socialmedian: Why creationism is not the biggest threat to schools

Clips

Majority of British Science Teachers Support Creationism By jasongoldberg

Jan 06, 2009

Eva-Creation Course in Development? By daynamarcum

Jan 07, 2009

Why creationism is not the biggest threat to schools By dgarvin

Add News Flash

User-submitted headlines for this story

Why creationism is not the biggest threat to schools

Source: guardian.co.uk Science

Jan 06, 2009

Summary

The world is full of terrible things and it may seem absurd to be shocked by the state of science teaching more than by war and famine or any of the more obvious candidates. But I was more shocked by the report showing that a significant minority of British science teachers can't see anything much wrong with creationism than by anything else last year.

You can twist it and fiddle it how you like. You can hope that teachers can't tell the difference between "teaching" and "discussing" something, though this is in itself a rather dispiriting hope. You can hope that by "creationism" they mean no more than holding open the possibility of theistic explanation (though the trouble with that is that it has increasingly come to mean more) But the facts of the survey remain. 37% of primary and secondary school science teachers think that creationism should be taught in classrooms and only 28% think it is unsupportable as a theory.

Riffling through the discussion of the paper's news story on this I came across an even more dispiriting comment, from "tegga":

Thought I mi

...Read the full article

Comments (35)

Greghollingsworth,

Jan 06, 2009

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.

Thekookfringecom,

Jan 06, 2009

At the end of the day, we are a predominantly christian society in the US, and our founders used the PHILOSOPHY of christianity in the founding documents. I don't see an issue of teaching both - creationism and evolution.

What I'm more up in arms about is the downright hostility to all things religious - specifically all things Christian. Why not give kids the option (or the parents of those kids) to teach one or the other or both?

As for the other religions out there, make them an elective too, not a requirement, in fact make only evolution a requirement - but don't exclude religious theories based on hostility toward religion alone.

Homosuperior,

Jan 06, 2009

Creationism can be taught, in context. That is, in sociology or religion courses. It's not a science, but it can be at least mentioned in passing. Just like flat-earth.

Thekookfringecom,

Jan 06, 2009

@homosuperior You just proved my point, which frankly doesn't surprise me - that your take on this comes from a place that is hostile toward religion, specifically christianity. I recognize the gay community has a serious beef with catholocism and that's fine. But the point is you can scientifically conclude that the earth isn't flat with today's technology, to date you cannot conclude with today's technology that there isn't an intelligent designer. You may believe that, and that's fine, but you can't prove it...

Homosuperior,

Jan 06, 2009

Shall we talk about proving a negative first, or save it for later?

Homosuperior,

Jan 06, 2009

For the record, I'm not hostile to Christianity. A great deal of my own world view has been shaped by the Gospels. As well as by Marx, Genet, Kinsey, Foucault, Rosenbaum, Wood, Delany, Gang of Four, Sleater-Kinney, Stanley-Robinson, and a ton of others, none of whom is divine, none of whom created the world and none of whom I agree with, on anything, 100%. I AM hostile to bigots, crackpots and Christianists, as opposed to Christians. Some of my best friends are...

Thekookfringecom,

Jan 06, 2009

@homosuperior Forgive me, proving a negative? I'm not following. With regard to creationism vs evolution; I heard this story once with a great line from of all people, a homeless person. This person wasn't part of the conversation, he just overheard it. A couple of guys were getting philosophical about life, death religion etc. It was at a coffee shop on the pier in San Francisco and this homeless guy was making his way through the shop asking for money. He got to the aformentioned table and one of the guys asked homeless guy "Before I give you any money, first tell me, do you believe in god?" the homeless guy's response was strking, he said almost as a matter-of-factly - "Well, I didn't create myself..." I thought that was profound... I don't go to church, I don't have a bible, I am not hostile toward religion, very religious people tend to make me uncomfortable, but in order to believe in evolution only, we'd have to believe that way back in the beginnings of time that something was created from nothing... Including a designer itself... It's like a chicken or the egg...

Homosuperior,

Jan 07, 2009

"To date you cannot conclude with today's technology that there isn't an intelligent designer." That's trying to prove a negative, and that will never be science. So, if you want to teach a philosophy class around that question, fine. If one wants to teach it as science, then one is crackpot.

Thekookfringecom,

Jan 07, 2009

@homosuperior Allow me to rephrase, "to date you cannot conclude with today's technology that there IS an intelligent designer" - Now trying to prove a positive. Does that make it scientific?

