For the next grading period I will be following Clarence Page, a columnist for the Chicago Tribune.
Mr. Page writes this week about a failed attempt to end the Congressional stalemate on budget cuts and taxes. He begins with a snide remark about the congressional supercommittee and then contrasts today's Congress against the compromises the covert groups of senators used to make in the '20s - capitalizing the current lack of governmental decision-making. Though the twelve-person Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, or the "supercommittee," was equally manned by the two houses and parties of Congresss, Page explains because it had partisans instead of independent decision-makers, "it was doomed from the start."
The failure of the supercommittee started a blame game with each party blaming the other, and in particular the Republicans criticizing Obama's "lack of 'leadership.'" Page then explains that Obama's months-old proposal of a mix of cuts and taxes is generally the most supported by the polls (compared to the Republican plan of all cuts and no taxes); he references Grover Norquist, an activist in support of the Republicans, who Democratic supercommittee member Senator John Kerry cites as the "'13th member of this committee without being there.'" Norquist is threatening Republicans who try to side with the Democrats with attempts at unseating - he is a prime example of the refusal to compromise that prompted Page's article in the first place.
Succinctly Page finishes with a sarcastic announcement of his - and the voters' - belief in Obama's idea.
Saturday, December 31, 2011
Friday, November 11, 2011
Marking Period 2: Monday #5: Synthesis
As a fairly objective Jewish kid growing up in the North Shore school system, the question of Evolutionism and Creationism never crossed my mind. I come from a religion of progressives who often have a hand in scientific discovery, and my school never mentioned Creationism when I first learned evolutionary theory. However, outside my shelter, the rest of American education has been locked in a battle of science and religion for more than a century. Some think one or the other should be taught; others think both should be explained so that students can determine their own opinions. I think that only Evolution should be taught.
Author Jack Wellman (Monday #1) believes both theories should be taught, and he backs up his claim with the Constitution. Similarly, Stephen C. Meyer and John Angus Campbell (Monday #3) mention that voters would like to see criticisms and alternatives available to students. I recognize that the First Amendment decrees we cannot refuse to teach either idea, and I see the merit in trying to be objective with both theories, but I side with the ideas expressed by MSNBC's Associated Press (Monday #2) and Craig E. Nelson (Monday #4.) The Associated Press makes the argument that as Intelligent Design, or Creationism, isn't a true science, it cannot be taught as an alternative to Evolutionism. To me, something that relies so heavily on religion is a far touchier subject to broach in a classroom than the stark objectivity of Evolutionism, and Craig Nelson agrees. Evolution should only be taught in the classroom because it is true science, Intelligent Design is too intertwined with religion and isn't true science, and less legal troubles are likely to come from Evolution than from Creationism.
Author Jack Wellman (Monday #1) believes both theories should be taught, and he backs up his claim with the Constitution. Similarly, Stephen C. Meyer and John Angus Campbell (Monday #3) mention that voters would like to see criticisms and alternatives available to students. I recognize that the First Amendment decrees we cannot refuse to teach either idea, and I see the merit in trying to be objective with both theories, but I side with the ideas expressed by MSNBC's Associated Press (Monday #2) and Craig E. Nelson (Monday #4.) The Associated Press makes the argument that as Intelligent Design, or Creationism, isn't a true science, it cannot be taught as an alternative to Evolutionism. To me, something that relies so heavily on religion is a far touchier subject to broach in a classroom than the stark objectivity of Evolutionism, and Craig Nelson agrees. Evolution should only be taught in the classroom because it is true science, Intelligent Design is too intertwined with religion and isn't true science, and less legal troubles are likely to come from Evolution than from Creationism.
Thursday, November 10, 2011
Marking Period 2: Monday #4
The final view comes from this article.
