DEvolution in America

[Shryke]

Please. "They" and "Their" imply the plural. "It" implies an object, and not a living thing. Using the specific name "God" over and over again sounds weird and is not something anyone does during normal speech.

I know you wanna make this into some sort of gender issue, but it isn't. It's simply a result of the English language having no gender neutral pronoun for a living thing. Instead, the default is "he". Get over it. And yourself.

[Lord Mord]

Shryke,

Please. "They" and "Their" imply the plural. "It" implies an object, and not a living thing. Using the specific name "God" over and over again sounds weird and is not something anyone does during normal speech.

I know you wanna make this into some sort of gender issue, but it isn't. It's simply a result of the English language having no gender neutral pronoun for a living thing. Instead, the default is "he". Get over it. And yourself.

Yeah, that is interesting that in the hundreds of years of the language's existence no one bothered to create a gender neutral pronoun. It's curious that they thought it made more sense to assume everything was actually male than making room for people whose gender is yet unknown by a new word.

It just seems that the personal identity of women as women could only have been shit to English speakers, if they couldn't be bothered.

[HT Reddy]

But it's not as if you are short on other names you can use for God: El, Elohim, YHWH, Adonai, Adonai Elohim, El-Shaddai, El-Olam, El-Elyon, El-Gibor, Asher Ehyeh Asher, Theos, Kurios, etc.

While you may have no problem with conceptually talking about God as male, it certainly is not beneficial to the women in your congregation.

I think I'll let them speak for themselves to be honest. Do we have any female Christians here with thoughts on the issue?

[Shryke]

Shryke,

Yeah, that is interesting that in the hundreds of years of the language's existence no one bothered to create a gender neutral pronoun. It's curious that they thought it made more sense to assume everything was actually male than making room for people whose gender is yet unknown by a new word.

It just seems that the personal identity of women as women could only have been shit to English speakers, if they couldn't be bothered.

Yes. The English language is misogynistic. Why didn't I think of it before.

[El-ahrairah]

Well if we do create a genderless pronoun and proclaim "he" to mean only the male, we're faced with an interesting Constitutional problem - as the President is called "he" in Article II the office is then barred to women. And as no one wants a New Edition Constitution looking like the NRSV, we might as well embrace our evil patriarchal tongue.

[Watcher]

It it true that pronouns can mask meaning from language to language, but why is God very often called, in the original texts, the unambiguously male "Father"? Anyhow if pronouns are used, "she" is always exclusively feminine, and "it" implies really inanimate objects. If "he" is not used the result is all to often grammatical acrobatics. On that line change of words like "men" in liturgies, hymns, etc. irks me to no end.

Going back to the original topic, what do you think of this?

The teacher overstepped his authority. As a public teacher he is a government authority figure and just like he can't lead the class in prayer he can't arbitrary dismiss a religious viewpoint either. He should've simply said that "that creationism is not a valid scientific theory" or something along those lines.

[Dornish]

The teacher overstepped his authority. As a public teacher he is a government authority figure and just like he can't lead the class in prayer he can't arbitrary dismiss a religious viewpoint either. He should've simply said that "that creationism is not a valid scientific theory" or something along those lines.

There's nothing arbitrary about a history teacher dismissing something that isn't history. Or should teachers be sensitive to the point of view of holocaust deniers?

[Celtigo]

The teacher overstepped his authority. As a public teacher he is a government authority figure and just like he can't lead the class in prayer he can't arbitrary dismiss a religious viewpoint either. He should've simply said that "that creationism is not a valid scientific theory" or something along those lines.

This could very well get struck down by the 9th Circuit. This clearly doesn't violate the establishment clause in any sense and how this is an infringement on "the free exercise of religion" as contemplated by that line of SCOTUS cases is dubious. For one the manner in which creationism is being presented in the specific instance is probably the determining factor.

This hardly equates to a direct statement or attack on a specific religion or even religion as a whole. A line separates this from statements such as Baptists are morons, Mormons believe in fairytales, the Qu'ran is a laughable piece of work, etc.

Yeah this probably wasn't the most tactful way to say it, and merely pointing out there is minimal (zero?) evidence to support the literal creation stories of most (all?) major religions would've gotten the point across and avoided a lawsuit.

Its possible (once again based on the facts) if this ruling was extended to its logical conclusion that teachers could be prevented from declaring greek mythology false if there were a few families somewhere who held a sincere belief that Zeus, Hera, and the Titans represent the true religion and story of creation.

[Ocean of Notions]

No. Your simply using the English language, which defaults to the male pronoun when the sex of the person is unknown and/or non-existent.

That also says a lot.

[Lord Mord]

Shryke,

Yes. The English language is misogynistic. Why didn't I think of it before.

If I am wrong, you are free to discredit my position.

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

Please. "They" and "Their" imply the plural. "It" implies an object, and not a living thing. Using the specific name "God" over and over again sounds weird and is not something anyone does during normal speech.

