I agree with you that the Expelled movie is aimed at conservative Christians and will be welcomed by most of them.

I believe that for the most part the scientific and secularist communities’ perceived hostility to religion is more a response to what they perceive as pressure or interference from religious groups than a chosen course of action.

For example -geologists for the most part would be quite happy to do their research, publish their findings and get on with their careers, without reference to god or religion. But when a group of Christian Biblical literalists came up with an alternative explanation for the creation of the Grand Canyon that claims it was formed in a single event - by the run off from the Noachian flood - then proponents/defenders of the the traditional geological hypotheses will challenge that claim. If that challenge is seen as hostile to religion well tough. That’s just how science works - and the theory that best explains the evidence eventually wins.

The same sort of argument exists for the scientific community’s backlash against ID, and earlier against Creation Science.

As for the podcast you saw “somewhere” that tied religion in the schools to a precipitous decline in the UK’s church membership, the embrace of society’s value system in the mainline churches in the UK as well as here in the US are likely more answerable for that decline.

For some reason I felt challenged by your quotation marks around ‘somewhere’… So I did a little searching. My original source for the idea was Daniel Dennett. He expounded the idea in a debate against Dinesh D’Souza, author and Christian apologist in late 2007. Video of the debate can be found here and a discussion of it with selected hilights of the video here.

You may be right that the Churches’ embrace of society’s values also contributed to the decline.

I find that if a person of faith cannot withstand exposure to other faiths, it was rather weakly held, so your premise has some merit, for those people at least.

I agree with you - and so does Dennett. That’s why he proposes compulsory religious education be introduced in US schools. He wants to let the doubt set in before the ‘religious indoctrination’ has had time to set. As one English commentator put it

I have often wondered why the US/UK difference is so great and have put it down to religious education at school. My kids and their friends used to come home from school saying, “We did Buddhism today and they believe …” or, “Nah, Hinduism’s more fun. They believe …” It doesn’t take much for a six or seven-year-old to work out that they can’t all be true.

As for the active suppression of Christianity and references to it in the US public schools - I have no experience of that system - so I defer to your knowledge.

I liked the discussion of the meditation lesson and it’s possible Buddhist overtones that you linked to. Some interesting thoughts there. It struck me that most of the controversy would not have arisen if the bowl had been described as a ‘resonating chime’ rather than a Tibetan buddhist bowl…

As I also said, regardless of how they applied this core argument to the issue of ID (and regardless of whether attaching it to ID has merit) they have been shrewd in doing so, because it was likely to strike a chord in Christian conservatives across the U.S.

As for the podcast you saw “somewhere” that tied religion in the schools to a precipitous decline in the UK’s church membership, the embrace of society’s value system in the mainline churches in the UK as well as here in the US are likely more answerable for that decline. I find that if a person of faith cannot withstand exposure to other faiths, it was rather weakly held, so your premise has some merit, for those people at least.

I find that expectation hard to understand, given that Christianity is overwhelmingly the majority religion in the USA and most of the teachers presenting the course would profess to be Christians of one sect or another. Certainly most of the Church/State conflicts that I’ve heard of seem to involve criticism of one Christian group or another but that is because they are the ones in conflict with the secularist community. My feeling is that most US Christians feel that any questioning of their beliefs counts as persecution.

Conservative Christians would find this rather Utopian view of the school system humorous, and I would agree. Teachers and their Union have been ardent supporters of wiping the mere mention of Christianity or Christ from the classrooms. Mentioning the elimination of Christmas plays and carols is almost a cliche at this point, it’s so well known. Less known are the news reports of students who are sent from class for doing reports on Christ, or mentioning his name, or bringing a Bible to class, none of which violates Church/State separation legal rulings, which are not well understood by teachers or school boards (and I’m being charitable saying this last bit. One surely HOPES they don’t know.) And Christians, for the most part, have been weak and powerless in enforcing its will on the schools, despite the assertions to the contrary, and despite their numbers in the US.

(Bible study illegally banned on playground: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44223)
(Students expelled for praying http://healtheland.wordpress.com/2007/03/09/students-expelled-from-washington-high-school-for-praying/)

I will grant that some Christians are far too touchy about discussing their faith with non-believers, and see it as persecution. Then again, tell a Christian that Jesus was just a man and tell a Leftist that Man-Made Global Warming isn’t real, and you’ll get the exact same reaction.

If a Buddhist or Hindu group started pushing for their beliefs to be taught in schools, or for a display of some of their scriptures beside the 10 Commandments in a court house somewhere in the USA I’m sure the critics (both secular and Christian) would tear into them too…

We’ve actually discussed this here at GR last summer. http://www.getreligion.org/?p=2496

Eastern religious teachings and meditations are commonly sold to schools as “centering techniques”, minus the religious labels and origins. Christians tend to raise a howl, but are largely written off as too “judgemental.” As I noted last summer, if the shoe was on the other foot, the old “church/state” argument would be trotted out in a heartbeat, and often is.