Homosuperior,

Jan 07, 2009

No, it does not. Science proceeds from observable phenomena and empirical data. Faith proceeds from a leap. What observable phenomena have you or anyone else observed that leads one to postulate an intelligent designer? There is science; there is faith. One does not disprove the other. But to call science, faith, or faith, science, is a disservice, at best, to both.

Thekookfringecom,

Jan 07, 2009

Interesting that you say that last part, I recently read that to the faithful, science does little but reaffirm their faith in intelligent design. Does that mean god? I don't know... Perhaps that's what it means to the faithful... I.e. the more science uncovers about the genome, cancer, stem cells, etc - to some, that just means man is unlocking an intelligent designers secrets... It makes for interesting conversation anyway.

Michaelfidler,

Jan 07, 2009

@greghollingsworth Thanks for including me, but I'm out of commission with the flu. I think it might be a few more days, but at least I'm sitting up at the computer. If this discussion is still going on when I'm feeling better, I'll leave my 2 cents. lol

Greghollingsworth,

Jan 07, 2009

I knew I could count on you guys for a robust conversation. I have to say that I am with @homosuperior on this one, and not because I have any particular distaste for Christianity. I am not a Christian in the formal sense of the word, I am agnostic at best about the existence of God, however, the teachings of Christ, not unlike the teachings of many other philosophers whom I have both enjoyed and endured, have shaped my world view.

@thekookfringecom is correct in stating that the first leaders of this country would most certianly have encapsulated their worldview (as created by their faith) into the founding documents of this country, and yes, this country is predominantly christian. However, the founders love for religious freedom led directly to their inclusion of the right against government sanctioned religion. The first amendment does not provide the right of freedom from religion, but the right to practice ones own beliefs as they see fit, within the scope of the law.

The issue I have with the teaching of intelligent design in public schools is that it creates a situation where the government (be it at a state or federal level) is providing a de facto endorsement of a faith based concept as an educational matter for all children, regardless of their faith. This is where I disagree with the teaching of intelligent design in public schools.

We must remember that the religion clause of the first amendment was put in place to protect an individuals right to practice their own religion, not to force it on others (force is not the word I wanted to use, but it's early and my mental thesaurus isn't fully online yet).

Additionally, for families in the US that want their children to be taught from a faith-based direction, there is an entire parochial school system which exists specifically to provide that service.

@thekookfringecom is correct in stating that the first leaders of this country would most certianly have encapsulated their worldview (as created by their faith) into the founding documents of this country, and yes, this country is predominantly christian. However, the founders love for religious freedom led directly to their inclusion of the right against government sanctioned religion. The first amendment does not provide the right of freedom from religion, but the right to practice ones own beliefs as they see fit, within the scope of the law.

The issue I have with the teaching of intelligent design in public schools is that it creates a situation where the government (be it at a state or federal level) is providing a de facto endorsement of a faith based concept as an educational matter for all children, regardless of their faith. This is where I disagree with the teaching of intelligent design in public schools.

We must remember that the religion clause of the first amendment was put in place to protect an individuals right to practice their own religion, not to force it on others (force is not the word I wanted to use, but it's early and my mental thesaurus isn't fully online yet).

Additionally, for families in the US that want their children to be taught from a faith-based direction, there is an entire parochial school system which exists specifically to provide that service.

Thekookfringecom,

Jan 07, 2009

@greghollingsworth Greg, great post. Quick comment, who says that the theory of intelligent design need be taught in the context of religion? Specifically Christianity? True, its difficult to quantify the theory based on empirical data. It is also equally difficult to not prove an intelligent designer (proving a negative as homosuperior put it...) does not exist.

You're correct when you state the founding documents guarantee freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. So in the teachings in school, why not propose the idea of intelligent design as a theory, not one necessarily based on religion. I for one, am hardly a bible thumper, but I'm not convinced that some being didn't create all of this...

Jmalmberg,

Jan 07, 2009

All too often, separation of church and state and the intent of the founders is misunderstood. The clause was never intended to keep religion out of government. It was intended to keep government out of religion. This is quite clear if you look at the history of the revolution and the period leading up to it.

A large part of the battle for the hearts and minds of the colonists was actually fought from the pulpit. If you go back and read many of the surviving sermons from that time, you will find that a large number of practicing clergy were calling for reform of the English government early on, and that this evolved into a call for violent overthrow of it as time passed. This had a tremendous impact on the final form of the US government.

