why are 'faith schools' legal?

Faith schools should be phased out. If you want to teach your children religion take them to the local church / chapel / mosque / temple / synagogue whatever. religion should have no place in the education system of this country. It is too devisive.

Faith schools should be phased out. If you want to teach your children religion take them to the local church / chapel / mosque / temple / synagogue whatever. religion should have no place in the education system of this country. It is too devisive.

404 error wrote:

Because the religious schools are often the 'good' schools, or, in a few areas, the ONLY schools. Those schools are allowed to give precedence to kids whose parents are religious, while non-religious schools can't give preference to those whose parents aren't. The religious schools tend to be the 'good' ones precisely _because_ they are selective.

There's also the fact that they are divisive.

I'm curious, where are the only schools religious schools (in the modern free world, not including places like the ME)?

darran clarke wrote: Faith schools should be phased out. If you want to teach your children religion take them to the local church / chapel / mosque / temple / synagogue whatever. religion should have no place in the education system of this country. It is too devisive.

I think one of the issues with teaching religon at home is that people are too busy to even eat dinner with their kids, let alone teach them the religon.

Religious schools give a good foundation of the religon.

A couple people have posted the divisiveness of them, how so? A private school that isn't religious is just as divisive. Don't like that people with more money have better opportunities? Neither do I, but such is the way of the world.

NOOLigan wrote: frankly i'm amazed at what this thread has become. people are free to believe and do what they like as long as they don't force their beliefs on me.

Actually, that's the biggest part of my argument, I just thought I'd stir things up a bit.

EdelBrock wrote:

C-Ro wrote:

EdelBrock wrote:

On the topic of the post, why would a non-religious person want to attend a religious school for anyways? Seems like a pointless argument to me.

well, here it's a better quality of education at Catholic Schools (parochial and private) and private jewish schools than there is in most Public Schools. They are also safer, and people tend to send their kids there to get them away from the bullshit of the neighborhood public schools.

Might be a NorthEast thing since everyone here is Catholic or Jewish and it doesn't seem like the rest of the country has much of either...but the schools are full of non religious people of all races.

It's part of the Catholic Mission in education to be non discriminatory with regards to who's enrolled. I mean they've got to take religion classes (which hello, you're going to one of their schools and no one is making you go there--so there's no real problem with that), but they don't have to go through sacraments if they don't want to. They used to make everyone go to Mass on holy obligation days but when you're a kid that's awesome because it means no class. I don't think they do that anymore tho.

Religous schools here aren't publically funded though.
Well, there's a magic amount of funding that falls between "not discriminating against a religion" and "not endorsing a religion" as laid out in the first amendement. All that really applies to though is bussing and i think hiring school nurses. Private and Parochial School kids are bussed on public school buses because their parents pay for it in school taxes.

What isn't necessarily fair is in PA at least, people who send their kids to non-public school still have to pay school taxes to support other people's children in public school--which I think is similar to what you all are talking about only reversed. Anyway, i think the bussing probably makes up for it. Also, I'm not quite sure how I feel about it because we are trying to run a society here, and pulling out your money because you don't want to participate ain't cool.

Here Bush tried to institute the voucher system to remedy this problem, if I'm not mistaken. Seemed on the surface to be a good idea, but then I'm not well versed in the idea.

Is it that the religious schools get better education or is it that it is a private school? Mainly the rich can attend, and so they are willing to pay for better education....you get what you pay for?

I think most people's problem with vouchers are that they takes away money from the public schools...and puts them into private schools and a lot of time religious schools. It's seen as tax money going to these schools instead of "keeping your school tax money and spending it where you want". So It's like an establishment clause thing...since a lot of the schools they end up at are religious and there's no way to ensure an equal distribution of government funds. They never got too far here though Santorum did champion them. Santorum is also a flaming fucking asshole.

Around here, parochial schools, which are catholic schools that welcome anyone based the parish they live in are "private" yes, aren't exclusive. they only charge about what you pay in school taxes...so they are doing it better with the same amount of money (though it DOES equal more per student)

There's Friends Schools (well this is Pennsylvania)and other religious private schools that tend to charge a lot of money and I think you're right there that that's a you get what you pay for type of thing

404 error wrote:

NOOLigan wrote: nobody is still forced to accept any customer. freedom works the other way round as well.

I don't know which way round you are arguing here!

