Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8965 total)
42 online now:
adriandaley, anglagard, Coragyps, dwise1, frako, jar, JonF, PaulK, Percy (Admin), PsychMJC, RAZD (11 members, 31 visitors)
Newest Member: javier martinez
Post Volume: Total: 873,022 Year: 4,770/23,288 Month: 1,675/1,286 Week: 342/615 Day: 34/42 Hour: 7/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Importance of the First Amendment
platypus
Member (Idle past 4202 days)
Posts: 139
Joined: 11-12-2006


Message 31 of 59 (464048)
04-23-2008 2:59 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Serdna
04-23-2008 2:36 AM


Im not saying that the hindu or islamic belief systems contradict the evolutionary theory and honestly I don't know enough about their beliefs to confidently comment on them. Instead I am using these as examples of what is and should be tolerated in public institutions such as schools and that the same tolerance must also be applied to potentially offensive teachings whatever they may be.

Really, I don't think this point is so complicated. In the Hindu and Muslim examples you gave, there is no objection to the content being taught, just the sample organism that is used in the teaching (Hindu) or the time in which the content is taught (Muslim). In the creationist example with evolution, it is the content that is objectionable. I am simply pointing out that your analogy is flawed, that what is happened to the creationist in the classroom is different from what is happening to the hindu and muslim.

Now, as for your examples of conflict, I am sure you must be refering to this:

One of the most basic teachings of most christian faiths is that the earth was created in perfect balance and that the sin that the sin of man, originating from Adam, let to the downfall of creation including death. Obviously death is an essential part of the theory of evolution, however since it claims that humans evolved much later in the evolutionary time line after the death of innumerable living organisms. Hopefully you can see how these two time lines don't sync up. This as well as the order of creation accounted in the book of Genesis which also goes against what is largely accepted as plausible by science. Which means either or the theory of evolution was wrong, or the infallible, omnipotent God of the bible was wrong and thereby voiding all subsequent biblical entries as not trustworthy because if He is wrong about something so simple as an order of events then what else did He "get wrong".

So the two conflicts are concerning the role and timing of death of humans, and the order of creation events. I will ignore the fact that there are two creation stories in the Bible for a second, and focus on this comment that you made to Dr. Jones:

If you can provide reasonable support and evidence for the fact that your governmentally recognized religion is in contradiction with math, then yes. However I do not foresee that happening as getting the government to recognize a religion takes a bit more than filling out some paper work and writing "Math is bad" under "List your religion's beliefs here".

So in other words for you to really object to how evolution is taught, there must be something in how your religion is registered with the government that goes directly against an evolutionary teaching. So tell me, in the two examples that you gave, does evolutionary teaching really contradict the fundamental aspects of whatever religion you are that is registered with the government, or does it simply contradict your interpretation of stories in the Bible? I'm really finding it hard to believe that when your religion was registered with the government, it was specifically stated that human death has to occur before the death of anything else. Otherwise, I need another example of conflict or a new argument.


You hear evolutionist says we are descedant from apes and monkees. Sure, but that's not the point. All of life is related, not just human's with monkees. If you hug a tree, you're hugging a relative, a very distant relative, but a relative nonetheless." Dr. Joan Roughgarden in Evolution and Christian Faith

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Serdna, posted 04-23-2008 2:36 AM Serdna has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16048
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 32 of 59 (464051)
04-23-2008 4:05 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Serdna
04-22-2008 7:22 PM


quote:

One of the most basic teachings of most christian faiths is that the earth was created in perfect balance and that the sin that the sin of man, originating from Adam, let to the downfall of creation including death.


No, that's not a "basic" teaching of Christianity. Most Christians reject it - only Young Earth Creationists endorse it.

quote:

Obviously death is an essential part of the theory of evolution, however since it claims that humans evolved much later in the evolutionary time line after the death of innumerable living organisms. Hopefully you can see how these two time lines don't sync up.

But this is a fact that was known before the theory of evolution was formulated. Your problem is not with evolution, but with geology and paleontology. And there is simply no way that those subjects can viably be taught without encountering the facts that the Earth is very old, and that many animals lived and died before there were any humans on the scene.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Serdna, posted 04-22-2008 7:22 PM Serdna has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Serdna, posted 04-23-2008 1:53 PM PaulK has responded

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2080
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 33 of 59 (464054)
04-23-2008 4:48 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Serdna
04-23-2008 1:59 AM


If you can provide reasonable support and evidence for the fact that your governmentally recognized religion is in contradiction with math, then yes

So any belief no matter how ludicrously false it is should be left unchallenged if it is part of a religion?


soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry

Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Serdna, posted 04-23-2008 1:59 AM Serdna has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 34 of 59 (464083)
04-23-2008 10:18 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Serdna
04-23-2008 12:50 AM


You are putting words straight into my mouth. I never called for teachers to remove or add anything from their curriculum in any way...

