A Victory...
-
All of which I agree with completely - until we get to the part that, therefore, the court is mandated to force my beliefs on christians rather than forcing theirs on me. "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot."
The court is not forcing any beliefs on Christians. They are supporting the teaching of facts, and a scientific theory supported by these facts, as part of a science curriculum. The standards for acceptance of a scientific theory are entirely different that that of a religious belief (I think it was The Onion that did the "Theory of Gravity vs Intelligent Falling" story); and, when all is said and done, some Christians, like their brethren in the Flat Earth Society, can choose to ignore the scientific evidence. Feynman said, "religion is based on a culture of faith; science is based on a culture of doubt." The theory of evolution can be falsified, and anyone with the inclination and ability is encouraged to do so. ID cannot. Evolution can gain supporting evidence; short of bolts of lightning chiseling words into stone tablets proclaiming it to be the truth, ID cannot. "Science can't explain it, therefore it must be God/Magic/Flying Spaghetti Monster" does not display a standard of reason that would be accepted by any recognized scientific body. Philosophical body, maybe, but not scientific. ID belongs in comparative religion or philosophy class, not science.
-
Darth Stanious wrote:
For that matter, where the hell is public education mentioned in the constitution?
Congress is granted broad and sweeping Constitutional powers in two areas: 1) provide for the common defense, 2) promote the general welfare. Education is merely one example where Congress has chosen to promote the general welfare.
But how does promoting the general welfare translate into a state power to define curriclum in public schools to promote one specific world view versus another? "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot."
-
The court is not forcing any beliefs on Christians. They are supporting the teaching of facts, and a scientific theory supported by these facts, as part of a science curriculum. The standards for acceptance of a scientific theory are entirely different that that of a religious belief (I think it was The Onion that did the "Theory of Gravity vs Intelligent Falling" story); and, when all is said and done, some Christians, like their brethren in the Flat Earth Society, can choose to ignore the scientific evidence. Feynman said, "religion is based on a culture of faith; science is based on a culture of doubt." The theory of evolution can be falsified, and anyone with the inclination and ability is encouraged to do so. ID cannot. Evolution can gain supporting evidence; short of bolts of lightning chiseling words into stone tablets proclaiming it to be the truth, ID cannot. "Science can't explain it, therefore it must be God/Magic/Flying Spaghetti Monster" does not display a standard of reason that would be accepted by any recognized scientific body. Philosophical body, maybe, but not scientific. ID belongs in comparative religion or philosophy class, not science.
Again, I agree compeletly, those are all very valid reasons for not teaching religious concepts in a science class. But the point remains that you are still saying the the government has a vested interest in the active promotion of concepts that are inherently anti-religious (ie interpretatioins of reality not based upon religious beliefs). Those are issues that should be worked out amoung us - we the people - without any agency of the federal government intervening to influence one POV rather than another. Why should a Christian be forced by the state to pay taxes for children to learn concepts which are opposed to their religious convictions? It works both ways. "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot." -- modified at 17:05 Tuesday 20th December, 2005
-
...for rational thinking and science. A defeat of stupidity. Finally a sound decision for the future of the U.S. and it's population. A court in the US has ruled against the teaching in schools of the theory of "intelligent design" alongside Darwinian evolution. Article[^]. The CNN article (here[^]) is even better. It highlights the lies, deceit and deception used by the religious advocates in order to try and ram this crap into the educational system. Not very Christian behaviour, I may add...tsk tsk...
A great ruling, about the best bit from the judge's summing up has to be:
Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the Board’s decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources.
Especially given the response from the discovery institute :) :
The Dover decision is an attempt by an activist federal judge to stop the spread of a scientific idea and even to prevent criticism of Darwinian evolution through government-imposed censorship rather than open debate, and it won't work," said Dr. John West, Associate Director of the Center for Science and Culture at Discovery Institute, the nation's leading think tank researching the scientific theory known as intelligent design. “He has conflated Discovery Institute’s position with that of the Dover school board, and he totally misrepresents intelligent design and the motivations of the scientists who research it.