But the term 'customer' hardly applies when you are talking about state funded schools, surely? My point is just that the state provides greater choice of schools for the religious than the non-religious. I know someone who's wife has suddenly rediscovered her Catholicism and started attending mass just in order to get their child into the local 'good' state school, which only accepts Catholics. That's an option that's not open to the completely non-religious. Ergo, its religious discrimination by the state.

Yes, it is religious discrimination by the state.

It's why we have separation of church and state here. We're guaranteed freedom of religion (although tell that to Native American religions that are prohibited from using peyote in their ceremonies), which is a limit on the power of the state to discriminate against religion, But we also have separation of church and state, which is a limit on the power of the state to discriminate in favor of religion.

One of the projects of the "Christian" right is to erase that separation of church and state, and one of their strategies is to obtain state funding for their religious schools So far, they've failed. So far....

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

One of the projects of the "Christian" right is to erase that separation of church and state, and one of their strategies is to obtain state funding for their religious schools So far, they've failed. So far....

I think its more to hold the public schools accountable for their lack of proper education. Right now they don't have much competition, and if they are a failure of a school, the children are forced to put up with it. Plus religious schools here cost money that many lower income families aren't able to afford. It seems to me it would give better education to the children, and if people want their children to attend religious schools because they believe it is better, then that's their perogotive.

But I can see the issue if it was a public school was religious and the child was forced to attend.

When I was in Okinawa, I only went to Christian schools when I was in kindergarten and first grade since Dad was already retired from the military and that I could not go to a base (DoDD) school. Glad I only went up to the first grade (as far as faith schools go) before going to public schools after coming to the States. I looked up courses in the Okinawa Christian School catalog on the Internet one day, and was shocked to see what they got down for science courses, esp. with chemistry. The course was advertised along the lines of "we will look at the molecular level of God's creation."

EdelBrock wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

One of the projects of the "Christian" right is to erase that separation of church and state, and one of their strategies is to obtain state funding for their religious schools So far, they've failed. So far....

I think its more to hold the public schools accountable for their lack of proper education.

Do you not read what these people have to say? It's not like they're hiding their agenda...

Right now they don't have much competition, and if they are a failure of a school, the children are forced to put up with it. Plus religious schools here cost money that many lower income families aren't able to afford. It seems to me it would give better education to the children, and if people want their children to attend religious schools because they believe it is better, then that's their perogotive.

At taxpayer's expense?

But I can see the issue if it was a public school was religious and the child was forced to attend.

And if they're not forced to attend, you don't see a huge, glaring violation of the separation of church and state which is a fundamental principle of the constitution?

EdelBrock wrote: Your speaking lab science, and this is a leap of faith believing that this is happening in real world terms.

Please don't take this as an insult, but you simply do not understand the basic principles of science.

1) A scientist observes a previously unobserved phenomenon such as a hole in the ozone layer, and also observes the presence of chlorine atoms in the upper atmosphere. That scientist will then attempt to develop an educated guess-- a hypothesis-- to explain the observed phenomena. Once that scientist has developed the hypothesis, the scientist must then test the hypothesis, to see if the hypothesis is accurate or not. If the testing supports the hypothesis, the hypothesis becomes the best explanation-- a theory-- of the observed phenomena until another, better explanation displaces it. This is the scientific method.

The fact that testing of a hypothesis occurs in a laboratory instead of "the real world" is an irrelevant critique, and in fact, only highlights the basic scientific illiteracy of the critic. Laboratory testing is actually superior to in situ testing because the scientist can control all of the variables, thereby receiving far more accurate results than the scientist would receive where the variables are not controlled.

2) And as long as you raise the subject of lab vs. "real world testing":

Nevertheless, within three years most of the basic assumptions made by Rowland and Molina were confirmed by laboratory measurements and by direct observation in the stratosphere. The concentrations of the source gases (CFC's and related compounds) and the chlorine reservoir species (HCl and ClONO2) were measured throughout the stratosphere, and demonstrated that CFCs were indeed the major source of stratospheric chlorine, and that nearly all of the CFCs emitted would eventually reach the stratosphere. Even more convincing was the measurement, by James G. Anderson and collaborators, of chlorine monoxide (ClO) in the stratosphere. ClO is produced by the reaction of Cl with ozone — its observation thus demonstrated that Cl radicals not only were present in the stratosphere but also were actually involved in destroying ozone.

3) There is no leap of faith in the scientific method. Period.

