A Victory...
-
...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
-
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."
-
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:
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."
-
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."
Darth Stanious wrote:
I had no idea teaching biology was a form of slavery.
My point, which should have been plain enough, was that forcing people to teach a particular religious point of view is not plausibly defended as the "free exercise of religion". "Freedom", surprisingly enough, involves an absence of compulsion. Lest this argument be misconstrued, let me say that I don't believe biology classes are the place to be exercising religion, free or otherwise. They are the place to be passing on the best current understandings of science.
Darth Stanious wrote:
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.
It did occur to me. It is not a very subtle or profound point. Biology classes are not the place for the promotion of ideas that have essentially no support in the scientific community. That is simply unprofessional behaviour.
Darth Stanious wrote:
As long as the state forces them to teach your POV is all that matters, I suppose.
I defer to the superior expertise of the scientists. I take my POV on scientific matters from them. Moreover, I do this on rational grounds, not as an act of faith. Let me quote from a post I made some time ago.
Suppose we have two football teams. You know that one comprises players who were recruited by talent scouts who searched the nation looking for the best young players. You know they train five times a week. You know they are coached by someone who recently coached a team that won the Super Bowl. The other team, by contrast, is a make-up team drawn from the members of the local pub. They don't train at all, merely showing up on the day. The coach is one of the bar staff, who has never had coaching success in any serious football competition. They played last week and you haven't heard the result. Is it "faith" that you are almost certain that the first team won --- and indeed thrashed the pub team? No, it is simply an understanding of the ingredients that go into playing good football. Consider the case of science. Entry into the scientific profession occurs via a screening process (exams etc.) that identifies intelligent young people. Claims are subject to a process of peer review. To be credible, results must be reproducible (in
-
: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.Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote:
Talk about maintaining the base... Income taxes could be cut by a third if it weren't for these f***ing losers. Crap. Now I'm all worked up, and will probably not sleep until way too late.
Damn, dude, you were even starting to scare me... :laugh: Deep breaths, deep breaths... To me the key point is that it simply is not possible for any economy to be taxed into prosperity. Prosperity comes from a growing economy, and a growing economy comes from low taxes. In a prosperous, growing economy the poor have more opportunity to provide for themselves as they best see fit, and those who simply cannot provide for themselves are more likely to be cared for by the inherent generosity of a society with strongly held, grass roots, moral sentiments. All of that translates into a society in which both free market capitalism, private ownership, and religious sentiments are not only tolerated but encouraged and respected by the political system. "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot."
-
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:
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.
What should be taught as science is that which the scientific community recognises as science. Anything else is a fraud. 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."
Darth Stanious wrote:
Any judge has full power to throw out any case for any reason.
Only in the same sense as that in which any individual has full power to murder someone else. Judges do not have legal authority to "throw out any case for any reason". 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:
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.
What should be taught as science is that which the scientific community recognises as science. Anything else is a fraud. 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:
What should be taught as science is that which the scientific community recognises as science. Anything else is a fraud.
I agree absolutely. I would present that very argument as loudly and forcefully as I could to those I share my community with, even those pushing for voodoo, and I would not send my children to any school that taught otherwise. "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot."
-
Darth Stanious wrote:
Any judge has full power to throw out any case for any reason.
Only in the same sense as that in which any individual has full power to murder someone else. Judges do not have legal authority to "throw out any case for any reason". 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
The entire point of being a judge is to determine the legal merits of the case being presented to them. EDIT - and if those merits are not considered sufficient they can damn sure throw them out. "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot." -- modified at 19:38 Tuesday 20th December, 2005
-
Darth Stanious wrote:
I had no idea teaching biology was a form of slavery.
My point, which should have been plain enough, was that forcing people to teach a particular religious point of view is not plausibly defended as the "free exercise of religion". "Freedom", surprisingly enough, involves an absence of compulsion. Lest this argument be misconstrued, let me say that I don't believe biology classes are the place to be exercising religion, free or otherwise. They are the place to be passing on the best current understandings of science.
Darth Stanious wrote:
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.
It did occur to me. It is not a very subtle or profound point. Biology classes are not the place for the promotion of ideas that have essentially no support in the scientific community. That is simply unprofessional behaviour.
Darth Stanious wrote:
As long as the state forces them to teach your POV is all that matters, I suppose.
I defer to the superior expertise of the scientists. I take my POV on scientific matters from them. Moreover, I do this on rational grounds, not as an act of faith. Let me quote from a post I made some time ago.
Suppose we have two football teams. You know that one comprises players who were recruited by talent scouts who searched the nation looking for the best young players. You know they train five times a week. You know they are coached by someone who recently coached a team that won the Super Bowl. The other team, by contrast, is a make-up team drawn from the members of the local pub. They don't train at all, merely showing up on the day. The coach is one of the bar staff, who has never had coaching success in any serious football competition. They played last week and you haven't heard the result. Is it "faith" that you are almost certain that the first team won --- and indeed thrashed the pub team? No, it is simply an understanding of the ingredients that go into playing good football. Consider the case of science. Entry into the scientific profession occurs via a screening process (exams etc.) that identifies intelligent young people. Claims are subject to a process of peer review. To be credible, results must be reproducible (in
AGain, all I can do is repeat that I agree with all of that. But it offends my Jeffersonian sentiments for the state to involve itself with the promotion of what are essentially personally held moral or intellectual views. The state should trust that the people will ultimately make the proper decisions, and if they are adament that they do not wish to be compelled to accept a 'rational' view of reality, than what purpose is served by the state forcing it upon them in the public schools against their will? "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot."
-
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:
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
Apparently the founding fathers felt they had a vested interest in the promotion of science in at least one area and possibly in many areas: U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8 - Powers of Congress To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries; To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
-
AGain, all I can do is repeat that I agree with all of that. But it offends my Jeffersonian sentiments for the state to involve itself with the promotion of what are essentially personally held moral or intellectual views. The state should trust that the people will ultimately make the proper decisions, and if they are adament that they do not wish to be compelled to accept a 'rational' view of reality, than what purpose is served by the state forcing it upon them in the public schools against their will? "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot."
Darth Stanious wrote:
AGain, all I can do is repeat that I agree with all of that. But it offends my Jeffersonian sentiments for the state to involve itself with the promotion of what are essentially personally held moral or intellectual views.
Those opposing the teaching of ID in science classes have consistently maintained that they don't object to it in religion classes. The state is not promoting anything except the maintenance of professionalism in the teaching of science.
Darth Stanious wrote:
The state should trust that the people will ultimately make the proper decisions, and if they are adament that they do not wish to be compelled to accept a 'rational' view of reality, than what purpose is served by the state forcing it upon them in the public schools against their will?
Better educated children. Indeed, it is on the basis that children have been properly educated in rational decision making processes that we can have some small measure of confidence that, as adults, they will indeed make "proper decisions". 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