The "Wedge Strategy" for getting religion into schools

[EGarrett]

Daniel Shawen found this elsewhere and I wanted to repost it here.

Seems to have been a leaked document showing a Fundy agenda for forcing religion back into our children's heads...via gradually removing evolution and the "stifling materialist worldview." (stifling us from what?)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikisource/en/7/71/Wedge_Document.pdf

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Where have you been, dude? They've been giving us wedgies since 1999.

~~ Paul

[ceo_esq]

Daniel Shawen found this elsewhere and I wanted to repost it here.

Seems to have been a leaked document showing a Fundy agenda for forcing religion back into our children's heads...via gradually removing evolution and the "stifling materialist worldview." (stifling us from what?)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikisource/en/7/71/Wedge_Document.pdf

Er... if it comes from the Discovery Institute, I wouldn't call it a fundamentalist agenda. I believe that outfit is made up largely of non-fundamentalist evangelicals with some non-evangelical Protestants and some conservative Catholics in the mix, with a smattering of Jews, agnostics and others.

[ImaginalDisc]

Er... if it comes from the Discovery Institute, I wouldn't call it a fundamentalist agenda. I believe that outfit is made up largely of non-fundamentalist evangelicals with some non-evangelical Protestants and some conservative Catholics in the mix, with a smattering of Jews, agnostics and others.

The Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, the branch that is essentially responsible for the Intelligent Design movement, and which originated the Wedge Strategy document, has religious Christian founders and members who far outweigh any other religious adherents in the organization, and since “fundamentalism” is a perfectly valid designation for the anti-modernist movements of various religions, a lack of a strict adherence to Biblical passages relating to the origin of life doesn't mean that "fundamentalist" is an unfair description of dishonest nitwits who actively promote the destruction of science in favor of teaching impressionable children that they were made by a devious invisible leprechaun geneticist.

[drkitten]

The Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, the branch that is essentially responsible for the Intelligent Design movement, and which originated the Wedge Strategy document, has religious Christian founders and members who far outweigh any other religious adherents in the organization,

True.

and since “fundamentalism” is a perfectly valid designation for the anti-modernist movements of various religions,

Er, not generally. Any more than "Protestant" is a perfectly valid designation for the anti-Catholic movements of various religions. (HInt: there are anti-Catholic Orthodox movements within Christianity, and of course anti-Catholicism among non-Christians almost doesn't need a movement.)

The DI have taken great trouble to distance themselves from the "fundamentalist" label (that's the "Big Tent" that they keep harping about), precisely to draw support from other evangelicals who are not themselves fundamentalist.

Know thine enemy -- attributed to Sun Tzu.

[ImaginalDisc]

True.



Er, not generally. Any more than "Protestant" is a perfectly valid designation for the anti-Catholic movements of various religions. (HInt: there are anti-Catholic Orthodox movements within Christianity, and of course anti-Catholicism among non-Christians almost doesn't need a movement.)

The DI have taken great trouble to distance themselves from the "fundamentalist" label (that's the "Big Tent" that they keep harping about), precisely to draw support from other evangelicals who are not themselves fundamentalist.

Know thine enemy -- attributed to Sun Tzu.

Just because they don't call themselves that doesn't preclude its use as a description. Many extremist branches of Islam with who foam at the mouth as rabidly with the same sort of willfully ignorant anti-science rhetoric at the DI are freely and uncontrovertially called "Fundamentalist" despite having nothing at all to do with Christianity. Sure, the term has certain theological implications which don't apply, for example DI isn't a YEC organization, they adhere more to the fingers-in-the-ears, la-la-la-I-can't-hear-your-evidence school of stupidity than the sorts of rigid Biblical "scholars" who believe that the Earth is 6000 years old.

[drkitten]

Just because they don't call themselves that doesn't preclude its use as a description.

Certainly. You can call people anything you like. You can, for example, call the Prime Minster of Israel an "Iraqi Christian fundamentalist Elvis-impersonator."

But you'll make yourself look like an "interesting" conversationalist if you do.