Just look at our money. Most people don’t realize that our national motto is “In God We Trust”. There have been numerous attempts to strike this from the motto, but the Supreme Court has stopped them all. The intent of the founders was clear.

Each session of Congress is opened with a prayer. People are sworn into office on the Bible. And most tellingly, the Declaration of Independence refers to our Creator.

Over 90% of Americans say that they believe in God. Yet, over the years, the courts and legislators have attacked any mention of religion in government under the guise of “separation of church and state”. And where has this left us as a nation? Are we better off?

Arguably, I would say “no, we are not better off”.

Most of the values that society holds dear actually come from religious documents. Just read the Ten Commandments and you will find the basis of most of the world’s laws. When that basis is rooted in something other than just the law, such as a system of beliefs, people tend to be better off for it. They not only follow the law, but they do it willingly and are less tempted to break it.

Additionally, religion gives people a system of values and teaches both sides of compassion; the ability to be good to others and at the same time enforce the law for the betterment of all. This is one of the primary problems faced by society today. People understand that if they break the law, they may go to jail, but they don’t seem to face the problem of breaking their own personal system of values. That’s because nobody is teaching values.

Keeping all of this in mind, this brings us to teaching creationism or evolution? Which is correct?

I personally have never seen the conflict between the two. If you believe in God, then you probably also believe that God created a system of scientific laws that govern our universe. But that is not really the subject here.

The question here is whether or not teachers should be talking about creationism at the same time they are teaching evolution? Well, Christian fundamentalists would say that they shouldn’t be teaching evolution at all. But atheists would say that creationism shouldn’t be taught. In an odd sort of way, the atheists have their own form of fundamentalism.

Fundamentalism in any form is both dangerous and displays ignorance. Ignoring creationism doesn’t make it go away. It only heightens the controversy. The same can be said of those who would deny evolution.

Unfortunately, what has happened is that any time someone in the country brings up creationism in a public school, someone else seems to rise up to file suit against the school system and the teacher involved. They claim that they should be protected from state sponsored religion and the site “separation of church and state”. And the courts have ignorantly agreed with them.

State sponsored religion would mean that the government told you that you had to belong to a certain church, or that the government furnished financial support to a particular religion. It does not mean that teachers shouldn’t be able to talk about what creationists believe and compare and contrast that to the theory of evolution.

A large part of the battle for the hearts and minds of the colonists was actually fought from the pulpit. If you go back and read many of the surviving sermons from that time, you will find that a large number of practicing clergy were calling for reform of the English government early on, and that this evolved into a call for violent overthrow of it as time passed. This had a tremendous impact on the final form of the US government.

Just look at our money. Most people don’t realize that our national motto is “In God We Trust”. There have been numerous attempts to strike this from the motto, but the Supreme Court has stopped them all. The intent of the founders was clear.

Each session of Congress is opened with a prayer. People are sworn into office on the Bible. And most tellingly, the Declaration of Independence refers to our Creator.

Over 90% of Americans say that they believe in God. Yet, over the years, the courts and legislators have attacked any mention of religion in government under the guise of “separation of church and state”. And where has this left us as a nation? Are we better off?

Arguably, I would say “no, we are not better off”.

Most of the values that society holds dear actually come from religious documents. Just read the Ten Commandments and you will find the basis of most of the world’s laws. When that basis is rooted in something other than just the law, such as a system of beliefs, people tend to be better off for it. They not only follow the law, but they do it willingly and are less tempted to break it.

Additionally, religion gives people a system of values and teaches both sides of compassion; the ability to be good to others and at the same time enforce the law for the betterment of all. This is one of the primary problems faced by society today. People understand that if they break the law, they may go to jail, but they don’t seem to face the problem of breaking their own personal system of values. That’s because nobody is teaching values.

Keeping all of this in mind, this brings us to teaching creationism or evolution? Which is correct?

I personally have never seen the conflict between the two. If you believe in God, then you probably also believe that God created a system of scientific laws that govern our universe. But that is not really the subject here.

The question here is whether or not teachers should be talking about creationism at the same time they are teaching evolution? Well, Christian fundamentalists would say that they shouldn’t be teaching evolution at all. But atheists would say that creationism shouldn’t be taught. In an odd sort of way, the atheists have their own form of fundamentalism.