Hello? You wrote:

quote:
At the same time teachings such as the evolutionary theory which attempt to undermine any religious beliefs also fall into the same category and therefore the mandating of these teachings undercut our most base ideals as americans, Freedom.

quote:
The evolutionary theory is not a religious belief, it is a scientific theory, and is therefore is given free passage in public schools curriculum even though it is essentially undermining any belief in a god or religion, and I believe that this is a breach of the first amendment.

If you are not talking about whether evolution should be on the curriculum, it is not clear what you are talking about.

... and I certainly do not think that we should force teachers to teach on creationism.

I guess that's why I in no way said or implied that you did.

In this same way we should not force anyone to say that something they believe to be true is false, or vice versa. I would simply suggest that you allow the student or students be allowed to go to another room and have a study period while the subject that the student finds offensive is taught, or at the very least be excused from any sort of exam which forces the student to write or declare something that is contrary to what they believe.

Well, I'm sure we could make taking all exams optional. Of course, people who didn't turn up wouldn't get any marks.

Then in your own admittance of this you have helped me make my point. Perhaps I should not have used the word "any", however it does not change the point that I am trying to make which is that we should not be forcing students, nor any citizen of the United States for that matter to do or say anything that goes against their religion or beliefs.

Even if exams are not optional, they still have the option of answering questions in science exams with creationist nonsense. Of course, they would get no marks for giving answers that are wrong, just like anyone else.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Serdna, posted 04-23-2008 12:50 AM Serdna has not yet responded

  
Serdna
Junior Member (Idle past 4267 days)
Posts: 8
From: Florida
Joined: 04-21-2008


Message 35 of 59 (464120)
04-23-2008 1:53 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by PaulK
04-23-2008 4:05 AM


One of the most basic teachings of most christian faiths is that the earth was created in perfect balance and that the sin that the sin of man, originating from Adam, let to the downfall of creation including death.

No, that's not a "basic" teaching of Christianity. Most Christians reject it - only Young Earth Creationists endorse it.

Your assumption that that belief in the original sin as the event that brought death into the world is something that only a tiny minority of christians believe is false and downright ridiculous. Listed Below are several bible verses that unequivocally support the belief of an original sin and the subsequent fall of creation through death and decay.

I have cited only two of the several bible verses that support this belief. The links to newadvent.org will take you to the catholic bible verses, and the linke to biblegateway.com is a link to the king james version of the bible, which is reffered to as "the bible without notes". If you wish to learn more about the history of the King James Version and why it held in such high esteem by the entire christian community then I suggest visiting the following sites.

http://www.thegethsemanechurch.com/uploads/Why_Believe_the_King_James_Bible_is_the_true_Word_of_God.doc
(Unfortunately this link will only download an html version of the website but if you would rather you can simply type the key words from the link into a search engine or simply use the other link)
http://www.av1611.org/kjv/kjvhist.html

Catholic Bible Translations
http://www.newadvent.org/bible/1co015.htm#21
http://www.newadvent.org/bible/rom005.htm#12

King James Version Bible Translations
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%205&version=9;
(start at verse 21 if you want to see exactly what im talking about, but to prevent claims that I am taking the bible out of context I posted a link to the entire chapter)
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=53&chapter=15
(once again what I am refering to is first mentioned in verse 21 but I have posted a link to the entire chapter)

The link below is will give you general information as well as more biblical support of the belief in the original sin. It is also from a respected catholic website since that seems to hold more authority with some of you for some reason.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by PaulK, posted 04-23-2008 4:05 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by PaulK, posted 04-23-2008 2:19 PM Serdna has not yet responded
 Message 37 by Blue Jay, posted 04-23-2008 2:35 PM Serdna has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16048
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 36 of 59 (464128)
04-23-2008 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Serdna
04-23-2008 1:53 PM


quote:

Your assumption that that belief in the original sin as the event that brought death into the world is something that only a tiny minority of christians believe is false and downright ridiculous. Listed Below are several bible verses that unequivocally support the belief of an original sin and the subsequent fall of creation through death and decay.

Some insist that it only applies to humans. A few suggest that the past was rewritten by Adam's sin. Nevertheless the belief is indefensible without the assumption of Young Earth Creationism, which is not endorsed by the majority of Churches.

I must also point out that your assumption that other Chrisitans must agree with you - while surprisingly common in Creationists - is unfounded and false. Many Christians do not accept the KJV as the best translation (and I must point out that the archaic language can be and is misunderstood and even an equally good translation in more modern English would be preferable).

