Bruce Springsteen: Part Man, Part Monkey
Part Man, Part Monkey by Bruce Springsteen
They prosecuted some poor sucker in these United States
For teaching that man descended from the apes
They coulda settled that case without a fuss or fight
If they’d seen me chasin’ you, sugar, through the jungle last night
They’da called in that jury and a one two three said
Part man, part monkey, definitely
Well the church bell rings from the corner steeple
Man in a monkey suit swears he’ll do no evil
Offers his lover’s prayer but his soul lies
Dark and driftin’ and unsatisfied
Well hey bartender, tell me whaddaya see
Part man, part monkey, looks like to me
Well the night is dark, the moon is full
The flowers of romance exert their pull
We talk awhile, my fingers slip
I’m hard and crackling like a whip
Well did God make man in a breath of holy fire
Or did he crawl on up out of the muck and mire
Well the man on the street believes what the bible tells him so
Well you can ask me, mister, because I know
Tell them soul-suckin’ preachers to come on down and see
Part man, part monkey, baby that’s me
March 2nd, 2008 at 10:23 am
“They prosecuted some poor sucker in these United States”
au contraire - this poor sucker and some friends went looking for a fight with the creationists. Don’t rewrite history, even if you’re The Boss.
March 2nd, 2008 at 10:37 am
Alan,
We’re all “poor suckers” if we let creationists dictate what can or can’t be taught in a public science class.
March 2nd, 2008 at 12:51 pm
Hello, Iron
Perhaps what’s taught in a public science class should be dictated by the public - since it’s their taxes that fund it. What do you reckon?
March 2nd, 2008 at 1:52 pm
Alan,
Perhaps if the public wants to pay for “science” in the classroom, then it is “science” that should be taught, and not someone’s religion.
March 2nd, 2008 at 2:02 pm
Hello, Iron
I suppose I am trying to establish the principle that the people who pay for schools should decide what is taught in them - not some narrow group’, be they religious, atheist, liberal, conservative or whatever.
I think the whole debate about education and the Scopes trial could have taken a better direction if that had been the issue at stake.
March 2nd, 2008 at 3:12 pm
Alan,
And… scientists are a “narrow group?” Who would you have decide what science is? Or is it that you feel that science should not be taught in public schools?
March 2nd, 2008 at 3:57 pm
I would have the people paying for the schools deciding on what they want taught there. It would only seem fair.
It is only too easy to spend other people’s money.
March 2nd, 2008 at 4:01 pm
Alan,
So I take it that you are against public education?
And, you didn’t answer my questions.
March 3rd, 2008 at 11:39 am
Hello, Iron
What do you mean by ‘narrow’ group: few of them; a narrow range of opinions? I magine you mean that there are many of them. I agree. There are many scientists.
“Who would you have decide what science is?” I don’t think that question follows logically from what I’m saying. I am not here debating who should decide what science is. Rather…
… I am saying that in public(-ly funded) schools it should be the public who decide what gets taught.
I am wary of going very far down any other route: “We shall take your taxes and teach your children what we think they should learn”.
And here I really do not have creationism (or evolution) in my sights - more I have a totalitarian state, such as 1930s Germany. There, under Adolf Hitler, attendance at public schools was made compulsory.
Perhaps the question I should put to you is, “Who do you think should decide what gets taught in public schools?” And I am here thinking of a principle - not creation or evolution or citizenship or Marxism or Reaganomics or America’s pre-Columbus history.
Who decides? And that is what the Scopes trial should have been about - in my opinion.
March 3rd, 2008 at 12:14 pm
Alan,
You used the word “narrow” first: You said, “the people who pay for schools should decide what is taught in them - not some narrow group.” So why don’t you tell me what you mean by it?
The public does decide what is taught in public schools. The public elects school boards. The public also elects its legislators and leaders. Judges are elected, or appointed by elected officials.
I’m a Libertarian, and I home school my kids. So I’m all in favor of minimal government. But the point is: in our current system we all pay taxes, and the only way we get to control how those taxes are spent is by our activism and our vote. Now at this point the public has spoken: they want public education, and they want science taught in the classroom. Once the decision has been taken to teach science, the public is not at liberty to re-define what science is by vote or any other means, because scientists decide what science is, and so that’s what gets taught. Schools that use no public funding whatsoever can go ahead and teach that the moon is made of green cheese, for all I care. But I won’t be hiring any of their graduates.
March 3rd, 2008 at 1:03 pm
Ahem,
Hope you two don’t mind another voice on this matter here, but I really would like to join in.
Alan, regardless of what my personal beliefs are I too am a tax paying citizen. I also happen to have three teenage children currently enrolled in the local public school system. I do not feel that there is any place in our public society where holding one religious belief system over another is fair. What’s more, this is not simply a matter of education. It is a matter that will effect the futures of our children and their children.
Want to know who should decide? I highly recommend that this decision be made by those that do not suffer from delusions. School, much like any place of business, is not the appropriate place for indoctrinating young people with religious dogma under the guise of science. Personally I don’t see that there really is any *appropriate* place for abusing the young.
