[olePigeon]

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19926643.300

Their state legislature passed a law -- AGAIN -- to force teachers to teach Intelligent Design and Creationism next to Evolution and Gravity. That state is seriously f**ked up.

You can be religious all you want, but keep it out of the schools. This is absolutely ridiculous.

[turtle777]

I disagree.

Teaching about Intelligent Design and Creationism could be done in a matter-of-fact manner, stating what it entails. It doesn't have to endorse that particular faith and push the value system on the student.

-t

[Uncle Doof]

I think someone needs to go read their first amendment again.

Here is it, to save you bothering to go look it up:

Congress shall make no law especting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Is the Louisiana state legislature the Congress of the United States of America? No it isn't.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Uncle Doof 

I think someone needs to go read their first amendment again.

Here is it, to save you bothering to go look it up:

Is the Louisiana state legislature the Congress of the United States of America? No it isn't.

The First Amendment applies to the states as well.

[Uncle Doof]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

The First Amendment applies to the states as well.

Well why doesn't it say "Congress or state legislature shall make no law..." then?

Were the people who wrote it illiterate or something? Or are the people who're reading it wilfully illiterate?

[Chongo]

Many of the original 13 states had state supported churches. Up until 1833 (Barron v. Baltimore) the bill of rights applied to the federal level only.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorpo...l_of_Rights%29
I was taught, in a public school of all places, that religion was the word they used, where we use the word denomination for now. They (the founding fathers)did not want the Church of England, the Roman Catholic, or the Lutheran Church etc., as the official church of the US.

more on this.

http://books.google.com/books?id=H92...lepage#PPA3,M1

[Uncle Doof]

Wait. So states can't make up their own rules when it comes to the First Amendment, but can make up their own rules when it comes to the Second?

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Uncle Doof 

Well why doesn't it say "Congress or state legislature shall make no law..." then?

Were the people who wrote it illiterate or something? Or are the people who're reading it wilfully illiterate?

Because they originally only applied to the federal government. But laws can change. You may remember that we had a little problem over here about 150 years ago dealing with some states' views of individual rights...

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Uncle Doof 

Wait. So states can't make up their own rules when it comes to the First Amendment, but can make up their own rules when it comes to the Second?

States can make up their own rules & laws completely contradictory to the U.S. Constitution and Federal laws. It's their right as governing bodies. One example is how states deal with marijuana. In California, it's legal to use marijuana as long as you're not selling it. However, it's made very clear that it's a felony for any amount of marijuana if the Federal government presses charges.

The state government can pass a law forcing children to adopt religious beliefs, as they did in Louisiana. However, the Supreme Court will most likely view that law as a violation of the Constitution and the U.S. Department of Education will force them to change it.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

I disagree.

Teaching about Intelligent Design and Creationism could be done in a matter-of-fact manner, stating what it entails. It doesn't have to endorse that particular faith and push the value system on the student.

-t

That's exactly what law was designed for. The Christians in this case passed the law so they can teach their faith to students.

IT IS NOT SCIENCE. It has absolutely no ing place in the science classroom. NONE. That is the only matter-of-fact position on the subject. This law is 100% about instituting faith-based doctrine in the classroom.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

I disagree.

Teaching about Intelligent Design and Creationism could be done in a matter-of-fact manner, stating what it entails. It doesn't have to endorse that particular faith and push the value system on the student.

-t

You can't teach about intelligent design in a matter-of-fact manner. Whether or not it's actually true, it's sorely lacking in scientific facts to support it — it's a religious belief. This is what the Flying Spaghetti Monster was created to parody. If you're going to teach intelligent design, why not teach Spaghetti Monsterism?

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

States can make up their own rules & laws completely contradictory to the U.S. Constitution and Federal laws. It's their right as governing bodies. One example is how states deal with marijuana. In California, it's legal to use marijuana as long as you're not selling it. However, it's made very clear that it's a felony for any amount of marijuana if the Federal government presses charges.

The state government can pass a law forcing children to adopt religious beliefs, as they did in Louisiana. However, the Supreme Court will most likely view that law as a violation of the Constitution and the U.S. Department of Education will force them to change it.

