chicken from a lizard's egg strawman again? Try this on for size: natura non facit saltum. Goldschmitt was WRONG on this part of his idea, okay? I wish creationists would quit dragging this long-discredited chestnut out of the trashbin.4. Look in the mirror. Beyond that, a discussion of the "emergent property" vs "adaptationist" views of the evolution of intelligence would require a book-length response. Feel free to do some research on the subject and come back when you have specific questions. In the interim, my response is "yeah, it was a natural process. Prove that it wasn't."5. We've got a whole thread on "mind". Obsidian, Rationalist and I have already presented most of the argument. If you have any specific comments or questions, feel free to post them. One liners don't work.

quote:

---

For one you don't prove God again I say God proves God. And once he's proven and you know his characteristics you will know which God he is. I can say this, being a thing I am in the know about happening to know this here God personally.

---

Can you say "circular reasoning"? Would you accept, "the fact that animals evolve proves evolution is true" as a valid argument? If not, why would you think I'd buy the line when God is the subject?

quote:

---

Now after you have been made right before God he will give you wisdom and understanding, to go along with accumulated knowledge and can put it to use.

---

In other words, if I shut down my brain, forget all the science I know, throw all my personal experiences and critical thinking out the window, I'll accept (be made right with) God? AND get all kinds of neat "accumulated knowledge" I can put to use? What a deal. Does this mean I'll be able to come up with a viable solution to the problem of Carcinus maenas infestation on the Pacific Coast? Might almost be worth it...

quote:

---

Otherwise you must provide POSITIVE evidence that God does not exist and that nothing can organize itself into a very complex something without an intelligent creator. This is very difficult i would imagine with even an intelligent being, creating a very wonderous something out of nothing.

---

Back to your strawman again. YOU are the one making a positive claim "God exists", not me. I've never said "God doesn't exist". I HAVE asserted that there is no positive evidence of God's existence", however. Which, of course, is the point of the three necessary elements of the "theory of creation" that those who adhere to that idea must provide. I don't have to disprove anything that has no proof to begin with. Don't you get it yet? YOU CANNOT VALIDATE A THEORY BY DEMANDING THAT SOMEONE DISPROVE IT. YOU CAN ONLY VALIDATE A THEORY BY PROVIDING POSITIVE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT IT. Okay? Understand?Final note on your concluding paragraph: I agree that schools should teach the theory of knowledge (how we know). It is a major failing of US public schools, which appear in many cases to do exactly what you said: teach rote memorization rather than how to think. This is why I'm glad my kids are in an international baccalaureate program. However, excluding science is a mistake. Chemistry, biology, earth science, basic physics, etc, are all hugely important in fostering an understanding of the modern world. All you're doing is foisting off basic education on the university system because you think the secondary system is a failure. There are many reasons to insure that once citizens reach voting age they are at least basically informed on the issues they will be deciding. Unfortunately, that isn't the case much in the US any more.