Fundamentalism in any form is both dangerous and displays ignorance. Ignoring creationism doesn’t make it go away. It only heightens the controversy. The same can be said of those who would deny evolution.

Unfortunately, what has happened is that any time someone in the country brings up creationism in a public school, someone else seems to rise up to file suit against the school system and the teacher involved. They claim that they should be protected from state sponsored religion and the site “separation of church and state”. And the courts have ignorantly agreed with them.

State sponsored religion would mean that the government told you that you had to belong to a certain church, or that the government furnished financial support to a particular religion. It does not mean that teachers shouldn’t be able to talk about what creationists believe and compare and contrast that to the theory of evolution.

Homosuperior,

Jan 07, 2009

I still don't see what the establishment clause has to do with whether or not ID, or creationism, or any of the other crackpot ideologies about the origin of the world, should be taught in schools _as science_. If it passes muster as science, then teach it, by all means. If it doesn't, put it somewhere else. Comparing evolution to creationism sounds like an interesting discussion, and might even belong in a science class, a _philosophy_ of science class. Putting them on equal footing as scientific theories? Well, that's basically called lying.

Homosuperior,

Jan 07, 2009

By the way, a Facebook friend commented thusly on my status message, which comes from this conversation on socialmedian: "I like to think of faith as more of a plummet."

Greghollingsworth,

Jan 07, 2009

@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.

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.

Jmalmberg,

Jan 07, 2009

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.

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.

Raddevon,

Jan 07, 2009

Why are we appealing to tradition or the will of the founding fathers here? The founding fathers almost all would have certainly expected everyone to keep slaves but most can agree that is certainly immoral. It seems to me we should evaluate what is moral apart from the intentions of anyone regardless of their role in forming the nation in which we live. It is intuitive that, if religious people are free to practice religion that non-religious people should be free not to and tax money of the collective populace should not be used to espouse a particular belief system. I would argue that a teacher's religious belief should certainly be left at the door.

There are certain restrictions that come along with employment by any entity private or public. In fact, I would argue that restrictions on public employees should be more stringent since they are employed by the general population. They should be required to serve the populace as a whole not whatever religious faction happens to be vogue at the particular moment in time.

Jmalmberg,

Jan 08, 2009

Oh come on. Slavery has nothing to do with this conversation and frankly @raddevon you need to refresh your history a little bit if you think that all of those putting the Constitution together were pro-slavery. It was a great source of friction between the north and south, even in 1789 when the Constitution was adopted.

As for the idea that we should ignore the Constitution in the name of "morality", one man's morality is another's government interference. Since slavery hasn't been an issue since 1865, we'll assume that it’s not on the table in this discussion.

You seem to be under the misconception that the United States was formed as a democracy and that if a simple majority of people find certain behaviors politically incorrect, they can simply pass legislation that would prevent those behaviors. But the US was actually formed as a constitutional republic. Big difference. A constitutional republic, although democratically elected, places restrictions on the power of government and its citizens to prevent interference with individual liberties.

I would submit to you that the freedom to practice ones' religion and to speak their mind are both individual liberties. If what someone says to you is offensive, don't listen. If their religion makes you uncomfortable, turn away. Those are your rights.

Raddevon,

Jan 08, 2009

@jmalmberg I realize this conversation is not about slavery. Are you familiar with the concept of a "metaphor?" The point I am making is not about slavery but that there was no divine inspiration that provided the founding fathers with any temporary perfection and thus their efforts can be revered but should not be looked upon as if they contain no fault. If they can be wrong about slavery, they could be wrong about anything else (such as preferring religion over no religion if that was, in fact, their original intent). You certainly realize this (unless, I suppose, you believe the constitution was another glorious document written by man channeling god) yet conveniently ignore the fact while arguing that the intent of these men should be upheld at all costs.

Also, I fail to see how not imposing religion on the non-religious might be considered "government interference. Enlighten me.

I'm not arguing for democracy nor do I really care what the United States "is." You seem to believe this is all static. I understand the process by which our government is democratic is labyrinthine, but there are avenues by which change can be effected. I also maintain that the government should serve the broad interests of those who insure it's existence by way of paying taxes. Our common ground is that we are all human not that we all believe in the supernatural. I would not deny anyone speech and freedom to practice religious beliefs so long as it does not trample my own rights to believe whatever I wish. However, MY government should be espousing or endorsing (either implicitly or explicitly) yours or mine or anyone's beliefs.