March 3rd, 2008 at 2:45 pm
I might add, for a bit of clarification, that by delusional I mean anyone that is still daft enough in this day and age to still believe that there is an invisible man up in the sky.”
Wait not just an invisible man in the sky, but also an invisible man that reigns in hell and that is bent on getting all of our souls for himself. Look, no matter how you try to dress this up, believing in a creator has nothing what so ever to do with science, historical literature perhaps, but not science.
March 3rd, 2008 at 2:50 pm
Post A)
Okay. You win. Both of you.
Here are my taxes. Here are my children. You teach them what you think they should learn.
You’re right. I might be deluded and you are of much stronger stuff than me and can identify delusions.
OR
Post B)
A fair point, Iron Wolf. I should have been more careful with my use of the word narrow.
I used it as short hand and then chose two pairs of gorups in which there was no overlap. So by ‘narrow’ I meant ‘not encompassing all view points’. Perhaps there was a better word to use.
But we are agreed: the public (through those whom it elects) should decide what gets taught in public schools.
And that’s what the Scopes trial did not focus on. The teacher was just deciding himself what to teach and that - I suggest - is wrong.
March 3rd, 2008 at 3:44 pm
Alan,
So, do you really want all viewpoints taught as scientific knowledge in public schools? Or just the ones upon which scientists agree?
Not so fast. You seem to be obliquely arguing for a “mob rule” form of democracy, in which a religious majority may run roughshod over any minority they disagree with. Our Constitution protects minorities, especially significant minorities, from the tyranny of the majority. Significantly, it restricts the use of laws (including tax laws or the proceeds thereof) in the establishment of any religion. And all viewpoints (as you say) includes many conflicting religious dogmas. Public science classrooms are not churches, and they are not even courses in Comparative Religion. They are there to teach science.
John Scopes chose to test a law with which he disagreed. That law read, in part, “…that it shall be unlawful for any teacher in any of the Universities, Normals and all other public schools of the State which are supported in whole or in part by the public school funds of the State, to teach any theory that denies the story of the Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible, and to teach instead that man has descended from a lower order of animals.”
In court, he lost. As a matter of culture, he won, because the law was bad, the trial was a sham, and most of the country knew it.
Evolution is part of biology, a science. Teach biology, teach evolution: simple. Intelligent Design (or whatever you want to call it this year) is not science, and has no place in a public science classroom.
March 3rd, 2008 at 4:19 pm
Alan,
Please don’t feel affronted here. But, I see clearly that you understand exactly how I am made to feel by statements that preclude my choices on this issue in regards to how *my* taxes are used to teach *my* children since I happen to number among the minority.
Whether I am of stronger stuff than you is not the topic at hand, and while my ability to identify delusions is also not the topic here, I will say that I tend to be a very grounded and reality based individual. Thanks for noticing.
March 4th, 2008 at 12:16 am
Elementalmuse
I believe Iron Wolf and I were just about managing to stay the polite side of civil. You are simply being rude - seemingly against a position you assume I hold (but my assumption my be incorrect).
Turning to…
Iron Wolf
The Scopes Trial: a man standing up for (his vew of) truth; or someone taking a job knowing he wasn’t going to do what the job description said he should do (because he thought it was dangerous nonsense).
Both, I suppose.
Home schooling: do you reckon most people do it in the US because of a minimal government viewpoint (like yours seems to be) or from religious reasons? Here in the UK it’s more the hippy-ish counter culture reason - although that’s a bit of a generalisation.
I would be interested to know.
[and we are now moving away from The Boss]
March 4th, 2008 at 12:22 am
“Not so fast. You seem to be obliquely arguing for a “mob rule” form of democracy, in which a religious majority may run roughshod over any minority they disagree with. ”
Replace ‘religious’ with ‘any’ in that middle line, Iron Wolf, and you have an intractable problem with any democracy. “You must give us your children and your taxes and we will teach them” said the (originally) democratically-elected Nazi government of the 1930s. It isn’t just the relgious nutter majorities we must be wary of.
I only posted this because I didn’t want you to think I was running away from the tough questions. Can we talk about home schooling now?
March 4th, 2008 at 7:27 am
Mr. Bright,
I am still trying to understand what part of my last comment could be taken as impolite. Perhaps it was my unexpected intrusion into the conversation that has offended you. Let me be perfectly clear here. I was in no way attempting to be rude. I was under the impression that this was a public forum, and the topic most certainly appeared to be regarding the public education system coupled with the Intelligent Design Theory.
Perhaps a public debate is no longer what I understood it to be. A thousand pardons for the intrusion.
March 4th, 2008 at 10:44 am
Alan,
I would sooner replace “religious” with “dogmatic ideological”. The problem is not so intractable then.
I do it because my we think we can do a better job at educating our children than we judge the State school system can. That may not be the case for everyone.
Yes, I think a lot of people do it for religious reasons, but definitely not all. Just google for {secular homeschool} and you’ll see what I mean.