Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Importance of the First Amendment
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 16 of 59 (463967)
04-22-2008 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Serdna
04-21-2008 10:18 PM


But doesn't this completely undermine the teaching of religion to students from their lives outside of school including, but no limited to, church and biblical studies from family members or religious leaders.
[...]
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 their religious leaders, family, or whatever, are teaching them that evolution is a lie and a work of the devil, then teaching them about evolution will indeed undermine this belief.
But if we stop teaching them about evolution on that basis, we're going to have to stop teaching a lot of other things as well.
For example, there are lots of geocentrists still, who get their arguments from the Bible as they did in Galileo's day. Teaching that the earth moves conflicts with their religious beliefs. Should we abandon that?
Jack Chick famously taught that the strong nuclear force is a lie, and that the nuclei of atoms are held together by Jesus. Nuclear physics contradicts his religious beliefs. Let's stop teaching it.
There's a chap on these forums who offered the "fact" that the Great Pyramid wasn't built by Egyptians as one of his top six pieces of evidence for Creationism. Can we teach, contrary to his religious beliefs, that the Egyptians built the pyramids?
Here's a random creationist arguing that rainbows are miraculous: "Where do you think the rainbow came from? There is no scientific explanation." So, we can't teach basic optics. It contradicts his religion. Drat.
Here's Anne Coulter lying for Jesus: "It [the theory of evolution] doesn't explain why we don't find any bad mutations." We don't find any bad mutations, Ms Coulter? Okay, that's teaching genetics out the window, but that was going to happen anyway, because the theory of evolution is genetics.
How many times have I seen a creationist pretend that "the second law of thermodynamics says that evolution is impossible"? Teaching what the 2LoT actually says contradicts their dogma. Oopsie. There goes the theory of thermodynamics off the curriculum.
Here's a creationist tract by one Jolly F. Griggs. "Scientists cannot explain why two atoms of hydrogen (a gas) combined with one atom of oxygen (another gas) will result in water (a liquid) or why one atom of sodium (a poisonous metal) combined with one atom of chlorine (a poisonous gas) will produce common, non-poisonous table salt." Right, let's kiss basic chemistry goodbye.
Here's a tract from the Jehovah's Witnesses: "Are there any links between the Cambrian period and what went before it? The butterfly, fern, rose and fish appear suddenly and fully developed." Oops, there goes teaching the facts about the fossil record.
I recently saw a creationist physics professor at a creationist college proseletyzing by claiming, amongst other things, that scientists can't explain how rain gets up in the sky. (Water is heavy, see ...) okay, there goes basic meterology and, in particular, the fact that water evaporates.
Lots of creationists pretend that the speed of light is not constant. There goes Einstein. Newton follows next, as they explain how it's impossible for orbits to be stable.
I was going to say that maybe we could teach them about electromagnetism, but if you go too far down that road you're teaching them principle of optics and they might find out why rainbows exist.
If we're not allowed to teach anything that contradicts some piece of religious apologetics, then we can hardly teach anything at all. We've already lost the theories of gravity, relativity, chemistry, genetics, thermodynamics, optics, nuclear physics ... and I could keep going.
Heck, we can't even teach them what "theory" means, because that conflicts with creationist mantras too.
Teacher: "Today we're going to study the germ theory of disease".
Student: "So there's no evidence that germs cause disease?"
Teacher: "Germs certainly cause disease. That's as sure as sure can be, and is supported by all the evidence."
Student: "But in Sunday school I was taught that a theory is 'an assumption for which there is no evidence'."
Teacher: "You were taught it in Sunday school? Then, alas, it is illegal for me to tell you anything different."
At the same time teachings such as the evolutionary theory which attempt to undermine any religious beliefs ...
Science is not in any way an attempt to undermine religious beliefs, but if people are going to incorporate pseudoscience into their religious beliefs and their religious teaching, then science is inevitable going to undermine these beliefs as a side effect.
And it's not the scientists who are at fault here. If Jack Chick is going to teach people that they have to choose between Jesus and the strong nuclear force, or if Kent Hovind is going to teach people that they have to choose between God and evolution, if Christian apologists are going to base their arguments for God on the claim that no-one can explain how rain gets up into the sky --- then they are undermining religious belief, by opposing it to solid science.
That's not a good reason to stop people from teaching science. That's a good reason for people to stop talking utter rubbish in the name of religion. Science does not, after all, undermine "any belief in a god or religion", as you claim, just the beliefs that are grossly unscientific.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Serdna, posted 04-21-2008 10:18 PM Serdna has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 19 of 59 (463991)
04-22-2008 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Serdna
04-21-2008 10:18 PM