I don't know why you assume that the Catholic encyclopedia will carry special weight for me, although of course it is a good resource for Catholic doctrine. And of course if that link actually supports your case, you should quote the relevant text, rather than expect me to read it all to find out if it even does support your assertion. It seems to thoroughly concentrate on the idea that Adam's sin caused humans to be subject to death:


The sin of Adam has injured the human race at least in the sense that it has introduced death -- "Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world and by sin death; and so death passed upon all men".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Serdna, posted 04-23-2008 1:53 PM Serdna has not yet responded

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 1146 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 37 of 59 (464132)
04-23-2008 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Serdna
04-23-2008 1:53 PM


Serdna, I'm still a little confused about what you see as the problem with school curricula. In message #26, I asked this question:

Bluejay writes:

When you say students are being forced to accept as truth things that contradict their religion, are you referring to things like Neanderthals and the Paleolithic Age? Or, are you referring to things like "Jesus was just a man?"

I guess it kind of got overlooked with all the activity on the thread or something. But, I really think this could be the source of all the bad blood in this thread.

If your complaint is about history teaching Neanderthals and the pre-Adam Paleolithic Age, I'm afraid the teachers' hands are tied: there just is no way to justify not teaching these proven facts as part of human history.

If your complaint is that teachers are saying "Jesus was just a man," then they've overstepped the legal bounds of their curriculum, and I don't think anybody here would argue with that. If said teacher is saying "we will treat Jesus as just another historical figure in this class," however, there still isn't much of a case.

I'd like to add one more possibility to this. If your complaint is that history teaches a lot of bad things that have been done in the name of religion, the same argument as that about Neanderthals applies here: you can't justify not teaching facts for any reason.

Now, if you feel that good things about religion are deliberately being left out of education, you might have a case. You'd have to be able to show that such things are supported by evidence, and that the teacher or text is deliberately withholding them and/or the evidence. If you can show me a few instances in which this has happened in your education, I will submit that you have a good case and request that everybody else on this thread listen to your arguments.

But, I don't think you've actually provided anything substantive yet. Without something substantive (just an example of some teacher would do), everyone's going to assume that you were just uncomfortable with hearing bad things about your religion. Please provide a specific example, and the thread can discuss it in light of the First Ammendment rights.


I'm Thylacosmilus.

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Serdna, posted 04-23-2008 1:53 PM Serdna has not yet responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3348 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 38 of 59 (464136)
04-23-2008 4:41 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Organicmachination
02-08-2008 11:36 AM


This comment doesn't fit:

Creationism cannot be taught in schools because it is explicitly religious.

with this law:

or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Organicmachination, posted 02-08-2008 11:36 AM Organicmachination has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by molbiogirl, posted 04-23-2008 4:54 PM randman has responded
 Message 40 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-23-2008 5:14 PM randman has responded

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 1090 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 39 of 59 (464140)
04-23-2008 4:54 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by randman
04-23-2008 4:41 PM


with this law:

or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;...

Quote mining the Constituion. Nice.

You've conveniently ignored the Establishment Clause.

Congress shall make no law respecting 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by randman, posted 04-23-2008 4:41 PM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by randman, posted 04-23-2008 5:15 PM molbiogirl has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 40 of 59 (464141)
04-23-2008 5:14 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by randman
04-23-2008 4:41 PM


The "free exercise" clause does not mean that you can take money paid to you to teach science, use the time allotted to preach the beliefs of your religious sect instead, and still expect to retain your job.

In the same way, the right to free speech would not protect the job of someone employed as an airline steward who advised passengers: "In the event of an emergency, please run around panicking and screaming before making a disorderly stampede for the exit".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by randman, posted 04-23-2008 4:41 PM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by randman, posted 04-23-2008 5:18 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3348 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 41 of 59 (464142)
04-23-2008 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by molbiogirl
04-23-2008 4:54 PM


Quote-mining? Guess I could do like you do and be a tattle-tale to the mods.

The establishment clause and the free exercise clause are there for a reason.

Do you know what the reason is?

The reason is so that the free exercise of religion is not interfered with by the state, not that anti-religionists could create a doctrine that science cannot include religion and so ban thought in the class-room if it relates to religion.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by molbiogirl, posted 04-23-2008 4:54 PM molbiogirl has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by molbiogirl, posted 04-23-2008 6:34 PM randman has responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3348 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 42 of 59 (464144)
04-23-2008 5:18 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Dr Adequate
04-23-2008 5:14 PM


The "free exercise" clause does not mean that you can take money paid to you to teach science, use the time allotted to preach the beliefs of your religious sect instead, and still expect to retain your job.

uh huh?

Why not?

And don't give me some bs about the courts ruling. If you are going to make that argument, then I assume if they rule the other way down the road, you will have to say the words changed their meaning?