EdelBrock wrote: I already stated this about chlorine atoms are being the reason for ozone depletion, which also comes from ocean salt spray and volcanos.

Well, as long as you're quoting from Wikipedia below, let's reference what Wikipedia has to say about chlorine from ocean salt spray:

Another objection occasionally voiced is that It is generally agreed that natural sources of tropospheric chlorine (volcanoes, ocean spray, etc.) are four to five orders of magnitude larger than man-made sources. This falls into the "true but irrelevant" category as tropospheric chlorine is irrelevant; it is stratospheric chlorine that matters. The chlorine from ocean spray is in the form HCl and is soluble; it never reaches the stratosphere. CFCs, in contrast, are insoluble and long-lived and hence do reach the stratosphere. Even in the lower atmosphere there is more chlorine present in the form of CFCs and related haloalkanes than there is in HCl from salt spray, and in the stratosphere the organic source gases dominate overwhelmingly. This includes the CFCs and methyl chloride, which has both natural and man made sources (FAQ, Part II, section 4.3).

Another point to note when evaluating the contributions of various gases to stratospheric ozone is that methyl chloride molecules contribute only a single chlorine atom, but CFC molecules contribute multiple chlorine atoms. Very large volcanic eruptions can inject HCl directly into the stratosphere, but direct measurements (FAQ, Part II, section 4.4) have shown that their contribution is small compared to that of chlorine from CFCs.

EdelBrock wrote: Also not noted in wikipedia is that there is a bacteria that has been found that decomposes the CFC molecule, which wasn't considered in the initial lab experiments.

Are you talking about this:

In 1970 Prof. Paul Crutzen pointed out that emissions of nitrous oxide (N2O), a stable, long-lived gas produced by soil bacteria, from the earth's surface could affect the amount of nitric oxide (NO) in the stratosphere. Crutzen showed that nitrous oxide lives long enough to reach the stratosphere, where it is converted into NO. Crutzen then noted that increasing use of fertilizers might have led to an increase in nitrous oxide emissions over the natural background, which would in turn result in an increase in the amount of NO in the stratosphere. Thus human activity could have an impact on the stratospheric ozone layer.

Because it doesn't support the point you were making.

However, it does support a claim that there is some background level of activity which can affect ozone depletion, and that increased fertilizer use could increase that background level of activity. That's not the same thing as saying CFCs don't deplete ozone.

EdelBrock wrote: Again, I'm fine with precautionary measures of getting rid of CFCs, but that everyone talks about it as if it were fact is what is disturbing.

You still don't understand what a theory is, which brings us right back to my first sentence: you simply do not understand the basic principles of science.

You know Comrade it is pointless for me to quote and paste at all the crusadic arguements you are trying to support.

1. I didn't get my info from Wikipedia, and I have not read the site on CFCs. There are far more credible places to get info and not all are on the web.

2. I never stated that CFCs had NO effect on the ozone.

3. I never stated that ozone depletion was a crock

I understand science; theory and hypothesis....but in the end that's all they are until concrete evidence proves that it is FACT. There has been no concrete evidence in the regards to CFCs, other than lab experiments, but there are many factors not being accounted for in the lab. Concrete evidence in this case would be an actual CFC molecule found in the stratosphere...which by wikipedia (a quote you posted earlier) takes 15 years to decompose, but yet it dissipates the moment it hits the stratosphere???....it is a theory until something concrete is found.

The problem I have had all along is how science and "knowledgable" people spew lab findings and quote them as pure fact......when in actuality it is a hypothosis or theory on what is happening in the real world.

Get off your damn high-horse, scientists for centuries stated quite factually that the Earth was flat as well.

EdelBrock wrote: I understand science; theory and hypothesis....but in the end that's all they are until concrete evidence proves that it is FACT.

That conclusion is proof that you DON'T understand science.

There has been no concrete evidence in the regards to CFCs, other than lab experiments, but there are many factors not being accounted for in the lab. Concrete evidence in this case would be an actual CFC molecule found in the stratosphere...which by wikipedia (a quote you posted earlier) takes 15 years to decompose, but yet it dissipates the moment it hits the stratosphere???....it is a theory until something concrete is found.

No, that is NOT how science works. A theory remains a theory.

The problem I have had all along is how science and "knowledgable" people spew lab findings and quote them as pure fact......when in actuality it is a hypothosis or theory on what is happening in the real world.

Once again, a theory remains a theory.

Get off your damn high-horse, scientists for centuries stated quite factually that the Earth was flat as well.