I stand by my earlier assertions - US health care is a problem (Re: Sicko), US Obesity levels are a problem (Supersize Me), Global warming is a problem (Inconvenient truth) but when it comes to Expelled there is no real issue addressed. As I said above:

All the movie’s main arguments have been repeatedly discredited (ie the holocaust link, the suppression of dissenting ‘scientists’, and the claim that belief in evolution means you must be an atheist)

If you think that any of those three claims made in Expelled have validity I’d be happy to argue the points with you…

Regarding religious education in schools you said:

It’s just that Christians seem to feel they will always be kicked to the curb or mischaracterized by teachers, based of course on previous experience.

I find that expectation hard to understand, given that Christianity is overwhelmingly the majority religion in the USA and most of the teachers presenting the course would profess to be Christians of one sect or another. Certainly most of the Church/State conflicts that I’ve heard of seem to involve criticism of one Christian group or another but that is because they are the ones in conflict with the secularist community. My feeling is that most US Christians feel that any questioning of their beliefs counts as persecution.

If a Buddhist or Hindu group started pushing for their beliefs to be taught in schools, or for a display of some of their scriptures beside the 10 Commandments in a court house somewhere in the USA I’m sure the critics (both secular and Christian) would tear into them too…

I question the report you cite re: lower church attendance tied to a class in school.

It wasn’t a report - just an article or podcast somewhere. As I remember it the topic was the different levels in religious observance in the UK and the US. The author suggested a possible link between the introduction of compulsory religious education in the UK (in 1944) and the fairly dramatic decline in traditional religious observance in Britain in the latter half of the 20th century.

I think his point was that for many people raised in a religious environment any questioning of the religious beliefs of their parents and elders is almost, if not literally, unthinkable. However once you examine (and presumably reject as unbelievable) the beliefs and myths of a few major religions it becomes easier to examine the dogma of your own religion with a similar critical mindset and possibly reject those beliefs too.

I was merely speculating that if more people believed that such a casual link really does exist you might see the odd spectacle of secularists trying to get religious education introduced in US schools, and religionists trying to stop them. Just whimsy on my part.

Agreed that makers of Expelled messed up badly in screening this film. Cheers for allowing the opposition to appear in it and speak for themselves.

In the sixth grade, my mother was outraged because I came home with a low grade on a test because I couldn’t spell “Mohammed” (wish I knew THEN that it had multiple spellings.) But the school made no mention of the Christian holidays, because to do so would be “violating church/state rules.” And this was in the South, even. And back in the 1970s.

Dead wrong approach.

I doubt many would ojbect if a comprehensive multi-faith course was taught in school. It’s just that Christians seem to feel they will always be kicked to the curb or mischaracterized by teachers, based of course on previous experience.

I question the report you cite re: lower church attendance tied to a class in school. Most likely it has to do with an overly secularized culture that doesn’t value religion or tradition any longer, and has chucked both.

The Dawkins article where I first read the phrase is here . The story relates to the movie Expelled, and the duplicitous tactics used to get Dawkins, P Z Myers et al. to agree to be interviewed for it, and also to the episode where Myers was prevented from entering a preview of the movie, while Dawkins, his guest, was allowed in.

Re: Church and State
I think the reason that many secularists shout at any mention of God in your classrooms is that the people who want to mention God are are predominantly evangelical Christians who would do their utmost to exclude mention of other religions.
I doubt most secularists would object if, for example, there was a strong move to introduce a course in comparative religions into the US public school system - as long as it mandated equal time for the various major religions, and some for non religious moral/ethical philosophies.

In that context - I remember reading somewhere an article that drew a link between the introduction of religious education into the schools in the UK and the decline of religion as a major factor in most British peoples lives.

Now if *that* hypothesis got more traction it might bring an interesting shift in a lot of peoples ideas about bringing god into the classrooms….

Not sure that matters.

2. “Expelled” did an excellent job of videotaping the censorship and “holy war” viewpoint of some key believers in Darwinism.

3. Expelled made an excellent case for “Academic freedom to follow the data where it leads” - and the almost dark-ages style censorship being directed against science by Darwinist believers.

I also thought the interview with the National Academy of Sciences spokesperson was “telling” as they described the campaign they conducted since the early 80’s to shut down all opposition to Darwinism.

Bob

Many folks other than IDers or Creationists would debate the broader theory that any mention of religion or God in the classroom is a “separation of church & state” issue, but again, that’s a broader theme that stretches far beyond this particular debate, though the secularists are making church/state a part of it. Conservatives believe secularists are overreacting to cases like this and taking ALL mention of God out of the classroom as as preemptive measure.

