Mood

: Granted, this is a much different issue here in the states, but the issue is still something we will deal with more in the coming years. I think that eventually the question has to come down to this, how would these Christian families react if we started teaching children all the various creationist theories? What if we brought in the Muslim creation story, taught the Native American creation story, the Buddhist, the Shintoist, and on and on down the line?

To me this isn't so much about teaching creationism as it is an attempt by Christian fundamentalists (yep, I'm gonna go there) to bring only their view alongside the theory of evolution (which I personally loathe to see called Darwinism). What about all the others?

@michaelfidler, @homosuperior, @thekookfringecom, @jasongoldberg, @thomaspower and anyone else I'm leaving out, i would be very interested to hear your thoughts on this issue.

Reply

: @thekookfringecom the reason that ID is generally spoken of in terms of Christianity, is that the theory was postulated by Christians, not Muslims or Jews or anyone else. The reason it should not be taught as "science" is that it relies on non-empirical data to communicate it's main theory. I have no problem with it being taught in the context of philosophy, which would in my opinion place it in it's proper place, nor do I have a problem with it being taught in public schools should it be categorized as such.

My argument here is not that it has no place, all theory and conjecture (including evolution science) has a place in academia. However, ID does not fit the criteria for a natural science, it cannot be proved or disproved empirically. Personally, I have no idea whether or not God exists, and I do not spend much of my time trying to answer a question that cannot be answered outside the boundaries of faith. However, as I stated previously, the teachings of Christ and many other Christian philosophers have certainly influenced my world view.

@jmalmberg while I certainly see your point, I would disagree that the American Revolution (though often waged from the pulpit) had much to do with religion. There were many, many other reasons on the list well above rejection of the CofE, especially given that the Protestant Church was strongly entrenched in America well before the Revolutionary War. The reson that it was so often preached from the pulpit was because most, if not all, colonists were believers, as was most of the Western World during that era.

You correctly interpret the establishment clause, at least in my opinion, and as I said, it does not guarantee freedom from religion. The issue here is government involvement in religion, or at the very least government sanctioning of faith-based theory being taught as science in the public school system. Evolution science is accepted as a natural scientific theory, ID is not, whether or not it should be is an entirely different argument altogether, and if it does become accepted by the scientific community at large, then this would be a wholly different discussion.

As I have said more than once, my issue here is not with ID itself, although I personally find it to be a theory that rests on very weak foundations, it is with the sanctioning of a religious theory by the government, be it at a state or local level. I would never, ever, dream of telling someone that they could not practice the religion of their choice (or practice no religion at all for that matter), however, I am not a representative of the government in any fashion, whereas teachers employed by the public school system are.

Let me explain my view very simply. I am all for students praying wherever and whenever they want, even if it's at school. I am completely for students of any religion starting student organizations at schools, I am 100% for the right of any student to share their religious beliefs with those who are willing to listen. I am 100% against a teacher, principle, librarian, study hall monitor doing the same thing in the confines of a public institution. They are employed by a public institution, and therefore, in my opinion, have no right to express their given religious beliefs to their students, coworkers, etc... As representatives of the government, and the taxpayers that pay their salary, they need to remove their faith from their career, when on school grounds. Outside of school, they have the right to do whatever they want.

Reply

: I'm not suggesting that creationism be taught as science. I agree that there is no empirical evidence that would support this. I am suggesting however that bringing it up as a topic when teaching evolution (so that students know that there are people with differing points of view on the matter - hence, educating them) does not arise to the level of heresy that the media would have us believe. The idea of bringing it up as philosophy is also fine, but again, in public schools the media would have a heyday with it. So much for the idea that education is supposed to be about “learning”, not about “maintaining a comfort zone”.

As for teachers espousing religious points of view, I do agree that no viewpoint should be shoved down a student’s throat but it is ridiculous to ask people to leave their system of beliefs at the door. That is simply asking for freedom from religion; something that you have already agreed that nobody is entitled to.

Just playing Devil’s advocate here but if a teacher professes to their class that he is an atheist or agnostic, does that hurt anyone. And if the answer is “no”, then tell me how a teacher saying he or she believes in God hurts you or anyone else. It may make you uncomfortable, but so what. I can virtually guarantee that in the case of the latter, some parents, pundits and the media would be up in arms. But in the case of the former, nobody would say or do anything. Frankly, if one is wrong, so is the other. And putting a stop to either points back to freedom from religion as both deal with issues of faith.

It should also be pointed out that the Constitution provides for both freedom of religion and freedom of speech, period. It doesn’t say “freedom of religion and freedom of speech unless you work for the government in which case you are free to practice your system of beliefs only on your off hours, but when on the clock your freedom of speech and religion are both restricted.” I am fairly certain that the courts have diverged rather dramatically from the founders intent on this one.

Reply

Mood

Mood

Mood

Mood

Mood