|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 03/29/2012 : 22:39:50 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Convinced
The only case you can make that teaching I.D./creationism in schools science classes violates the constitution is that the federal government funds our schools. |
That's not it at all. School teachers are agents of the government, and the First Amendment coupled with the 14th Amendment prohibits the government (and its agents) from establishing any religion. It has nothing whatsoever to do with funding.| If a state decides to teach an I.D. curriculem in science class that does not violate the 1st ammendment. |
It does, thanks to the 14th Amendment.| It does not establish a religion by the federal government or prohibit anybody free exercise of their religion. |
Try reading up on the Lemon Test. And then ask a Hindu if getting a failing grade for not parroting Christian creationism on a "science" test shows how free they would be to exercise their religion, and how it's not an establishment of Christianity by the government.| From what I have read the federal governments involvement in public education is limited to constitutional protections of the 1st, 4th and 8th ammendments under the 14th ammendment. I can't see how these ammendments call for teaching creationism in public schools to be unconstitutional. |
So you do know the 14th Amendment, which ensured that state law could not circumvent the Federal Bill of Rights. How you can then say that teaching religious ideas as facts to school children doesn't violate the First Amendment is beyond me. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
Convinced
Skeptic Friend
USA
384 Posts |
Posted - 03/30/2012 : 06:37:34 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
Well, you are wrong.
Tax money pays for public schools. Be it federal, state, or local. |
I never said anything different.
| Also, federal law takes precedence over state and local law. That is how the system is set up. |
I understand. Maybe I am misunderstanding but I thought that establishing religion only applied to the federal government. If a local school teaches creationism how does that an establishment of religion by the federal government?
| Teaching creationism in science classrooms is, as has been shown repeatedly, religious teaching (and is considered by the courts to be promoting a religion). The government of the US is prohibited from advancing any religion. That is true for all levels of government, federal down to local. |
I don't see how a local school teaching creationism establishes a national religion. But if the courts have decided this I will comply even if I don't agree.
Yes, Yes it does, thanks.
|
Therefore be careful how you walk, not as unwise men but as wise, making the most of your time, because the days are evil. So then do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is. (Eph 5:15-17) |
|
|
|
Convinced
Skeptic Friend
USA
384 Posts |
Posted - 03/30/2012 : 07:03:57 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
School teachers are agents of the government, and the First Amendment coupled with the 14th Amendment prohibits the government (and its agents) from establishing any religion. It has nothing whatsoever to do with funding. |
As Dude pointed out the courts have decided this so I will agree that is the law. But I still don’t understand how a school teaching creationism in Podunk Idaho establishes a national religion.
| Try reading up on the Lemon Test. And then ask a Hindu if getting a failing grade for not parroting Christian creationism on a "science" test shows how free they would be to exercise their religion, and how it's not an establishment of Christianity by the government. |
I agree with you that there are problems with teaching creationism as a science in schools. I am not for that.
My kids are in public school and I teach them that when a subject comes up we may disagree with, it is not the time to take a stand. They need to learn what the curriculum requires. When they learn about evolution they will need to learn what the current scientific facts are and put those answers on the test even if we disagree religiously.
| So you do know the 14th Amendment, which ensured that state law could not circumvent the Federal Bill of Rights. How you can then say that teaching religious ideas as facts to school children doesn't violate the First Amendment is beyond me. |
After reading some commentary on the 14th Amendment and how it has been applied I see your point. I am no law scholar so my opinion means very little, but how I read the text in the 1st and 14th amendment I don’t see how a local public school can establish a national religion. But I will mull it over.
|
Therefore be careful how you walk, not as unwise men but as wise, making the most of your time, because the days are evil. So then do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is. (Eph 5:15-17) |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 03/30/2012 : 07:58:56 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Convinced
But I still don’t understand how a school teaching creationism in Podunk Idaho establishes a national religion. |
The 14th Amendment ensures that no government, at whatever level, is allowed to establish a religion. There can be no nationally-established religion, no state-established religion, no county-established religion, no city-established religion, no town-established religion and no individual-government-entity-established religion, so it even prohibits public libraries from making you say a prayer before they'll let you check out a book. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Convinced
Skeptic Friend
USA
384 Posts |
Posted - 03/30/2012 : 09:02:40 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Convinced
But I still don’t understand how a school teaching creationism in Podunk Idaho establishes a national religion. |
The 14th Amendment ensures that no government, at whatever level, is allowed to establish a religion. There can be no nationally-established religion, no state-established religion, no county-established religion, no city-established religion, no town-established religion and no individual-government-entity-established religion, so it even prohibits public libraries from making you say a prayer before they'll let you check out a book.
