Creationist shenanigans part 439

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
My personal preference is that Evolution be taught in US schools. However, this being a Democratic country, I can't imagine telling people that they can't express or vote their desires, no matter how wacky I believe them to be so long as they don't run afoul of the law.

You mean like the 1st amendment? If people want to teach their own children their religious beliefs, more power to them. They should not, however, be able to force the school to teach their religious beliefs to EVERY student...some of whom may not share those beliefs. Particularly when the topic in question is being taught as SCIENCE, which it clearly isn't no matter what your religious beliefs are.

I mean more than the first amendment. I'm talking democracy. If the majority of people in Taylor county (I've lived in Florida for over 35 years and never heard of Taylor county.) want to teach creationism in addition to evolution, that's their right. If the majority don't then they can vote in new school board members in the next election to overturn the decision. Didn't something similar happen in Kansas already?

btw, I'd never subject my own child to that BS and would pull them out of school if they had to learn creationism. I don't agree with the creationists one iota and feel they are trying to impose their brand of religion on everyone else. But I realized long ago that living in a free country like this one also means that from time-to-time you might be subjected to things that you don't necessarily agree with.

Where do you draw the line, though? Simply being in the minority doesn't remove all your rights...that's the entire reason we DON'T have a pure democracy. I forget who said it, but it's true...democracy has to be more than two wolves and one sheep voting on what's for dinner. And the freedom to believe in whatever religion you like is one of the freedoms that should be protected no matter how small of a minority you are...that's the whole point of the 1st amendment. "Democracy" does not overrule the Bill of Rights, there is no 0th amendment saying that the following is all null and void if a moron and a bunch of his moron friends get together and decide it to be so.

Edit: Living in a free country means that there will sometimes be things you don't agree with, but we're not talking about someone preaching on the street corner, we're talking about government run public school that children are REQUIRED to attend. Freedom is practicing your own religion in your own home or with likeminded peers, it is not forcing other people to learn your religious beliefs.

If a county has a majority who vote to support the teaching of religous beliefs that should be their right to do so. Nor are we talking about a pure democracy here. This is an elected school board, a representative government. I'm not sure why I even have to clarify that issue, and it really seems like a non-sequitor type of argument considering the existing evidence.

You don't have to "clarify" the issue so much as explain it. You may feel a certain way about the majority being able to do whatever they like, but that runs directly counter to the entire idea of this country. It doesn't matter if every citizen directly votes or if elected representatives make the decision, the fact is that there should be (and are) limits placed on the power of even the largest majority.

The 1st amendment directly says that the government can't establish an official religion, I don't see a clause saying "unless a majority of the people think it's a good idea". And including the teaching of religious beliefs in the classroom is unquestionably a violating of the establishment clause...especially when the instruction is presented as scientific fact.

I believe a compromise could be worked out where parents could opt their kids out of the class on either creationism or evolution if so desired. If parents want their children to grow up ignorant about valid science that's not my call, or yours.

If people don't want their kids learning science, that's certainly their call...but while I can see an argument for including science instruction as part of education, I see no argument for teaching religion, and a substantial argument against doing so. This is the real world, not all ideas deserve equal time and equal consideration.

It's not about a majority "doing whatever they like." If a county was full of pedophiles they still couldn't vote to make 5 years old a valid marrying age. This is about personal religious beliefs, which the Constitution also protects to a large degree.

What we should learn is school is not a right, it's a determination, and an arbitrary one. We should also have the rights to withdraw from those arbitrary determinations when they are opposed to our own relious beliefs, or lack thereof.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Gigantopithecus

Originally posted by: bamacre
Bleh. Creationism, evolution, gay marriage, abortion. All wedge issues. All used to "divide and conquer." All made to push front-page problems back a few pages.

While I'd certainly agree that creationist nonsense isn't a front page problem, it certainly isn't as irrelevant as gay marriage and/or abortion. Those issues have no relevance to the economy or everyday life.

Last century was the century of physics & chemistry. This will be the century of biology. Failing to teach solid biological science will put this country at a severe disadvantage in terms of research & development - which have significant effects on peoples' lives & the country's economy.

Of course. Creationism is a theological belief, not a scientific theory. It doesn't belong in schools. But the guy pushing the idea that Creationism should be taught in schools is just another moron who falls for this particular wedge issue.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Now! Now! Let's keep Creationism in Sunday School and Science in the Public School, just so the kids don't get them confused and can then make up their own minds about it.

edit; On second thought, Freedom from Religion may be more important then "Freedom of religion".