And personally, if someone would lie and trick me in order to save my soul, I would have them not bother. Incidentally, I have never read of this “lying for Jesus” story line, has it been pursued in the media at all? Can you point to soures. It *is* relevant to this post, actually.

I totally believe God or what others would call a First Cause was responsible for that first spark in the Big Bang 13-15 billion years ago, and I see nothing in what we’ve learned about what has happened since then to deny that a vast intelligence is behind the nature we experience, and tha is verified every time we discover new things through science, using our God-given Reason.

It seem I come from the diametrically opposed direction. I’m happy to concede that it is at least possible that a conscious being (= a god) was the first cause, if there was one.

However I see nothing in what we’ve learned about what has happened since then to suggest that a vast intelligence is behind the nature we experience. In fact every time we discover things through science about our world the facts appear to me to strengthen the case for concluding that the course of evolution of life on this planet, and the physical development of the universe have been unguided processes.

I suppose if that’s all the IDers would stick to saying - that God and science are perfectly compatible and that science actually proves God - then the issue wouldn’t be so controversial. Of course that’s not all they’re saying though.

But that is totally opposed to what the creators of ID want. They are trying desperately to keep God and ID separate. Unfortunately for them the connection is so obvious that it can’t be denied.
You, I and every other thinking person know that the sponsors of ID (the Discovery Institute) mean the Christian god when they talk of a designer. But they have to deny that fact if they want to get ID past the US legal separation of church and state, and taught in the public schools. That is the fundamental (pun intended!) issue here.
The DI and it’s sponsors want some way of pointing school students towards a Christian alternative whenever the theory of evolution is mentioned in school classrooms. And they will do or say absolutely anything to help achieve that goal. In their eyes this is about saving souls, and saving the soul of America and those ends justify any means. If they have to lie or dissemble about the nature of the designer then they will do it. That mindset is what Dawkins and others have labeled “Lying for Jesus”. And that is the underlying cause of all the bitterness in the ID/Evolution ‘debate’.

I guess my point of talking about the other films was to note that it’s not INTELLIGENT DESIGN, per se, that is likely the most important issue to the film’s viewing target audience (and it obviously isn’t as big, important or clearly as popular an issue in the US as the other topics in the Moore and Gore films.) Rather, it’s the underlying idea that ANY role for God in creation is very much an important issue, one that is rightfully seen as under threat and under attack here in America. I guess those films aren’t as “sexy” to the Mainstream Media as attacking the Bush Administration, conservatives, gun owners, and consevative Christians can be.

That underlying issue of Science vs. God was exploited a bit by this film, and that’s why the inevitable overreaction by the Secularists and athiests plays right into the hands of the filmmakers.

I totally believe God or what others would call a First Cause was responsible for that first spark in the Big Bang 13-15 billion years ago, and I see nothing in what we’ve learned about what has happened since then to deny that a vast intelligence is behind the nature we experience, and tha is verified every time we discover new things through science, using our God-given Reason. I suppose if that’s all the IDers would stick to saying - that God and science are perfectly compatible and that science actually proves God - then the issue wouldn’t be so controversial. Of course that’s not all they’re saying though.

And it makes me wonder why some reporters haven’t gone out there and found the many, many scientists who likely believe as I do. Because I bet they’re out there.

I’ll also say again, for the record, that Ben Stein is an admitted evolutionist. He simply sees “holes” in this scientific theory, and wants science to openly admit it and say that scientists don’t have all the answers about our ultimate origins. I also suspect he isn’t even 50% on board with the ID view, and if you listen to the O’Reilly interview, he says as much.

thanks for the considered reply. I wasn’t defending Moore’s films, or Gore’s. My main point was that Stein’s Expelled is trying to make an issue where there isn’t really one.

I’m not an American, and my politics and opinions don’t fit neatly into the standard American liberal/conservative boxes - I’d probably be shunned by the hardcore of both camps(or learn to keep quiet).

But in this particular of your culture wars I’m definitely on the side of the evidence. Evolution happened and happens. The age of the universe is to be measured in billions, not thousands of years. If your (the general you, not you Stephen in particular religion and cosmology can accommodate that then great. If not then you need to adjust it, or get out of the way because the evidence isn’t going anywhere.

Malcolm

Critics are, however, for the most part noticably and measurably more hostile to films that don’t comport with the worldview the political and social Left endorses.

Stipulating this, this is not necessarily an example of not getting religion. It does involve making choices on religious disputes, some of which are “hot,” but not necessarily out of ignorance.

I doubt even a third of conservatives adhere to or even fully understand [ID]

Considering the level of conservative understanding of ID on this board before Mollie stepped on it, I have to agree with you on that one!

But the film’s viewers surely will understand the trend in academia and elsewhere that God and Godtalk is reflexively seen as hostile to education and learning.