I know you wanna make this into some sort of gender issue, but it isn't. It's simply a result of the English language having no gender neutral pronoun for a living thing. Instead, the default is "he". Get over it. And yourself.

Elohim is the plural, but it is probably one of the most frequently used words for a God. :P

I think I'll let them speak for themselves to be honest. Do we have any female Christians here with thoughts on the issue?

Female Christians on the board do not speak for the whole of Christian women.

To quote an excerpt from the Society for Biblical Literature Handbook of Style: 4.3 Bias-Free Language

The generic use of masculine nouns and pronouns is increasingly unacceptable in current English usage. The assignment of gender to God likewise best avoided. Consistent use of gender-inclusive language is primarily the author's responsibility...Especially in discussions of ancient texts and cultures, it can be difficult for copy editors to discern whether particular instances of masculine language were meant to be generic or really masculine, so authors should be especially attentive to potential problems.

Many of these issues arise frequently in translation. For example, the Greek anthropos was typically translated simply as man, but the meaning is much broader and closer to humanity or person. This is also why the Hebrew word adam will frequently surface in the NRSV translation as mortal or human (or for some, earth creatures). But in both Greek and Hebrew grammar, the masculine is used for groups consisting of males and females. This becomes quite apparent especially when looking at Paul's letters, in which we know that he is writing (and naming) females and males in congregations, but he'll address them using adelphoi ("brothers"). If there was a giant crowd of 100 people consisting of 99 females and 1 male, then the masculine forms would be used.

[Shryke]

Shryke,

If I am wrong, you are free to discredit my position.

Your "position" discredits itself well enough on it's own.

[Lord O' Bones]

Your "position" discredits itself well enough on it's own.

Maybe it's not inherently or even deliberately misogynistic, but there is an argument to be made. It's not like there was a coin flip.

[gryphon strike]

You know back to the original point of Creationism and evolution.

I cannot help but consider that even if God/Goddess/Creator had said that they created the animals using the method of evolution the original recipient of the message would not have been equipped to deal with that knowledge. Not that they were stupid but rather that they and their fellow humans at that time didn't have the knowledge base or vocabulary to actually understand anything about it other than that God had created the animals etc.

Hey I could easily be wrong but it makes sense to me.

[Watcher]

There's nothing arbitrary about a history teacher dismissing something that isn't history. Or should teachers be sensitive to the point of view of holocaust deniers?

Holocaust denial isn't protected by the First Amendment.

This hardly equates to a direct statement or attack on a specific religion or even religion as a whole. A line separates this from statements such as Baptists are morons, Mormons believe in fairytales, the Qu'ran is a laughable piece of work, etc.

I think several people on this board would take calling Christianity a "superstition" offensive and an attack on their beliefs.

Its possible (once again based on the facts) if this ruling was extended to its logical conclusion that teachers could be prevented from declaring greek mythology false if there were a few families somewhere who held a sincere belief that Zeus, Hera, and the Titans represent the true religion and story of creation.

And that's the beauty of the First Amendment, it protects all religious beliefs, not just the most popular ones. There should be a solid wall between what a government representative can say about a religious viewpoint. A teacher can put the religious viewpoint in context the times, but they can't put their own viewpoint when discussing that topic. In context of the article the teacher should've simply said there is zero support for the Biblical creation story and overwhelming evidence for evolution and the Big Bang Theory and left it at that.

BTW, I know people who takes the Norse mythology seriously.

[Dornish]

I think several people on this board would take calling Christianity a "superstition" offensive and an attack on their beliefs.

But would it be literally incorrect? Anyone who cannot admit that many religious beliefs fall under the definition of superstition is being intellectually dishonest.

[Lord Mord]

Shryke,

Your "position" discredits itself well enough on it's own.

I'm sorry you're sore, but that is hardly evidence of anything.

[Watcher]

But would it be literally incorrect? Anyone who cannot admit that many religious beliefs fall under the definition of superstition is being intellectually dishonest.

Maybe but that's off the point in a public school environment.

[Lord Mord]

Watcher,

Maybe but that's off the point in a public school environment.

I disagree.

If your kids are going to be faithful, they have to be faithful in the face of allllll the wise men there are. The wise shall be made foolish, etc., etc. If they fail to have faith, it's their failure or yours, or God's, or whatever, but it cannot be the teacher's, who has no obligation to help keep your faith cemented.

[Shryke]

Shryke,

I'm sorry you're sore, but that is hardly evidence of anything.

Of course, your right. English is a terrible patriarchal language designed to oppress women.

And French? My God, they classify inanimate objects by sex! A table is female, obviously to denote it's enslavement to the whims of people. It must simply stand there and take it without complaint, and is then discarded when it's no longer needed.

It seems we've found a whole new area of blatant sexism. Thank you for bringing it to my attention.