 

[Vic]

I no longer believe that science is something that has to be fought for, as I see that it will prevail for itself. Belief is a fragile thing, perhaps a blip in the evolutionary scheme of things. Something to convince us under-sensationalized beings that we were actually communicating with each other. History, however, proves that reality, and the closest perception thereof, wins out over belief every time.

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

Originally posted by: Vic
I no longer believe that science is something that has to be fought for, as I see that it will prevail for itself. Belief is a fragile thing, perhaps a blip in the evolutionary scheme of things. Something to convince us under-sensationalized beings that we were actually communicating with each other. History, however, proves that reality, and the closest perception thereof, wins out over belief every time.

The middle east was a haven of enlightenment and the world center of mathematics and science well before the European enlightenment. There are a number of reasons for the collapse of the great middle eastern scientific societies and I'm not claiming it all fell apart just because of religion, but I think it's enough of a cautionary tale to remind us that sometimes we need to stand up for reason and logic, even when it seems to be doing just fine by itself. It's not enough to rest on your laurels.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer

Originally posted by: Vic
I no longer believe that science is something that has to be fought for, as I see that it will prevail for itself. Belief is a fragile thing, perhaps a blip in the evolutionary scheme of things. Something to convince us under-sensationalized beings that we were actually communicating with each other. History, however, proves that reality, and the closest perception thereof, wins out over belief every time.

The middle east was a haven of enlightenment and the world center of mathematics and science well before the European enlightenment. There are a number of reasons for the collapse of the great middle eastern scientific societies and I'm not claiming it all fell apart just because of religion, but I think it's enough of a cautionary tale to remind us that sometimes we need to stand up for reason and logic, even when it seems to be doing just fine by itself. It's not enough to rest on your laurels.

I'm not speaking of resting on own's laurels, but of evolutionary fact. If it wasn't for their oil and the power it gives them, their regression would assured their eventual conquest and destruction. Just as their knowledge and sciences were never lost, but was what spurred the European enlightenment.

Caution is warranted to be sure. But fought for? No. The truth fights for itself. It need only be told.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer

Originally posted by: Vic
I no longer believe that science is something that has to be fought for, as I see that it will prevail for itself. Belief is a fragile thing, perhaps a blip in the evolutionary scheme of things. Something to convince us under-sensationalized beings that we were actually communicating with each other. History, however, proves that reality, and the closest perception thereof, wins out over belief every time.

The middle east was a haven of enlightenment and the world center of mathematics and science well before the European enlightenment. There are a number of reasons for the collapse of the great middle eastern scientific societies and I'm not claiming it all fell apart just because of religion, but I think it's enough of a cautionary tale to remind us that sometimes we need to stand up for reason and logic, even when it seems to be doing just fine by itself. It's not enough to rest on your laurels.

I think it was Islam that made the middle east a haven in the first place.

 

[spittledip]

Originally posted by: Gigantopithecus

Originally posted by: spittledip
The school system is a public service. It is representative of the community it serves. The school boards (and all social service and community service boards, etc) take representatives from all walks of life from the community in an attempt to get a good representation of the community. this includes "experts" in the field. So, this also includes people with less than a high school education. That is just how the system works.. it doesn't always work well, however. But, to suggest that only the "educated" have good ideas or will not lead the community astray is far from sensible.

I guess the word 'leader' has lost its meaning in modern American democracy. Don't forget that half of a 'good representation' is even less intelligent & capable than Average Joe!

I think you miss the point... it is not about leading, it is about representation and what the community wants.

 

[sandorski]

People don't learn from History. This is why Government Centralizes and takes power away from the Local Level. If those Responsible for Leadership fail to Lead into a better future, they lose the ability to Lead. The Civil War was the most dramatic example of this, but Troops protecting Students in the '60's as part of the Civil Rights movement was also a dramatic example of it.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

If a county has a majority who vote to support the teaching of religous beliefs that should be their right to do so. Nor are we talking about a pure democracy here. This is an elected school board, a representative government. I'm not sure why I even have to clarify that issue, and it really seems like a non-sequitor type of argument considering the existing evidence.

I believe a compromise could be worked out where parents could opt their kids out of the class on either creationism or evolution if so desired. If parents want their children to grow up ignorant about valid science that's not my call, or yours.