Basically I believe that mandating the teaching of any religion in public schools is wrong and should instead be a journey that the student embarks on of his or her will. 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.
Let me empasize the point that evolution does not undermine any religious beliefs, just some of them.
Here's a broad outline of evolutionary thought:
quote:
All the evidence (and there's a great deal of evidence) is consistent with the premise that all terrestrial species evolved from a few forms or one, over billions of years, in accordance with the theory of evolution, i.e the laws and facts of genetics, such as mutation, recombination, genetic drift, lateral gene transfer, and the laws and facts of genetics.
Now, here's a statement of religious belief. You may have heard of it, it's called the Apostle's Creed:
quote:
I believe in God, the Father Almighty, the Creator of heaven and earth, and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord: Who was conceived of the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried. He descended into hell. The third day He arose again from the dead. He ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty, whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting. Amen.
Can you see any conflict between them? No, me neither. 'Cos they're talking about comletely different things. Nor can hundreds of millions of people who have no problem with both statements:
Here, by contrast, is a religious belief which is in conflict with evolutionary biology. This is a quote from Henry Morris, father of "scientific creationism".
quote:
Behind both groups of evolutionists one can discern the malignant influence of 'that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world'.
There's no way to teach the facts about evolution without "undermining" Morris's religious beliefs. But only because he has made undermining science part of his religion.
As for the "ideal of freedom", I don't see how this is served by letting any crank or crackpot prevent every public school teacher in America from contradicting him just by incorporating his crankery into his religion. I'm pretty sure that's not what the Founding Fathers had in mind, and the American judiciary seem quite satisfied that that's not what the Constitution means.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Serdna, posted 04-21-2008 10:18 PM Serdna has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Serdna, posted 04-22-2008 7:22 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 23 of 59 (464023)
04-22-2008 9:30 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Serdna
04-22-2008 7:22 PM


The origins of the apostles creed, which you have cited, are still unsure. However it is generally agreed on that It was not written by the apostles of Jesus as once believed. It is basically a revised version of what is commonly referred to as the "old roman creed". It was used initially during the rise of christianity in rome as well as the rest of the world. Because of the rapid expansion of christianity it was becoming increasingly difficult to maintain uniformity throughout the church.In order to remedy this, church leaders used the "old roman creed" in order to lay a basic outline of what the christians of that day believed. It was later revised around 700A.D. into what we know today as the Apostles Creed. We have to realize that this was used during a time in history when people generally did not question whether or not there was a god, but rather which faith and religion had the real one, or in some cases which had the most powerful one. As a result there was not a large necessity for explaining the origin of the world as it was generally accepted that it was a god or group of gods, the question instead was which one did it.
It is also important to recognize that this was a basic summary of the early christian beliefs and that it in no way limits what christianity teaches.
If you don't believe me then read a history book, if you don't have one then I suggest you check out these websites.
Overview of Christian creeds and beliefs
The Apostles' Creed
Yes. None of this invalidates my point that there are religious beliefs, including such beliefs in the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit, the Resurection, Heaven, Hell, et cetera which are not in the least in contradiction with the theory of evolution. Science does not undermine "any" religious beliefs, it undermines those religious beliefs that science happens to prove wrong.
Some of you point to the catholic church and the fact that it does not take an official position on evolution and how many respected members and leaders of the catholic church have come out and publicly endorsed the theory of evolution.
Which proves that science does not contradict "any" religion, just the sects that incorporate being wrong about science into their dogma.
It is your use of the word "any" that I object to. If you will just say "science contradicts all those religious sects that contradict science", then I have no problem with this mere harmless tautology.
Also it is an institution run by human beings(although based on the words and teachings of God) and is thereby subject to corruption as well as human error.
Golly, just like creationists then.
Please keep in mind that this post is not an attempt to disprove the theory of evolution, but instead it is to prove that it is in conflict with the bible what many christians believe.
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".
These are just two examples of conflict with evolution with only one of the many religions in the world. I am not making the argument that evolution is wrong, instead I am making the argument that the evolutionary theory and the bible/christian faith are in conflict with each other. If you would like to see some more information I suggest visiting the following websites, as well as doing some research yourself.
The page you were looking for doesn't exist (404)
Error 404 - Not found
Or, to put it more briefly, evolution contradicts those sects that insist that the Bible is the perfectly transmitted word of God and should be taken entirely literally. Yes, we had noticed.
Similar arguments were used by Cosmas Indicopleustes against people who thought the world wan't flat, and by Protestants and Catholics alike against Galileo, and by Martin Luther against people who thought that the stars were distant suns rather than little lights stuck to a solid firmament.
Here's a question for you. In the Bible, people always think with their hearts. The word "brain", in fact, does not occur anywhere in the Bible.
Which of these options should you follow:
(1) Abandon your faith because this "voids all subsequent biblical entries".
(2) Adopt a non-literalist view of these passages.
(3) Demand that science teachers should stop teaching about neuroscience and about how the function of the heart is to pump the blood, on the grounds that it would breach the First Amendment for a biblical literalist to have his faith in biblical literalism shaken by a public school teacher.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Serdna, posted 04-23-2008 12:50 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
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 replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
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 replied

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

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
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 replied

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

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
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 replied

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

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 51 of 59 (464167)
04-23-2008 7:36 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by randman
04-23-2008 6:53 PM


Maybe you don't realize your posts on employee's not doing their jobs has nothing to do with my original comments on the free exercise clause? It appears that is the case.
Suffice to say, teachers not doing their jobs is not related to the Constitutional claims I have made.
Is it your belief they are?
* sigh *
Molbiogirl said that creationism couldn't be taught in schools.
You replied that this conflicted with the free exercise clause.
I pointed out that the free exercise clause would not, in fact, protect someone who taught creationism in a public school.
If you are willing to concede this point, then apparently there is no conflict between mobiogirl's assertion and the free exercise clause. But if you still think that there is one, perhaps you could share it with us?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by randman, posted 04-23-2008 6:53 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by randman, posted 04-23-2008 7:40 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 53 of 59 (464175)
04-23-2008 7:51 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by randman
04-23-2008 7:40 PM


A mental exercise.....Think of a situation where the school board mandates creationism be taught so the teacher isn't teaching his or her private, personal religious beliefs......now, think of your posts arguing about teachers teaching their personal beliefs...
Then the same remarks would of course apply, except that in this case about the school board rather than the teacher. It is not a "free exercise of religion" for school boards to spend public money on promoting their favored religious beliefs, any more than it is freedom of speech for them to spend it on promoting their favored political beliefs, or an exercise of their Second Amendment rights to spend it on buying up a private arsenal.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by randman, posted 04-23-2008 7:40 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by randman, posted 04-23-2008 7:57 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 55 of 59 (464179)
04-23-2008 8:08 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by randman
04-23-2008 7:57 PM


Seems like you are still missing the point.
Seems to me that I have explained why a school board mandating the teaching of their religious views isn't protected by the free excercise clause.
The issue isn't employer/employee relations. If a school district exclusively teaches a doctrine specific to a single religion, you could have a point. Imo, it's still not a violation as the school district isn't "Congress" but that's a separate legal issue.
See post #10.
However, teaching a general religious tenet or teaching a specific religious tenet alongside other beliefs is not, imo, seeking to establish a national religion.
And if seeking to establish a national religion was the only thing that the First Amendment prohibetted, you'd have a point.
What secularists have done is taken the 1st amendment, designed to promote religion, religious freedom and protect it into something hostile towards religion and restricting it.
Wrong. The First Amendment in no way restricts religion, and cannot possibly be interpreted as doing so, as every secularist and indeed anyone who doesn't live in Opposite World will tell you. What it restricts is the government.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by randman, posted 04-23-2008 7:57 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by randman, posted 04-23-2008 8:12 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 57 of 59 (464193)
04-23-2008 8:51 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by randman
04-23-2008 8:12 PM


Your explanation is wrong because you assume they would be promoting their religious beliefs when in reality, they could be doing the exact opposite, for example, and want to give a minority view perspective a fair hearing.
Just as free exercise of religion does not permit a Christian schoolboard to mandate Christian prayers, it would also not give them the right to mandate Muslim prayers.
And for the record, you are for the restriction of religion and using the government to do so
Restricting the government from meddling in religion does not restrict religion. It restricts the government.
if you are for restricting scientific theories in the classroom based on their religious affiliation or religious flavor.
I am not for restricting scientific theories in the classroom. I am in favor of keeping creationist rubbish out of the classroom, because it's rubbish.
The teaching of scientific theories, by the way, is also not covered by the free exercise clause. For reasons that I trust are obvious.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by randman, posted 04-23-2008 8:12 PM randman has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024