How do you square your first paragraph with the second?

States can pass some laws that contradict federal laws, e.g., my state doesn't have an insanity verdict but the federal government does. That's fine, and doesn't violate anything. But in some cases states are not allowed to contradict federal law, e.g., the First Amendment. States cannot pass laws that violate the First Amendment.

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

You can't teach about intelligent design in a matter-of-fact manner. Whether or not it's actually true, it's sorely lacking in scientific facts to support it...

Same with evolution.

[Dakar the Fourth]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

Same with evolution.

Heeeeere we goooo

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

How do you square your first paragraph with the second?

States can pass some laws that contradict federal laws, e.g., my state doesn't have an insanity verdict but the federal government does. That's fine, and doesn't violate anything. But in some cases states are not allowed to contradict federal law, e.g., the First Amendment. States cannot pass laws that violate the First Amendment.

They can pass laws, and they do. The Civil Rights movement was in part a reaction to state laws that were contradictory to the Constitution.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

Same with evolution.

You're not serious, are you?

[paul w]

Really, it is just a theory, you know...

[lpkmckenna]

[Uncle Skeleton]

I'm going to go ahead and take Louisiana's side. If they want to reject science and live in a religious wonderland, why shouldn't they be able to? I would be interested to see how that little thought experiment turned out, a few years down the road. Who knows, maybe they'll become a shining beacon for the rest of us to emulate...

This post was inspired by http://christianexodus.org/

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by Dakar the Fourth 

Heeeeere we goooo

Heh...

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

You're not serious, are you?

Who knows? Maybe I am, maybe I'm not. I think I'll just leave it up to the federal government to choose for me.

[Dakar the Fourth]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

I think I'll just leave it up to the federal government to choose for me.

Choose what's science and what's not?

[sek929]

Like kids need even less time to learn about worthwhile things. So lets fill their time with religious non-sense that they should be taught in a CHURCH if they are so inclined.

[paul w]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

Who knows? Maybe I am, maybe I'm not. I think I'll just leave it up to the federal government to choose for me.

Originally Posted by Dakar the Fourth 

Choose what's science and what's not?

I think he's making a point about how the federal government wants to tell us how science is taught. Or rather what science even IS.

Because apparently there are those who like theirs mixed with religious beliefs. And it's not enough to teach that in the many parochial schools of their choice, but in schools funded and attended by those who don't share their particular brand of faith.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

Same with evolution.

Uh…no. Evolution is a scientific theory backed by mountains of evidence with practically universal acceptance in the field of biology. Intelligent design is something some Christians came up with because for some reason evolution makes them feel insecure.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-...o-biology.html

In essence, though, evidence for intelligent design would amount to evidence for God (since intelligent design is basically the idea that God did stuff himself). Besides the fact that God's existence is pretty obviously not scientifically proven, do you not think that's a religious topic?

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by Dakar the Fourth 

Choose what's science and what's not?

They've done it for decades, so why not? I have no problem with surrendering my beliefs to the government so they can decide what's best for me.
*cough*

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by paul w 

I think he's making a point about how the federal government wants to tell us how science is taught. Or rather what science even IS.

Exactly.

Because apparently there are those who like theirs mixed with religious beliefs. And it's not enough to teach that in the many parochial schools of their choice, but in schools funded and attended by those who don't share their particular brand of faith.

And I see what you're saying here.

My point of view is this: I don't mind them teaching evolution if they teach intelligent design. Intelligent design covers basically any religious perspective, so it's not Christian-centric. The fact that the government tends to step in, saying, "At school, we only teach 'fact.' And the 'fact' is that evolution is pure, unadulterated science. It's truth, and that's that."

The problems are as following:

1. Evolution is NOT 100% fact. It is still a theory, and there are some gaping holes in it.
2. We're being taught what to think, not how to think.
3. For the schools to say evolution is absolute truth means that Christianity cannot be truth (I'm aware some would debate this). This demotes religious thought from a belief system to a loose, adaptable guide by which to live your life.

Evolution-only taught in schools is limiting broad education and undermining religious freedom.