I rather doubt that. The ancient Greeks knew the Earth was a sphere...

And, assuming for a brief moment that some scientist (or scientists) DID say the earth is flat, the fact that their "theory" (I put it in quote marks because I doubt any such "theory" was ever subjected to the scientific method) was replaced by a better theory, which is EXACTLY how the scientific method works.

What you refer to as "my high horse" is actually my education. Not to disparage you personally, but you are scientifically illiterate. Instead of wasting time disparaging those who DO have educations, you SHOULD be learning something about those subjects you wish to be conversant in.

EdelBrock wrote: Concrete evidence in this case would be an actual CFC molecule found in the stratosphere...which by wikipedia (a quote you posted earlier) takes 15 years to decompose, but yet it dissipates the moment it hits the stratosphere???

And incidentally, you've misquoted (again) what the article actually states. It doesn't say that a molecule takes 15 years to "decompose." It states that it takes 15 years for a molecule to rise from the surface to the stratosphere. As for that "decompostion," it's a process that results from UV exposure. There's nothing in that process that contradicts the statement that it takes 15 years for a molecule of CFC (or perhaps it's elemental remnants) to rise to the level of the stratosphere.

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

EdelBrock wrote: Concrete evidence in this case would be an actual CFC molecule found in the stratosphere...which by wikipedia (a quote you posted earlier) takes 15 years to decompose, but yet it dissipates the moment it hits the stratosphere???

And incidentally, you've misquoted (again) what the article actually states. It doesn't say that a molecule takes 15 years to "decompose." It states that it takes 15 years for a molecule to rise from the surface to the stratosphere. As for that "decompostion," it's a process that results from UV exposure. There's nothing in that process that contradicts the statement that it takes 15 years for a molecule of CFC (or perhaps it's elemental remnants) to rise to the level of the stratosphere.

Ah ha, a misquoter finds me misquoting. Touche'

If you haven't figured out by now I'm not putting full effort into this. But since we are quoting from websites, how about we do so with a bit better sources. Try this, I think he's a little more credible than Wikipedia:

"Professor S. Fred Singer is a well-known critic of the current ozone-CFC policy. An atmospheric and space physicist, he participated in the earliest ozone measurements in the upper atmosphere using rockets to carry his instruments aloft and later devised the ozone instrument in current use in satellites. He has held academic and government positions, among them as first director of the US Weather Satellite Service and, most recently, as the Chief Scientist of the Department of Transportation. He now directs The Science & Environmental Policy Project, a think tank based in Fairfax, Virginia."

This one is specifically on CFCs: http://www.sepp.org/key%20issues/misuse/stvincen.html

But these are good as well: http://www.sepp.org/key%20issues/misuse/misuse.html

Edelbrock, I apologize if my comments seem like a personal attack on you, because I don't intend them to be. You are, however, quite mistaken in your understanding of scientific method. If you don't believe me, that's fine, but the least you could do is read up on the subject so you could counter me with more than an obviously erroneous opinion.

EdelBrock wrote: Ah ha, a misquoter finds me misquoting.

Unlike you, I've pointed out where your quotes are misquotes. Merely calling me a misquoter doesn't make me a misquoter.

If you haven't figured out by now I'm not putting full effort into this.

Nor am I.

But since we are quoting from websites, how about we do so with a bit better sources. Try this, I think he's a little more credible than Wikipedia:

Tomorrow, OK?

Comrade Shampanyov wrote: Edelbrock, I apologize if my comments seem like a personal attack on you, because I don't intend them to be.

??????????

Considering you started off like this, considering I was only agreeing with FG on his thoughts on the thread's topic:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

EdelBrock wrote:

I have to say that is a great explination. Completely agree with you.

Given that you've repeatedly demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of science, that's the most damning commentary possible.

If that wasn't a personal attack, then, ummm, what is????

EdelBrock wrote: If that wasn't a personal attack, then, ummm, what is????

I'm saying you have a completely erroneous understanding of science. That's a factual statement. However, I'm aware that it sounds like a personal attack, and I regret that it does.

The fact that you agree with Fishguy's erroneous explanation of science IS as damning a commentary on his explanation of science as there is. And I regret that it sounds like an attack on you.

just why is it so important to score points against less informed?

people will believe what they choose to. all a bit pointless.

Isn't science incredibly fucking dull?

