Keeping Science, er, Creationism, out of the Classroom

This is all sorts of cool. In short, the Louisiana Science Education Act allows teachers to bring in whatever texts they wish in order teach controversial topics. This means that a teacher teaching science can bring in creationist supplements for use in the class. It also means that texts can also mention creationism alongside or in favor of evolution. Zack Kopplin has been fighting the good fight against it since he was 15.



Now, admittedly I'm a big fan of the "God with Big Stick" school; I believe that evolution happens as is, but God reserves the right to every so often mess things up a little, or a lot. However, I emphasize that that's my philosophy; it may be part of how I view the world but it has little to do with whether or not I follow science when it comes to how things work. If an asteroid came to destroy us tomorrow I'd be all for destroying it rather than allowing it to destroy the world as God's punishment; if God wanted to destroy us, an asteroid would be the least efficient method. Well, I'd stop it as much as I could, at any rate, even though, ironically perhaps, I'd be limited to prayer, not having major resources.



But this is something entirely different. I keep my philosophy and science separate. These teachers have taken it upon themselves to teach their philosophy to kids in school, pupils under their charge and their responsibility. As such, they are effectively teaching religion in school; creationism, from a scientific perspective has been disproved on a regular basis. Although I can see its importance in being taught as a way people think about science, it should not be taught in place of science; an afternoon of instruction as part of a unit on science and philosophy, maybe, but any more than that and the teacher is teaching philosophy in the wrong class.



Kopplin is doing some brave work, especially considering the amount of resistance he has encountered. He has been called the Anti-Christ, said to have been responsible for Hurricane Katrina, and even had to deal with remarks about his age. Nonetheless, he has struggled on; he has already won through on keeping the science books that were going to be tossed, and he hopes to get the law eventually repealed. Although he has lost twice in committee, he is hoping to get the discussion out of committee this year.



"My generation is going to have to face major challenges to our way of living — and the way to overcome them is through rapid scientific advancement," he says. "But as as of right now, America has a science problem."

The Importance of Being Tax-Exempt

The Westboro Church has brought up the question yet again whether or not churches and other religious institutions should be taxed or not. The problem is that some churches use their power for political gain, which is sort of forbidden under the tax code. Therefore, a quick discussion may help.

The exemption is based on a simple concept: The government can't save everyone from everything. When someone falls on hard time, the government is not the best person to go to. It can take a while to get a response, and sometimes that response is simply not good enough for the person in the crisis; too many government have gotten extremely worried about following the rules, and that can make for some slow response times. Throw in the ability of some to game the system, and what should be a simple problem often blows up.

A private agency, however, can act as quick or as slowly as it wishes; it makes its own rules. From a government perspective, that speed and not requiring rules can be a lifesaver, as well as a help when it comes to budgeting; if they know that a private agency can take up the slack in emergencies, it gives them some wiggle room for other issues. Because of that they are more than willing to work in some perk for agencies that are willing to work specifically to help people in need, be it helping to overcome addictions to putting their hat in the ring when emergencies strike, and the specific perk is that they can apply for tax-exempt status.

Although there are those that have advocated for taking away the church's tax-exempt status, usually citing the billions of dollars in revenue it would generate, there are some obvious issues. The revenue alone is an obvious pipe dream; due to rules regarding charitable deductions most churches would likely pay as much in taxes as they are now. Worse, churches would be able to take advantage of numerous government grants that are beyond them now; in effect, atheists would be subsidizing places of worship. By providing a tax-exempt status for churches it can actually keep them out of the usual political loops.

However, there are some checks and balances written into the system. Predominant among those is that the not-for-profit cannot be political. There is some allowance for the freedom of speech, but in general they cannot take a political position, be it advocating for a particular law or even suggesting voters vote for a particular candidate or group of candidates. There are ways of skirting this, as the Latter Day Saints have shown with their advocacy of California's Proposition 8 and the Westboro Church's picketing of various funerals. The worst are those that give out voting guides; because of the very careful wording of the guides they have yet to be really investigated. Even a Catholic bishop skirted the law when he suggested that voting for Obama was a mortal sin.

Unfortunately, there is little the IRS can do. It takes a high-ranking official in order to even initiate an investigation, and even then a major violation must have taken place. It also needs to be on ongoing concern; the aforementioned bishop isn't enough as it was a one-time event. Most churches and temples have usually respected the the distance between church and state, but some have skirted the law, and those groups need to have their status revoked. Unfortunately there is little that can be done directly against them.

However, when it comes to indirect dealings, there are a number of solutions. A church that decides to dabble in politics can be ostracized in the community, with businesses doing less and less business with known members of the church. A church that pickets funerals and other events can be picketed against. Social media can also be brought to bear, especially if there are known leaders in the church; a picture posted infinite times with a "do not do business with" tag can be very effective. Even just having people wear "IRS Church Observer" shirts can work, as long as the "IRS" is spelled out to be something other than "Internal Revenue Service". Eventually the church will get the hint, or be unable to afford its bills. In essence by hitting the church in its pockets, a lot of damage can be done.

In short, just because the church has protections does not mean those protections should be everlasting. Temporal protections should be just temporary compared to eternal things, after all.

Free Will and Its Consequences

Free will is always one of those weird questions when it comes to philosophy. On the strictly mechanistic side, there is the question if we are actually making decisions, or if we are merely reacting to stimuli in pre-programmed ways. On the spiritual side there are those that believe that our fates have been pre-destined, and so our decisions don't matter, as they have already been made and we are merely carrying them out. Others believe that we do have free will, and that we exercise every moment when we are awake.

The problem with worshiping an omnipotent being is that free will is often seen to be an illusion at best. At any time God can tell us what to do, and we must do it; that necessity to act would therefore eliminate our free will, and God's willingness to punish those that don't do what he says is proof that He is willing to enforce His will regardless of the will of the petitioned. The problem is that this is a simplified version of what is going on.

What's being ignored is that worshippers enter into a contract with a deity when they choose to worship that deity, be it god or devil. We can choose to void the contract at any time, of course, but being under contract means that we expect certain things from the other side, ranging from prosperity to protection, and in exchange the deity should be able to tell you what to do. In this respect, God is within his rights asking someone to do something and then getting annoyed when that person doesn't do what he wanted. After all, almost all of the biblical examples have someone that has definitely prospered from the situation but is not willing to uphold his end of the bargain; wouldn't you get annoyed if someone did that you? If you had the power, wouldn't you enforce the contract?

In this respect, God going after those that broke their word to him like some sort of cosmic bill collector makes some sense. He needed something done, the person was unwilling to do it, and the contract needs to be enforced. Part of having free will is recognizing that there are consequences, good or bad, to every decision, and we need to weigh those consequences before we do something. That includes knowing that we may suffer for it, but if what we gain is worth it, we may just try to break the contract, but that has its own consequences.

Ultimately, it is our decision whether or not to do what we are told. We just need to decide if the consequences are worth it or not.