TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
As long as both are OPTIONAL, I don't see a big problem. Both boil down to exercising beliefs specific to a religion.
I think that coverage of creationism in an elective class on comparative religions, as long as it was not part of a proselytization scheme, and that was not the sole elective class on the curriculum, would probably be fine with the Constitution and with me.
I based my understanding of your position partly on what you wrote:
It can't be offered as a class in its own right in a school for children, although it could at the university level perhaps. It certainly can't be offered "along with" evolution in any way, i.e. in a science class. And the presence or non-presence of religion in the curriculum has nothing to say about whether good science (evolution) should be optional. Teaching evolution is absolutely non-optional.
JohnOfSheffield
Lifer
- Jun 26, 2007
- 11,925
- 2
- 0
There is nothing i can say that will make you get the most obvious thing in the world, that there is a difference between allowing and actively teaching, is there?
How is it not possible for you to get this? It's obvious to me.
How is it not possible for you to get this? It's obvious to me.
JohnOfSheffield
Lifer
- Jun 26, 2007
- 11,925
- 2
- 0
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
Both are using state money to accomodate a religious belief. If we allow one it opens the avenue to allow another.
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
Should the children of religious parents be able to opt out of the teaching of evolution if they believe it in opposition to their belief system?
No. One is an accommodation, the other is using state money to teach religion, violating the Establishment Clause. Allowing a lawful practice does not open up the avenue to allowing an unlawful practice.
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
I'm an agnostic at heart and a firm believer in evolution but I'm trying to look at the feelings on both sides of the issue with some consideration.
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
Both are using State money to accomodate a religious belief. Nor do I believe it would be unlawful to teach creationism unless that teaching were made mandatory, which is something I am not suggesting happen.
My personal feeling on this, trying to be as considerate as possible to all involved, is that people should have the ability to teach their children whatever they like, up to a point defined by the best interests of the child. It is in the best interests of the child to be able to operate as a productive member of society. Hence a parent should not teach his child to swear like a sailor, that doing drugs or otherwise breaking the law is okay, etc. They should also not be allowed to teach their children that science should be rejected, in my opinion. However, it appears that they can-- they just can't require the public schools to do it.
An interesting parallel clash of interests happens when some Jehovah's Witness parents try to prevent their children from receiving medically necessary blood transfusions. The parents consistently lose on this issue. Obviously creationism is not life-or-death, but it does involve the best interests of the child in my opinion.
In drawing your broad generality, you are overlooking a good deal of constitutional law on the issue. Your belief that teaching creationism as a belief system in public schools would not be unlawful, even if optional, is mistaken.
Legislatures and courts draw dividing lines all the time. Here, a line they've drawn clearly divides the teaching of religion beliefs in a public school from optional prayer. Another line divides teaching of religious beliefs in public school from accommodations to a religious group made for a secular purpose (e.g. safety).
It may be helpful to remember a few principles:
* Pointing out a similarity between two situations does not mean that there are no differences.
* Pointing out a similarity between two situations does not mean that the law treats them in the same way.
* Ignoring important differences can lead you far astray.
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
The JW/medical treatment issue is one of life or death. I don't think it's a valid comparison.
Besides, religious indoctrination can be a great springboard to become critical of those same beliefs later in life. I'd be willing to bet that there are quite a few evolution scientists who were raised in strictly religious homes and later rejected all the indoctrination. I was raised Catholic myself and it took me until about 13 years old to realize what bullshit religion was.
Oh, it's valid-- both involve the best interests of the child. You have a different opinion, something else entirely.
Religious indoctrination can also be a great springboard to unquestioningly continuing to accept those beliefs later in life, and indoctrinating one's own children. In fact, this is far more likely. Indoctrination works.
I know you're not advocating allowing creationism to be taught in public schools as a means of encouraging the development of scientific prowess in this country...
Brainonska511
Lifer
- Dec 10, 2005
- 28,725
- 13,892
- 136
I'm surprised it took someone so long to post this.
Only science (you know, that empirical process that goes into proving and disproving hypothesizes) can be taught in a science class. To teach anything else means that it is no longer a science class.
The school board has the right to offer OPTIONAL classes on religion where they can teach different viewpoints in beliefs of one or many religions. They don't have the right to make that class mandatory or push their religious curriculum where it doesn't belong.
If you want creationism to be an option in a "science" (quotes because it can no longer qualify as such if you do teach non-science) classroom, why can't you teach the story of the loaves and the fishes in a math classroom? You know, take the limit of a constant (the few loaves of bread and the few pieces of fish) as Jesus is coming to lunch and you get infinity.
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
My belief that teaching creationsim as a belief system in public schools is not mistaken, so long as it's not taught under the guise of "science" and it is not imposed on those who do not desire to learn that belief system.
I'm well aware that are many legal cogs in this wheel that must be taken into consideration. However, you're making the very same mistake you are chiding me for in claiming that no teaching of creationsim is allowed in public schools, period. That is not true. It can be done by imposing the proper constraints. imo, for those locales with a large contingent of any one religion, it should be permited simply for the sake of satisfying all concerned.
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
I'm not advocating teaching creationsim at all. In fact, I despise the thought. But just because I find it offensive that doesn't mean that everyone should subscribe to my specific ideals, or yours.
This is not about advocacy. This is about creating an environment that is not hostile to any particular group. Also, while we are busy here citing the Establishment clause, the Free Exercise clause (which directly follows the Establishment clause, btw) has been completely neglected. That clause has a direct bearing on the coercive effect of the government on the practice of religion. It's also why I suggest that those who believe in creationism be able to opt their children out of classes that teach evolution.
I think you are missing the point. Many schools allow christian clubs, etc in them without any problem. Many schools also allow Muslim students to use its rooms for prayer. This is because both of these things are voluntary acts by the students, using school facilities that are not otherwise employed to practice their religious beliefs. Basically its the school saying that students can use its facilities as they see fit as long as they aren't bothering anyone when their facilities are open. This is a common sense approach that makes everyone happy I think.
To teach creationism in schools (in science class at least) would make the school positively assert the beliefs of a specific religious doctrine using school resources to do so in both class time and teacher participation. Of course you can add on top of that the fact that the school is now teaching kids things science has proven to be manifestly false... which is a betrayal of the entire purpose of school to begin with.
If these schools are using school funds specifically to build rooms that would not otherwise be built solely to accomodate muslim prayer without offering equal services to any other religion that requests it then yes, it is just as bad. I am not aware of this being the case anywhere, but if it is it should also be stopped.
Do you have anything to back up what you say, or are you just guessing? I see law stating very clearly that if a public school has the purpose of advancing a particular religion, or religiousness in general, when it takes any action, it is unconstitutional.
I can't find any sort of exception that makes it valid for a public school to endorse religious views if it is done in an optional class. Where is it?
Parents can have their children opt out of the teaching of evolution in most if not all school districts. The argument that because people cannot force everyone to learn their religious dogma in school that the free exercise of their religion is somehow impeded is not valid.
Unless they are LearnCreationismInSchool-A-Farians or something, they have the entire rest of their day to practice their religion as they see fit.
The Free Exercise Clause does not give fundies the right to push religious beliefs in public schools.
IF YOU DISAGREE WITH THIS, PROVIDE SUPPORT OR YOU WILL BE IGNORED.
Well actually I agree with TLC here if I have him right. (shocking I know). In fact schools do this now with classes on religion... so actually everyone should be happy. Creationism is taught in our schools under the guideline that its taught as religion and not scientific fact.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 397
Facebook
Twitter