Ally wrote: Don't most religious people - when challenged - jam their fingers in their ears, close their eyes and go "Lalalalalalala" when presented with evidence that their oh so precious faith might be a load of old bollocks?

At the end of the day how can you possibly have a reasoned discussion with somebody so blinkered they'll respond to every challenge with "Look, it's a leap of faith" and shake their head?

I have a friend from childhood who has a rather uncomfortable but non-life threatening illness and he is a Christian. He went through a brief period of questioning "Well if God created everything then presumably he created this illness and chose me to have it so I'd have all these hospital trips and all this misery. I'm a good Christian, why would he do this?". I was "Good on yer mate, question it!". Rather disappointingly he reached the blinkered conclusion of "He must be testing me" although he really didn't look like he was sure about that answer. He said precisely what would shore up his faith and put him instantly at ease.

My jaw hit the deck when I heard that as I would never be comfortable lying to myself in such a manner.

Where did I ever start comparing religious occurances with scientific fact????

My problem with science today is that government policy and the newsroom's constant desire to drive fear in the nation is what is controling science. (that has nothing to do with religon by the way)

Science has never been it's own entity, and has always been a handmaiden. However in this day in age, I believe science can and should be its own entity.

And the 'big bang' theory doesn't take a leap of faith to believe??? It can not be produced or mimicked, but yet its the main credible scientific explination for the begining of the universe. (again that has nothing to do with religon) "Leap of faith" doesn't have to be in religious contexts.

As for your friend. To each his own. If it gives him closure, than so be it.

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

The fact that you agree with Fishguy's erroneous explanation of science IS as damning a commentary on his explanation of science as there is. And I regret that it sounds like an attack on you.

Is it errornous that religon and science can live in harmony together??? I don't see the reason that the two have to be opposed to each other.

The main similarity is that they both explain the unknown,but they ask two different questions,

Science: Why things are the way they are?

Religon: What is the purpose for the things the way they are?

The main issue I see with this is that is is terribly un-PC to do so, on either end of the spectrum.

NOOLigan wrote: just why is it so important to score points against less informed?
.

because it's fun.

i have no problem with faith-based schools being legal as long as they receive NO money whatsoever from the government (i.e. taxpayers). if parents want to send their children to these schools which are, as chrissi said, sometimes the best schools in the area, then that's fine. but they should not be subsidized by the taxpayer by any means.

as for fishguy's comment that scientists are trying to destroy religion, that's patently untrue. yes, fundamentalist christians are at loggerheads with scientists but that doesn't mean that all religions are opposed to incorporating science into their worldview. for example, at the moment i'm reading a book called 'judaism, physics and god'. the author makes parallels between jewish beliefs and traditions and scientific theories. he writes from the understanding that the ancients wrote biblical stories as allegories for the unknown, what we now know as scientific theory. at least in judaism, as well as moderate christian, hindu and buddhist thought, religion is meant to unite people in tradition and provide a moral backbone to what can be a very difficult and confusing life, NOT force one into a strict dogmatic way of living. this is the religion, or spirituality if you will, i subscribe to. i find fundamentalism of any kind to be abhorrent.

Burt Reynolds wrote:

NOOLigan wrote: just why is it so important to score points against less informed?
.

because it's fun.

only for a while. then it gets very tedious.

AgentWood wrote: i have no problem with faith-based schools being legal as long as they receive NO money whatsoever from the government (i.e. taxpayers). if parents want to send their children to these schools which are, as chrissi said, sometimes the best schools in the area, then that's fine. but they should not be subsidized by the taxpayer by any means.

as for fishguy's comment that scientists are trying to destroy religion, that's patently untrue. yes, fundamentalist christians are at loggerheads with scientists but that doesn't mean that all religions are opposed to incorporating science into their worldview. for example, at the moment i'm reading a book called 'judaism, physics and god'. the author makes parallels between jewish beliefs and traditions and scientific theories. he writes from the understanding that the ancients wrote biblical stories as allegories for the unknown, what we now know as scientific theory. at least in judaism, as well as moderate christian, hindu and buddhist thought, religion is meant to unite people in tradition and provide a moral backbone to what can be a very difficult and confusing life, NOT force one into a strict dogmatic way of living. this is the religion, or spirituality if you will, i subscribe to. i find fundamentalism of any kind to be abhorrent.

Religons and science have been at odds against at least since Plato and his demiurge (singular entity responsible for creation). The main arguement many have had is where science fits into religon or religon fits into science.

The main arguement between science and many Christians stems from Aristotle and Tempier Aristotle described the world not simply as it is, but as it must be Tempier declared, in 1277 in opposition, that the world is whatever it's omnipotent creator chose it to be.

Science still thinks with an Aristolian thought process, and these two thoughts are what have pitted them against each other.

Like you have mentioned, I think there needs to be revamping of the idea that religon and science can, in fact, compliment each other. Which is what I think FG was refering to.

EdelBrock wrote:

AgentWood wrote: i have no problem with faith-based schools being legal as long as they receive NO money whatsoever from the government (i.e. taxpayers). if parents want to send their children to these schools which are, as chrissi said, sometimes the best schools in the area, then that's fine. but they should not be subsidized by the taxpayer by any means.

as for fishguy's comment that scientists are trying to destroy religion, that's patently untrue. yes, fundamentalist christians are at loggerheads with scientists but that doesn't mean that all religions are opposed to incorporating science into their worldview. for example, at the moment i'm reading a book called 'judaism, physics and god'. the author makes parallels between jewish beliefs and traditions and scientific theories. he writes from the understanding that the ancients wrote biblical stories as allegories for the unknown, what we now know as scientific theory. at least in judaism, as well as moderate christian, hindu and buddhist thought, religion is meant to unite people in tradition and provide a moral backbone to what can be a very difficult and confusing life, NOT force one into a strict dogmatic way of living. this is the religion, or spirituality if you will, i subscribe to. i find fundamentalism of any kind to be abhorrent.

Religons and science have been at odds against at least since Plato and his demiurge (singular entity responsible for creation). The main arguement many have had is where science fits into religon or religon fits into science.

The main arguement between science and many Christians stems from Aristotle and Tempier Aristotle described the world not simply as it is, but as it must be Tempier declared, in 1277 in opposition, that the world is whatever it's omnipotent creator chose it to be.

Science still thinks with an Aristolian thought process, and these two thoughts are what have pitted them against each other.

Like you have mentioned, I think there needs to be revamping of the idea that religon and science can, in fact, compliment each other. Which is what I think FG was refering to.

if you're talking about classical european thought then, yes, there's been a science/religion gap off and on for centuries (see da vinci as an example). but during the european middle ages, the arab world and asia embraced both religion and science. there was the understanding that one could co-exist with the other. however, it seems that many fundamentalists want to return to the middle ages, unfortunately.

AgentWood wrote:

if you're talking about classical european thought then, yes, there's been a science/religion gap off and on for centuries (see da vinci as an example). but during the european middle ages, the arab world and asia embraced both religion and science. there was the understanding that one could co-exist with the other. however, it seems that many fundamentalists want to return to the middle ages, unfortunately.

While I agree with your overall conclusion, the Arab world fortunately saved Greek thought (mainly Aristotlian thought) after the fall of Rome. But this wasn't due to religon, but more to the loss of stable socities and civilization after the fall of Rome. The Arab world still was stable during this time period, and being gifted with being close to Greece, they were able to translate Greek manuscripts (which all greek thought was still being taught in Greek language in Rome) into their own language. In Europe, however, schools were lost and the use of Greek language fell off, and Greek thought surely would have been lost if not for the Arabs.

However, the radical Muslim religon did not take well with science. Fortunately the Christian Europe had stabalized to the point that they had a desire to translate the Arab writings into their language (which was easier than translating from ancient Greek texts). The science transfered to Europe and dropped of in the Arab world with a more radical Islam.

That Christianity was trying to keep down science is a misnomer. More correctly there were arguements in the Church as to what level of a handmaiden it served (and in every society science has been a handmaiden). There were those within the Church that were on both spectrums, and in the middle.

Pope Gregory IX - Who agreed with a coucil of bishops in Paris who believed aristotlian natural philoshophy should be banned (this ban went away quickly after Gregory's death)

Thomas Aquanis - Believed science (natural philosophy) and theology can exist together. That the two might find different truths, but that they are not contradicting truths. Both complimenting each other.

Siger of Brabant - Took theology out all together from science, and didn't give theology (or the impact upon theology) a second thought.

These arguements were nessisary for us to think the way we do today. The Middle Ages were times of great expansion of science, not condemnation.

But like I mentioned before, I'm being nit-picky, and I agree that there are radicals that still want to subdue science to a handmaiden status to fit thier needs, which is completely unacceptable.