Many extremist branches of Islam with who foam at the mouth as rabidly with the same sort of willfully ignorant anti-science rhetoric at the DI are freely and uncontrovertially called "Fundamentalist" despite having nothing at all to do with Christianity.

Yes. Similarly, what "flying squirrels" do isn't the same as what ducks do, or what 747s do. Words have multiple meanings. But if you try to tell me that my Honda flies on the grounds that you can't tell it from a flying squirrel -- well, let's just say that I'm glad you're not in my biology class, and I suspect so are you.

Words have meanings. If you use words wrongly out of ignorance, you invite corrections. If you continue to use them wrongly (whether out of stupidity or bloody-mindedness), you invite derision. But, hey, it's your solstice holiday -- invite whom you like.

[ponderingturtle]

Just because they don't call themselves that doesn't preclude its use as a description. Many extremist branches of Islam with who foam at the mouth as rabidly with the same sort of willfully ignorant anti-science rhetoric at the DI are freely and uncontrovertially called "Fundamentalist" despite having nothing at all to do with Christianity. Sure, the term has certain theological implications which don't apply, for example DI isn't a YEC organization, they adhere more to the fingers-in-the-ears, la-la-la-I-can't-hear-your-evidence school of stupidity than the sorts of rigid Biblical "scholars" who believe that the Earth is 6000 years old.

I thought that the ID that the DI supports was supposted to be a wedge to get Scientific Creationism into schools as a final result

[ImaginalDisc]

Certainly. You can call people anything you like. You can, for example, call the Prime Minster of Israel an "Iraqi Christian fundamentalist Elvis-impersonator."

But you'll make yourself look like an "interesting" conversationalist if you do.


And in this case "fundamentalism" implies that they are whacko extremists who care nothing about evidence or facts, which is an accurate description.


Yes. Similarly, what "flying squirrels" do isn't the same as what ducks do, or what 747s do. Words have multiple meanings. But if you try to tell me that my Honda flies on the grounds that you can't tell it from a flying squirrel -- well, let's just say that I'm glad you're not in my biology class, and I suspect so are you.

Words have meanings. If you use words wrongly out of ignorance, you invite corrections. If you continue to use them wrongly (whether out of stupidity or bloody-mindedness), you invite derision. But, hey, it's your solstice holiday -- invite whom you like.


Thank you for that wonderfully condescending pedantic rant. I don't know what I'd have done without it. If you don't like the usage of "fundamentalist" in this context, tough cookies.

ETA:
Honestly, you actually care about bruising the egos of Fundamentalist Christians, i.e. people who believe that the planet is 6000 years old, or the feeling of the DI, i.e. people who want to abolish science, by using the word "Fundamentalist" to lump the two groups of lunatics together?

[ImaginalDisc]

I thought that the ID that the DI supports was supposted to be a wedge to get Scientific Creationism into schools as a final result

It's actually more ambitious than that. The goals include: ""To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God" and "To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural, and political legacies."

It's not all that long a document, and it's worth reading in full. It's like a guided tour through the minds of small and pathetic people whose ideas are so pitifully weak that they have to destroy criticism and contradictory evidence to be taken seriously.

Here's the full document, as a .pdf.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikisource/en/7/71/Wedge_Document.pdf

[ponderingturtle]

It's actually more ambitious than that. The goals include: ""To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God" and "To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural, and political legacies."


But why does that make it inappropriate to class them as fundamentalist, and while not all supporters are, some are people who got hoodwinked by the fundamentalists.

I am almost falling asleep right now, so I feel I am being less coherent than usual.

[ImaginalDisc]

But why does that make it inappropriate to class them as fundamentalist, and while not all supporters are, some are people who got hoodwinked by the fundamentalists.

I am almost falling asleep right now, so I feel I am being less coherent than usual.

Actually, I think it's perfectly fine to call DI people "fundamentalist." I hope it annoys them. It's drkitten who thinks that it's an an affront to reason itself to do so.

[UserGoogol]

I think there are people within organizations like the Discovery Institute who are not extremely religious, but who merely think that religion should play a central role in American life even if it's not true. I really don't know the particulars of the makeup of the Discovery Institute, though. Probably an awful lot of fundamentalists.