Where do you Draw the Line?

m_huber

Muse
m_huber
Joined
Nov 4, 2007
Messages
828
Creationists have Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Speech. They have the freedom to join school boards, and they have the freedom to raise their children how they see fit. They have the freedom to run for public office, and the freedom to govern as they please (within limits) if elected.

Unfortunately, the freedom to believe a thing does not make it real. Where do the rights of Creationists (and other religions/woos) run out? Where do you draw the line?
 
m_huber said:
Creationists have Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Speech. They have the freedom to join school boards, and they have the freedom to raise their children how they see fit. They have the freedom to run for public office, and the freedom to govern as they please (within limits) if elected.

Unfortunately, the freedom to believe a thing does not make it real. Where do the rights of Creationists (and other religions/woos) run out? Where do you draw the line?
Click to expand...
What citizens should not have the same rights as all other citizens?

Who should be more equal than whom?

DR
 
m_huber said:
. . . Where do the rights of Creationists (and other religions/woos) run out? Where do you draw the line?
Click to expand...


The same place as for anyone else. Specific religious beliefs afford them no more political rights than the rest of us.
 
When they force their bigoted dogma onto other people on the basis of their clubs magical president's handbook and unfounded claims about lifestyles other than its own.

Believe what you want

Raise your kids the way you want (as long as its free of neglect and full of love)

Present your claims to other people and let them decide.

Too black and white I know, but I've got to duck out to a job and don't have time to expand.

I'm sure you'll all do it for me though :D
 
Sickly Crypsis said:
When they force their bigoted dogma onto other people on the basis of their clubs magical president's handbook and unfounded claims about lifestyles other than its own.
Click to expand...
What's your solution?

Are you for rounding them all up, and putting them in internment camps, all of the "them?" They would be, it seems, the ones who disagree with your precious world view.

Don't stop there, Sickly.

Round up all the people in the other political parties, the ones who yell out their party line in opposition to your position. They want people to vote differently than you do. That voting thing will have an impact on your life, your taxes, what you can expect for services, or lack thereof.

Don't stop there, Sickly.

Round up all those people who root against your team in the playoffs.

Why stop with the religious people? Round 'em all up, Sickly, so you don't have to deal with it.

DR

(Note for the uncertain: Trace elements of sarcasm and hyperbole were woven into that hand crafted post.)
 
Last edited:
m_huber said:
{SNIP} ... the freedom to believe a thing does not make it real. Where do the rights of Creationists (and other religions/woos) run out? Where do you draw the line?
Click to expand...

A person's rights run out when they break the law. The line is drawn at criminal behavior. Believing in something that others believe is not real is not a crime, especially when it comes to religion and superstition.

Unless you can convince the lawmakers that the idea of Creationism - and even moreso, its believers - presents a clear and imminent threat, then such belief is insufficient grounds to deny their civil rights and liberties.

Furthermore, believing in something that isn't real is also insufficient grounds for denial of civil rights and liberties.

What would you have, a nation of "Haves" that has sworn allegiance to only those ideas that are proven true and valid existing alongside a nation of "Have-nots" who have been denied the right to speak, assemble, bear arms, and vote only because they believe in something for which there is no valid proof?
 
Last edited:
Well, we are all subject to constraints of law- some of which seem quite arbitrary.
Some laws already impose constraints based on physical or mental ability. Most countries, for example, would not allow a blind person or someone with an IQ of 20 to drive a bus.
Is it so wholly unreasonable that one or two laws might impose constraints based on a test of general knowledge?
 
Soapy Sam said:
Well, we are all subject to constraints of law- some of which seem quite arbitrary.
Some laws already impose constraints based on physical or mental ability. Most countries, for example, would not allow a blind person or someone with an IQ of 20 to drive a bus.
Is it so wholly unreasonable that one or two laws might impose constraints based on a test of general knowledge?
Click to expand...
Who decides what this general knowledge is?

What's the criterion?

Didn't Mother Church do something like this a few centuries ago? Didn't it turn out rather badly?

DR
 
I believe you should draw the line where it comes to foistingt thier belifes upon others. There are other religeons that exist in this country.
I believe there are already separation of church and state laws in effect. As long as they don't cross that line I am fine.
 
Fnord said:
A person's rights run out when they break the law. The line is drawn at criminal behavior. Believing in something that others believe is not real is not a crime, especially when it comes to religion and superstition.

Unless you can convince the lawmakers that the idea of Creationism - and even moreso, its believers - presents a clear and imminent threat, then such belief is insufficient grounds to deny their civil rights and liberties.
Click to expand...

On the other hand, governments do not have "civil rights and liberties"; there is no such thing as the First Amendment for government policy. People acting as agents of government may have more restrictions on their speech and behavior than they would acting on their own behalf.

For example, as a private householder, I can order you the hell out of my house simply because I personally don't like the way you dress. As a teacher in a public school, I wouldn't have that authority w.r.t. my classroom; I would need a better reason than that.
 
drkitten said:
On the other hand, governments do not have "civil rights and liberties"; there is no such thing as the First Amendment for government policy. People acting as agents of government may have more restrictions on their speech and behavior than they would acting on their own behalf.