One thing that atheists and/or evolutionists cannot understand is that from the perspective of a deeply religious person, his religion cannot be separated from the other aspects of his life. It's not just a personal belief that you keep tucked away in your bedroom; it's a lifestyle that affects everything you do and believe.

[Dakar the Fourth]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

They've done it for decades, so why not? I have no problem with surrendering my beliefs to the government so they can decide what's best for me.

No one's telling you to surrender your beliefs. Just to learn the proper scientific theory in the proper setting. Leave the religious concepts where they belong, and seem to have thrived regardless of not being taught in school.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Doof 

Wait. So states can't make up their own rules when it comes to the First Amendment, but can make up their own rules when it comes to the Second?

Govt. in New Orleans gave up on the 2nd Amendment after Katrina, too, evidently.

Hey, all you Creationistas who want the Bible taught as science, look at what your efforts have brought about -- Global Warming is taught as science now, and it's just as much belief without evidence (religion) as Creationism. Carlin said it best: "It's a mystery."

And all the types on the Left talking about teaching the scientific method, evidence, blah blah -- Global Warming is just as hokey as I.D. They're both contrivances to grasp power, both are propaganda systems.

If a religion is so freaking weak that it has to be taught in public school, and belief systems must be excluded to protect it, then how long will it be able to sustain itself, really? I understand that the Christian Right is working at a severe disadvantage given the media war against it (and all morality), but come on!

[Uncle Doof]

Annnnd we're back to the First again.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

That's no law, either way. Totally neutral.
Assuming that the state can be seen in the same light as "Congress", then it follows that the only people with any kind of say about what's taught in schools with regard to this subject matter is the school and its customers. End of story.

I think they used to have a word for that kind of thing. "Freedom".

[Uncle Doof]

Originally Posted by finboy 

Govt. in New Orleans gave up on the 2nd Amendment after Katrina, too, evidently.

Yup.

[Shaddim]

So, some people are irritated over the people of Louisiana choosing what's taught in their schools?

Don't like it? Don't move there.

I can't say that I agree with their decision, but it's their choice to make.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I'm going to go ahead and take Louisiana's side. If they want to reject science and live in a religious wonderland, why shouldn't they be able to? I would be interested to see how that little thought experiment turned out, a few years down the road. Who knows, maybe they'll become a shining beacon for the rest of us to emulate...

I agree - let's let them go ahead. Then we can watch evolution play itself out!

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Dakar the Fourth 

No one's telling you to surrender your beliefs. Just to learn the proper scientific theory in the proper setting. Leave the religious concepts where they belong, and seem to have thrived regardless of not being taught in school.

It's not your place to tell the citizens of Louisiana what they can teach in their schools.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Uncle Doof 

Annnnd we're back to the First again.



That's no law, either way. Totally neutral.
Assuming that the state can be seen in the same light as "Congress", then it follows that the only people with any kind of say about what's taught in schools with regard to this subject matter is the school and its customers. End of story.

I think they used to have a word for that kind of thing. "Freedom".

State schools are a state program, and thus covered by the First Amendment. Private schools can teach any mumbo-jumbo they like.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

State schools are a state program, and thus covered by the First Amendment. Private schools can teach any mumbo-jumbo they like.

True. One of my religions is not listening to crackpot Christian theories and fairy tales. If I lived in Louisiana, this law would be prohibiting the free exercise of my religion. Directly in violation of the First Amendment...

[Uncle Doof]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

State schools are a state program, and thus covered by the First Amendment.

Yup. Government can make no law either way - even if they're paying for the school.
Is it just me or are people not understanding this whole separation of church and state thing? The First doesn't prohibit a state school from teaching ID - it prohibits the government from telling that school what it can or cannot teach with regard to religious issues. "Congress will make no law..."

[Dakar the Fourth]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

It's not your place to tell the citizens of Louisiana what they can teach in their schools.

It's not anyone's place to be teaching religious "theories" in public schools.

I'm sure you would support them if they wanted to teach 2 + 2 =5 and anything else they could agree on, but "coke vs. pepsi" view on these sort of things is mind-boggling. I suppose this is what makes me a librul.