|
I agree no government should establish a religion. But how does teaching creationism establish a religion? Does claiming a religion to be true the same as establishing a religion even if the government does not make any religious demands of its citizens? |
Therefore be careful how you walk, not as unwise men but as wise, making the most of your time, because the days are evil. So then do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is. (Eph 5:15-17) |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 03/30/2012 : 10:35:08 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Convinced
Does claiming a religion to be true the same as establishing a religion even if the government does not make any religious demands of its citizens? |
Yes. Here is the Lemon Test:- The government's action must have a secular legislative purpose;
- The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion;
- The government's action must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion.
If any of these 3 prongs are violated, the government's action is deemed unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Teaching creationist doctrine as true in a public school violates all three prongs of the test. Teaching religious doctrine as true has no secular purpose (teaching about religious doctrine, say in a comparative religions class, can have a secular purpose). Teaching religious doctrine as true necessarily advances that religion. And teaching religious doctrine as true necessarily involves the government determining what religious truth is.
In Kitzmiller v. DASD, the judge only examined the first two, since examining the third was unnecessary. The bottom lines were these:...we find that the secular purposes claimed by the Board amount to a pretext for the Board's real purpose, which was to promote religion in the public school classroom, in violation of the Establishment Clause.
...
The effect of Defendants' actions in adopting the curriculum change was to impose a religious view of biological origins into the biology course, in violation of the Establishment Clause. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Convinced
Skeptic Friend
USA
384 Posts |
Posted - 03/30/2012 : 11:37:05 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Convinced
Does claiming a religion to be true the same as establishing a religion even if the government does not make any religious demands of its citizens? |
Yes. Here is the Lemon Test:- The government's action must have a secular legislative purpose;
- The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion;
- The government's action must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion.
If any of these 3 prongs are violated, the government's action is deemed unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Teaching creationist doctrine as true in a public school violates all three prongs of the test. Teaching religious doctrine as true has no secular purpose (teaching about religious doctrine, say in a comparative religions class, can have a secular purpose). Teaching religious doctrine as true necessarily advances that religion. And teaching religious doctrine as true necessarily involves the government determining what religious truth is.
In Kitzmiller v. DASD, the judge only examined the first two, since examining the third was unnecessary. The bottom lines were these:...we find that the secular purposes claimed by the Board amount to a pretext for the Board's real purpose, which was to promote religion in the public school classroom, in violation of the Establishment Clause.
...
The effect of Defendants' actions in adopting the curriculum change was to impose a religious view of biological origins into the biology course, in violation of the Establishment Clause.
|
I can agree that if the judge thinks the only purpose of teaching creationism is to promote a religion then it should not be allowed.
Would it be allowed if the prevailing scientific theory was I.D. or creationism? |
Therefore be careful how you walk, not as unwise men but as wise, making the most of your time, because the days are evil. So then do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is. (Eph 5:15-17) |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 03/30/2012 : 12:28:15 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Convinced
Would it be allowed if the prevailing scientific theory was I.D. or creationism? |
If a religious doctrine happens to mimic some secular fact, then it is permissible to teach. Say some crazy religion had as an article of faith "2+2=4." Teaching that two plus two really does equal four doesn't suddenly turn math class into a prayer meeting.
Lucky for everyone (except those whose faith is so weak they think they need the government to enforce it on other people), most religious doctrines don't match up with science, math or any other source of secular truth. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
sailingsoul
SFN Addict
2830 Posts |
Posted - 03/30/2012 : 17:19:22 [Permalink]
|
| At least the aren't trying to teach their Geocentric vs Heliocentric science debate any more. |
There are only two types of religious people, the deceivers and the deceived. SS |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
God's "shyness" makes ID hard to prove?