The funny thing about the Constitution, Mr. Chickie, is that it protects the rights of the minority and the majority does not rule outside the vision of our founding fathers.

The SCOTUS has upheld the establishment clause in that the preference of one religion over another or the support of a religious idea with no identifiable secular purpose is unconstitutional.

And no offense to Mr. CAD, but, WTF?, dude .....

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
The establishment clause has nothing to do with this subject.

A public school board member votes to oppose new science education standards on the teaching of evolutionary biology. CLEARLY in an email response he uses Answers In Genesis in his defense of the resolution the school board passed which proclaims ...

.... the new Sunshine State Standards for Science be revised so that evolution is presented as one of several theories ....

You are free to find your Answers In Genesis but the establishment clause prevents creationism being taught in science class as an alternative to evolution as an "explanation of the origin of life" as affirmed by the Federal Court in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District


Chickie says this is a non-sequitur. ""Majority Rules-Damn the Constitution"" - HA !!! Maybe he should first learn how to spell non-sequitur ...

And CAD drinks the kool-aid, cans the establishment clause and goes on a rant against climate change ...

You guys have a serious disconnect from reality ...

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: spittledip

Originally posted by: Gigantopithecus

Originally posted by: spittledip
The school system is a public service. It is representative of the community it serves. The school boards (and all social service and community service boards, etc) take representatives from all walks of life from the community in an attempt to get a good representation of the community. this includes "experts" in the field. So, this also includes people with less than a high school education. That is just how the system works.. it doesn't always work well, however. But, to suggest that only the "educated" have good ideas or will not lead the community astray is far from sensible.

I guess the word 'leader' has lost its meaning in modern American democracy. Don't forget that half of a 'good representation' is even less intelligent & capable than Average Joe!

I think you miss the point... it is not about leading, it is about representation and what the community wants.

No, my friend, I'm afraid you miss the point.

I don't care if a 99% majority of the community wants something - if it is unconstitutional and the 1% minority challenges - that 99% majority is going home 'spanked'

 

[Paratus]

For those defending the dubious right to teach biblical creationism as science why stop there?

Math Teacher: "Class please open your bibles to John 3:!5"

I'm guessing most here would find that an inappropriate text book for a math class. So why does it seem fine for science?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

If a county has a majority who vote to support the teaching of religous beliefs that should be their right to do so. Nor are we talking about a pure democracy here. This is an elected school board, a representative government. I'm not sure why I even have to clarify that issue, and it really seems like a non-sequitor type of argument considering the existing evidence.

I believe a compromise could be worked out where parents could opt their kids out of the class on either creationism or evolution if so desired. If parents want their children to grow up ignorant about valid science that's not my call, or yours.

The funny thing about the Constitution, Mr. Chickie, is that it protects the rights of the minority and the majority does not rule outside the vision of our founding fathers.

The SCOTUS has upheld the establishment clause in that the preference of one religion over another or the support of a religious idea with no identifiable secular purpose is unconstitutional.

I'm not sure why you bolded my comment about the argument being a non-sequitor because it was referring to Rainsford's comment about "pure Democracy," and doesn't seem to have any relevance to your reply whatsoever.

btw, the Constitution (more specifically the Bill of Rights) doesn't explicitly protect the rights of any minority, it only does so by proxy and only in some cases. The Bill of Rights protects the individual.

If a place like Taylor county is full of overtly religious people who feel they should be teaching creationism to their own children, we should accomodate them. There are ways, as I've mentioned previously, to permit that accomodation without imposing others who may not subscribe to those beliefs. There's no reason we can't keep both sides happy in this case and come to an agreeable compromise.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

If a county has a majority who vote to support the teaching of religous beliefs that should be their right to do so. Nor are we talking about a pure democracy here. This is an elected school board, a representative government. I'm not sure why I even have to clarify that issue, and it really seems like a non-sequitor type of argument considering the existing evidence.

I believe a compromise could be worked out where parents could opt their kids out of the class on either creationism or evolution if so desired. If parents want their children to grow up ignorant about valid science that's not my call, or yours.

The funny thing about the Constitution, Mr. Chickie, is that it protects the rights of the minority and the majority does not rule outside the vision of our founding fathers.

The SCOTUS has upheld the establishment clause in that the preference of one religion over another or the support of a religious idea with no identifiable secular purpose is unconstitutional.

