It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Zoo required to display creationism - is a takeover next?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 8 2005 @ 11:58 PM
link   
A zoo in Tulsa was forced to display creationism. See the following link:

www.cnn.com...

Is this equal time, or an attempt by a religious organization to take over? Is it constitutional to FORCE the display?

Will creationism and Christian doctrine replace science in our culture, or will they find an uneasy co-existence?




posted on Jun, 9 2005 @ 12:02 AM
link   
Well if christian doctrine takes over scientific theory, it will be the next dark ages....but im sure many christians would love that.



posted on Jun, 9 2005 @ 12:22 AM
link   
It didn't stop them from persecuting Gallileo, so I suppose a modern equivalent is possible.

The problem is there's variances in beliefs even among Christians - so what do they do, argue about what gets put in the sanctioned displays?

I think we go a bit too far to remove all religion from public life, but I also don't think we should be forcing it's inclusion on public property. I see that as a slippery slope that makes me wonder if it's a conspiracy to regain religious control of the masses (and therefore collect more $$$).

But that's just cynical me.



posted on Jun, 9 2005 @ 07:12 AM
link   
A zoo-one place that definitely shows how entertwined creationism, and evolution are forced to show about creationism.

The true joke is on ones who forced this. They went to the one place that disproves much of the "literal translation".



posted on Jun, 9 2005 @ 07:25 AM
link   
well, I imagine they could have chosen to remove the other religous displays that are for some unknown reason there.....

A zoo is a place to go if you want to learn about animals and thier behavior...I don't really see where any religion really has much significance in that endeavor really. I would have preferred that they had just taken out the others really......

but whatever!!!



posted on Jun, 9 2005 @ 08:21 AM
link   
This could be bad, if the US goes christian Theocracy I am moving to Canada.



posted on Jun, 9 2005 @ 08:49 AM
link   
The Sky Is Falling!!!!!

Slow down, intellectual giants! Think about your thoughts for a moment.

"But those who favored the creationist exhibit, including Mayor Bill LaFortune, argued that the zoo already displayed religious items, including the statue of the Hindu god, Ganesh, outside the elephant exhibit and a marble globe inscribed with an American Indian saying: "The earth is our mother. The sky is our father." "

What's scaring you, that Christianity is being added to the other religions represented at the zoo? I see, the Rainbow Religion angles are A-ok, but that Chrsitianity stuff, that which the nation was built on, it can't be there?

Rein in your anti-Christian crap and think a little about the whole article.

My question is, why any religion, to include the most heavily pushed government religion (evolution), be expplained at a zoo anyway. The zoo should be there so that humans have an opportunity to see the animals first hand, learn a bit about the animals, and see what it is we should be stewarding over and protecting.

I don't know what science you all are studying, but the science I studied in high school and college had nothing to do with Hinduism or Native American spiritualism!




[edit on 9-6-2005 by Thomas Crowne]



posted on Jun, 9 2005 @ 08:57 AM
link   
I think it will look odd and out of places the Hindu elephant is still an animal and in a zoo it looks natural.

One question is how the display is going to blend with the surroundings of animal exhibitions without looking like a desecration to Christian's believes.

I will like to know how they are planning to present it.



posted on Jun, 9 2005 @ 09:12 AM
link   
this is an attempt to replace a scientific theory with a unfounded belief and pass it off as an alternative to the evolution theory that is as credible and as well researched. it simply isnt true folks.

Theories dont become accepted theories in science unless they have an exceptional amount of evidence to back up their claim, otherwise they are called a hypothesis. While evolution has its critics, it has been able to stand the test of time since Darwin first wrote about it. Creationism on the other hand is just a belief with no solid scientific evidence to back it up except faith. The creationist theories are just the easy way out in explaining hard questions, if we cant answer it yet or havent found that absolutely irrefutable proof yet (even if we did people would still say its not enough) it HAS to be the hand of god.

To put the stories of the bible in the same court as scientific study is an insult to the scientific method. Keep the bible in religous class and out of the science class. And even Intelligent design is not at the level yet to be seriously considered as an alternative to natural selection.



