eagle scout ordered to take god out of park project

[Gold Winger 9]

Alternative theories about who notified the media:

 

The Scout's grandmother

The person filing the complaint

A member of the town council

A friend of the member of the town councilman

Someone with the parks board

Someone hanging out at town hall when the letter was read

 

[Trevorum 24]

"Legit"?? So, under what circumstances could this "theory" be tested? If it is not falsifiable, then it is not a theory and has no place in an astronomy exhibit. If the city had accepted the project as anything other than an astronomy exhibit, then they would have had no reason to remove the religious stone.

 

Having a "god" stone in this astronomy exhibit is like having a figurine of Albert Einstein in a nativity creche. (Well,that may be a bad example since he was Jewish, too...)

[Gold Winger 9]

Sure you can "falsify" that theory. Just you can prove that God doesn't exist.

 

However, I don't believe that a theory has to be able to be proven false to be a theory. A theory is simply an organized set of ideas about a subject. Once proven, it becomes a law. Newtons Laws of Motion started out as theory.

[Beavah 205]

Arguably, it has no legitimate place in an astronomy exhibit - unless of course your objective is to promote your own religious POV (ie., the J-C-I God as the creator of those planets).

 

Oh, pishtosh. I utterly reject this silly notion of public censorship of ideas. It is but one step removed from those who use the government to burn books because they don't like the ideas presented in da books. "You can have your books and your quotes, but keep 'em on private property, and out of the public consciousness." Balderdash.

 

-----

Newton's opinions on the laws of motion are fit and proper to be quoted on solar system rocks, I'm sure. So why not another Isaac Newton quote:

 

This most beautiful system could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being. - Sir Isaac Newton

 

Or is one of Newton's opinions or writings OK, and another to be censored?

-----

How about that secular/pagan philosopher Plato:

 

Astronomy compels the soul to look upwards and leads us from this world to another. - Plato

 

Does Plato get censored because he sounds Christian, or is he accepted because as a government we don't censor pagans?

-----

Would yeh have the same objection to a Kepler quote?

 

The diversity of the phenomena of nature is so great, and the treasures hidden in the heavens so rich, precisely in order that the human mind shall never be lacking in fresh nourishment. - Johannes Kepler

 

Is philosophy and poetry like that OK, or must we limit our public discourse to science?

-----

What if a scientist brings up the Almighty? Must we censor Einstein's

 

God does not play dice with the universe?

 

even though he's really making a kind of scientific argument? But if we don't censor that, can we censor his commentary

 

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. - Albert Einstein

-----

or how about Galileo:

 

The Bible shows the way to go to heaven, not the way the heavens go. - Galileo Galilei

 

Is that subject to our rock path censors, or is it OK because he's commenting on the limits of biblical literalism, and anything that limits or downplays the scope of religion gets past the censors?

 

 

Just askin'

 

Beavah

 

 

 

 

[GernBlansten 10]

Ok, perhaps my broad assertion that someone within the scouting organization ratted out this project to the press was, well, broad. But someone went to the media. I would suspect that person to be someone with an interest in the scout, not the town/parks. Family member, troop member, SM, scout himself, district advisor. This is the list of those who would have intimate knowledge of the controversy. Perhaps it was a disgruntled board member. If so, they clearly are working against the board. I'm not saying that its right or wrong to have the stone on display. But going to the press was way out of bounds.

 

The net result is the town/park was embarrassed and will probably never agree to another scout project again. Other towns/parks may follow suit. Nobody wins except those with an axe to grind. Scouts lose big time.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Beavah writes, first quoting Trevorum:

Arguably, it has no legitimate place in an astronomy exhibit - unless of course your objective is to promote your own religious POV (ie., the J-C-I God as the creator of those planets).

 

Oh, pishtosh. I utterly reject this silly notion of public censorship of ideas. It is but one step removed from those who use the government to burn books because they don't like the ideas presented in da books. "You can have your books and your quotes, but keep 'em on private property, and out of the public consciousness." Balderdash.

 

Beavah, the "public censorship of ideas" includes cases where only some people are allowed to present their ideas. The park is not, apparently, a public forum where anyone and everyone can install rocks with their ideas on them. If it was, then it would be fine.

 

Newton's laws of motion would be appropriate, but Newton's religious ideas aren't related to the solar system, and quoting him on religion is no more relevant than a quote from astronomer Carl Sagan on his views of religion, even though both can be quoted regarding planets.

 

No, the public park is not your private forum.

[Beavah 205]

Beavah, the "public censorship of ideas" includes cases where only some people are allowed to present their ideas.

 

Yah, exactly!

 

Some folks are allowed to present their ideas on science/astronomy, which is one branch of natural philosophy. But other branches of philosophy are to be excluded, along with any references to common ideas or connections between them and natural science philosophy.

 

Bet ya if you were honest you'd admit you'd have no problem with da Kepler quote, eh? I bet you'd also be queasy about da Plato quote. Which is exactly the point. Christians like Kepler and Newton are allowed to "speak" only if their speech is consistent with secular philosophy. A secular philosopher like Plato is only allowed to "speak" if his philosophy doesn't sound consistent with religious philosophy.

 

It ain't quite "burn the books." It's "keep all da opinions we disagree with locked in a private closet."

 

I still want all da trees removed. No animist worship spaces and objects on public property, no matter how nice da Truffulas look. Plus, with a few industrious furry critters, we can dam da streams while we're at it . Oh, yah... and since some guy named B-P Kudu has started doin' sermons on how birds lead kids to their Creator, better arm da Beavers with shotguns.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[Trevorum 24]

Quoting Newton as an authority on religion is as ridiculous as quoting Muhammed Ali on modern jazz. Both have their opinions, to be sure, but we recognize each as an authority only in limited fields of endeavor.