Thekookfringecom,

Jan 08, 2009

@jmalmberg Here Here!! Fact is, we've become a society of ultra sensitive people who literally create things to be offended by - some of the most innane things... We have freedom a speech no matter how offensive, if you don't like what people have to SAY then change the channel. Its the advice liberals have given to conservatives for decades. Right back at ya... In fact the whole concept of political correctness flies in the face of freedom of speech...

Raddevon,

Jan 08, 2009

@jmalmberg FYI: "Oh come on" and "oh please" really don't do much besides make you look childish. How about presenting your arguments in a clear and concise way rather than trying to belittle the user to which you are replying? It will really go a long way to improve your appearance of integrity and credibility. Thanks!

Raddevon,

Jan 08, 2009

@thekookfringecom So, where is this alternate government that doesn't espouse religion that I can use my remote to simply change to? The metaphor falls apart here because, I have to make an effort to invite television into my home. Then, I have to actively turn on the channel that offends me choosing it over others that perhaps do not. The government you are comparing this to is pervasive in every aspect of my life, and I am born into it! I will have to take drastic action to escape it! So, we are saying moving to another country to escape religious establishment in government is somehow as easy as using your thumb to press the channel up key on your TV remote?

Jmalmberg,

Jan 08, 2009

@raddevon First you say that that the government needs to protect you from offensive "religious" or "supernatural" speech (and I am still confused as to how either of these things "hurt" you - they may offend you but that is nobody's issue but your own), and then you complain that the government is pervasive and interferes with your life. Do you see the paradox?

This has been a real problem with the liberal agenda. Government intervention is not the answer. When the federal government gets involved with an issue, it typically gets screwed up and there are numerous examples of this - If you would like me to mention a few, I'll be happy to, just let me know.

I agree that the government is bloated, pervasive and intrusive. The logical conclusion here is that it needs to have its wings clipped. This might get the government out of our lives and put you in a position that you don't have to worry dealing with all those superstitious religious zealots lurking within the corridors of power or who occupy a teachers desk at your local school.

Tweric,

Jan 08, 2009

Didn't Al Gore invent the world? What's the big debate?

What's really going on is that people choose a story. Read "Life of Pi" (http://www.amazon.com/Life-Pi-Yann-Martel/dp/0156027321). Stories are powerful things cutting to our core and informing our beliefs. Asking someone to change a deep belief is basically picking a fight.

Real work is done when we can let go of belief. Vamoose. The things of thought are not us.

Raddevon,

Jan 08, 2009

@jmalmberg I have never said I need the government to protect me from anything. Speak however you want, and I will assure you that I am fully capable of ignoring whatever I like and engaging what I wish. However, I don't want the government to adopt and/or endorse the speech. When you work for the government, you are a representative of it. A "government" is an abstraction of an entity composed of individuals. If those individuals espouse religion on the job, effectively the government is doing so. You cannot extricate the two. If you aren't comfortable with leaving your religion at home, don't get a government job. If you want MY money, leave your religion at home when you come in to be paid out of my tax money. I pay every public servant. I don't send my child to school to learn religion. I will send her to church if I want that. Church is something I can, in fact, not participate in.

I am not at all comfortable with doing away with public education--an institution that makes inroads to getting people off on the same footing as adults. Without it, it would further divide the haves and the have-nots. However, this is not the dilemma; I don't have to choose between public education bundled with indoctrination. I can choose to keep public education and throw out the indoctrination.

This would be my issue... were I not paying this entity to provide me a service and protect my ability to live as I choose to which the act of endorsing either "religion" generically or any particular religion is plainly contradictory. Government establishing or endorsing religion IS pervasive AND intrusive. This is immediately apparent unless you happen to agree with the religion it has supported (and I hope, for your sake, they remain the same one!).

So, which position are you actually supporting here: the position that supports little government intervention or the position that individuals in government should be free to use their positions to propagate their own religious beliefs? These ideas are mutually exclusive.

Also, to clarify, I do believe that my rights are being violated here. I believe I should be able to pledge allegiance to my country without also proclaiming my non-existing belief is god. I believe I should be able to repay debts without implicitly agreeing that I trust in a being which does not exist. Most importantly, I believe my child is entitled to schooling that does not consist of indoctrination into any system of religious belief. While I am fully capable of rejecting these ideas by thinking critically, a four-year-old has not yet developed the capacity to understand that an adult who is present to teach her may tell her things that he believes with great conviction but may be incorrect. I maintain that neither of us should be subjected to these ideas institutionalized in government, but this is particularly harmful to a child. Her choice is denied as she is told by an authority figure what to believe before she is educated and given the opportunity to use her own capacity for thinking critically.