[Hugi]

Aaah, I love the US. Constant source of entertainment.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

My point of view is this: I don't mind them teaching evolution if they teach intelligent design. Intelligent design covers basically any religious perspective, so it's not Christian-centric. The fact that the government tends to step in, saying, "At school, we only teach 'fact.' And the 'fact' is that evolution is pure, unadulterated science. It's truth, and that's that."

The problems are as following:

1. Evolution is NOT 100% fact. It is still a theory, and there are some gaping holes in it.
2. We're being taught what to think, not how to think.
3. For the schools to say evolution is absolute truth means that Christianity cannot be truth (I'm aware some would debate this). This demotes religious thought from a belief system to a loose, adaptable guide by which to live your life.

Evolution-only taught in schools is limiting broad education and undermining religious freedom.

I agree that if evolution is taught as the absolute truth to the origin and/or development of species, that is inappropriate. Trouble is, that's not how it's intended to be taught. It's taught as a prime example of the application of scientific theory - and as the prevailing theory on how SCIENCE explains life. Students learn about the theory itself, the experiments to find evidence, and how the evidence supports the theory. In other words, science. This is very much learning how to think instead of what to think. This is how I remember learning it. Maybe I had an extraordinary teacher, but I don't think so.

In which school subject is ID relevant? Where should it be taught? It's the poorest illustration of scientific method I've seen, so I'd say science is out... Math? Reading? Social Studies?

As for #3, yes, obviously evolution and creationism are in conflict. Hence all the argument. Why the aversion to evolution as a viable theory? If we suddenly came upon some strong observable evidence of Creationism, I'd be very willing to adapt.

One thing that atheists and/or evolutionists cannot understand is that from the perspective of a deeply religious person, his religion cannot be separated from the other aspects of his life. It's not just a personal belief that you keep tucked away in your bedroom; it's a lifestyle that affects everything you do and believe.

Nope, I get that. See it all the time. That does not give a religious person the right to dictate what others do and believe. That's where the line is crossed.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Dakar the Fourth 

It's not anyone's place to be teaching religious "theories" in public schools.

Yes, it is. If they choose to do so it's their business. Worry about what's going on in your own state.

Now, if the Feds want to cut off their funding, that could be another matter.

I'm sure you would support them if they wanted to teach 2 + 2 =5 and anything else they could agree on, but "coke vs. pepsi" view on these sort of things is mind-boggling. I suppose this is what makes me a librul.

Sure, I do. If they want to make mistakes, it's their call. Quit trying to save people from themselves.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by Uncle Doof 

Yup. Government can make no law either way - even if they're paying for the school.
Is it just me or are people not understanding this whole separation of church and state thing? The First doesn't prohibit a state school from teaching ID - it prohibits the government from telling that school what it can or cannot teach with regard to religious issues. "Congress will make no law..."

As I understand it, this law is forcing the teaching of ID. Isn't that making a law favoring one religion over others? So if Congress (or, for argument's sake, the state) is making a law, isn't that in direct violation here?

[paul w]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

I agree that if evolution is taught as the absolute truth to the origin and/or development of species, that is inappropriate. Trouble is, that's not how it's intended to be taught. It's taught as a prime example of the application of scientific theory - and as the prevailing theory on how SCIENCE explains life. Students learn about the theory itself, the experiments to find evidence, and how the evidence supports the theory. In other words, science. This is very much learning how to think instead of what to think. This is how I remember learning it. Maybe I had an extraordinary teacher, but I don't think so.

In which school subject is ID relevant? Where should it be taught? It's the poorest illustration of scientific method I've seen, so I'd say science is out... Math? Reading? Social Studies?

As for #3, yes, obviously evolution and creationism are in conflict. Hence all the argument. Why the aversion to evolution as a viable theory? If we suddenly came upon some strong observable evidence of Creationism, I'd be very willing to adapt.



Nope, I get that. See it all the time. That does not give a religious person the right to dictate what others do and believe. That's where the line is crossed.

Well said.