My question is, why any religion, to include the most heavily pushed government religion (evolution)


i cant grasp why you cons find the notion of evolution so offensive as to think its an opposing religion. Surely the implications of it (evolution) are offensive to everything you hold to be dear and true only if you take the bible literally (which i dont think it should be, genesis anyway). Theory of evolution isnt a government endorsed religion nor is it some sort of evil attempt to destroy god, it is the widely accepted theory in the scientific community currently. If the theory is disproven beyond doubt and a better one is made, it will be replaced. This is the sort of flexibility that religion doesnt seem to have anymore sadly.

And your argument doesnt hold water about the hindu statue. The hindu statue isnt trying to teach people stories that are not based on scientific research. The statue is an elephant, an animal.

If you really are that offended by a statue lets tear it down then and just offer good ol science


thanks,
drfunk


[edit on 9-6-2005 by drfunk]



posted on Jun, 9 2005 @ 09:24 AM
link   
A zoo... the next place for worship? No, I prefer a church. Doesn't smell like a baboon's arse



posted on Jun, 9 2005 @ 09:44 AM
link   
drfunk,



And your argument doesnt hold water about the hindu statue. The hindu statue isnt trying to teach people stories that are not based on scientific research. The statue is an elephant, an animal.


Take another look at what IS already at the zoo:



"But those who favored the creationist exhibit, including Mayor Bill LaFortune, argued that the zoo already displayed religious items, including the statue of the Hindu god, Ganesh, outside the elephant exhibit and a marble globe inscribed with an American Indian saying: "The earth is our mother. The sky is our father." "


Where is NOT trying to teach people stories? "The Earth is our Mother. The Sky is our Father."

I do not like the idea of adding a creationist exhibit at the zoo, but if one single object, dogma, etc. of any religion or belief is represented then by the constitution, all religions and beliefs should also be represented.
To make this politically correct, then the other religious images and sayings, should have been removed.



posted on Jun, 9 2005 @ 10:08 AM
link   
Mmmm....


Oh, sorry, just dozing off thinking of nothing. Mind totally blank, like my typical American Sheeple self.

Well boys. We've put God in a Zoo. Guess all that's left is to bridle Jesus to the fence there, put a pellet machine there, and charge the little kiddies 25c for a handful of pellets and 'Feed the Jesus'.


Ahyuck. Ahyuck. Ahyuck.



posted on Jun, 9 2005 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
What's scaring you, that Christianity is being added to the other religions represented at the zoo? I see, the Rainbow Religion angles are A-ok, but that Chrsitianity stuff, that which the nation was built on, it can't be there?

The zoo does not already display other religions creation stories, it simply has some art that was made in other cultures. Putting in some statues of animals made by Christians would balance things.



My question is, why any religion, to include the most heavily pushed government religion (evolution), be expplained at a zoo anyway.

Whether you agree with the Darwinian theory of evolution (I presume you are referring to this one) or not does not matter. It is still a scientific theory, the very fact that you can point out flaws in it and argue against it makes it science. Religion is dogma which cannot adapt to new facts and evidence.



The zoo should be there so that humans have an opportunity to see the animals first hand, learn a bit about the animals, and see what it is we should be stewarding over and protecting.

The "learn a bit about animals" is what they try to do when they put explanations about how the animal may have evolved and what it's, now extinct, ancestors might have been. I bet the Christian equivalent would be fascintating: "This animal was created by God 6000 years ago" - next every cage!

This is why it always makes me laught when they say creationism should be taught in schools. How long is that lesson???: "And God created the earth and everything on it 6000 years ago. Err, that's it, you can all go home now". I wonder what the exam questions would be like for that subject: "Who created the earth? a) God b) Bart Simpson c) George Bush. Please mark your answers clearly.



I don't know what science you all are studying, but the science I studied in high school and college had nothing to do with Hinduism or Native American spiritualism!

The zoo is quite clearly not suggesting that either of these religions provide an explanation as to where the animals came from. It mearly has some artwork from these cultures. If it offended christians there might be a good argument for removing it, though not a good argument for putting up displays of christian dogma which does try to explain where the animals came from.



posted on Jun, 9 2005 @ 11:31 AM
link   
Let me start off by with a quote I heard:
"If atheism is a religion, than bald is a hair color".


Ok, now on to the post.