Bottom line is the interpretation that religion should be silenced from science education and only a secularist view taught is a total bastardization of the 1st amendment, turning it into the opposite of it's original meaning. Clearly, you are taking something intended to protect religion and turning into something banning religious thought (the free exercise thereof).

In the same way, the right to free speech would not protect the job of someone employed as an airline steward who advised passengers: "In the event of an emergency, please run around panicking and screaming before making a disorderly stampede for the exit".

So daring to develop science that acknowledges the Creator is akin to screaming fire or some such?

You don't see a problem with your logic here?

Edit to add: just in case you didn't realize it, I was bypassing the straw man argument you advanced since the issue isn't teachers teaching their personal religious beliefs but whether a school board can allow teaching of science or a theory advanced in science if it is also religious or related to religious beliefs.

Of course, teachers cannot just teach whatever they want. They are responsible to teach the curriculum, though there is some leeway there.

Edited by randman, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-23-2008 5:14 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-23-2008 5:55 PM randman has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 43 of 59 (464149)
04-23-2008 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by randman
04-23-2008 5:18 PM


uh huh?

Why not?

Because no-one has a right to take money for doing one thing, and then spend his time at work doing something else that pleases him better, and still keep his job.

Clearly, you are taking something intended to protect religion and turning into something banning religious thought (the free exercise thereof).

Bollocks. People can think what they like. What they cannot do is get a job teaching science (or, for that matter, English, math, or gym) and spend their time proseletizing instead, and keep their jobs. Such a person would be, quite simply, a swindler.

So daring to develop science that acknowledges the Creator is akin to screaming fire or some such?

No, that is not in the least what I said. I have observed before that you have poor comprehension skills.

You don't see a problem with your logic here?

No, and since you have plainly failed to grasp my meaning, nor do you.

Let me try again (though I seem to recall that I have tried to explain the bleedin' obvious to you before, with scant success.)

If you are paid to do one thing, and you do another, then the fact that doing that thing per se is a guaranteed constitutional right doesn't mean that you have the right to continue to be paid for the job that you are, in fact, refusing to do.

Freedom of speech does not mean that a man paid to be a policeman can keep his job if he spends his time on duty reciting passages from Homer instead of fighting crime. Freedom of association does not protect the job of a fireman who skips work to go out with his mates. Freedom of religion does not protect the job of a man who takes a job as an air traffic controller and spends his whole time in prayer and meditation. Freedom of thought does not mean that someone can take a job as a research scientist and spend all his working hours daydreaming about naked ladies.

Of course people have the right to read Homer, go out with their friends, pray, meditate, or even daydream about naked ladies. It's a free country. But if you do these things when you're being paid to do something else, then your boss has the right to sack you.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by randman, posted 04-23-2008 5:18 PM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by randman, posted 04-23-2008 6:02 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3348 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 44 of 59 (464152)
04-23-2008 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Dr Adequate
04-23-2008 5:55 PM


Once again, please note I bypassed your straw man which is totally off-topic, namely people who don't do their jobs being able to keep them, in order to advance the discussion forward.

If your point merely relates to job employment and meeting quality standards, then perhaps a new thread would be appropiate. It has nothing to do with creationism or evolutionism.

If your real point was, as I thought, that allowing teaching of creationism or any other religiously based perspective in science is against the 1st amendment, then feel free to respond to my posts and arguments. This last post of your's does not address them.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-23-2008 5:55 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-23-2008 6:19 PM randman has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 45 of 59 (464155)
04-23-2008 6:19 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by randman
04-23-2008 6:02 PM


Once again, please note I bypassed your straw man which is totally off-topic, namely people who don't do their jobs being able to keep them, in order to advance the discussion forward.

It is not off topic. If someone is paid to teach the science curriculum, and he chooses to spend his time at work freely exercising his religion instead, then he is among the "people who don't do their jobs".

If your real point was, as I thought, that allowing teaching of creationism or any other religiously based perspective in science is against the 1st amendment ...

You thought wrong (naturally). I think my point might best be summarized by the posts I made explaining what my point was.

feel free to respond to my posts and arguments. This last post of your's does not address them.

Well, that's not actually true, is it?

For example, in post #42 you asked me why the "free exercise" clause does not mean that you can take money paid to you to teach science, use the time allotted to preach the beliefs of your religious sect instead, and still expect to retain your job. To which I replied by explaining it to you further.

Apparently you found my reply so unanswerable that you're now pretending that you never asked any such thing, that this is a "straw man", that I'm not responding to your posts, and that the subject isn't on topic. Let us know how that works out for you.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by randman, posted 04-23-2008 6:02 PM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by randman, posted 04-23-2008 6:53 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020