Lowpro
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2011
- Messages
- 5,399
Hardly. It's objected to because there's no evidence for it and they got caught sneaking God in it. It wasn't science, it was a cultist sham.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Bachman: not teaching creationism is censorship
- Thread starter headscratcher4
- Start date
Hardly. It's objected to because there's no evidence for it and they got caught sneaking God in it. It wasn't science, it was a cultist sham.
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
They are most assuredly not limiting the free expression of religion. You are still free to expouse your religion - but not as a representative of the government.
Lowpro
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2011
- Messages
- 5,399
Hey, whenever Baraminology gets off the ground, lemme know, k? In the meantime, I'm going to study up on Ozark Collared Lizards, Orchids, the Illinois Greater Prairie Chicken...you know..the stuff evolution has explained?
How is banning religious concepts from the definition of science that can be taught in class-rooms not restricting the free exercise of religion?
As far as government representatives, government condones representatives expressing their religion every time the ordained Congressional chaplain opens every single legislative sessions with prayer and has done so our entire history.
Religious legislation is banned in the Constitution. Religious expression, even by the government, is protected.
Wrap your mind around that and the issue will be clearer.
Not up to the courts to decide and the case should be thrown out the minute the issue becomes religion. The courts have no authority to rule on that.
The proper authority is with the school board.
autumn1971
Illuminator
Well, your final sentence is correct; people can decide what religion they want to believe. Governments and government agents, on the other hand, are specifically forbidden from deciding for people what the parameters of religious ideas are.
You may think that this is not what the establishment clause means, but nearly every court since the founding of the country would disagree.
On a related note, since you mentioned this in a freedom of speech and local-government context, I assume that you would have no problem with a school board deciding to teach only Spanish in it's English classes?
Nor does it try. I went to a private Catholic school, and while Creatoinism and ID were out (the school actually provided a decent education) that was because of the merits of the concepts, not politics. The government had no say in what was taught, other than that I met the minimum standards (typically that school vastly exceeded them).
Nor does the government restrict religions from teaching religion in churches or church workshops.
The only restriction here is the State telling THE SCHOOLS IT RUNS not to teach religion (and ID has been found to be a religious doctrine in court). So your entire argument is against a straw man that no one is presenting.
This is entirely false. They're saying that scientific ideas are all that should be taught in specific institutions during specific classes. This is like saying that Congress limits free speach by having rules for debate! Furthermore, any religious ideas are NOT categorically excluded--just as dreams, chance events, and ideas concocted in alcoholic stupers aren't. All of these have contributed to scientific theories. The issue is that they cannot JUST be religious, nor can they violate the rules of science. Creationism was taught in my public high school, and rightly so--as a former theory that has since been discredited (including how it was discredited, which was on the basis of scientific facts, and often done by devout Catholics).
How about the Egyptian idea of Creationism? The Mayan? The Muslim? Jewish Creatoinists are becoming more and more annoying. Wiccans and Neo-Pagans tend to ignore it.
Can we teach that the Roman Catholic Church rejects YEC as a moronic idea? I've had some long conversations on that topic--short version is that the RCC believes the Bible to describe our SPIRITUAL evolution, not our MATERIAL evolution (YECs don't make that distinction).
How about the Hindu myths? The Chinese Creation stories?
Once we open the floodgates of religion, even the theists will scream for more restrictions. They only want THEIR religion taught, and say that not doing so is discrimination is just another example of their privelaged status in Western society.
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
randman, you have presented an example irrelevant to my argument. I personally do not agree with this use of the Congressional chaplain, however the same ruling body allowing this expression (SCOTUS) also rules that creationism, as being a religious concept, cannot be taught in the schools.
shadron
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2005
- Messages
- 5,918
What system of government are you living under? It is the courts that have the power to interpret the intended meaning of the body of law that Americans live with, right down to state charter of school districts. Local school boards don't have the power to redefine the subjects that the state requires be taught; various actions in Texas are proving that. Americans always have had the right to seek redress through the courts for matters of all kinds, including conflicts within school matters.
Sorry if that is against your religion, but that's the way it is.
shadron
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2005
- Messages
- 5,918
I have often listened to the conflicts between people who want this sort of thing (and civic sponsored creches and so on) stopped and those who don't think the fight is worth the candle. I would agree with the latter, were it not for the Christian who pops up and uses this "long standing custom" as an incorrect example of how the government "isn't allowed to" interfere with religion. Of course the Senate and the House rules could be changed so this is eliminated, and christianity would not have a leg to stand on in arguing differently, just as they didn't about the aborting of the national day of prayer. In this I have to agree with PZ Myers that a little bit of christianity allowed in for sentimental or traditional reasons is just a foot in the door, and should be treated with the same contempt.
Started way before SCOTUS ruled and should be seen as evidence of original meaning for the 1st amendment.
Rulings change over time. The Courts finally acknowledged the right to bear arms was a personal right just like free speech. Took awhile to reverse wrong precedent violating that right but it happened.
Hopefully, the federal government will realize it's mistake and acknowledge that if the issue is religion, it has no place to say religion cannot be involved with science. The State has no authority to restrict religion in this area.
It's up to the states and local communities. They have the right to teach whatever the heck they want.
Exactly, in deciding that religion cannot be part of science, government is deciding the parameters of religion. They are forbidden to do that and so their court rulings are unConstitutional and a breach of the 1st amendment.
And who said anything about free speech? That's not my argument. My argument is the federal government cannot restrict the free exercise of religion, even in the science curriculum. That's what the 1st amendment says, period.
On Spanish, my having a problem or not is not an issue. The issue is whether it's Constitutional or not, and the proper authority to decide that is the local community and the state. I don't think it's wise and maybe there should be a law mandating English as the official language and so forth, but the federal government absent some amendments in the Constitution has no right to make that decision.
I am all just broken up about it. Your approval just means so much to me.....
Why bother with the reply then?
I thought it worth letting you know the feeling was mutual. Those that think as you do have no credibility either. Just depends on who you are talking to.
Interesting how some have made this nation that way.
Get used to it.
No, they don't. It's been found multiple times that the First Ammendment firbids them from teaching pure religion (like Creationism and ID are in their current incarnations). The issue is that local schools recieve Federal funding, and thus must comply with Federal regulations--including the Constitution.
No. The government is merely recognizing the parameters of science. They do this with ALL subjects--unless you want to teach Scientology in History class (not just as a historic event, but teach their history as true), or Christian Science in Health class.
This has nothing to do with religion, and if you were honest with yourself you'd see that. Science has specific parameters, specific requirements--and Creationism and ID DO NOT MEET THEM. Refusing to teach them in science classes is no different than refusing to teach the loony 9/11 Truth movement's physics in engineering classes, or refusing to teach Breatharianism in physiology classes--the ideas violate the rules of those fields of study, and are dismissed FROM THOSE FIELDS accordingly. Creationism IS taught in science classes as a rejected theory, however. And nothing stops Creationism from being taught in other classes as a social movement (which is what it is).