By Siamang
Two years ago today, December 20, 2005, Judge John E. Jones III issued his ruling in the Intelligent Design trial Kitzmiller v. Dover School Board. Karl Mogel reminds us that in honor of the day, Science Bloggers annually post about the effects the trial has had on the Intelligent Design movement.
I want to talk about a small thing that has not changed. More on that in a bit. First I want to remind readers of the words of Judge Jones in his ruling (pdf) which struck down the attempts to teach Intelligent Design, or ID, in the Dover schools:
“Witnesses either testified inconsistently, or lied outright under oath on several occasions,” Jones wrote. “The inescapable truth is that both [Alan] Bonsell and [William] Buckingham lied at their January 3, 2005 depositions. … Bonsell repeatedly failed to testify in a truthful manner. … Defendants have unceasingly attempted in vain to distance themselves from their own actions and statements, which culminated in repetitious, untruthful testimony.”
…
“The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy.
…
“Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the Board’s decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial.”
With those words in mind, especially those speaking to the intellectual honesty of the Intelligent Design proponents… I want to talk about one particularly dramatic part of the trial.
Read the rest of this news item »
This is a page from a new coloring book released by the New York Archdiocese. According to Newsweek, the comic book, “Being Friends, Being Safe, Being Catholic” is mostly pretty innocuous, with pages of general safety, piety and charity. But then there’s the page included above. A smiling angel warns of the dangers of being alone in some very Christian room while the altar boy reaches into some sack.
I don’t want to call the Catholic Church sex abuse scandal a scandal, because for me this is way worse than the trivial things we call scandals in our society. I think the word “scandal” refuses to acknowlege the horror and gravity of the situation, and the cover-up and the culture of infallibility that contributed to it.
And hopefully besides the prurient interest in seeing this comic book page, we can use this moment to reflect on how we talk to children and what we teach them. So what does this panel teach?
I might have a strange perspective as an atheist, but I probably see a lot of things in this panel that aren’t intended.
Visually, the image seems to be saying a number of odd things. The angels somehow imply that there are angels watching over us, but don’t think they’re going to protect you if that door is shut. Look at the body posture of the priest… his arms are folded, not relaxed at his side. He’s waving but the rest of his posture isn’t reassuring to me. The angel on the other side of the door is frightening to me… she’s just there, right outside that door… but blocked from coming in the door by the folded arms of the priest. Is she kept out because she’s female, and females aren’t allowed to touch whatever magical objects are kept hidden in that sack in the Cross Room?
And let’s look at that door for a moment. First off, it’s got a big cross on it, as do all the cupboards. But what’s really creeping me out is the stuff piled behind that door. This makes the room seem like a broom closet, and I see that stuff hidden behind the door, and I think, man, if that stuff tips over, it’ll shut that door. That door wants to shut. Personally, I’m a visual artist, and so I look at the imagery for clarity and intention… and putting stuff behind the door says something. It’s probably not intentional, but I just see that door and the staging of this scene, the angel’s entry being blocked by the waving priest, the boy wrestling with something unshown under what looks like a blanket… and I’m frightened for that lad.
Now, this angel (female, naturally) is telling children “For safety’s sake, a child and an adult SHOULDN’T be ALONE in a closed room together.” Now, that’s just stupidly imprecise. You can’t teach children to watch out for things and give them such wrong information. Children are OFTEN alone with one parent, one grandparent, one babysitter, etc. You have to teach children what you really mean, because this is so intentionally vague. Any child reading this will see that it’s contrary to what is done in their own family, and disregard the warning.
Educators warn parents not to teach their children “never talk to strangers”. Why? Because they see their parents talk to strangers every day, and parents encourage them to say “say thank you to the nice lady who liked your hat”. So they know that sometimes you talk to strangers. They’re practiced in talking to strangers. What they aren’t practiced in, if you just tell them “DTTS”, is the ability to tell who to talk to and who not to. If your child is lost, you WANT them to talk to a stranger, and not wait until a stranger talks to them. The key is, teaching a child to be able to “find a mommy” and know when it’s okay to talk to a stranger and when it’s not. Children can be taught how to tell if it’s okay to talk to someone or not… if you’re open and honest with them about the dangers and how to spot the danger signs.
So let’s get back to this comic. It should read, “For safety’s sake, church policy states that church adults shouldn’t be alone in a closed room with children.” Not the other way around. Children should know where the danger actually is, and not a blanket ban like “don’t be alone with an adult.”
I look at the image of this room, with five crosses, a chalice, a sunset, two angels and a priest, and the weight of that door… and I wonder, are children reassured by this? Do they feel safe in this room? Do they feel safe in this religion, where priests and angels alike failed them, and their protection is now up to them?
-Siamang
Posted in A Cacophony of Posts | 21 Comments »
By Siamang.
Republican Candidate and Iowa front-runner Mike Huckabee levels an attack on rival Mitt Romney with a (not so) innocent question:
“Don’t Mormons believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers?”
And we’re off to the races.
Liberal blogger Atrios brings up a good point:
I don’t really think that a political campaign should involve a debate over whether Mormons believe that Satan was Jesus’s brother, but that’s where all the “put the God back in politics” has taken us.
I agree, and to tell the truth this is an attack that Romney could have immunized himself against if he had forthrightly given a “faith speech” that called for an end to religious tests for political candidates rather than a “faith speech” that called for his religion to pass that test.
Romney wants so bad to be part of the right-wing religious bigots club that he asked for membership, and proved his mettle by attacking secularism. I guess Huckabee is now saying that Romney can’t join that club.
I shudder to think what the discussion would be if a Jew were running for office.
As others have said, it’s strange to have Huckabee asking this question himself, rather than having a surrogate do it on talk radio or in the press.
To any friends and readers out there of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I want to say, I liked Romney. I thought Romney would be a great candidate. Watching the 2002 Olympics, I thought, “wow, that’ll be the man to beat.. he’s a Republican, but one who can get stuff done. He looks great, and he looks capable. I’m a Democrat, but I’m much more interested in a competent leader than an ideological person who agrees with me all the time.”
I was hoping he would have taken the high-road and added himself as a voice for putting aside religious and non-religious differences as a non-issue in what we share as a society. As an atheist, I don’t care about his religion, his isn’t any more or less alien to me than any other faith. As someone with a minority belief in this nation as well, I stand up for his rights, but even more I stand up for his right to be respected. I feel that was a respect he didn’t reciprocate when he had the chance and instead he took the easy path of condeming secularists instead. As Wendy Kaminer wrote, “Romney opposes bigotry in self-defense, not in defense of others, which is to say that he does not really oppose it at all.”
As a kid, I had a lot of Mormon babysitters, which meant a lot of my playmates were also Mormon, and I attended some LDS Primary as a kid. I was a Targeteer, I was CTR. I was a Cub Scout affiliated with my local LDS church.
My heart goes out to members of the church that may be hurt by the ugliness of this political season. As a minority belief, I empathize with you. I do hope this incident is the last we hear in this campaign.
Because if political campaigning now includes questioning the tenets of your opponent’s faith… we’ve started down a very dark road indeed.
-Siamang
Posted in A Cacophony of Posts | 3 Comments »