Slashdot Mirror
Teacher Cannot Be Sued For Denying Creationism
gzipped_tar writes "A federal appeals court ruled on Friday that a public high school teacher in Mission Viejo, California may not be sued for making hostile remarks about religion in his classroom. The decision stems from a lawsuit filed by a student charging that the teacher's hostile remarks about creationism and religious faith violated a First Amendment mandate that the government remain neutral in matters of religion. A three-judge panel of the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled unanimously that the lawsuit must be thrown out of court because the teacher was entitled to immunity."
So if a teacher came out in favor of creationism, a radical form, let's say one that proclaimed blacks, asians, and all other non-whites as descendants of evil evil Cain, would it be possible to sue that teacher?
Clearly and obviously Adam and Eve never existed and this should be taught to any young person as truth is always preferable to falsehoods, but what about someone promoting a falsehood?
Hoist Number One and Number Six.
One point for Common Sense.
That the US constitution is a great boon to the country, yet at the same time being a huge albatross around its neck. FFS suing someone because they expressed an opinion in an arena where they may/may not be allowed to have an opinion, instead of growing a pair, sucking it up and realizing that not everyone agrees with you. And yes I am aware of the protections that the constitution grants, but in this case a lawsuit seems overkill.
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
But whether he agrees with his students beliefs or not, he should at least be respectful. As much as I hate the idea of creationism being taught in schools, I think this douche bag should be fired. But hey, it is the 9th circuit they usually don't have a fucking clue anyways let alone being able to reliably and consistently interpret written laws.
That pesky Constitution really mucks up frivolous litigation sometimes
News for nerds? No. More like news to see how many flaming posts they can get. Where is the flaimbait button for the OP.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but a school is not a government institution, and the teacher is not a government employee, is he? So he can say whatever he wishes about religion, and still not invoke the "Church and State, separate!"-clause.
In Hungary, there's something called the National Curriculum, but that only specifies the rough topics and lays out a track to follow to the end of high school. Inside those topics, the teachers are free to subdivide their classes, and teach whatever they wish, since they aren't government employees (only public servants), and although the schools are government/municipality-funded, they are not government institutions.
Hyperbole: I use it liberally!
TFA includes a shortened transcript of the teacher's comments, and it doesn't sound to me like he was criticizing religion per se. Rather, he was criticizing attempts by people to pose religion as science (such as intelligent design), by saying that the "logic" used to argue in favor of creationism is fundamentally flawed and nonscientific. And especially if intelligent design advocates continue to insist that their ideas be taught as science in a science classroom, then such criticisms should certainly be fair game in science classrooms.
At least from the transcript, it didn't seem like he was directly criticizing those who nevertheless believe in a creator as a matter of faith and not of science.
I am a lawyer, and about a third of my cases are representing state employees, and about a third of those involve cases with a "clearly established" defense, though I practice mostly in the Fourth Circuit, not the Ninth.
The "clearly established" standard is a way for courts to keep these kinds of suits from dinging innocent state employees. Basically, not only does the employee have to violate someone's right, but it has to have been pretty much unreasonable for the employee to think ze wasn't violating that right. Here, in fact, the panel didn't even hold that the kid had a right not to have this stuff said to him. So this case won't be precedent for future cases to reach back and say, "Well, as of the time the Corbett opinion was issued, the right not to have a teacher make fun of your religious beliefs was clearly established."
There are several other possible doctrines for protecting an employee in such a situation, and they're all salutary.
Why is it that teaching against religion is protected speech, but if the teacher were to favor religion then that is not protected?
The article says the judges are giving the teacher immunity because there's no current clear precedent in law for this being unconstitutional, so the teacher wouldn't have known his comments might be unconstitutional.
The San Francisco-based appeals court said the teacher was entitled to immunity because it was not clearly established in the law that a teacher’s expression of hostility to certain religious beliefs in a public school classroom would violate the First Amendment’s establishment clause.
They never ruled on whether his comments were actually unconstitutional or not. Just that there wasn't fair warning that it might not be. Rather than let it be, why aren't they using this case to make that precedent? Or am I missing something?
Interesting quote from TFA:
In the 1994 case, the Ninth Circuit ruled that religious neutrality required that the biology teacher’s positive views of religious ideas must be excluded from public school instruction. But in 2011, a different panel of the Ninth Circuit ruled that the history teacher’s hostile views of religion and faith must be permitted to protect the “robust exchange of ideas in education.”
It looks like the Ninth Circuit is hostile to religion and faith. They clearly didn't get that from the First Amendment.
I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
Seems to me, from the brief notes in TFA, that the judge suggested it was ok to say that creationists were completely failing to follow scientific principles in claiming their position was correct. The teacher didn't directly attack religion, just the absurd methodology of the religious folks in this case.
https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
I'm somewhat torn between two viewpoints; help me out here. Side 1: The immunity provided in precedent by this ruling applies to all teachers, all subjects, and all opinions. This implies that Texas schools, where classes are taught both the popular scientific opinion and the popular Judeo-Christian origin myth, are protected - and to revel in this court ruling while speaking out against the inclusion of religious mythos would be contradictory. (i.e. "It's good when courts protect my opinion, but screw other opinions.") Side 2: The scientific method doesn't provide things 'as is' in any case. It is a method of observation, and the data can be - and is - used to argue differing opinions. (Not to mention arguments about observational accuracy, testing method bias, differing results, etc.) This separates the origin myths from the current scientific opinion categorically, and the same protections don't apply to both. (i.e. "I observed/tested/proved this, it doesn't go in the same box as your faith.") The argument just keeps going back and forth in my head. I could use some input.
or also about sects like Scientology?
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
If only.
These days schools teach children to be bricks in the wall, not critical thinkers capable of making their own educated judgments.
-uso.
What you hear in the ear, preach from the rooftop Matthew 10.27b
The fact that there may not have been a previous decision to warn the teacher that this was unacceptable behavior doesn't mean that htis behavior was acceptable, and the court shouldn't have ducked the issue in this way. Moreover, when the issue has been teacher who were presenting their religious views rather than their atheistic views, the 9th circuit has not ducked the issue in this way. The "giant spaghetti monster" line that the teacher used is not a neutral symbol, but a deliberate and overt attack on Christian belief. He should not be allowed to present such material in a classroom context if a Christian creationist is not allowed to present their beliefs in a classroom context.
"He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
The decision stems from a lawsuit filed by a student charging that the teacherâ(TM)s hostile remarks about creationism and religious faith violated a First Amendment mandate that the government remain neutral in matters of religion.
1. Yes, if the school is public then the salary of the teacher is paid from taxes, however it's not necessary that the taxes are Federal in nature, though of-course States cannot dismiss parts of US Constitution as it stands (but they can and need to challenge the federal government that it is not following the US Constitution, but that's a different topic).