I'm not sure why you bolded my comment about the argument being a non-sequitor because it was referring to Rainsford's comment about "pure Democracy," and doesn't seem to have any relevance to your reply whatsoever.

btw, the Constitution (more specifically the Bill of Rights) doesn't explicitly protect the rights of any minority, it only does so by proxy and only in some cases. The Bill of Rights protects the individual.

If a place like Taylor county is full of overtly religious people who feel they should be teaching creationism to their own children, we should accomodate them. There are ways, as I've mentioned previously, to permit that accomodation without imposing others who may not subscribe to those beliefs. There's no reason we can't keep both sides happy in this case and come to an agreeable compromise.

No, you shouldn't. Let them teach their Hocus Pocus at Church. School is for Education, not Indoctrination.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

In every nation where religion is the law or actively influences the law we see the greatest crimes againt humanity.

We don't even have to learn from history, just look at the world as it is today, that should be enough of a deterrent.

There is a reason why freedom of religion is a basic human right in the only thing we got that carries the weight of all involved nations, the UN.

 

[punchkin]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
If a place like Taylor county is full of overtly religious people who feel they should be teaching creationism to their own children, we should accomodate them.

No, because as discussed previously it violates the Establishment Clause. It doesn't respect the separation between church and state. Why do you not understand this?

In addition, it doesn't make good policy. Letting local yahoos decide whether or not science is included in the curriculum, or whether it's muddied improperly with religion, makes it less likely that children will graduate with basic competency.

Facts don't change with geographic location, only opinions.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

If a county has a majority who vote to support the teaching of religous beliefs that should be their right to do so. Nor are we talking about a pure democracy here. This is an elected school board, a representative government. I'm not sure why I even have to clarify that issue, and it really seems like a non-sequitor type of argument considering the existing evidence.

I believe a compromise could be worked out where parents could opt their kids out of the class on either creationism or evolution if so desired. If parents want their children to grow up ignorant about valid science that's not my call, or yours.

The funny thing about the Constitution, Mr. Chickie, is that it protects the rights of the minority and the majority does not rule outside the vision of our founding fathers.

The SCOTUS has upheld the establishment clause in that the preference of one religion over another or the support of a religious idea with no identifiable secular purpose is unconstitutional.

I'm not sure why you bolded my comment about the argument being a non-sequitor because it was referring to Rainsford's comment about "pure Democracy," and doesn't seem to have any relevance to your reply whatsoever.

btw, the Constitution (more specifically the Bill of Rights) doesn't explicitly protect the rights of any minority, it only does so by proxy and only in some cases. The Bill of Rights protects the individual.

If a place like Taylor county is full of overtly religious people who feel they should be teaching creationism to their own children, we should accomodate them. There are ways, as I've mentioned previously, to permit that accomodation without imposing others who may not subscribe to those beliefs. There's no reason we can't keep both sides happy in this case and come to an agreeable compromise.

No, you shouldn't. Let them teach their Hocus Pocus at Church. School is for Education, not Indoctrination.

Then you would also agree that Muslim prayer should not be accomodated at public schools and we should not be installing foot washing basins?

I'm asking because I get the impression this is more about some people's distaste for Christians, and their desire to stick it to them, and less to do with religion in general.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

If a county has a majority who vote to support the teaching of religous beliefs that should be their right to do so. Nor are we talking about a pure democracy here. This is an elected school board, a representative government. I'm not sure why I even have to clarify that issue, and it really seems like a non-sequitor type of argument considering the existing evidence.

I believe a compromise could be worked out where parents could opt their kids out of the class on either creationism or evolution if so desired. If parents want their children to grow up ignorant about valid science that's not my call, or yours.

The funny thing about the Constitution, Mr. Chickie, is that it protects the rights of the minority and the majority does not rule outside the vision of our founding fathers.

The SCOTUS has upheld the establishment clause in that the preference of one religion over another or the support of a religious idea with no identifiable secular purpose is unconstitutional.

I'm not sure why you bolded my comment about the argument being a non-sequitor because it was referring to Rainsford's comment about "pure Democracy," and doesn't seem to have any relevance to your reply whatsoever.

btw, the Constitution (more specifically the Bill of Rights) doesn't explicitly protect the rights of any minority, it only does so by proxy and only in some cases. The Bill of Rights protects the individual.

If a place like Taylor county is full of overtly religious people who feel they should be teaching creationism to their own children, we should accomodate them. There are ways, as I've mentioned previously, to permit that accomodation without imposing others who may not subscribe to those beliefs. There's no reason we can't keep both sides happy in this case and come to an agreeable compromise.

