What is all this?

Would you be so kind and so cunning as to stoop so low as to honor me so high as to let me roll my wheels of conversation around your actualities of understanding and forgive me for not checking in to the blog for a while?

You see, I think this whole intelligent design talk is kind of ironic. As I see it, now, I have learned to understand that it means there is a more intelligent being running the design of the universe. However, when I first heard the term, not knowing what it meant, I thought intelligent design was referring to evolution–that is, it was the design of the way intelligence evolved. You know, being that Darwin thought evolution involves the survival of the fittest leading to greater and greater intelligence–or beings with greater intelligence capabilities. Then, of course, I found out I was wrong in my interpretation of the term, but I did think it funny. Wouldn’t those who coined the term die if they thought people were thinking intelligent design was referring to evolution!! LOL Silly me.

Do I think it should be taught in school? I think it is funny that we can so easily see in the courts that it should not be taught because of the need to preserve the separation of state and church; yet it is not only NOT clear that “in God we trust” or “one nation under God” is not separation of state and church. I am not saying one way or the other about whether we should or shouldn’t include religion, I just find it very ironic that we cannot see how these are fights over the same thing, but with distinctly different conclusions about their appropriateness. And there is no one pointing out how these two things are related and have different “lawful” implications.

I guess I am saying separation of state and church should be just that, if that is what it is going to be. That would mean that if it is not in our schools, it is not on our money and it is not in our courts (swearing on the bible), it is not in our pledge or state or national songs or. . . Isn’t separation of state and church–separation!?! Or is it separation (if you are not Christian) that means we will tolerate you living with us while we swear to God, trust our money to God, sing to God, etc., and we ask that you listen to us do this in public forums, but do not require ourselves to wait while non-Christians pray to Buddha or Allah or not pray at all.

The founding fathers said separation, not tolerance. I am not saying this because I think religion is wrong, I mention this because we never look at the ironic nature of this debate in all aspects. Whether I am religious or not, separation is separation. You can still believe whatever you want, anyone, everywhere, but the religion, or lack thereof, should not enter into state decisions–or we should have amendments that say it does. But we don’t, so I am going to think that that is the way it should be.

Yet, even more ironic, state decisions about abortion, mercy killing, etc. are all being made based on one’s religious commitment. I understand this. What I don’t understand is why we tolerate it if we are a government that says religion and state are separate. I would think that I could sue someone in a state position for denying my access to something–let’s just say an abortion–because of their religious beliefs. I would think that would be a true violation of my rights. Yet, we do not think anything of it if the decision is religious based. If I deny you medical help because, religiously, I do not believe in medicine, I can be in lawful trouble, yet, I can deny you an abortion even though you will die if you carry the child, and I am not only lawful, I am religiously righteous.

Seems to me intelligent design means “I am as intelligent as I design the laws to disguise how my religion is manipulating you.”

Cyberscrybe, I am sorry you are going to have to hit those spiritual shows once again after this posting. 🙂 But I truly am not trying to be cynical, rather just pointing out the irony in our willingness to turn the other cheek in similar situations.

Okay, who started this conversation. That was not a very intelligent design!