In an article by emeritus professor of biology Craig E. Nelson, he explains why Intelligent Design (or ID) should not be taught in schools. First, he identifies four major obstacles: it is "almost universally" recognized to not be science; to require it would be unconstitutional; legal entanglements will surely ensue if it is required; and to not emphasis the truth of Evolutionism would prove to be a disadvantage to future biologists. He continues with another more personal problem: how religion fits in. As an example, Nelson cites Michael Behe, a prominent biologist in support of ID; the biologist claims cells are too complex to have been formed by Evolution, but refuses to give a name to the intelligent force that supposedly did create them. In short, Nelson's point here is that the discussion of ID in a classroom environment has the potential to question the religious views of all students.
The critique of Behe's views continues with the recognition of an assumption Intelligent Design makes: that some aspects of organisms that appear not to have undergone Evolution will never be proved to have been through it. Nelson lists examples of proven "missing links" between organisms which once had no evolutionary explanation for their traits and suggests that if ID were taught, it too would have to address the ways in which complex structures form (as evolutionary theory already has.) The article concludes with the fact that if both ID and Evolution were taught, so too would critiques of both need to be heard; a critique of ID would most certainly seem an indirect attack on religion. Nelson says simply that he is in agreement with the teachers who refuse to bring their students' religious beliefs into the classroom.
(As for the post that used to be here... I was more than a little frustrated with myself for my lack of effort in your class - that was directed entirely at me, not you. I agree that it was inappropriate, and nothing of the sort will ever again be posted while I work on the Monday Matters project. I am very sorry.)
In an article by emeritus professor of biology Craig E. Nelson, he explains why Intelligent Design (or ID) should not be taught in schools. First, he identifies four major obstacles: it is "almost universally" recognized to not be science; to require it would be unconstitutional; legal entanglements will surely ensue if it is required; and to not emphasis the truth of Evolutionism would prove to be a disadvantage to future biologists. He continues with another more personal problem: how religion fits in. As an example, Nelson cites Michael Behe, a prominent biologist in support of ID; the biologist claims cells are too complex to have been formed by Evolution, but refuses to give a name to the intelligent force that supposedly did create them. In short, Nelson's point here is that the discussion of ID in a classroom environment has the potential to question the religious views of all students.
The critique of Behe's views continues with the recognition of an assumption Intelligent Design makes: that some aspects of organisms that appear not to have undergone Evolution will never be proved to have been through it. Nelson lists examples of proven "missing links" between organisms which once had no evolutionary explanation for their traits and suggests that if ID were taught, it too would have to address the ways in which complex structures form (as evolutionary theory already has.) The article concludes with the fact that if both ID and Evolution were taught, so too would critiques of both need to be heard; a critique of ID would most certainly seem an indirect attack on religion. Nelson says simply that he is in agreement with the teachers who refuse to bring their students' religious beliefs into the classroom.
(As for the post that used to be here... I was more than a little frustrated with myself for my lack of effort in your class - that was directed entirely at me, not you. I agree that it was inappropriate, and nothing of the sort will ever again be posted while I work on the Monday Matters project. I am very sorry.)
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
Marking Period 2: Monday #3
Oh, look! A link!
Stephen C. Meyer and John Angus Campbell discuss here reasons why critiques of Darwinism should be taught in schools. They begin by pointing out that the situation is a no-win: teaching Evolutionism may anger the religious; teaching Creationism will exhibit a disregard for Supreme Court rulings. When credible experts disagree on a controversial subject, students should learn about competing perspectives. The authors call this "simply good education." Arguments for and against each should be presented objectively. To back the disagreements about Evolutionism, they cite fossil evidence which suggests a sudden appearance of stability in life forms (thus negating Darwin's "branching-out" idea,) and mention that some noted professors believe that there are indeed signs of Intelligent Design in creatures. Such ideas should be included in the curriculum because it's taken from science and not Scripture.
As well, the controversy should be taught because 1) it's supported by constitutional law, 2) No Child Left Behind requires it, and 3) polls show 70% of voters would like criticism to be taught.