Of course, they will be back. But hopefully this ruling has exposed them for the distinctly unchristian characters that they are, unless of course I am mistaken in my belief that Christianity discorages lying.
-
How is this rational thinking?? Science is DESIGNED to be challenged. There are SUPPOSED to be alternate theories presented to challenge existing theories. In Georgia a court ruled that stating that "evolution is a theory, not a fact" in textbooks is unconstitutional! IT IS A THEORY (one not based on the scientific method, by the way)! This is madness and science has been usurped by religios nutbacks who have made science into an irrational religion! Go back in time 103 years from now. Physics was defined by Newtonian theories which had been so thoroughly tested that they had been accepted as fact. Well it turns out that Newton was wrong and that his theories were merely an approximation of reality. If those theories were not allowed to be challenged by Einstin in the same manner as reactionary evolutionists behave, scientific progress would have been thwarted. This is absolutely religious fanatical behavior on the part of American scientists. I'm absolutely amazed.
Bullshit. ID is a theory pulled from the bible. It should be taught in bible school, and not in science classes, because it's not a science. Science is based on empirical results from observations and experiments. ID is at the very core based on faith, which is by definition not science.
ID is not even in the same league as science, and should therefore not be treated as such. If you want your kids to learn ID, then send them to bible school, or wherever ID is the hottest thing since sliced bread.
-- Pictures[^] from my Japan trip. -
A great ruling, about the best bit from the judge's summing up has to be:
Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the Board’s decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources.
Especially given the response from the discovery institute :) :
The Dover decision is an attempt by an activist federal judge to stop the spread of a scientific idea and even to prevent criticism of Darwinian evolution through government-imposed censorship rather than open debate, and it won't work," said Dr. John West, Associate Director of the Center for Science and Culture at Discovery Institute, the nation's leading think tank researching the scientific theory known as intelligent design. “He has conflated Discovery Institute’s position with that of the Dover school board, and he totally misrepresents intelligent design and the motivations of the scientists who research it.
Of course, they will be back. But hopefully this ruling has exposed them for the distinctly unchristian characters that they are, unless of course I am mistaken in my belief that Christianity discorages lying.
Actually this is yet another perfect example of how the left has managed to defeat the concept of separation of church and state in order to use the state to promote its own overtly anti-religious agenda. It is the Secularist, not the religious, who are successfully using the state to force their moral world view upon all of us. "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot."
-
espeir wrote:
And is taken out of context. He actually defended freedom of religion in the obscure and private letter you're referring to,
Obscure? Try googling for it. Also it's not taken out of context. He used that argument to prevent the declaration of a holiday from a religous source.
espeir wrote:
Nowhere in any text does any founding father state that there must be an absolute separation of church and state
Be careful. You're coming close to changing your argument in mid stroke. Previously you've left the word "absolute" off of your argument. If there were an absolute separation of church and state how could there even be laws passed to ban such interactions.
espeir wrote:
And neither are those words used by any other founding father in any other known instance.
Once again because you changed your argument. I've provided a reliable and acknowledged source referring to the separation of churh and state (minus the absolute part you added later).
espeir wrote:
It does not say that states cannot establish an official religion. Or that municipalities can't establish one.
This is all true up until the 14th Amendment. After the passage of the 14th amendment you can sue based upon state governments violating the above said passages. Jared Parsons jaredp@beanseed.org http://spaces.msn.com/members/jaredp/
Jared Parsons wrote:
This is all true up until the 14th Amendment. After the passage of the 14th amendment you can sue based upon state governments violating the above said passages.