2. No, even if the teacher was clearly a government representative, his remarks do not violate anything in the Constitution. His remarks are in fact his own opinion and are also free speech and thus government cannot prevent the teacher from expressing his views, which is his right.
3. If the teacher used his attitude towards the religions to discriminate against people, and by discriminate I mean apply government power against them in any way based on their religious associations, then it would have been a violation.
The appeals court side-stepped the question of whether Dr. Corbettâ(TM)s comment on creationism and other derogatory remarks about religious faith were unconstitutional.
They should not have sidestepped it, seems like the judge didn't want to pass any real ruling here, he didn't want to be on record. Shows how weak and pathetic the justice system has become.
Instead, the panel concluded that since Corbett was entitled to qualified immunity it was not necessary for the appeals court to determine whether his comments actually violated the Constitution.
What is this magic immunity? Is it the right to free speech, because that's the only real immunity.
--
Everybody is wrong in this case, the teacher shouldn't be trolling his obviously religious students, the students shouldn't be starting these frivolous lawsuits and the judge should grow a pair.
You can't handle the truth.
Separation of Church and State was added to prevent the government from telling you what to believe. This has expanded to the point where a teacher can't express their own religious views because that would be teaching religion... and if the teacher is paid by the government...
But now it's OK to tell people what NOT to believe when it comes to religion? The state should not be trying to sway people towards or away from any religion period. It should be up to individual, and they shouldn't be ridiculed or pressured by a state official to pick something else.
if (it != oneThing) it = another;
Indeed. Here's the transcript for reference for people who didn't RTFA:
He gets bonus points from me for including the Giant Flying Spaghetti Monster.
So is creationism science, or is it religion?
I thought that creationists argued that their ideas were "scientific" or was that the intelligent designers?
Anyway, either it's a religion, the basis for the creationists' case here, and would therefore have no place in a proper education system to begin with,
or creationism is a science, giving it a place in the education system but allowing teacher to have & express a negative opinion about it.
This seems the kind of circular reasoning we've come to expect from creationists and intteligent design proponents, in yet another interesting new form.
Look guys, the point isn't whether teachers are liable for teaching perceived truth, i.e. stating "God does not exist" vs. "God does exist". The First Amendment doesn't say government is permitted to take a side on religious issues when it aligns itself with perceived truth (at one time perceived truth was "God exists", remember?) the First Amendment is that government must have no opinion whatsoever.
And for those of you who think this is a science vs. religious issue, bear in mind that religion is outside the scope of science. No hypothesis can be tested that asserts "Adam and Eve were not created by God in six days". No way you can test that. No scientific method can verify it. Thus, any claim to that, has nothing to do with science. Sure, you can argue on the side of "default belief" and "apparent evolution" and what-not, but those are not experiments, those are not scientifically rigorous arguments, they are just philosophical asides. Stating "God does not exist" is not an exercise in science, it is in fact an exercise in religious discourse.
She works for the government. She should neither disparage nor encourage religious viewpoints. Preferably, she should not discuss the matter of religion at all. As for creationism, it's not science (i.e. not a falsifiable theory backed by evidence) and has no place in a public classroom. The right answer is, "don't discuss it there."
Mythic explanations for creation are a dime a dozen and popular ones can be heard every Sunday in the USA. Virtually all children are exposed to them. Some will recover. Others not.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
Does this mean that you would support a teacher with a belief in creationism teaching his opinion in a public school? I have my doubts.
No, what matters is who has the power to direct teachers in the classroom. And if you had cited the relevant authority covered in the fine article, it would have looked something like this, "The courts in that case upheld a school district directive that the biology teacher must not teach creationism in science class."
The question before that court was whether the classroom instructor had the authority to overrule the authority of the elected body responsible for setting policy. Only in matters where you can exercise free will is that option is available. That's why, in a democratic capitalistic republic, you have to pray to God for that privilege.
I believe that is true even in Texas... unless you want to ecology. Then you don't have a prayer.
God could have created the universe with an infinite past; just because God created the universe doesn't mean that there has to be a 'starting point' in time which us humans can point to as 'creation'. God is bigger than time, so to speak.
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
Why is it that teaching against religion is protected speech, but if the teacher were to favor religion then that is not protected?
Addressing the second part of your query first: to favor one religion is implicitly or explicitly to denigrate other religions and the lack of a religion, and thus would constitute a form of slander. It would also contravene (in any state-supported environment in the US) the Establishment clause of the first amendment to the US constitution. Favoring creationist viewpoints would be to favor a very narrow selection of religions, and to impugn others - some religions are anti-creatonist by their own dogma.
As to the first part of your query: that is not what the court decided. The teacher was not teaching against religion per se, but against the promulgation of self-evident nonsense masquerading as science and supporting a particular religious viewpoint. He apparently described creationism as "superstitious nonsense", which is neither attacking religion nor stating an untruth (incidentally, truth is an absolute defence against slander in the US). Here is a short summary of scientific viewpoints on various creationist arguments.
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
Religion makes people dangerous. Faith makes people willing to fly planes into buildings and murder thousands of innocent civilians at the behest of evil humans that set themselves up as the voice of god. Faith makes people blow up clinics. It makes people seek to deny fundamental human rights from their neighbors (like the right to love and marry who one chooses).
Believing in God would be fine if it didn't include believing in whatever evil things some voice-of-god humans have to say.
As a teacher, you shouldn't insult your student's views in front of class, no matter the subject.
True, unless it intersects with the subject matter being taught. If a student in a history class doesn't believe in Napoleon, should the teacher refrain from saying that he did exist in case it hurts the student's feelings?
Science classes should be able to mention the creationism debate because it is a great example of what is and isn't science. It gives a real world example of the scientific method.
When god versus god the undoing of man. I think this is the sort of thing Dave was thinking about when he wrote those lyrics. Not just creationism vs reality (science) but all religeons in general. A friend of mine is commonly quoted as saying" if we could just get all the leaders of countries that hate the USA together and have a big old pork roast, drink some good beer and fine bourbon we could get to work on fixing our problems." It's true. You can't be mad at anyone after you stuffed your face with a bunch of pig and ya got a beer buzz goin on. Of course that'll never happen but it's nice to dream.
"We are just a war away from Amerikastan. When god vs god the undoing of man." Dave Mustaine
This wasn't even a science class; it was history. Sure, you can informatively cover the major viewpoints and beliefs of people over time, or the history and movements of religion in societies, if that's on the syllabus, but otherwise the comments in question seemed pretty tangential to teaching history.
As long as it's factually based....
Which might make the lecture a little shorter.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
The teacher exercised his freedom of religion and can't be sued for doing so.
Of course, I suspect that many people would change their tune quickly if the teacher had been teaching in favor of religion instead of against it.