For example, as a private householder, I can order you the hell out of my house simply because I personally don't like the way you dress. As a teacher in a public school, I wouldn't have that authority w.r.t. my classroom; I would need a better reason than that.
Click to expand...

Your employer - government, corporate, or private - can impose certain restrictions as a condition of your continued employment. This is not illegal, as they are not denying you your right to disobey (or any other right, for that matter). What they are telling you is that you are not being paid to express yourself, only to work, and that the two are mutually exclusive.

Go ahead, express your political, religious, or personal beliefs on the job. But when you signed any acknowledgement of employer policy, you affirmed that you would follow those policies as a condition of your continued employment. Remember that you still retain the right to remain silent...

;)
 
Last edited:
m_huber said:
Creationists have Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Speech. They have the freedom to join school boards, and they have the freedom to raise their children how they see fit. They have the freedom to run for public office, and the freedom to govern as they please (within limits) if elected.

Unfortunately, the freedom to believe a thing does not make it real. Where do the rights of Creationists (and other religions/woos) run out? Where do you draw the line?
Click to expand...
Others also have Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Speech - the entire point of these is that they work both ways, which is not always in favor of creationism. It means that they'll always have to accept that others don't share their belief, and that those people voice their opinions.

Besides that, speaking about creationism specifically, I do not think they have the right to change the meaning of language on their own to suit their purposes, because it impairs communication when you undermine language. This means that I do not think they have the right to teach creationism as science, because it is not science. If they want to teach creationism in some other class, as long as they follow the general principles of teaching (which include certain objectivity and criticism of different views), I don't think we can flatly deny them that.
 
Darth Rotor said:
Who decides what this general knowledge is?

What's the criterion?

Didn't Mother Church do something like this a few centuries ago? Didn't it turn out rather badly?

DR
Click to expand...

Who? I'd expect whoever it is who decides law now. Lawyers. Politicians.
Right. I see what you mean.

Dunno about the church. Don't many countries exclude the mentally ill from the franchise? Is it churches who expect people to take a public oath with their paw on a bible? Or is that lawyers again?

Not knowing the law is not a defence. That's the law. Not knowing that is...

...If they can make laws like that, why not make a law that says "If you can't present a reasoned argument that convinces half a dozen lawyers of your argument, you cannot vote to have your argument taught in schools." (It should be lawyers, because they're smart. They have to be, by law.)

You can't teach your kids that black people are stupider than whites. You can't even say it might be the case if you have a serious track record as a scientist. So why the heck should you be allowed to spout nonsense just because you got elected to a school board?
 
Last edited:
Soapy Sam said:
\
You can't teach your kids that black people are stupider than whites. You can't even say it might be the case if you have a serious track record as a scientist. So why the heck should you be allowed to spout nonsense just because you got elected to a school board?
Click to expand...

For better or for worse, this is simply untrue. Nothing under the law prevents me from teaching my children anything I like as long as I don't cross the line into active abuse; similarly as a tenured professor, I can say anything I like as long as I don't get caught with my hand in the university till.

The only negative consequences that I will get are social and extra-legal. If I teach my children that blacks are stupid, I will lose a lot of friends; if I publish that blacks are stupid, my papers are likely to be rejected and I won't get as many speaking engagements.

As a school board member, there are actually legal restrictions about what I can say and do. Precisely because as a parent, I'm representing only myself, but as a school board member, I'm representing the government and have to follow the government's rules.
 
Rufo said:
If they want to teach creationism in some other class, as long as they follow the general principles of teaching (which include certain objectivity and criticism of different views), I don't think we can flatly deny them that.
Click to expand...

Sure we can. If they teach creationism to be true, then (since creationism is a specific religion), they are "establishing a religion," which violates the 1st Amendment.
See Edwards vs. Aguilera and now Kitzmiller vs. Dover.

If you want to know whether a given policy is legal w.r.t. creationism, simply substitute the phrase "that only through the Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ the Redeemer are we saved from sin." If the policy would violate the establishment clause in the second instance, it would violate the establishment clause in the first.
 
m_huber said:
Creationists have Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Speech. They have the freedom to join school boards, and they have the freedom to raise their children how they see fit. They have the freedom to run for public office, and the freedom to govern as they please (within limits) if elected.

Unfortunately, the freedom to believe a thing does not make it real. Where do the rights of Creationists (and other religions/woos) run out? Where do you draw the line?
Click to expand...

The answer is the same for everyone, their right to swing their fist ends where my nose begins. If they are not breaking any laws and are not infringing on anyone else's rights, then they have not crossed the line.

In the US system, we rely on an educated and free populace to determine that nonsense is nonsense. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to be working so well. But, hope springs eternal. Far stupider ideas have come and gone. One day, the only creationists will be the old crazy wino down the street and you will have to go to a very well stocked library to find any of their out of print idiocy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom