Posted on 06/01/2005 9:24:53 AM PDT by Fester Chugabrew
It's a common claim of libertarians, liberals, atheists and skeptics that religious conservatives use the public schools to promote creationism. I believe that claim is incorrect. The truth is that libertarians, liberals, atheists and skeptics use the public schools to promote atheism. Public schools are bad of course, and all schools should be private. But if there are going to be public schools anyway, they should be for all people, for evolutionists and creationists, for atheists and theists. Public schools should teach both evolution and creationism, and students should be given the choice which of those courses they want to take. It's the libertarians, liberals, atheists and skeptics that want to take away people's free choice, in the name of religious freedom, so as to make sure that everybody is forced to learn scientific truth and nobody gets exposed to pseudo-scientific heresy. That idea is based on a mistaken view of what separation between Church and State means.
Separation between Church and State means, or at least should mean, that government will not takes sides promoting one religion over the other. Or religion over nonreligion. Or nonreligion over religion. Forbidding creationism in public schools is itself an attack on the separation between Church and State. It means the the State promotes education the way atheists want it and hampers eduction the way theists want it. My opponents will counter that public schools do not promote atheism. They're supposedly neutral and teach only science, while they teach neither atheism nor theism. Nonsense. What a school teaches is never neutral and can never be neutral. Every choice a school makes on what courses to give and how is a value jugdement on what is good. Therefore, the conflicts public schools create about what to teach can never be solved. They're inherent in the very idea of a public school and can only be solved by privatizing all public schools. The best public schools can do for now is cater to as many needs as possible, especially needs carried by large proportions of students. Not doing that, for example by teaching evolution and not creationism, is not a neutral choice.
If one interprets the Separation between Church and State more strictly, so as to mean government must not even have any indirect connection to religion, then one might indeed argue that public schools should not teach creationism. (One might then even be able to argue that people on welfare should be forbidden to spend their welfare money on religious goods or services.) But such a strict interpretation would be unfair as long as there is no Separation between School and State. For if there is this kind of a separation between Church and State, while there is no general separation between School and State, religious education is put at a severe disadvantage to any kind of other education. Why should all schools of thought about what kind of education is appropriate get a say in the public school system, except if there is a religious connection? Separation between School and State is a great idea, which would depolitisize education, via privatization. But a very strictly interpreted separation between Church and State is simply not possible or desirable, as long as government controls public schools. If they control public schools they should try to cater equally to all education needs and education philosophies, whether they be scientific, atheist, religious, or whatever.
In this regard it's the religious right that stands on the side of freedom of religion and free scientific inquiry. They fully respect the rights of atheists to teach evolution in public schools, even though they think it incorrect. Their opponents, on the other hand, do no respect the rights of theist to teach creationism in public schools, because they think it incorrect. It may be that strictly speaking evolution is not atheism while creationism is theism. That doesn't remove the unfairness of the public schools in that they do teach what many atheist want taught (evolution) while they do not teach what many theist want taught (creationism). One might argue that the principle involved is that public schools should teach science and that therefore evolution is an appropriate subject to teach while creationism is not. There are two problems with that view:
1. Many creationists believe creationism is scientific.
2. It's not true that public schools only teach science.
As to 1, I agree that creationism is bad science, or nonscience, while evolution is good science. But it's not appropriate for government to make judgements about what is science or not science. For government to do that is a violation of well established principes of free scientific inquiry. The fact that evolution is true and creationism is false is besides the point. Government shouldn't decide what scientific truth is and tell people what to do or learn based on that judgement. Using government power against religious scientism is just as bad as when the Church used force against Galileo's secular science, and this is so for the same reasons. Therefore, the most neutral position to take is that everything should be taught in public schools if there is a big enough demand for it being taught.
As to 2. Most people think public schools should teach certain things other than science, such as physical education, moral education, sexual conduct, political ideas, social skills. Therefore one may not disallow the teaching of creationism on the grounds that it's not science, even putting aside the fact that not everybody agrees creationism isn't science. The same argument would disallow many things that are currently being taught in public schools. If we single out religion as something nonscientific that cannot be taught, while say political correctness can be taught, then we are using the first amendment in a way opposite to how it was intended. Instead of protecting religion now it's being used as a bias against religion.
Creationism is just one of many subjects that could be taught by public schools. And if that's what many people want taught, it should be taught, at least as an optional subject. Allowing creationism taught does not require any law which would respect an establishment of religion nor does it prohibit the free exercise of religion, and so there's no first amendment conflict. Quite the opposite. Taxing people to pay for public schools, and then forbidding them to teach religion, limits people's funds and options for exercising religion. Precisely a law forbidding creationism in public schools prohibits to some extent, or at least hampers, the free exercise of religion.