If I'm reading this right, the court's opinion seems to have been that this was a church-state violation, but that the teacher was immune to lawsuits for such. How does that work?
I always wondered what the United States were under before the 1950s, when "under God" was added to the Pledge of Allegiance...
What if it's just insulting to the student, but not to anyone else? Is it ok if the teacher points out that the students believe in fallacy?
If they're 9th graders who believe in Santa Claus, is it ok if the teacher points out that Santa would have to move faster than the speed of light to get to everyone's house in one night?
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
The science teachers should bash religion all the want. Send your kids to church to learn mythology; or allow the humanities teachers to discuss religions equally.
The constitution is against promotion of a religion -- NO pushing of religion. period. Keep religion out of government is the whole point. (remember, the king of England was heavily connected to religion...) Somebody making comments against any of the many idiocies of our primitive ancient (older than mid-evil) beliefs is not violating this at all! Heresy could be a crime if if it wasn't for the prohibition of religion in government. Heresy includes a lot of science, logic, philosophy etc.
Furthermore, my point is that government can bash all religion equally without promoting any single one of them; some could argue that the banning of religion is possible to a degree but I'm not going there (human sacrifices and many other religious practices are illegal and its constitutional.) Non-religion is not a religion. So you are not promoting 1 religion over the others if you are "attacking" them all fairly.
"FREE PRESS" but we tax them... That severely limits the press of today where the real news comes from papers who are going broke. Religions, they don't get taxed yet they get less empowerment in the constitution than the press does.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
So what is truth? Does an objective truth exist at all? How would we know it, assuming it even existed?
G'Kar: Well, if the book is holy and I am holy, then I must help you become closer to the thoughts of the universe. Put your face in the book. ...
-- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
As a teacher, you shouldn't insult your student's views in front of class, no matter the subject.
I'd say he was challenging the idea of there being a god. If he was insulting it, he'd stop at saying that belief in a god is nonsense. (What kind of insult is 'nonsense', anyways?) Instead, he continues to elaborate on why creationism is faulty.
Schools ought to be institutions that teach kids skills such as critical thinking. Basically, this teacher is pointing out that people have no reason or evidence to believe in what they believe in. Some people can't handle that, so instead of making a case for their views, they try to censor and remove that teacher.
Because then you would be my cousin.
That and, by natural law, Eve was Adams sister.
Eve was created from Adam's rib. Doesn't that imply God just ripped out a rib, tore out the Pesky male Chromosome, cloned a twin sister for Adam, and patched him up before he could say "ouch!"?
-- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
You do realize that without (literal) original sin, garden of Eden, etc., Christianity turns into "some guy a long time ago said to be good or else"... right?
http://chadfarnan.com/
Further support of parent's comments, the above URL has a big link to "Advocates for Fait and Freedom" under the caption of "support chad by supporting."
I can't say I give enough of a fuck to trace the money trail, but if it's a legit non-profit, more info can be gleaned from irs.gov
TBH the majority couldn't even if given the chance, when little johnny failed his math exam cause he was drooling on the desk, then fuck him. This is part of the problem, we are so worried about every child that we often retard the normal ones to keep the stupid / worthless ones up to par.
This wasn't even a science class; it was history.
Well spotted. I missed that bit. That does make a difference. It would be interesting to see the transcript of what went on before his remarks to see how they ever got onto the subject in the first place.
Put it in front of such statements:
"If you ask me as a scientist, and as you know we are in a science class here, then....."
The teacher is acting on the behalf of a government that is prohibited from endorsing or forbidding religion of any kind.
It can't be both. The scientific opinion is that "we don't have any evidence that said God exists, or did exist, so let's not invent facts." Occam's razor.
This is simple. Teaching about science and logic is okay, teaching about religion is not. When science and logic contradict religion, teaching that they do, isn't a problem. The position isn't to disparage religion, it's to teach science and logic. That religion is disparaged by that automatically is only religion's fault.
I think people in these comments fail big time. The whole point of this is that creationism is trying very hard to be a scientific albeit theistic theory, but criticizing the science behind it gets you in court because it's considered religion. Following the logic here you'd think the debate should stop every time someone quotes scripture; makes as much sense as listening to a schizophrenic interpreting a Jackson Pollock.
Well, I'm glad I read the fine article now, at least I learned something.
FSM, he lives behind the moon! I had no idea!
And I learned that by reading the Christian Science Monitor!
don't be a spelling loser
In my opinion, we've got a perfectly functional neuter pronoun: "they" I don't understand why certain people insist that it's not proper when it's been used in this fashion in common parlance for ages. It's not like we don't have plenty of other examples of words with multiple meanings.
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
Johny, probably the son of somebody in the hate group AFA, was upset because the teacher didn't agree with his mommy and daddy so tax payers had to throw a bunch of money away in courts to make Johny feel good? Are spoiled evangelical kids so important we have to pay for their tantrums?
Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
If the truth is in conflict with a religion - or rather, a quite heretical interpretation of said religion - telling the truth is no government act against the religion, sorry.
Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
Because "they wasn't" sounds illiterate.
This has not the slightest bit to do with the teacher's freedom of religion. He told the truth. Should telling the truth suddenly become unconstitutional when the truth hurts some religious feelings?
Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
The problem is that a scientific theory can only be displaced by another scientific theory. Creationism has been demonstrated to make no testable predictions. Therefore, it's not a scientific proposition.
And after a theory has been proven correct as often and as firmly as evolution, it becomes more and more likely it is the correct proposition.
More tellingly, though, is the reason people propose creationism. It's almost invariably because of their religious belief. That's not a good reason to challenge the validity of evolution. In fact, it's the stupidest reason there is.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
You do realize that without (literal) original sin, garden of Eden, etc., Christianity turns into "some guy a long time ago said to be good or else"... right?
Yeah, but a few years ago there was a remake in which a cute kid convinced Keanau Reeves to let us off provided we agreed to cycle to work.
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
Then KOnrad created the Z1...
Oh, the beautiful gloss of greality!
It was established in Katzmiller v Dover that Intelligent Design is nothing more than creationism in new packaging. This was concluded based on testimony by Behe himself, when he admitted that, if you assumed intelligent design were scientific, you'd have to conclude that astrology was also scientific.
There is no distinction between intelligent design and creationism. ID is an attempt by creationists to hide behind a facade of scientism.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
I think you replied to the wrong post.
Why don't you think back and tell me something, who did you learn more from, the teachers who imposed something upon you, or teachers who guided you in your thinking?
Antagonistic teachers who made ridiculous comments and pissed me off actually made me critically think.
Just because the U.S. is a republic does not mean it is not a democracy. Democracy/republic are not mutually exclusive.
Uhm, no.