Stephen C. Meyer and John Angus Campbell discuss here reasons why critiques of Darwinism should be taught in schools. They begin by pointing out that the situation is a no-win: teaching Evolutionism may anger the religious; teaching Creationism will exhibit a disregard for Supreme Court rulings. When credible experts disagree on a controversial subject, students should learn about competing perspectives. The authors call this "simply good education." Arguments for and against each should be presented objectively. To back the disagreements about Evolutionism, they cite fossil evidence which suggests a sudden appearance of stability in life forms (thus negating Darwin's "branching-out" idea,) and mention that some noted professors believe that there are indeed signs of Intelligent Design in creatures. Such ideas should be included in the curriculum because it's taken from science and not Scripture.
As well, the controversy should be taught because 1) it's supported by constitutional law, 2) No Child Left Behind requires it, and 3) polls show 70% of voters would like criticism to be taught.
Monday, November 7, 2011
Marking Period 2: Monday #2
The view is from this article.
In 2005, the Associated Press at MSNBC.com released an overview of a case in Pennsylvania in which the Dover Area School Board's decision to add Intelligent Design - essentially Creationism - to their curriculum. Intelligent Design is first defined as the idea "that living organisms are so complex that they must have been created by some kind of higher force." The public school claimed to want to "improve" scientific education with the teaching of this idea. But, this policy also required a statement to be read to all ninth graders about to study evolution: that "Darwin's theory is 'not a fact' and has inexplicable 'gaps.'" The judge shot the policy down, calling it was a veiled attempt to introduce religion in the classroom. Richard Thompson, the school board's lawyer, claimed they were merely protecting the religious freedoms of Christians and named this an ad hominem attack on scientists who also believe in G-d. The Associated Press ended the article with a fairly straightforward statement that Creationism is not a science: it is "flawed and illogical" and disregards centuries of scientific research. It is unconstitutional to teach it as an alternative to Evolutionism.
In 2005, the Associated Press at MSNBC.com released an overview of a case in Pennsylvania in which the Dover Area School Board's decision to add Intelligent Design - essentially Creationism - to their curriculum. Intelligent Design is first defined as the idea "that living organisms are so complex that they must have been created by some kind of higher force." The public school claimed to want to "improve" scientific education with the teaching of this idea. But, this policy also required a statement to be read to all ninth graders about to study evolution: that "Darwin's theory is 'not a fact' and has inexplicable 'gaps.'" The judge shot the policy down, calling it was a veiled attempt to introduce religion in the classroom. Richard Thompson, the school board's lawyer, claimed they were merely protecting the religious freedoms of Christians and named this an ad hominem attack on scientists who also believe in G-d. The Associated Press ended the article with a fairly straightforward statement that Creationism is not a science: it is "flawed and illogical" and disregards centuries of scientific research. It is unconstitutional to teach it as an alternative to Evolutionism.
Marking Period 2: Monday #1
The opinion was taken from this article. Despite its appearance on the Gale database, a cornucopia of grammatical errors suggests this source may not entirely credible (or perhaps he is lacking a discerning editor.)
Since Darwin's trip to the Galapagos Islands almost three centuries ago, the concept of Evolutionism has battled Creationism for recognition in the public eye. In particular, this debate today still rages in schools. Jack Wellman, an author who is also a Christian, wrote in 2010 that teaching Evolutionism in schools is not a violation of the separation of church and state, specifically in the context of court case Edwards v. Aguillard. Wellman begins with the statement that it was never mentioned in an official document that there should be a separation of church and state; rather, it was an idea of Jefferson's to counter England's style of government, in which the state was the church. He points out that the Supreme Court has made it clear we can't legally refuse to teach either theory. Directly quoting the First Amendment, "Congress cannot pass any law concerning a religion or establishing a religion; and cannot pass any law that prevents the free exercise of religion."
In Edwards v. Aguillard in 1987, the case concerned Louisiana's "Creationism Act," which forbade the teaching of Evolutionism unless Creationism was taught as well. The District Court and the Court of Appeals agreed the act went against the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. In this case, it was also announced a variety of ideas taught from a secular perspective in schools could enhance the effectiveness of the teaching of science and would allow students to form their own opinions, with which Wellman agrees. In short, Wellman thinks the Constitution guarantees Evolutionism is not a violation of church and state and that both theories would allow students to decide for themselves.
Since Darwin's trip to the Galapagos Islands almost three centuries ago, the concept of Evolutionism has battled Creationism for recognition in the public eye. In particular, this debate today still rages in schools. Jack Wellman, an author who is also a Christian, wrote in 2010 that teaching Evolutionism in schools is not a violation of the separation of church and state, specifically in the context of court case Edwards v. Aguillard. Wellman begins with the statement that it was never mentioned in an official document that there should be a separation of church and state; rather, it was an idea of Jefferson's to counter England's style of government, in which the state was the church. He points out that the Supreme Court has made it clear we can't legally refuse to teach either theory. Directly quoting the First Amendment, "Congress cannot pass any law concerning a religion or establishing a religion; and cannot pass any law that prevents the free exercise of religion."
In Edwards v. Aguillard in 1987, the case concerned Louisiana's "Creationism Act," which forbade the teaching of Evolutionism unless Creationism was taught as well. The District Court and the Court of Appeals agreed the act went against the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. In this case, it was also announced a variety of ideas taught from a secular perspective in schools could enhance the effectiveness of the teaching of science and would allow students to form their own opinions, with which Wellman agrees. In short, Wellman thinks the Constitution guarantees Evolutionism is not a violation of church and state and that both theories would allow students to decide for themselves.
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
Marking Period 1: Monday #3
In the picture above, Muslim children are shown gathering materials to go home from a normal-looking school. Though the girls are wearing hujub (hijabs,) boys and girls can be seen wearing American-style t-shirts and sweatshirts, supporting the statement by American Islamic multimedia leader Abdul Malik Mujahid that "diversity is as American as apple pie." These pure white headcoverings above conjure up conflicted feelings in the eyes of the modern American: a garment we're taught is one of the enemy... on a child. A cluster of girls in the back are chatting; as are some little boys in the front. If they were wearing baseball caps instead of hujub we would think no differently.
As a north suburban father living here, Rashid Ghazi made his film "Fordson" about the lives of Muslim football players at a high school in Michigan fasting during Ramadan to make a point about the way Muslims combine their culture with American life just as any other group in the United States. The children above, innocent yet prey to the ignorant prejudices of our society, should be considered as normal as Catholic school children with ever-present crosses around their necks or Orthodox Jewish children in kippot (skullcaps). Staring directly into the camera is volunteer chairman of the MCC Full Time School in Morton Grove, where these children go to school and learn about the events that led to 9/11 and the way other minority groups (African-Americans, Jews, Roman Catholics) have made progress in terms of equality. Appearing quiet and kindly, this man helps lead a school that in many ways teaches students more sensitivity than most other schools.
As a north suburban father living here, Rashid Ghazi made his film "Fordson" about the lives of Muslim football players at a high school in Michigan fasting during Ramadan to make a point about the way Muslims combine their culture with American life just as any other group in the United States. The children above, innocent yet prey to the ignorant prejudices of our society, should be considered as normal as Catholic school children with ever-present crosses around their necks or Orthodox Jewish children in kippot (skullcaps). Staring directly into the camera is volunteer chairman of the MCC Full Time School in Morton Grove, where these children go to school and learn about the events that led to 9/11 and the way other minority groups (African-Americans, Jews, Roman Catholics) have made progress in terms of equality. Appearing quiet and kindly, this man helps lead a school that in many ways teaches students more sensitivity than most other schools.
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
Marking Period 1: Monday #2
This is an editorial of an editorial of the article I summarized last week. I didn't do the original editorial because I a) didn't entirely understand it and b) frankly, the parts I did understand, I didn't agree with.
Cathy Lynn Grossman's editorial starts off asking the audience if they believe evangelicals were snubbed because so many other religions were present at the National Cathedral prayer service in honor of 9/11. It cites Mollie Hemingway of Get Religion, who doesn't understand why so many of the non-monotheistic religions were represented when various Protestant branches were not. Grossman mentions that Roman Catholic and Jewish clerics were fine with the set-up of the service, following up with a quote of Hemingway saying her (2.6 million-person) Lutheran congregation avoids mixing with other religions, suggesting that it is silly for Hemingway to be miffed if she didn't want other religions present in the first place.