Sadly true. Modern interpretations of the 14th Amendment have, in fact, completely turned the original constitution on its head by providing a rationale for all power to flow up to the federal government from the people rather than down from the fedral government to the people as the founders intended. Which is why we currenlty live in a judicial dictatorship. "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot." -- modified at 17:44 Tuesday 20th December, 2005
-
vincent.reynolds wrote:
Hmmm.I seem to recall reading something about a big fight to keep "God" out of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Guess who won? The word "God" appears only in the introduction to the Declaration. Certainly the founding fathers would have expected anyone holding office to have religious beliefs, and to wear them proudly. But they certainly would not have wanted a Quaker President to make or encourage policy that would treat Quakers more favorably than Baptists, Catholics, Deists, or atheists. Or that would favor Christians, and discriminate against Muslims, for instance.
Big fight? That's a new one. I like your lack of a reference. I notice that you are leaving out the congressional prayer that began with those same founding fathers. And actually the whole point of the first amendment is to keep the government out of religion (not the other way around). Hence the "separation of church and state" comment by Jefferson.
vincent.reynolds wrote:
Ahh, so you're in favor of religious segregation. You do realize that is exactly what would happen if the dominant community religion were taught in public schools, don't you?
Really? I thought schools might just improve. After all...how do public schools compare to private schools that do teach religion. Besides, how is that different from a minority religion (atheism) segregating theists?
vincent.reynolds wrote:
As for your common, but nonetheless ridiculous, assertion that atheism is a religion, I refer you here.
Calling an idea "common" (when it is very rarely cited in these discussions) does not diminish the fact that it is a belief structure. Citing random internet links with rainbow backgrounds does not support your notion that it is not an idea either. Now stop shoving your religion down others' throats.
espeir wrote:
After all...how do public schools compare to private schools that do teach religion.
As far as I can tell the private schools have
- More stuck up kids
- Better and more expensive drugs
- Nicer cars from mommy and daddy
HINT> This is not actually an argument. It's comic relief Jared Parsons jaredp@beanseed.org http://spaces.msn.com/members/jaredp/ -- modified at 17:45 Tuesday 20th December, 2005
-
Again, I agree compeletly, those are all very valid reasons for not teaching religious concepts in a science class. But the point remains that you are still saying the the government has a vested interest in the active promotion of concepts that are inherently anti-religious (ie interpretatioins of reality not based upon religious beliefs). Those are issues that should be worked out amoung us - we the people - without any agency of the federal government intervening to influence one POV rather than another. Why should a Christian be forced by the state to pay taxes for children to learn concepts which are opposed to their religious convictions? It works both ways. "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot." -- modified at 17:05 Tuesday 20th December, 2005
-
...for rational thinking and science. A defeat of stupidity. Finally a sound decision for the future of the U.S. and it's population. A court in the US has ruled against the teaching in schools of the theory of "intelligent design" alongside Darwinian evolution. Article[^]. The CNN article (here[^]) is even better. It highlights the lies, deceit and deception used by the religious advocates in order to try and ram this crap into the educational system. Not very Christian behaviour, I may add...tsk tsk...
Thank you God :) Hey don't worry, I can handle it. I took something. I can see things no one else can see. Why are you dressed like that? - Jack Burton
-
I fully support keeping religion out of schools, but the court has no business forcing it out. I fully applauded the local citizens in Pensylvania defeating the school board in order to control their local schools. Why did the court even have to get involved when the issue had already been settled democratically? Judge John Jones ruled the school board had violated the constitutional ban on teaching religion in public schools. The constitution makes no mention of any such ban. The separation of church and state is enshrined in the US constitution. So is free exercise of religion. For the federal government to promote secularism in schools is just as bad as for it promote religion. The government should be entirely neutral, takeing no action at all regarding whether one or the other is promoted but requiring the local school district to settle the issue as the people there best see fit. To do anything else is an act of tyranny. "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot." -- modified at 13:19 Tuesday 20th December, 2005
Darth Stanious wrote:
Why did the court even have to get involved when the issue had already been settled democratically?
Just because it was decided democratically doesn't make it correct, legal or constitutional. Jared Parsons jaredp@beanseed.org http://spaces.msn.com/members/jaredp/
-
Darth Stanious wrote:
Why did the court even have to get involved when the issue had already been settled democratically?