Pi is not 3. Putting a striped stick in front of a pregnant horse will not get you a zebra. There is no evidence of a worldwide flood, Noah's ark couldn't've been built as described and still float, and there's no way to get two of every species on a boat like that (let alone seven of every "clean" animal).
Bats aren't birds.
I could go on.
As for history:
There was no census under the conditions described in the New Testament, and no Roman census required people to return to the town in which they were born. There was no exodus of slaves from Egypt. There is no evidence for a 40-year sojourn in the desert. There is no historic evidence for Jesus. And so on. Many of the stories are taken from other cultures (such as the flood, which appears to be based on the tale of Gilgamesh).
The Bible is neither scientifically nor historically accurate. The morals it presents are generally abhorrent. (Stoning your child for disobedience? Very specific rules for slavery? Hardly a basis for a sound morality.)
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
Even when (you think) they're right?
If so, my hat's off to you.
Teachers should not be giving their person opinions on religion either for or against it. Teachers shouldn't be calling religion nonsense and they shouldn't be preaching it to be true either. Stick to teaching your subjects, not giving students your personal beliefs.
Hey! I had a bag of pot. I turned my back for a second and it went missing. Anyone seen my pot? I'm getting pretty desper...
So what is truth? Does an objective truth exist at all? How would we know it, assuming it even existed?
Found it!
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
There's a reason there is an established method of punctuation and grammar. Your comment doesn't make any sense.
Just because the U.S. is a republic does not mean it is not a democracy. Democracy/republic are not mutually exclusive.
I don't think so. Are you not pushing the idea that this is a freedom of religion matter? Since when is talking about reality in a scientific manner a matter of freedom of religion?
Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
Okay. So I believe in the existance of God. Yes - I'm a Christian.
I also believe in evolution by means of natural selection. The universe began around 13 billion years ago, and humans have evolved from much lower life forms into what we have today. I don't believe you need to use the existence of God to explain the origins of the universe. I also am not a fan of ID theories.
That doesn't mean God doesn't exist. I don't believe science can prove or disprove the existence of God. Not all phenomena in our world are scientifically provable/verifiable/quantifiable.
Is this not what science wants? To be free from any religious influences? Is it fair to ask the same thing of science from religion?
I know this is really simplifying things in a lot of ways, but can't these two be mutually exclusive?
Bottom line is that when she is on duty as a teacher and the meter is running for the taxpayers, she is acting on behalf of the government and as such is obliged to restrain herself accordingly.
As a tax-payer, I expect a science teacher whose salary I'm paying to call bullshit on fallacious reasoning and magical thinking when he sees it. The teacher in question didn't attack any specific religion, he attacked the specifically fallacious arguments used by religions to justify their beliefs, and according to the court, he did it without crossing any church/state dividing line at all. Here's my bottom line for you, in the form of a question: Religion has no special status in the US government, why do you think it should have special protection in a US school?
If I had mod points, you'd get them.
There is nothing in studying the universe that God provided us with (i.e. science). Nor is faith in God an end to knowledge. As far as science goes, how much of it do you take on faith? As an example, unless you can provide me with some witnesses to the Big Bang, you have to take it on faith that the scientists' theories are correct. There is nothing wrong with faith and all things begin with it (and in my case, end with it).
Actually, there is evidence. Not everyone agrees with it, but then not everyone agrees with evidence that there is or is not human generated global climate change.
I would agree with you except that Islam is taught in many school districts in the US. Even going so far as having morning prayers. How can that be allowed in school and very few object, but having morning Christian prayers is not allowed.
I said that he should be allowed to espouse his religious beliefs. I think you replied to the wrong post because you apparently tried to refute a post which claimed that what he did should NOT be allowed.
Which of the hundreds, if not thousands, of religions do you teach?
Only yours, a selection ( Top Ten List, anyone?), or all of them?
Only religions practiced now, or all that we have heard of existing?
If you go with all of them, how much time do you allot for religion in the curriculum, compared to science, math, etc.? Do you teach them as all are valid, or favor certain one/s? Which one/s?
If you select one, who decides on which one[1]? Is this on a National, State level, County level, school district level? (Sounds a bit like 'herding bobcats in a burning barn' to me!)
'Freedom of religion' is probably a good thing, but some of us would also like 'freedom from religion'!
Hmmm? (I think I'm seeing your double standards here)
[1] I think you would be in direct, and obvious violation of the Constitution and Amendments by 'establishing' a religion.
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
How dense are you to not get that he was not espousing any religious belief. He was just talking about bloody science. I agree with you that he was in the right, but what the fuck has taking pure simple scientific truth to do with religious speak??
Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
Mischaracterizations aside, one of these ideas is supported by multiple lines of evidence (the cosmic microwave background radiation, observable expansion of the universe, etc.) the other is supported by a 2000-year (give or take) idea.
And... "anti-Creationists"? Seriously?
HAND.
should have sued for civil rights violation and a hate crime of bashing religion. While the remarks about creationism are debate, the hate speech about religion is not.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
he was not espousing any religious belief
He was espousing an anti-religious belief.
He was just talking about bloody science
He was a history teacher.
European history, to be exact.
"They weren't" sounds fine and conveys the same meaning. Yeah, we have to bend a couple more grammatical "rules" to make it work, but as I said before, English is rife with such "exceptions" already.
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
And while liberals everywhere celebrate this victory against creationism, they will entirely miss the implication of this case: The government just said an entire class of its employees can violate people's First Amendment rights with impunity.
How exactly can a class of its employees violate people's First Amendment rights? Did you read the article?
I'll try to guess what you are thinking: that the government said its employees can prevent citizens from practicing their religion. Nope. That the government employees can favor atheism over Christianity? Nope.
The First Amendment is basically the separation of Church and State, and in no way are the people's rights violated by the ruling.
Just because the U.S. is a republic does not mean it is not a democracy. Democracy/republic are not mutually exclusive.
LOL! I deny the Theory of Gravity, as it's just a theory.
Just because the U.S. is a republic does not mean it is not a democracy. Democracy/republic are not mutually exclusive.
Creationism is a completely unscientific belief, and yes the teacher should be fired for bringing known pseudoscience into a science classroom. Science is confusing enough with the constant churn of new ideas without introducing ones that water it down.
Now, if he or she wants to cover it in a more suitable subject like philosophy, then that's fine, but just because you can find a small number of nutters that believe it does not mean that it's a scientifically valid hypothesis.
This is also the reason why the burden of proof lies on the party making the positive claim in most cases. One can never prove that something doesn't exist conclusively. But, without any evidence at all to support the notion that God exists, and even less to support the belief in creationism, I think it's pretty safe to suggest that for all intents and purposes that it's not even close.