No, you shouldn't. Let them teach their Hocus Pocus at Church. School is for Education, not Indoctrination.

I agree completely, not every opinion and not that it is OPINION is worthy of equal consideration, especially when it comes to eduation.

The class about creationism lasts two seconds "god did it, he did everything, class dismissed" and teaches you nothing at all, we KNOW evolution is real, we can observe it happening in realtime in laboratories, there is NO question about it.

Yet some people think we should do the two second thing anyway because they believe that mob rules apply in school.

Seriously, how stupid is that, it proves the third hypothesis, sometimes evolution just fucks up.

 

[punchkin]

Originally posted by: Paratus
For those defending the dubious right to teach biblical creationism as science why stop there?

Math Teacher: "Class please open your bibles to John 3:!5"

I'm guessing most here would find that an inappropriate text book for a math class. So why does it seem fine for science?

Teaching math from the Bible would seem appropriate to these same folks, if compelling mathematical truths threatened their belief system.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

If a county has a majority who vote to support the teaching of religous beliefs that should be their right to do so. Nor are we talking about a pure democracy here. This is an elected school board, a representative government. I'm not sure why I even have to clarify that issue, and it really seems like a non-sequitor type of argument considering the existing evidence.

I believe a compromise could be worked out where parents could opt their kids out of the class on either creationism or evolution if so desired. If parents want their children to grow up ignorant about valid science that's not my call, or yours.

The funny thing about the Constitution, Mr. Chickie, is that it protects the rights of the minority and the majority does not rule outside the vision of our founding fathers.

The SCOTUS has upheld the establishment clause in that the preference of one religion over another or the support of a religious idea with no identifiable secular purpose is unconstitutional.

I'm not sure why you bolded my comment about the argument being a non-sequitor because it was referring to Rainsford's comment about "pure Democracy," and doesn't seem to have any relevance to your reply whatsoever.

btw, the Constitution (more specifically the Bill of Rights) doesn't explicitly protect the rights of any minority, it only does so by proxy and only in some cases. The Bill of Rights protects the individual.

If a place like Taylor county is full of overtly religious people who feel they should be teaching creationism to their own children, we should accomodate them. There are ways, as I've mentioned previously, to permit that accomodation without imposing others who may not subscribe to those beliefs. There's no reason we can't keep both sides happy in this case and come to an agreeable compromise.

No, you shouldn't. Let them teach their Hocus Pocus at Church. School is for Education, not Indoctrination.

Then you would also agree that Muslim prayer should not be accomodated at public schools and we should not be installing foot washing basins?

I'm asking because I get the impression this is more about some people's distaste for Christians, and their desire to stick it to them, and less to do with religion in general.

Not even close to the same thing.

 

[punchkin]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Then you would also agree that Muslim prayer should not be accomodated at public schools and we should not be installing foot washing basins?

I'm asking because I get the impression this is more about some people's distaste for Christians, and their desire to stick it to them, and less to do with religion in general.

Muslims have not tried to push religion into the curriculum as sham science in this country, as far as I know. This is purely a response to the improper attempt by some Christians to pervert public-school science education for their own ends.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

If a county has a majority who vote to support the teaching of religous beliefs that should be their right to do so. Nor are we talking about a pure democracy here. This is an elected school board, a representative government. I'm not sure why I even have to clarify that issue, and it really seems like a non-sequitor type of argument considering the existing evidence.

I believe a compromise could be worked out where parents could opt their kids out of the class on either creationism or evolution if so desired. If parents want their children to grow up ignorant about valid science that's not my call, or yours.

The funny thing about the Constitution, Mr. Chickie, is that it protects the rights of the minority and the majority does not rule outside the vision of our founding fathers.

The SCOTUS has upheld the establishment clause in that the preference of one religion over another or the support of a religious idea with no identifiable secular purpose is unconstitutional.

I'm not sure why you bolded my comment about the argument being a non-sequitor because it was referring to Rainsford's comment about "pure Democracy," and doesn't seem to have any relevance to your reply whatsoever.

btw, the Constitution (more specifically the Bill of Rights) doesn't explicitly protect the rights of any minority, it only does so by proxy and only in some cases. The Bill of Rights protects the individual.

If a place like Taylor county is full of overtly religious people who feel they should be teaching creationism to their own children, we should accomodate them. There are ways, as I've mentioned previously, to permit that accomodation without imposing others who may not subscribe to those beliefs. There's no reason we can't keep both sides happy in this case and come to an agreeable compromise.