Just because it was decided democratically doesn't make it correct, legal or constitutional. Jared Parsons jaredp@beanseed.org http://spaces.msn.com/members/jaredp/
Jared Parsons wrote:
Just because it was decided democratically doesn't make it correct, legal or constitutional.
But it does mean that it had, thankfully, already been defeated without any need what so ever for further government invovlment. The people had risen up and defeated it, the system had worked precisely the way Jefferson had envisioned (which I was very happy about). What the judge should have said was "Gee, looks like you guys already settled the issue, guess I can take the day off" rather than "Wow! Another opportunity to crush a few more religious cockroaches with my mighty secular gavel" (which made me very sad) "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot." -- modified at 18:26 Tuesday 20th December, 2005
-
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote:
Why do I have to pay taxes for school? I don't go to school at all.
Sorry, its your sacred social duty - now get in line and do as you're told! :rolleyes: "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot."
-
Jared Parsons wrote:
I'm not sure how you can say, after reading that, that the constitution doesn't imply there should be separation when it cannot legislate it.
Why is teaching ID in a public school viewed as "establishing a religion" rather than "free exercise of religion" "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot."
Darth Stanious wrote:
Why is teaching ID in a public school viewed as "establishing a religion" rather than "free exercise of religion"
The fact that it is an obligation that is, for the most part, imposed on biology teachers against their will might have something to do with it. John Carson "To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." Thomas Paine
-
Darth Stanious wrote:
Why is teaching ID in a public school viewed as "establishing a religion" rather than "free exercise of religion"
The fact that it is an obligation that is, for the most part, imposed on biology teachers against their will might have something to do with it. John Carson "To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." Thomas Paine
John Carson wrote:
The fact that it is an obligation that is, for the most part, imposed on biology teachers against their will might have something to do with it.
I had no idea teaching biology was a form of slavery. Shocking! I suppose we should all be on the look out for being shanghaied and forced to teach biology. :laugh: Of course, the notion that there might just be biology teachers that in fact might want to introduce alternative POVs but are forced not to because of the state never occured to you. As long as the state forces them to teach your POV is all that matters, I suppose. "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot."
-
But how does promoting the general welfare translate into a state power to define curriclum in public schools to promote one specific world view versus another? "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot."
Darth Stanious wrote:
But how does promoting the general welfare translate into a state power to define curriclum in public schools to promote one specific world view versus another?
You have got it quite wrong. The churches are trying to do what they did in the time of Galileo: dictate to scientists what they are allowed to teach. This is an outrageous abuse of power on their part. Scientists should be allowed to decide what hypotheses are factually well supported and what hypotheses are either not supported by evidence or devoid of empirical content and hence intrinsically not part of science. They should be allowed to do this because they are the only people with the knowledge and expertise to make the judgement. In the judgement of scientists, ID makes no empirical predictions and hence is not science. If ID had any scientific merit, there would be no need for school board thuggery in support of it; scientists would take up the idea themselves. John Carson "To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." Thomas Paine
-
Jared Parsons wrote:
Just because it was decided democratically doesn't make it correct, legal or constitutional.
But it does mean that it had, thankfully, already been defeated without any need what so ever for further government invovlment. The people had risen up and defeated it, the system had worked precisely the way Jefferson had envisioned (which I was very happy about). What the judge should have said was "Gee, looks like you guys already settled the issue, guess I can take the day off" rather than "Wow! Another opportunity to crush a few more religious cockroaches with my mighty secular gavel" (which made me very sad) "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot." -- modified at 18:26 Tuesday 20th December, 2005
Darth Stanious wrote:
What the judge should have said was "Gee, looks like you guys already settled the issue, guess I can take the day off" rather than "Wow! Another opportunity to crush a few more religious cockroaches with my mighty secular gavel" (which made me very sad)
From my understanding, that was not possible. The case was brought by some parents and there was no negotiated settlement with the parents. They wanted a permanent stay on the teaching of ID, not temporary respite that could end with the next election. John Carson "To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." Thomas Paine
-
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote:
Why do I have to pay taxes for school? I don't go to school at all.