[paul w]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

As I understand it, this law is forcing the teaching of ID. Isn't that making a law favoring one religion over others? So if Congress (or, for argument's sake, the state) is making a law, isn't that in direct violation here?

This very same thing was ruled unconsitutional by a republican, Bush appointed Judge (albeit in Pennsylvania). We'll see how it plays out in Louisiana. Different demographic, but there's certainly precedent for a battle in the courts.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

It's not your place to tell the citizens of Louisiana what they can teach in their schools.

So when they decide to teach "turn or burn" Christianity, or racism, or Marxism, the courts won't be able to stop them?

For all the scientifically-illiterate folks out there, here's why creationism or IDiocy can't be taught in science class: nothing gets into a science textbook unless it achieves scientific consensus. Period.

But the IDiots won't listen to reason anyways, so I figure I'll just bombard the thread with cartoons.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

So when they decide to teach "turn or burn" Christianity, or racism, or Marxism, the courts won't be able to stop them?

That's fine, let them choose what they want. Instead of litigating every little thing, let the chips fall where they may. If it blows up, the legislators will be out of office so fast you'd think they tried to outlaw gumbo.

[Uncle Doof]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

As I understand it, this law is forcing the teaching of ID. Isn't that making a law favoring one religion over others? So if Congress (or, for argument's sake, the state) is making a law, isn't that in direct violation here?

It all depends on what we mean by "Congress". If we're to take the constitution as read, the state of Louisiana is *not* Congress, therefore it's not unconstitutional. If we take "Congress" to mean "any government" then yes, it's unconstitutional.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

For all the scientifically-illiterate folks out there, here's why creationism or IDiocy can't be taught in science class: nothing gets into a science textbook unless it achieves scientific consensus. Period.

Well in the case of intelligent design, the reason it hasn't been allowed in textbooks is not that there isn't a scientific consensus on it, but that it is considered to be a religious theory. There is no constitutional issue in teaching bad science, only in teaching religion.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by Uncle Doof 

It all depends on what we mean by "Congress". If we're to take the constitution as read, the state of Louisiana is *not* Congress, therefore it's not unconstitutional. If we take "Congress" to mean "any government" then yes, it's unconstitutional.

I thought we'd established that Indoctrination is a long-accepted precedent (since 1833 - I'm old but not that old so that's long to me!). The Constitution also gives the courts the responsibility to make those types of interpretations.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

3. For the schools to say evolution is absolute truth means that Christianity cannot be truth (I'm aware some would debate this). This demotes religious thought from a belief system to a loose, adaptable guide by which to live your life.

Evolution-only taught in schools is limiting broad education and undermining religious freedom.

Taking the side of rightwing Christians in school is putting religion in the classrooms of public schools. Your erroneous conclusions regarding the incommensurability of Christianity and Evolution aside, you don't want it taught for religious reasons.

In any case, don't take my word for it, because it won't matter, take the results of court cases -- they have consistently identified ID and Creationism as a religious idea (possibly in disguise), which automatically disqualifies it from being taught in science classes at public schools.

Originally Posted by Uncle Doof 

Is it just me or are people not understanding this whole separation of church and state thing? The First doesn't prohibit a state school from teaching ID - it prohibits the government from telling that school what it can or cannot teach with regard to religious issues. "Congress will make no law..."

I guess it's you. A law has been passed, requiring to bolster a religious belief. And you're still not able to see the contradiction? Separation of church and states mandates that the government itself out of religious matters altogether, and that includes teaching something religious at school.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Uncle Doof 

Yup. Government can make no law either way - even if they're paying for the school.
Is it just me or are people not understanding this whole separation of church and state thing? The First doesn't prohibit a state school from teaching ID - it prohibits the government from telling that school what it can or cannot teach with regard to religious issues. "Congress will make no law..."

The school is a government entity. Saying that the government can't stop its school from teaching religion is tantamount to saying that the government doesn't have the authority to stop itself from establishing a state church. On the contrary, the government has the responsibility to refrain from promoting religion. The government isn't making a law forbidding the school from teaching creationism — the law already exists, and it's called the First Amendment.