Haha...you nailed it. And for the record, I'm not pro- or anti- creationism. I believe in evidence. If we find hard evidence of creation, I'm cool with it.
and the real funny thing is that science by definition can not tell us anything about say the first 20 picoseconds of "Time" since that event is not repeatable so you have to answer by Faith with either
In The Beginning GOD
or
In The Beginning BANG
a) Science (and history, and other disciplines) can tell us a lot about a lot of stuff that isn't repeatable - if the event left evidence. "Can't repeat it in the lab" is increasingly the desperate last defense of reality deniers.
b) We conclude the existence of the "BANG" on the basis of the evidence it left; the same cannot be said for "GOD", or any other gods.
c) Even if "BANG" and "GOD" were both just arbitrary assumptions, "GOD" would be a wilder assumption than "BANG", because he/she/it/they have to be able to create the universe *and* do all the other stuff attributed to them. Or, if all he/she/it/they did was create the universe, he/she/it/they become useless middlepersons that contribute nothing toward an explanation.
See also, Ockham's Razor.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
I would agree with you except that Islam is taught in many school districts in the US. Even going so far as having morning prayers. How can that be allowed in school and very few object, but having morning Christian prayers is not allowed.
Are these private (self-financed) schools or public (state-financed) schools? There is nothing wrong with having Catholic or Buddhist or Islamic or [insert other crazy dogma here] schools which are funded by their own private sources such as endowments or fees for tuition. If you know of a school in the US which is state-funded and promulgates a particular religion in its lessons, then please let us know - name and shame.
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
You were in such a hurry to type that, you missed the replies with the (rather obvious?) counter that the bottleneck you assert is derived from what could be considered imperfections in the DNA, and people who believe in a perfect God are quite free to believe such a perfect God could have created Adam with perfect DNA. And could have pulled the "rib" out of Adam's DNA to create Eve with in such a way that both DNA remained, sexual differentiation aside, perfect.
It's an old argument, really, dating well before the philosophers who incorporated several versions of it (somewhat incorrectly) into the Catholic philosophies. Thousands of years old.The use of DNA in the argument just makes it sound new.
Computer memory is just fancy paper, CPUs just fancy pens with fancy erasers; the 'net is just a fancy backyard fence.
Lessee.
I hear that, in France, many parents put wine on the dinner table for their children at a very early age.
Good or bad?
Sexual relations have consequences other than pregnancy. In ideal world where sex never resulted in pregnancy without some sort of post-sex opt-in, and without the spread of diseases, and without emotional confusion, maybe you could argue what you appear to be arguing, but I don't think so. Siblings are too close emotionally to start with.
Besides, if you remove the emotionally confusing effects of sex, what is left to make it interesting?
Computer memory is just fancy paper, CPUs just fancy pens with fancy erasers; the 'net is just a fancy backyard fence.
Teach all religions in one class, throw in a bit of philosophy (particularly epistemology),and ethics.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
After RTFS, I get the impression that the teacher said something like "Creationism is false. Creationism is garbage."
After RTFA, I realize the teacher basically said "creationists rarely use scientific arguments to support their belief."
Long live exaggerated and misleading Slashdot summaries.
I believe in evidence. If we find hard evidence of creation, I'm cool with it.
Science adjusts its beliefs based on whats observed
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved.
If you show me
That, say, homeopathy works,
Then I will change my mind
Ill spin on a fucking dime
Ill be embarrassed as hell,
But I will run through the streets yelling
Its a miracle! Take physics and bin it!
Water has memory in it!
And while its memory of a long lost drop of onion juice is Infinite
It somehow forgets all the poo its had in it!
You show me that it works and how it works
And when Ive recovered from the shock
I will take a compass and carve "Fancy That" on the side of my cock.
Tim Minchin, Storm
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
When you start out making a fundamental mistake, the conclusions that stem from that mistake are frequently nonsense, and often cause a lot of trouble. The fundamental mistake here is schools funded and controlled by government, with the result that education in the USA is a rolling disaster. All this hoohah about religion in schools is a non-issue if all schools are private.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
The teacher undoubtedly stepped in it, but consider this: It is the teacher's responsibility to teach the truth and not allow blatant falsehoods to pass unchallenged. Creationism and nearly all religious teachings are obvious lies; it is a sad and shameful reality that most people don't see religion for what it is: a vicious fraud.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
I am an agnostic and from my viewpoint atheism is a religion. I can explain that in the following way: There are hypotheses which can observe and test, and the results of the observations and tests must be independent of the observer. If we make theories grouping such observations then we call it science.
There are hypotheses, which are fundamentally beyond our capability to observe things, not due to a limit in our current capabilities. Among these i would classify theories about the origin and the purpose of the universe, or the laws of nature. Whether it was created (and why) or accidentally exists is something we cant answer.
Everybody who claims to have an answer to the latter call of question is religious. Everybody who claims that his answer to the latter class of question implies some answer for observations deviating from the observations made, is a fundamentalist. Everybody who relies on "you cant know for sure" to push a question into the second class is an idiot. All questions where religion contradicted new theories by this argument did not go well for religion. (The Earth is *not* the center of the universe. Cats are not from the devil and they dont bring the pest. etc.
Yes, I read the article. It's about a government employee criticizing someone's religious beliefs (ridiculing them, specifically), while in their official capacity as a schoolteacher. And this is a compulsory setting, no less; not something where the recipient could just easily leave and dissociate themselves from said government employee.
What if instead of ridiculing the student's religion, the teacher had called them a racial slur? Would that be a violation of the student's rights?
Liberty in your lifetime
It wasn't a science classroom.
Thinking about this further, the racial slur example is specifically a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment: "No State shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." So a religious slur is probably both a violation of that clause of the Fourteenth and a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First.
Liberty in your lifetime
This wasn't really about religion, per se. This was about creationism trying to pass itself off as science. From a scientific point of view, creationism / intelligent design are nonsense.
And there is a lot of things that make somebody wonder how things could have "just happened" even at the range of a single cell and thats not getting into the various A-P must work or %critter% DIES kind of things.
Does not knowing how "x" thing 'just happened' make a bronze age magical book correct? This is the thing that christians ignore when attacking evolution. Disproving evolution wouldn't make the bible right.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
No, the bottleneck isn't derived from genetic imperfections. If all humans and other land species descended from a handful of individuals 4 500 years ago, there wouldn't be time to create the genetic diversity we see in them today. If Noah and every creature he carried on the ark were gifted with "perfect DNA", it would only explain why they didn't die from inbreeding. It doesn't explain the genetic diversity we have today.
What evidence do we have that "He" doesn't exist?
Why can't it be the both to which the OP referred?
It could be that "...God originally created life on earth...and uses Evolution to maintain and improve it.", or it could be that something else happened which may or may not have involved a Supreme Creator Being (and said being may or may not exist)
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
What First Amendment right was violated? The right not to hear an opinion in disagreement with one's own?
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
Chicago Public School, http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/580789/posts
MA Public School, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7-I9Qp3d4Y
San Diego Public School, http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0712/p01s03-ussc.html
General, http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-07-25-muslim-special-treatment-from-schools_N.htm
From a government employee when they're acting in an official capacity? Yes.
Again: Consider this situation where instead of attacking the student's religion, the government official attacked the student's race. Actionable or not? If so, why would that be any different than this situation?
Liberty in your lifetime
For every AP High School teacher at risk of being accused of being hostile to religion, there are hundreds of elementary school teachers actively pushing their own religion on all of their students regardless of that student's own religion or that of their family, holding it up as the one true religion, and inviting the class to ridicule and torment any student whose religious beliefs diverge from the teachers' own majority religion.
Perhaps in ruling against Corbett, the courts would "put the fear of god" in these can't-tell-the-difference-between-public-school-and-sunday-school teachers. If so, I could live with making the AP High School teachers guard their words a bit more carefully while they try to make their slacker students think.
ID is more specific than the simply the notion of a guiding intelligence, just as Christianity is more specific than just a belief in the Christ Jesus. Can you quote me a book on ID that doesn't assume the age of life on Earth to be recent enough to account for the chronologies and genealogies included in the Genesis and Exodus?
Because the fossil record very very very strongly suggests that those timescales are impossible. Australopithicus Afarensis living for between 5 and 20 times the existence of humans, and there was a gap of between 15 and 60 times the existence of homo sapiens between homo sapiens and australopithicus afarensis. That's many many more times what the ID books generally accept to be the age of life on Earth...
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
Not true: a lot of good science was historically done by religious scholars. The heavens were mapped by astrologers, the arabs protected European academic knowledge in Spain during the Dark Ages, the Catholic Church did more than anyone to advance structural engineering in the Middle Ages, and founded the universities with the express goal of working out the mechanics of God's creation.
Some people are hostile to advancement. It just so happens that sometimes matters of culture and self-identity are imposed onto religion. (See also the veil -- accepted by most Muslim scholars as "not a religious thing", but proclaimed as an important part of the religion by people who just happen to be from areas where it is traditionally worn.)
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
basically you have two possible ways X could have happened
1 an absurdly long chain of random events (99.9999999% of the time will cause X to die) managed to happen exactly correct
2 Somebody designed X to work the way it does
Even if you don't believe the Judea-Christian Bible then it figures that Somebodies Bible is correct in case 2
oh btw rather large sections of said "bronze age magic book" have been found out to be actual historical FACT
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
In The Beginning GOD or In The Beginning BANG
and btw i think that the teacher should not be able to be sued (or fired) unless it can be shown that he? had a practice of failing students for believing Creationism
I read that the spontaneous creation of the Universe from nothingness was extremely unlikely. However, it only had to happen once.
"The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes" - Winston Churchill
Okay, if you insist, both (or all) those arguments go back to (and predate) the Greek philosophers.
So do the refutations. For example, a perfect God should have no problem inducing genetic diversity.
In one argument, we are not barred from assuming that a perfect God could use/allow a few well-placed "stray" gamma rays to induce any particular variation such a God might deem/recognize to be necessary. Genetic drift could be helped along in such a way. And this would be the case, whether from Adam and Eve, or from Noah and his wife at the time he would have entered the ark with his three sons and their wives.
Trying to prove religion wrong is an uphill battle, and not really worth the effort put into it. I would prefer to waste/spend time discussing the use of computers in elections or the efficacy of certificate authorities or the relative danger of breader reactors versus non-breader reactors. Or, if you insist on talking about metaphysics, discussing ways to discern between social mores and personal, for example.
Speaking of which, the court was right in this case, to allow the stupid teacher to say stupid things. Saying stupid things is one of the rights that must be protected in a free society. Whether the offended believer was right in suing or not, I can't guess. There are many ways to defend one's faith, but I tend to think that doing so in the courtroom is not very productive. Tends to produce more wind than understanding. But there could be circumstances justifying the suit, some of which may not actually even involve the teacher in question or the local BOE's policies.
Computer memory is just fancy paper, CPUs just fancy pens with fancy erasers; the 'net is just a fancy backyard fence.
No, that was a short way of saying that we have not eliminated any of the problems inherent in random sex, much though our libidios would induce us to believe otherwise.
Here is a moderately more long-winded version:
Parents should not give children wine, even in France, because wine can cause health problems, and at the same time, it tends to be habit forming. Neither should siblings. Children should have the right to choose their own poisons, and the right to postpone the choice until they are both physically and emotionally mature enough to make the decisions responsibly. That includes both the abstract responsibility of choice and and the physiological and emotional capability of changing their minds.
Sexual relations have similar issues. Condoms still slip. No matter what prophylactic you use, there is a finite, and actually significant, probability of both pregnancy and infection, and STDs are still difficult and costly to treat (without subsidies) and generally debilitating. There absolutely are health issues, and no amount of hiding from those issues will make those problems go away.
And even if those problems could be eliminated, there is still the issue of induced habits. There is also the right to choose whether one wants to be stimulated in a certain way or not, and by whom. And when. And if it is a brother or sister or parent or child asking, begging, threatening, pouting, etc., there is a lot more implicit pressure that goes way beyond mere social pressures.
Figuring out when the partner is okay with it is hard enough without sibling or parent/child relationships getting mixed into things. Those conflicts are at once the primary reason the social institution of marriage tends to occur in all societies, and the primary reason for some members of society wanting to do away with the social institution. But getting out of a bad sibling relationship when incest is involved tends to be even harder than getting out of a bad marriage when abuse is involved.
That's why incest is almost impossible to untangle from abuse.
So there are still reasons siblings might or might not want to have sexual relations with each other. Or might not know whether they do or don't. And it's the might-not-know part, along with the how-do-I-know-she-or-he-is-really-okay-with-this part that makes it wrong. Even if the other problems could be solved, which they are not.
And you have posted anonymous, so I can only assume you will never read this response, so why do I bother?
Computer memory is just fancy paper, CPUs just fancy pens with fancy erasers; the 'net is just a fancy backyard fence.
Yes, I read the article. It's about a government employee criticizing someone's religious beliefs (ridiculing them, specifically), while in their official capacity as a schoolteacher. And this is a compulsory setting, no less; not something where the recipient could just easily leave and dissociate themselves from said government employee.
What if instead of ridiculing the student's religion, the teacher had called them a racial slur? Would that be a violation of the student's rights?
I sympathize with what you're saying... but I don't think your assessments are correct. I don't believe the teacher was ridiculing the student's religion, according to the transcript. Here's what he said:
“Aristotle argued, you know, there sort of has to be a God. Of course that’s nonsense,” Corbett said according to a transcript of his lecture. “I mean, that’s what you call deductive reasoning, you know. And you hear it all the time with people who say, ‘Well, if all this stuff that makes up the universe is here, something must have created it.’ Faulty logic. Very faulty logic.”
He continued: “The other possibility is, it’s always been there. Your call as to which one of those notions is scientific and which one is magic.”
“All I’m saying is that, you know, the people who want to make the argument that God did it, there is as much evidence that God did it as there is that there is a giant spaghetti monster living behind the moon who did it,” the transcript says.
Corbett told his students that “real” scientists try to disprove the theory of evolution. “Contrast that with creationists,” he told his students. “They never try to disprove creationism. They’re all running around trying to prove it. That’s deduction. It’s not science. Scientifically, it’s nonsense.”
I myself am a Christian. The Pope agrees that the biblical Creation stories (both the 7 day Creation story and the Adam and Eve Creation story... yes, they are separate) are not meant to be taken literally, in a scientific sense. In a classroom environment, I believe it is completely acceptable to explain the difference between science and what isn't science. If we can't explain that in a classroom, then we are fucked... because the Christian right has taken away our freedom to discuss science, based on their supposed "freedom" to prevent a classroom from discussing science. I would compare it to saying that the religious right has the "freedom of religion" to impose their brand of marriage (which has only been around for 50-75 years in its present form) on the rest of the country. (BTW, I'm a gay Christian and am planning on having children with my long time partner in the next two years... these court cases I do take seriously because they are similar in some aspects)
Also, you replied again and said that this is a religious slur. I am going to take you seriously (i.e. presume you're not trolling). There is a big difference between religious slurs ("Christians are so stupid and if you believe God created the earth then you're stupid") rather than explain it scientifically ("That's deduction, not science... scientifically it's nonsense"). Yes, it is close... and one thing that the judge mentions in the article is that they didn't establish a precedent on whether or not his statements were necessarily OK or not - they ruled that one shouldn't presume that he knew that it was unlawful:
“At some point a teacher’s comments on religion might cross the line and rise to the level of unconstitutional hostility,” Fisher wrote.
“But without any cases illuminating the dimly perceived line of demarcation between permissible and impermissible discussion of religion in a college level history class, we cannot conclude that a reasonable teacher standing in Corbett’s shoes would have been on notice that his actions might be unconstitutional.”
Just because the U.S. is a republic does not mean it is not a democracy. Democracy/republic are not mutually exclusive.
Okay, if you insist, both (or all) those arguments go back to (and predate) the Greek philosophers.
Yeah. 'Cause as everyone knows, the Greek philosophers and their predecessors were very exercised over the topic of genetic diversity.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Too bad about the bit where they say Pi is three though eh.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
You forgot: In the 'beginning' preceding conditions.
Maybe this is too obvious.
-- thinkyhead software and media
Interesting. Perhaps evolution wasn't present in the garden of Eden, but God created evolution as a part of creating the 'outside Eden' part of the world that Adam and Eve to live in after they ate the apple.
I think you'll find that most creationists accept that evolution, in some form, does take place and is partly responsible for the genetic diversity that we see today. However they don't agree that this process is capable of creating new kinds of animals, no matter how many millions of years it's given (where "kinds" is somewhat loosely defined and might depend on who you're talking to), and believe it to be generally destructive, not constructive. Evolution is part of the curse; without it we would presumably all have perfect copies of Adam and Eve's perfect DNA.
So do the refutations. For example, a perfect God should have no problem inducing genetic diversity.
Then the whole discussion has been pointless, since everything can be explained away by simply saying "A perfect God should have no trouble making it appear so and so." Why go to the trouble of finding scientific arguments for creationism, when you already have a catch-all explanation for everything?
You've heard of the broad brush?
People can believe that the operation of the principle of evolution is evidence of intelligence in the design without buying the whole bag that some group of so-called Creationists is selling. (Even if such a fine distinction offends some atheists and agnosticists who assert that selection principles must not be seen as evidence of intelligence.)
I think the judge may have been right in dismissing the case. Faith is generally strengthened by a bit of contact with opposing viewpoints.
On the other hand, someone from the BOE needs to take the teacher aside and point out that a broad brush of crudely constructed cynicism probably does not teach what he thinks he should be teaching.
Computer memory is just fancy paper, CPUs just fancy pens with fancy erasers; the 'net is just a fancy backyard fence.
Why do you take the trouble to come back to a thread no one else will ever see and defend incest?
(Why do I bother to respnd to your half-thought-through specious reasoning?)
Are you so sure wine is no worse than water? I drink two liters of water a day on average, and, for my body, that seems to be about right. Would you advise your child, were he over 180 cm and 80 kg, to drink two liters of wine a day? You can argue that wine is not completely evil, but saying you can die from too much water is missing the point.
Although, if you live in an area where clean drinking water is hard to get, that's a slightly separate issue. But I'd still say it would be better to be working on getting clean drinking water than to just say let's give the children wine to drink. Wine is no more a substitute for water than unfermented fruit juices.
Prophylaxis is not just about pregnancy. Sure, people don't get pregnant just from oral or anal sex. But STDs can definitely be transmitted by either oral or anal sex. And people lose their judgment in the heat of arousal. Don't say it doesn't happen. All too often it doesn't stop with anal sex, and the women ends up with both a pregnancy and a life-threatening illness.
And prophyactics do fail. Asking how many people get pregnant from oral or anal is, again, missing (deliberately?) the point.
Asking how you can get STDs from people who don't have them in this context is just begging for trouble, not to mention begging huge questions and apparently trying to hide from reality. If you defend incest, how to propose to prevent promiscuity? Are we talking about forcibly keeping one's sibling or child away from all other people he or she may have interest in? Do I have to ask whether that is not also abuse?
Marriage has its share of problems, as I said before, as you choose to ignore. Doing away with marriage as a social institution always causes more problems than it solves. (Chattelry is a separate issue.)
There are fantasy writers who write about a world in which no one has STDs and in which the reproductive systems can be turned off at will to allow sex completely without consequences. I have to wonder why. There are other ways to get high, even without stimulating substances. And there are ways to help each other feel good about ourselves, about each other, and about life, without trying to make each other be happy.
But, anyway, that fantasy world is definitely not this world, and I don't see any of the suggestions about how to get there from here working.
Computer memory is just fancy paper, CPUs just fancy pens with fancy erasers; the 'net is just a fancy backyard fence.
So do the refutations. For example, a perfect God should have no problem inducing genetic diversity.
Then the whole discussion has been pointless, since everything can be explained away by simply saying "A perfect God should have no trouble making it appear so and so." Why go to the trouble of finding scientific arguments for creationism, when you already have a catch-all explanation for everything?