Sorry, its your sacred social duty - now get in line and do as you're told! :rolleyes: "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot."
:laugh:
You already know my standpoint on healthcare and education. Healthier and smarter population yields good benefits for the national economy.
However, I am not a foreigner to the idea of tax breaks for those who wish to seek private healthcare and/or education. Having rules and regulations on healthcare, public and private alike, is a good thing. Receiving healthcare shouldn't be some sort of russian roulette! Along the same line of thought, I want to protect education, public and private alike, from degradation of quality. I don't want kids to be taught fairy tales as if they are potential truths. That kind of teaching belongs in bible school or something similar. It should be opt-in, not opt-out.
Darth Stanious wrote:
get in line and do as you're told!
The only line there should be, is the one for the unemployed. And that line should be very short. Low or high taxes, a society won't work if a large portion of it is on welfare (for whatever reason). I will give the evil eye to the next idiot I talk to who has turned down jobs because they don't want to work, or because they didn't like the offered job. Bloodsuckers. :mad: I bust my ass off every day, only to hear about people who are "content" with living on welfare. And this god damn government isn't doing anything about it, eventhough there <i>are</i> jobs. Talk about maintaining the base... Income taxes could be cut by a third if it weren't for these fucking losers. Crap. Now I'm all worked up, and will probably not sleep until way too late. :mad:
It seems that the majority of the people don't want to feed the lazy, so hopefully the turnout of next year's election will tighten the screws a little for the lazy fuckers, and perhaps give me some peace of mind!
-- Pictures[^] from my Japan trip. -
Darth Stanious wrote:
But how does promoting the general welfare translate into a state power to define curriclum in public schools to promote one specific world view versus another?
You have got it quite wrong. The churches are trying to do what they did in the time of Galileo: dictate to scientists what they are allowed to teach. This is an outrageous abuse of power on their part. Scientists should be allowed to decide what hypotheses are factually well supported and what hypotheses are either not supported by evidence or devoid of empirical content and hence intrinsically not part of science. They should be allowed to do this because they are the only people with the knowledge and expertise to make the judgement. In the judgement of scientists, ID makes no empirical predictions and hence is not science. If ID had any scientific merit, there would be no need for school board thuggery in support of it; scientists would take up the idea themselves. John Carson "To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." Thomas Paine
John Carson wrote:
You have got it quite wrong...
No, you have it quite wrong. The government has no more vested interested in the overt promotion of science than it does any other set of philosophical principles. What does and does not get taught as science should not be imposed from on high by some sort of all knowing hand of all powerful secular authority. If any given community decides that it wants its children taught voodoo as a form of science that should be the end of the argument. I wouldn't send my kids to school there, but I would also not expect the federal government to impose my belief systems upon them any more than I would want it to impose theirs on me. "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot."
-
Darth Stanious wrote:
What the judge should have said was "Gee, looks like you guys already settled the issue, guess I can take the day off" rather than "Wow! Another opportunity to crush a few more religious cockroaches with my mighty secular gavel" (which made me very sad)
From my understanding, that was not possible. The case was brought by some parents and there was no negotiated settlement with the parents. They wanted a permanent stay on the teaching of ID, not temporary respite that could end with the next election. John Carson "To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." Thomas Paine
John Carson wrote:
From my understanding, that was not possible. The case was brought by some parents and there was no negotiated settlement with the parents. They wanted a permanent stay on the teaching of ID, not temporary respite that could end with the next election.
Any judge has full power to throw out any case for any reason. Obviously, these people could seek other legal avenues with other judges, but that would not change the essential situation. The issues was settled, over, moot. The evil christians had been defeated, justice had been served, the republic was safe. "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot."