Posted on 12/20/2005 7:54:38 AM PST by snarks_when_bored
Fox News alert a few minutes ago says the Dover School Board lost their bid to have Intelligent Design introduced into high school biology classes. The federal judge ruled that their case was based on the premise that Darwin's Theory of Evolution was incompatible with religion, and that this premise is false.
If the liberty and individual rights upon which this entire discussion is based are "endowed by our Creator", doesn't it seem vaguely odd to you that teaching children that they were created by their Creator would be a violation of the law which was designed to preserve these rights and liberties?
I apologize if I'm using some crazy fundamentalist creationist logic on you here.
P-Marlowe: The last step. When the State actually establishes a religion.
ml1954: What would the step just before that step be?
P-Marlowe: Constitutional.
The step that is okay before the step that is not is 'Constitutional'? What does that mean? Please be more explicit.
Hmm... have you "seen" all this available data? Have you seen proof of it? Or have you just heard or been told that it exists? Who told you? Do you trust them? Why do you trust them?
BTW, the Greek word for have faith in is the same word as trust (pisteuomai).
Also, you're faith/science false dichotomy is a high school level error.
OK, it's time to ask the question...
In the spirit of Torquemada.
How is it that you think it's ok for the government, through the schools or anywhere else, to establish your religion of secular humanism?
I haven't expressed any religious beliefs.
When the state's actions infringe upon the free exercise of religion of the citizens, then the state is crossing the line into an establishement of religion.
In this particular case the teaching of evolution is mandated despite the fact that many people have a religious opposition to that curriculum. I would say that forcing a student to learn something that conflicts with his religious beliefs is far closer to an establishment of religion than merely advising everyone that the theory that they are required to learn which conflicts with their deeply held religious beliefs may not be factual and that there are alternative theories.
In this case the Dover students who do not believe in evolution are being forced to reject their deeply held religious views or leave the school. That looks pretty close to an infringment of the free exercise of their religion. They are forced to go to school (by compulsory deducation laws) and then forced to confront their deeply held religious views with a theory that conflicts with those beliefs and then they are prohibited (by this court) from challenging it or calling that theory into question.
The Dover school district did nothing more than accomodate those students by reassuring them that the theory in question is not set in stone and that there are alternative theories.
Amazingly, it is the secular humanists who are attempting to force their religious views on the fundamentalists. What the Dover school district did was reasonable and did not in any way begin to approach an establishment of religion. What the court has done here, however, looks suspiciously like an infringment of the free exercise clause.
Everyone here knows that Darwinism is the great high holy dogma of the secular humanist belief system, which for all intents and purposes is a religious belief system, since it is a set of beliefs about God and about religion.
As has already been well explained, teaching children that their religious beliefs are bunk can hardly be passed off as a religiously neutral exercise.
Well done on your post #2300...if anyone wants to believe the lie about Darwins recant, in spite of the evidence to the contrary, in site of biographical research to the contrary, and more importantly, in spite of the fact the Darwins own family denies that there was a recant,(even tho to claim such would have been to their advantage), then so be it...they chose to believe a lie, and are content to do so...
But when someone deliberately spreads that 'fairy tale' around, thats says much about the one doing the spreading...
When the state's actions infringe upon the free exercise of religion of the citizens, then the state is crossing the line into an establishement of religion.
So if I understand you correctly, you think it's okay for the state to condone proselytizing one religious belief over all others in publicly funded schools.
Well the only religious belief system that the state is proseltyzing to the exlcusion of all others right now is the religion of Darwinian Evolution and Secular Humanism. As long as the state does not, in the process, infringe upon the rights of students to the free exercise of their religion, then I suppose it is ok.
What do you think?
The first two are sites with a religious orientation. Their definitions are:
The last three are non-religious sites. Their definitions are:a religious worldview where "man is the measure;" man, in himself, is the ultimate norm by which values are to be determined; all reality and life center upon man; man is god.
A form of religion that believes in humanistic values. Placing man before God. The thought that man is practically a god.
Who is it that is defining secular humanism as a religion?An outlook or a philosophy that advocates human rather than religious values.
humanism: the doctrine emphasizing a person's capacity for self-realization through reason; rejects religion and the supernatural
Secular humanism is an active lifestance that holds a naturalisic worldview and advocates the use of reason, compassion, scientific inquiry, ethics, justice and equality.
(Oh, and one court decision did as well. I read it and it is extremely narrow and possibly unique, so don't bother citing that to me.)
What do you think?
I think it's the parents job to convey their religious beliefs, ideas, morals, and ethics to their children. And I think that if we had school vouchers things like this Dover mess would not be an issue.
On that we agree 100%.
On that we agree 100%.
Glad to hear that. Since we're both on FR there's got to be a lot of things we both agree on. That's why we're here, isn't it?
Merry Christmas.
Gosh, if only I'd known that I could have claimed anything as religion... I could have complained to my teacher that differential equations espoused a religious belief I didn't agree with and therefore I didn't have to learn them. They certainly made me cry out, "Dear Lord" on more than one occasion.
There is no "biology sense" of the word creationist. It is simply a word. Like myself, Lemaitre was a Catholic, a frim believer in Genesis 1:1, God's creation. Hence a creationist. The English language does not belong to biologists or creationists.
OTOH, If a parent objects to religion being taught in school, they always have the option to homeschool or find a private school that does not teach religion in their classrooms. The options that are constantly being thrown in the faces of creationists or Christians who object to the way public schools are run are equally available to atheists or evolutionists. If they don't like it, they are free to leave also.
Evolution is a religion? I never knew. And all along I just thought it was a scientific theory
Really, do you think you understand what science is, and what evolution is, or do you get your talking points from Ken Ham, or the Institute for Creation Research, or the Answers in Genesis people? Because, in this you are parroting them exactly. The substance of your argument is based on something that simply isn't true. I think you might want to step back and examine your assumptions once more.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.