So what theres some art from other cultures, big whoop, its not like theres the equivilent of a preacher for the religions of those cultures telling you that you will go to sokar (hell) if you dont believe there religion, which by the way is what christian and catholic religion teaches.

I agree with whoever said to just put some statues of animals up made by christians to balance it out.


Oh and, FatherLukeDuke, that is so true, the creationism being taught in schools part.



posted on Jun, 9 2005 @ 11:51 AM
link   
I think this problem goes way beyond simply evolution vs. creationism. The problem is there are so many diverse religions, even within Christianity, that the display to represent them all without offending everybody would take up more room than the zoo itself!

I'm OK with seeing occassional references to religion on public places - no matter what that religion might be, including paganism. Hey, it's a free country. I do think that any objections to said displays should be listened to and acted on appropriately. However, I DO NOT support an in your face reference to religion, as would seem to be true in this case.

If I saw an 'Earth is our mother, Sky is our father' display, I'd think someone had written some interesting poetry, NOT that I should immediately convert to X religion. If I saw a hindu elephant, I'd think - wow, that artist has an unusual interpretation of an elephant, NOT that I should immediately convert to X religion. I wouldn't even know religion was represented unless someone told me.

I think the problem with forcing a creationism display is that it would be OVERTLY religious, and I shudder to think of what people might demand be included in the display. If I weren't Christian, I couldn't just brush it away as some interesting art or poetry with no religious connotations.

The world has spent an awful lot of years in religious warfare, and we need to be very careful about not creating events that could lead to a resurgence of that here. Anyone who thinks only Muslims fight over their religion never read the history of the UK.

The first objection I would anticipate would be another religious sect that objects to the way creationism is depicted and demands an equal voice ...



posted on Jun, 9 2005 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by FatherLukeDuke

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
What's scaring you, that Christianity is being added to the other religions represented at the zoo? I see, the Rainbow Religion angles are A-ok, but that Chrsitianity stuff, that which the nation was built on, it can't be there?

The zoo does not already display other religions creation stories, it simply has some art that was made in other cultures. Putting in some statues of animals made by Christians would balance things.


I think that a statue of Noah's ark would be a more appropriate display than creationism. After all, they are showing how other religions use animals.



posted on Jun, 9 2005 @ 12:39 PM
link   
Just to be clear, the creation myth is presented because other religious myths are presented specifically the usage of ganesh, the elephant god (which is perhaps not as religiously slanted as this makes it out ot be, and rather a showing of elephants being depicted in many forms, especially since the republican elephant is shown), and also a native american 'scripture' stating that the earth is mother and sky is father.

So, the christian scripture is being given equal time, as a religious thing, not as a scientific thing, which of course would be ridiculous.


I think it will look odd and out of places the Hindu elephant is still an animal and in a zoo it looks natural.

Indeed, the elephant bit seems like a stress, to say that its a religion as religion representation, but the native american bit is pretty clear.
However, now all one really needs to do is puch to have islamic 'scripture' written, say have everyone that goes thru a certain section have to pass under an arch that reads 'there is no god but allah, an mohammed is his prophet, god made animals, whogguly buugely'



posted on Jun, 9 2005 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
However, now all one really needs to do is puch to have islamic 'scripture' written, say have everyone that goes thru a certain section have to pass under an arch that reads 'there is no god but allah, an mohammed is his prophet, god made animals, whogguly buugely'


You know Nygdan as everything when we tried to be too political correct a can of worms is going to be open.

In our pursue of equality and fairness we are forgetting that it applies to everything and everybody from every background and religious believes.


So I wonder how Christians will feel if Muslin ask for their littler piece of space in the zoo also.


Now I think that a nice exhibit of Noah's ark will look wonderful if we add his sons ridding giant flying dinosaurs to prove that in creation everything is possible.



posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 10:33 AM
link   
O.K someone might have already said this I havent read the whole thing but now should we edit the bible to nclude evolution to even the odds and make everything a bit fairer.
Hey the bible might even have something to base itself on then wow.



posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 03:48 PM
link   
I think that they should display in museums and zoos (and teach in schools) Evolutionism, Intelligent Design and Interventionism/Colonialism, as all three are valid theories which explain certain facets.


Interventionism/Colonialism








 
0

log in

join