For reasons I would risk the wrath of Mollie to repeat again, God and Godtalk are extremely non grata in science education. IDiots deliberately picked a fight when they chose to intrude Godtalk into biology. “Expelled” is an attempt to pick the same fight all over again after they lost at the political level. Pardon me if I think that reporters who pay attention to the news ex officio understood that going in and reviewed accordingly.

Critics are, however, for the most part noticably and measurably more hostile to films that don’t comport with the worldview the political and social Left endorses.

This particular film may be a not-that-great example of my point, since it advocates a view I doubt even a third of conservatives adhere to or even fully understand, (i.e. ID) But the core argument the filmmakers have latched onto - snobbery in academia - is one conservative can certainly relate to, and not because they’re imagining things. All they need to do is look at the fawning reception Mr. Gore’s film has received, and they have their proof that some films are scruitinized to death (literally) while others have their claims accepted by the media as Gospel.

The idea that God isn’t allowed in scientific discussions may not be “news,” exactly, and to the extent the ID people want God included may be out of proportion.

But the film’s viewers surely will understand the trend in academia and elsewhere that God and Godtalk is reflexively seen as hostile to education and learning. Conservatives have been saying that God has a right to be at the table when origins are discussed, and perhaps when values, culture and history are discussed, too.

We’ve often seen here that reporters either have never heard of this mindset, or have chosen to ignore it.

Let me also preemptively address that there’s a huge difference between a hostile review and a negative review. The former results when a reviewer/reporter simply editorializes about the subject, and notes how illegitimate it is that it even get ANY coverage.

That is a valid difference, but it’s hardly limited to films created and promoted by conservatives. The Cleveland Plain Dealer used to have a film critic who went on a rant over any film she deemed “pornographic.” I emailed her so many times that her opinion was secondary, that her job was to get out of the way and tell me what the film was about and maybe throw in an opinion after that, that I could almost have made a macro of it with a fill-in blank for the name of the movie.

Don’t feel picked out just because you’re picked on.

Let me also preemptively address that there’s a huge difference between a hostile review and a negative review. The former results when a reviewer/reporter simply editorializes about the subject, and notes how illegitimate it is that it even get ANY coverage.

Clearly you and malcolm disagree about how these movies should be treated, but that’s just the clash of two opinions on this board. The GR-germane question is, what is it that informs journalists in their differential treatement? Is it from being a largely secular profession, or because they follow the news more closely by virtue of their job and know which argument has some meat and which is hollow? And do their reasons point to a failure to get religion, or to simple disagreement with some religious claims?

Well, it’s actually more than just a disagreement on this board between two posters, and it’s actually even more than the film’s subject, Intelligent Design. I hinted at it a bit when I mentioned the ‘conservative’ element, but let me expand on that.

Editors of all stripes have no problem at all determining which subject NOT to cover, for fear of ridicule. They get it from their environment and their cultural mindset (note that I didn’t say “conpsiracy” because I don’t believe in them.)

They hear from their fellow newsmen at the local bar or around the waterooler that anyone giving airtime/newspaper coverage to THOSE people, be they anti-abortion protesters, ID-supporter or other “flat-earthers” - as you so cleverly inserted into the mix - they would seem “crazy” themselves, or worst, duped by the RightWing.

The stigma also goes to the coverage of religion, I believe. Although there are some excellent examples on this blog of great religion writing, we’ve also seen many stories that are slanted, biased and sometimes seemingly deliberately misleading.

While your points might be valid that this is an indie film that simply didn’t make it - like many others don’t - that doesn’t explain why indie films like Jesus Camp get rave reviews from the elitist media who almost transparently are promoting the film on the filmmakers’s behalf.

Despite the “Passion”-like promotion, and that is even the subject of some scorn in snooty circles, it will do well only with the reviews, and those reviews have been scorchingly hostile, when they’ve appeared at all.

Some of this is inevitable, and some may be attributed to serious flaws in the logic of, and the presentation of, the film. But some, I have to believe, comes down to a lack of conservative films getting any attention at all. While this one may be a bad example, I’d point to FahrenHYPE 9/11 as an example of a film virtually banned by theaters and ignored by critics.

The bottom line is for reporters to approach news stories, even those about films, with a fairness in tone, evenhandedness, and balance that is lacking in many cases. That doesn’t mean to say one should claim that ID is normative, or that it’s anywhere near a majority opinion, or that reporters ignore the firestorm surrounding some of the more controversial claims made in films like this one. It means a dispassionate airing of the film’s points, and allowing critics to counter the points (and tactics) of the filmmakers, and allow proponents to lay out their case.

(Oh, and this goes for films by Gore, Spurlock and Moore, too. I somehow failed to see any balance in the coverage of many of these films. Wonder why?)

If the subject of a film is flawed, airing it, flaws and all, will allow readers to make up their own minds.

Novel idea, isn’t it?