Similar to Hemingway, current leader of the Evangelistic Association Reverend Franklin Graham is quoted as focusing solely on how Jesus relates to 9/11, not calling for "brotherhood, forgiveness, mercy or interfaith understanding," which was the theme of the interfaith service. The leader of the fifth largest Protestant congregation ran his own service in protest - despite refusal to pray with other religions. The head of Hemingway's 2.6 million person church was fired after he participated in the Yankee Stadium prayer session because he was "joining in prayer with pagan clerics," but the decision was overturned; today, he preaches the required message of Jesus and more Jesus. The editorial wryly ends with a mentioning of Obama's reciting of Psalm 46 at Ground Zero, showing that the evangelicals were technically represented.
Cathy Lynn Grossman's editorial starts off asking the audience if they believe evangelicals were snubbed because so many other religions were present at the National Cathedral prayer service in honor of 9/11. It cites Mollie Hemingway of Get Religion, who doesn't understand why so many of the non-monotheistic religions were represented when various Protestant branches were not. Grossman mentions that Roman Catholic and Jewish clerics were fine with the set-up of the service, following up with a quote of Hemingway saying her (2.6 million-person) Lutheran congregation avoids mixing with other religions, suggesting that it is silly for Hemingway to be miffed if she didn't want other religions present in the first place.
Similar to Hemingway, current leader of the Evangelistic Association Reverend Franklin Graham is quoted as focusing solely on how Jesus relates to 9/11, not calling for "brotherhood, forgiveness, mercy or interfaith understanding," which was the theme of the interfaith service. The leader of the fifth largest Protestant congregation ran his own service in protest - despite refusal to pray with other religions. The head of Hemingway's 2.6 million person church was fired after he participated in the Yankee Stadium prayer session because he was "joining in prayer with pagan clerics," but the decision was overturned; today, he preaches the required message of Jesus and more Jesus. The editorial wryly ends with a mentioning of Obama's reciting of Psalm 46 at Ground Zero, showing that the evangelicals were technically represented.
Monday, September 12, 2011
Marking Period 1: Monday #1
I'll be summarizing this article from the New York Times.
Ten years ago, a mass prayer ceremony with many different religions represented was held in the Yankee Stadium on the second Sunday after the 9/11 attacks. This past weekend, a secular commemoration service was held at Ground Zero, and in the planning of Mayor Bloomberg faced harsh criticism from a few religions - mostly evangelicals. Similarly, a service without an evangelical cleric was held at the Washington National Cathedral; this general lack of "equal representation" is being referred to as the loss of "civil religion," a phrase coined to describe the generalized way the American government once looked at the sacred.
Mayor Bloomberg defended his decision in saying that the moments of silence allotted throughout the commemoration service he believes are often used for personal prayer, and his point was further supported by the lack of opinion from the Archbishop of New York, Timothy M. Dolan, and the executive vice president of the New York Board of Rabbis, Joseph Potasnik. In spite of this, Fox News and an evident divide among Protestants still criticize, even when religious leaders are present at such events.
(Well, you can't please everyone.)
Ten years ago, a mass prayer ceremony with many different religions represented was held in the Yankee Stadium on the second Sunday after the 9/11 attacks. This past weekend, a secular commemoration service was held at Ground Zero, and in the planning of Mayor Bloomberg faced harsh criticism from a few religions - mostly evangelicals. Similarly, a service without an evangelical cleric was held at the Washington National Cathedral; this general lack of "equal representation" is being referred to as the loss of "civil religion," a phrase coined to describe the generalized way the American government once looked at the sacred.
Mayor Bloomberg defended his decision in saying that the moments of silence allotted throughout the commemoration service he believes are often used for personal prayer, and his point was further supported by the lack of opinion from the Archbishop of New York, Timothy M. Dolan, and the executive vice president of the New York Board of Rabbis, Joseph Potasnik. In spite of this, Fox News and an evident divide among Protestants still criticize, even when religious leaders are present at such events.
(Well, you can't please everyone.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)