I am not at all comfortable with doing away with public education--an institution that makes inroads to getting people off on the same footing as adults. Without it, it would further divide the haves and the have-nots. However, this is not the dilemma; I don't have to choose between public education bundled with indoctrination. I can choose to keep public education and throw out the indoctrination.

This would be my issue... were I not paying this entity to provide me a service and protect my ability to live as I choose to which the act of endorsing either "religion" generically or any particular religion is plainly contradictory. Government establishing or endorsing religion IS pervasive AND intrusive. This is immediately apparent unless you happen to agree with the religion it has supported (and I hope, for your sake, they remain the same one!).

So, which position are you actually supporting here: the position that supports little government intervention or the position that individuals in government should be free to use their positions to propagate their own religious beliefs? These ideas are mutually exclusive.

Also, to clarify, I do believe that my rights are being violated here. I believe I should be able to pledge allegiance to my country without also proclaiming my non-existing belief is god. I believe I should be able to repay debts without implicitly agreeing that I trust in a being which does not exist. Most importantly, I believe my child is entitled to schooling that does not consist of indoctrination into any system of religious belief. While I am fully capable of rejecting these ideas by thinking critically, a four-year-old has not yet developed the capacity to understand that an adult who is present to teach her may tell her things that he believes with great conviction but may be incorrect. I maintain that neither of us should be subjected to these ideas institutionalized in government, but this is particularly harmful to a child. Her choice is denied as she is told by an authority figure what to believe before she is educated and given the opportunity to use her own capacity for thinking critically.

Jmalmberg,

Jan 08, 2009

@raddevon I never suggested abolishing public education. I did suggest that it was a matter for the states and not the federal government.

As a parent myself, I can tell you that I never had any problem with other people brining up other religions or their lack of belief in religion to my daughter as she was growing up – and yes, it did happen in school. She would ask questions and my wife and I would answer them. It’s only indoctrination if you expect the school system, or the government to raise your child.

The idea that when a government employee espouses a religious view, he or she is advocating a religion on behalf of the government is simply stupid. I thought about sugar coating this statement but I can’t. It’s beyond the pale. People don’t leave who they are at the door when they go to work, nor should they be expected to. The only governments that have successfully achieved this have been totalitarian and governed through fear. This is true throughout recorded history.

As for your professed non-belief, you are clearly within your rights to believe – or not – whatever you want. In fact, I’d be willing to defend you in that right. But you are just as clearly in a small minority in this country. Less than 10% of Americans (by some poling data, less than 4%) have publicly agreed with that position. Yet the other 90+% of the people are supposed to change their interaction with you to accommodate your system of non-belief! Amazing! Have you ever thought about the fact that using government time and money to police this issue in support of your position may be just as offensive to the vast majority as you seem to find any reference to religion coming from your government? There are two sides to this coin.

I agree that the government should not institutionalize any religion. But anyone with any common sense should be able to draw a distinction between the government as a whole and the actions or words of a single employee. And if that employee happens to talk to your four year old, and you don’t like what they say, then have a conversation with the employee and with your child. It really shouldn’t be a federal matter.

@raddevon I never suggested abolishing public education. I did suggest that it was a matter for the states and not the federal government.

As a parent myself, I can tell you that I never had any problem with other people brining up other religions or their lack of belief in religion to my daughter as she was growing up – and yes, it did happen in school. She would ask questions and my wife and I would answer them. It’s only indoctrination if you expect the school system, or the government to raise your child.

The idea that when a government employee espouses a religious view, he or she is advocating a religion on behalf of the government is simply stupid. I thought about sugar coating this statement but I can’t. It’s beyond the pale. People don’t leave who they are at the door when they go to work, nor should they be expected to. The only governments that have successfully achieved this have been totalitarian and governed through fear. This is true throughout recorded history.

As for your professed non-belief, you are clearly within your rights to believe – or not – whatever you want. In fact, I’d be willing to defend you in that right. But you are just as clearly in a small minority in this country. Less than 10% of Americans (by some poling data, less than 4%) have publicly agreed with that position. Yet the other 90+% of the people are supposed to change their interaction with you to accommodate your system of non-belief! Amazing! Have you ever thought about the fact that using government time and money to police this issue in support of your position may be just as offensive to the vast majority as you seem to find any reference to religion coming from your government? There are two sides to this coin.

I agree that the government should not institutionalize any religion. But anyone with any common sense should be able to draw a  distinction between the government as a whole and the actions or words of a single employee. And if that employee happens to talk to your four year old, and you don’t like what they say, then have a conversation with the employee and with your child. It really shouldn’t be a federal matter.

Thekookfringecom,

Jan 08, 2009

@raddevon You can explain your inability to change channels to your liberal bretheren. Conservatives have been asking the same question of liberals your asking here for years and they thought we were nuts, bible thumpers, prudes, etc. Freedom of speech is imperfect, we can't control what offends. So the best option is to change the channel and avoid that which offends you.

Jmalmberg,

Jan 08, 2009

@thekookfringecom Couldn't agree more!

Homosuperior,

Jan 08, 2009

I have to say that there is usually some point in these s|m conversations when I have no idea what most of you are talking about.

Homosuperior,

Jan 08, 2009

For the record, if I were in charge, I would seriously consider firing those 72% or so of teachers who think that creationism is supportable as theory, and, and this is key, teach accordingly. Not on the basis of ideology but on the basis of competence. Privately, however, I might question their sanity. Maybe, just maybe, that brings us back, with a swack, or some other onomatopoeia, to the article posted at the top of this page.

Greghollingsworth,

Jan 09, 2009

This isn't an issue about freedom of speech, this is an issue of the responsibility of government employees, which public school teachers are.

@thekookfringecom and @jmalmberg are correct, if I don't like what I'm watching on TV, I can change the channel. The children sitting in a classroom listening to a teacher (a government employee) cannot simply raise their hand and say that they would like the teacher to teach something different now.

Additionally, freedom of speech does not generally extend to any workplace. For instance, if I walked into my job and started spouting off racial or religious epithets, I would be fired. There would most likely be no grounds for criminal prosecution (as I would have broken no laws), but I certainly wouldn't get to keep my job.

I will grant you that teachers are often in an awkward position, having to teach to a core curriculum that they may or not agree with, but if they want to teach ID, they are more than welcome to seek a position at a parochial institution. Science class is for scientific theory and proof, not philosophical debate over something that cannot be proved empirically.

I am not trying to downplay faith on a personal level, this is not about a given person, this is about an institution that serves the public, in a civic, secular fashion. No one religion should be given preference to another, especially by the government, that is what freedom of religion in this country is all about. Teaching ID, which is ostensibly a christian theory, would give preference to christianity over other religions, and that is where the violation of the establishment clause would come into play.

Oh, and might I remind whoever it was that threw out that "In God We Trust" is our national motto, I would remind them that the phrase Novus Ordo Seclorum (New Secular Order) appears just as many dollar bills as In God We Trust.

This isn't an issue about freedom of speech, this is an issue of the responsibility of government employees, which public school teachers are.

@thekookfringecom and @jmalmberg are correct, if I don't like what I'm watching on TV, I can change the channel. The children sitting in a classroom listening to a teacher (a government employee) cannot simply raise their hand and say that they would like the teacher to teach something different now.

Additionally, freedom of speech does not generally extend to any workplace. For instance, if I walked into my job and started spouting off racial or religious epithets, I would be fired. There would most likely be no grounds for criminal prosecution (as I would have broken no laws), but I certainly wouldn't get to keep my job.

I will grant you that teachers are often in an awkward position, having to teach to a core curriculum that they may or not agree with, but if they want to teach ID, they are more than welcome to seek a position at a parochial institution. Science class is for scientific theory and proof, not philosophical debate over something that cannot be proved empirically.

I am not trying to downplay faith on a personal level, this is not about a given person, this is about an institution that serves the public, in a civic, secular fashion. No one religion should be given preference to another, especially by the government, that is what freedom of religion in this country is all about. Teaching ID, which is ostensibly a christian theory, would give preference to christianity over other religions, and that is where the violation of the establishment clause would come into play.

Oh, and might I remind whoever it was that threw out that "In God We Trust" is our national motto, I would remind them that the phrase Novus Ordo Seclorum (New Secular Order) appears just as many dollar bills as In God We Trust.