What's funny is that these people will eagerly embrace the idea that God is pulling a prank on everyone by faking the evidence about the nature of the universe, but they won't consider for a second that the same God might be pulling a prank on *them* with the text of their holy book.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Does this mean that you would support a teacher with a belief in creationism teaching his opinion in a public school?
I have my doubts.
In a religion class, sure. In a science class, I would expect that science be taught, along with the conflicts of different scientific theories. However, a science class is not the place for science vs non-science theories, which is why "teach the controversy" is bullshit.
Unfortunately, this all happened during history class, and this particular professor is known for being a dick in this topic.
My (missed) point was a commentary on how the title of the response was "Nice to know that it is lawful to have an opinion" though we all know opinions frequently are not grounded in fact. A better title would have been "Nice to know that science class is still based on facts."
The article also claimed the teacher called the student's religion "superstitious nonsense." If that's accurate, that's the part I'd call "ridiculing" the student's religion and a religious "slur."
The more disturbing aspect of this is that it's yet another demonstration of spinelessness in the court: Oh, we don't even need to answer this question; teachers are simply immune to such challenges.
Personally, I'm an atheist/agnostic* and a firm believer in evolution, but I've come to understand that science is as much of a "belief system" as any other religion or philosophy. Some people will say that because it's based on a methodical system of experimentation, observation, and reasoning, that this somehow makes it superior, but it's still based on certain unprovable axioms, "articles of faith" if you will: That one can trust one's own senses and ability to reason, and others' ability to use their senses and reason reliably. Some will say science has a better "track record" of aiding humanity, except most of these other "belief systems" seemed to do the job just fine for a lot longer than science has (e.g., 200 years for science vs. about 2000 for Christianity. Some will say children need to learn science in order to "get ahead" or "succeed" in the real world, but that's just tacit admission that science is the dominant belief system in the United States. It'd be like telling a Jew living in 1400s Germany that he has to convert to Christianity in order to "get ahead" or "succeed" in the overwhelmingly Christian society surrounding him. It may be a true statement of fact, but it doesn't make it right to force a person to do it.
So with all this in mind, despite my own belief in science as opposed to theistic philosophies, I support the rights of parents to teach their children whatever belief systems they choose --- and, if they wish, to shelter their children from belief systems that oppose those beliefs. It all comes down to respecting people's choices and not forcing them into other belief systems against their will.
The true problem here is the compulsory and universal nature of public school. Because it's the "one true" school system, everyone with a devout and universal belief system --- theist and atheist alike, Christian and scientist alike --- is going to fight over what it teaches. Create a "one sized fits all" solution and everyone fights to make it their preferred size. The solution is to eliminate the "one size fits all" institution.
* I consider myself an atheist, but in the sense that until and unless the existence of a god is demonstrated, I default to believing that there is none. Technically this is agnosticism, but perceptually agnosticism is more about admitting "we don't really know" than taking a stance one way or the other.
P.S.: On the topic of marriage, this is another perfect example of people fighting to make a "one size fits all"-like system represent their belief systems. The whole problem would be solved if the State got out of the marriage-licensing business altogether and left it up to people's preferred private institutions to conduct marriages: The homophobic Christians can conduct their marriages at churches that bar gays, and the more liberal-minded ones can conduct their marr
Liberty in your lifetime
On the topic of marriage... everything you say I agree wholeheartedly 1000%.
Now, I disagree that the scientific process is an equivalent belief system to Christianity. But I'm just gonna skimp over that topic and go to this:
So with all this in mind, despite my own belief in science as opposed to theistic philosophies, I support the rights of parents to teach their children whatever belief systems they choose --- and, if they wish, to shelter their children from belief systems that oppose those beliefs. It all comes down to respecting people's choices and not forcing them into other belief systems against their will.
How do you think this would turn out in 100 years? We live in a democracy. I am imagining an Armageddon scenario where we descend into a second dark age because Evangelicals wanted to rid the world of the scientific process. Now, I don't believe that is the most likely scenario, but in any case it scares me.
So, really, how do you think this would turn out? Remember, it's likely that you're smarter than 90% of the people in this country, let alone this planet.
Just because the U.S. is a republic does not mean it is not a democracy. Democracy/republic are not mutually exclusive.
In that sense then, science would be on par with other belief systems' "methods" such as "by revelation" or "received knowledge." Each is going to have its supporters and detractors. My earlier position still holds, albeit in slightly modified form: These are all belief systems (or methodologies thereof), and if someone's belief system (or its methodology) is at odds with another (or its methodology), they or their children shouldn't be compelled to participate in the belief system (or its methodologies) with which they disagree.
Liberty in your lifetime
The idea that we'd end up with such a scenario is only possible if the Evangelicals win the current battle --- that is, if they're able to push the universal/compulsory school system into teaching their beliefs. That's not what I'm advocating: I'm advocating letting people who believe in this stuff teach it to their own children, and let those who don't, don't, with no interference in either direction. I think such a scenario would turn out just fine; Evangelicals are often loud and obnoxious but they don't make up an overwhelming percentage of the population. There'd be small enclaves of these people around the country, and without the ability to use force to coerce people into their belief system (either via the force of the State or by actually taking up arms themselves), they'd have to rely on persuasion to convince people to join them. Do you think they'd really ever be successful if they could only use persuasion? And if they were actually able to persuade so many people to join them that there are no longer enough adherents to science for it to continue as a viable belief system, well that's just the way it is: Belief systems wither and die all the time. If the proponents of a system have to resort to coercion to keep it alive, maybe it deserves to wither and die.
Also, this, like most issues of freedom of choice, is something that democracy should not apply to. Democracy, at least in our supposed constitutional republic, founded on principals and philosophies put forth by people such as John Locke and Thomas Jefferson, that government exists solely to protect "life, liberty, and property" or "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," and not founded on the "general will" philosophy common to the French Revolution, is merely supposed be a method of electing our leaders, who in turn are only supposed to legislate within that framework of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Democracy is not a method to allow one interest group to force its belief systems on others or force others to subsidize said belief system.
That's fine. And I disagree that it's an equivalent belief system, too. I'm not a post-modernist who believes that all belief systems are equally valid, but I do believe that all people have an equal right to hold onto their own preferred belief systems. I personally believe that science and empiricism are far superior methods to learning about the world than revelation and received knowledge. But I also understand that a lot of people don't, and I shouldn't be able to force my idea of a superior system on them or their families using the power of the State.
Liberty in your lifetime
The early adherents of the Abrahamic religions claimed that their belief system was unlike any other of the day, because they worshiped a living god while all the other religions worshiped dead or inanimate idols.
Every belief system possesses enough unique elements that set it apart from others, that anyone could claim that their own belief system, with the proper distinctions highlighted, is "unlike any other."
Liberty in your lifetime