 

(btw, I suspect you may not have fully grasped Gallileo's point before quoting him here.)

 

I stand by my interpretation that the rocks were viewd by the city as a science (astronomy) exhibit and that throwing in a religious elemet was totally inappropriate. At the same time, I would have no problem with having the same "God" rock on city property, IF it was in the context of a religious exhibit - containing for example, rocks also with quotations from the Qur'an, the Rig Veda, and the Tao te Ching.

[evmori 11]

9NEWS learned about this story from a viewer.

 

You can suspect all ya want, Gern! The fact is we don't know who ratted the Scout out! And let's not forget, according to the article, the God stone was in the original plans. And the original plans were approved by a city employee!

 

Fourteen-year-old Jonathan Griesinger says he wanted people to think about the origins of the universe when they stroll by his planetary walk along Van Bibber Creek.

 

I'm still looking for something that says this was an astronomy display. If it was, where are the stars? He only depicted planets!

 

If I'm not mistaken, Muhammed Ali was quite a jazz fan.

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

A blessed New Year to all(This message has been edited by evmori)

[GernBlansten 10]

So Ed, is the benefiting organization locked into the project as proposed or do they have the right to change their mind after the project is completed?

If they do change their mind, should they be embarrassed through the media?

[evmori 11]

So Ed, is the benefiting organization locked into the project as proposed or do they have the right to change their mind after the project is completed?

 

They have a right to change their mind. No one has argued they don't! But in this case they wouldn't have if the jogger didn't point out the God stone.

 

If they do change their mind, should they be embarrassed through the media?

 

Were they embarrassed? Was anyone embarrassed? And if someone was, so?

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

A blessed New Year to all

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Well Beavah, you can try to argue that allowing any view of any kind on public property requires all views to be allowed, but I don't think that would last. I think a city can create an informational exhibit without creating an open public forum.

[Beavah 205]

Yah, Merlyn, that's a legal argument, eh?

 

Da problem with legal arguments is that they're adversarial, disputatious, and technical. Not da best for engenderin' a civil society. Perhaps good tactics, but bad strategy for the atheist crowd. If yeh tick off da majority for long enough, the laws change. Interestin' guys get elected, courts get stacked, Constitutional respect gets eroded. Heck, even whole planets can disappear.

 

Here in workin' with kids, I'm more interested in the ethical argument, or the ethical position on the matter, eh? Get too much legal falderal at the office. What do you feel about a society that funds and establishes informational displays on public lands, but excludes one sort of information entirely?

 

Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Da problem with legal arguments is that they're adversarial, disputatious, and technical. Not da best for engenderin' a civil society.

 

So what IS "the best"?

 

Perhaps good tactics, but bad strategy for the atheist crowd. If yeh tick off da majority for long enough, the laws change. Interestin' guys get elected, courts get stacked, Constitutional respect gets eroded.

 

Ah, so a society that does not respect constitutional rights because atheists "ticked off" people is somehow an improvement? Is that what you're saying? Or should atheists not fight for their constitutional rights? I think you know I'm not the type to kowtow to people who would infringe on my rights.

 

Here in workin' with kids, I'm more interested in the ethical argument, or the ethical position on the matter, eh?

 

Your position appears to be that any public informational message requires all messages to be accepted, as far as I can tell. Does this mean a city sign saying "Elm Street" requires that the city permit another sign nearby erected by Fred Phelps saying "god hates fags"?

 

If not, what distinguishes your argument about the park exhibit from my example? To keep the analogy close, assume the Elm Street sign was also OK'd and created as an eagle scout project by a member of the Phelps clan.

[CalicoPenn 729]

Beavah asks: What do you feel about a society that funds and establishes informational displays on public lands, but excludes one sort of information entirely?

 

Interesting question. My answer is "I'm fine with it".

 

Informational displays on public lands are based on fact, science and history. Sometimes, they may be just plain wrong - a good example would be an historical marker out east claiming that a church built in the late 1600's in Virginia was the first Christian church in the United States, when Spanish Missions were being built out in the western part of the US back in the 1500's. For the most part, they don't deal with matters of faith and opinion. If an informational display were to touch on matters of faith, I'd be fine with it provided it was put in historical context (ie. "Native American's believe that Devil's Tower was created by a spirit bear, etc. etc. etc." or "The Cathedral was designed by Mr. X who gained divine inspiration in a dream, etc. etc. etc."). If, on the other hand, a publically funded sign were to declare something like "The Grand Canyon was created by the hand of God", I'd strenuously object as that would be a statement of faith, not fact, a statement of religion, not science. And no, I don't believe statements of Science need to be balanced by statements of Religion - Science is NOT a religion, and therefore only should be balanced by other statements of science, if there are any opposing Scientific viewpoints (for example, the statement that Global Warming is mainly caused by levels of CO2 in the atmosphere could be balanced out by a statement that some scientists believe that the Sun is a greater cause of Global Warming). Statements of religion should be balanced by other statements of religion (or non-religion as the case may warrant).

 

Before I close, two little side notes. Yes, Pluto is no longer a "Planet". However, it is now classified as a "Dwarf Planet", and is the most well known Dwarf Planet in the solar system, so I think we can rightfully still include Pluto in a depiction of the Planets, especially if we consider Pluto to be the representative of the Kuiper Belt, the string of Dwarf Planets at the far edge of our solar system.

 

And, Astrononomy is the study of Celestial Objects, which include stars, moons, planets, comets, meteors, asteroids, black holes, nebula, etc. Therefore, this set of stones is an Astronomy display. But, if you want to be more precise, we can always call it a Planetary Studies display.

 

Calico