No, you shouldn't. Let them teach their Hocus Pocus at Church. School is for Education, not Indoctrination.

Then you would also agree that Muslim prayer should not be accomodated at public schools and we should not be installing foot washing basins?

I'm asking because I get the impression this is more about some people's distaste for Christians, and their desire to stick it to them, and less to do with religion in general.

Not even close to the same thing.

It sure is the same thing at the core. Both are intermingling religion in government funded systems, which is what this all boils down to.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

I'm not sure why you bolded my comment about the argument being a non-sequitor because it was referring to Rainsford's comment about "pure Democracy," and doesn't seem to have any relevance to your reply whatsoever.

btw, the Constitution (more specifically the Bill of Rights) doesn't explicitly protect the rights of any minority, it only does so by proxy and only in some cases. The Bill of Rights protects the individual.

If a place like Taylor county is full of overtly religious people who feel they should be teaching creationism to their own children, we should accomodate them. There are ways, as I've mentioned previously, to permit that accomodation without imposing others who may not subscribe to those beliefs. There's no reason we can't keep both sides happy in this case and come to an agreeable compromise.

Nobody is stopping them from teaching creationism the rest of the time, the objection is using state funds (ie. time in school) for the purpose of religious indoctrination, which creationism undoubtedly is. If you let them use state funds to promote Christianity in this town no matter how devout its population, you are opening up a pandora's box.

Let the schools teach reality and if the community wants to they can find another vehicle for teaching about their sky beardo.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

If a county has a majority who vote to support the teaching of religous beliefs that should be their right to do so. Nor are we talking about a pure democracy here. This is an elected school board, a representative government. I'm not sure why I even have to clarify that issue, and it really seems like a non-sequitor type of argument considering the existing evidence.

I believe a compromise could be worked out where parents could opt their kids out of the class on either creationism or evolution if so desired. If parents want their children to grow up ignorant about valid science that's not my call, or yours.

The funny thing about the Constitution, Mr. Chickie, is that it protects the rights of the minority and the majority does not rule outside the vision of our founding fathers.

The SCOTUS has upheld the establishment clause in that the preference of one religion over another or the support of a religious idea with no identifiable secular purpose is unconstitutional.

I'm not sure why you bolded my comment about the argument being a non-sequitor because it was referring to Rainsford's comment about "pure Democracy," and doesn't seem to have any relevance to your reply whatsoever.

btw, the Constitution (more specifically the Bill of Rights) doesn't explicitly protect the rights of any minority, it only does so by proxy and only in some cases. The Bill of Rights protects the individual.

If a place like Taylor county is full of overtly religious people who feel they should be teaching creationism to their own children, we should accomodate them. There are ways, as I've mentioned previously, to permit that accomodation without imposing others who may not subscribe to those beliefs. There's no reason we can't keep both sides happy in this case and come to an agreeable compromise.

No, you shouldn't. Let them teach their Hocus Pocus at Church. School is for Education, not Indoctrination.

Then you would also agree that Muslim prayer should not be accomodated at public schools and we should not be installing foot washing basins?

I'm asking because I get the impression this is more about some people's distaste for Christians, and their desire to stick it to them, and less to do with religion in general.

As a Brit it feels kinda strange that i have to teach you about your own constitution, the point is freedom of religion, that is, no religion is mandatory and all religions or no religion is of equal worth in the eyes of the law.

So people wanting to pray in school is fine, making shcool prayer mandatory is not, you really know that i am sure, you're just playing the us vs them game. Probably because you have no arguments and know it but it could be because you are stupid.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Then you would also agree that Muslim prayer should not be accomodated at public schools and we should not be installing foot washing basins?

I'm asking because I get the impression this is more about some people's distaste for Christians, and their desire to stick it to them, and less to do with religion in general.

Muslims have not tried to push religion into the curriculum as sham science in this country, as far as I know. This is purely a response to the improper attempt by some Christians to pervert public-school science education for their own ends.

As long as they only push it on their own, why should this be a problem?

I'm not claiming that Taylor county should make learning about creationism mandatory for all. And if we can acomodate Muslims in their religious practices and beliefs in this country surely we can do the same for Christians. I don't personally buy into either of their beliefs but I see no reason why we can't come to a compromise on the situation that is satisfactory for all concerned.