Let me be clear that I don't think it's good that schools teach creationism, intelligent design, or other pseudoscience such as astrology, withchraft, ESP, etc. If I were to create or fund or support a school, I would argue against it doing those things. So it's not that I think it's appropriate for schools to teach falsehoods and pseudoscience. My point is that it is not for me to judge what is appropriate or not for other people. When I own my own private school, it's my own business to make those judgements. But when it's a public school, the school should serve the purposes of everybody. Not only should it serve the purposes of both those in favour of pseudoscience and those in favour of science. But, more importantly, it should recognize that not everybody will agree on what is science and what is pseudoscience. In a free society everybody is allowed to make his own judgement on that. For goverment to make that judgement for people is authoritarian. Therefore, governments should not forbid subjects being tought based on the fact that they are pseudoscience. If you give government the power to forbid something because it's pseudoscience, then they are bound also to forbid something genuinely scientific and true at some point, on the arguement that it is pseudoscience. We are all fallible, and so is the government. Power given to government to protect us against illness, unhapiness and bad ideas, even with the best of intentions, will eventually turn against us and control us.
The state is used to supply education the way atheists want it, while it cannot be used to supply education the way theists want it, but they do pay part of the taxes. The reason this is done is not because atheists value religious freedom. I'm not saying atheists don't value religious freedom. I assume they do, I'm saying that's not the reason they control the public schools in this manner. Atheists do this for the same reason that in Islamic states all education is religious. They do it because they want to force people to live wholesome lives and do and learn what is good for them. Science is good, religion is bad, ergo people must learn science and the teaching of religion must be made difficult. Every group uses state power to enforce their way of life on others. This will be so as long as there is a state. Only the theists are more honest about it. These conflicts can never be solved except by privatization of schools. But as long as there are public schools any special restrictions on any kind of teaching, whether such teachings are defended on religious, scientific, cultural or moral grounds, is inappropriate and in conflict with the spirit of the first amendment. I'm an atheist, by the way.
>>> The constitution just stipulates that government shall not establish a state religion (ie. Church of England) <<<
I believe the Constitution states the Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion The "government" is not mentioned. The 1st Amendment also states the Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Justice Joseph Story, in his 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution, explains the religious clauses of the 1st Amendment.
The policy of separation of Church and State extends at least as far back as Queen Elizabeth I circa 1558-1603 and in some references back to the 1400s.
To a significant extent, the Reformation dealt considerably with the issue. The separation of Church and State is basically a policy recognizing the law was made for evil men, whereas righteous men would attempt to obey both the Law of God and the Law of Man. The State was recognized as a divinely established institution, although discerning which particular men led particular nations was a different issue. The Church was recognized as the body of believers in Christ. The Separation of Church and State recognized that the State was a divine institution for believers and unbelievers alike. The Church, though, was an institution or body of Christ.
The Separation was made so as to recognize the Laws of man and the laws of God could be honored by honorable men without conflict.
Fundamentally, the separation was based upon Christian belief. In recent years, the policy has been rephrased so as to equate any belief system, including antiChristian activity under the topic of 'religion', would equally qualify as being separate from the State. Meanwhile, those who fail to have any faith in God, including adament atheism, are now changed the definition of religion to imply any belief in anything supernatural. The atheist then takes a second step to reidentify the separation of Church from State to imply the State is separate from anything alluding to supernatural belief.
Modern American political thought tends to identify Thomas Jefferson with the policy, but this is probably more associated with influences of freemasonry and associated fraternal groups seeking to further distance faith in God through Christ from Man and worldly institutions.
Here is an interesting link discussing some earlier historic influences upon the theory of the separation of Church and State.
http://www.newgenevacenter.org/west/reformation2.htm
"... America is governed by 'a written constitution' and the framers of the constitution contemplated that instrument as a rule for the government of courts, as well as of the legislature.” Chief Justice John Marshall
In other words any court issuing P_A_I's "advisory" opinions condemning constitutional amendments is a rogue court subject to impeachment. So sayeth John Marshall.
You noticed what CG? If you're gonna make unfounded assertions have the testicular fortitude at least to make them to me.
I understand your reticence though, you weren't fairing to well in our rational debate.
I noticed that you believed your religious convictions gave you the power to force another person to follow what you believed to be right even when the other person's actions didn't infringe your right to life, liberty, or property.
Got it? :) It wasn't an unfounded assumption. It was based on everything you have posted.
"I understand your reticence though, you weren't fairing to well in our rational debate."
You haven't provided any rational debate. I simply didn't think of you.
Then you're a liar because I never mentioned religion. Do you lie frequently? Can anything you say be trusted? From my perspective the answer is no.
But lets find out who is the fascist. Do you believe people should govern thmeselves or do you believe that you should dictate libertarian policy from an overly strong central government. IOW's, did you agree with Ronald Reagan when he advocated for local power and people voting at the booth and with their feet?
LOL.
I simply didn't think of you.
Do you generally make false assertions behind peoples backs or just here at FR?
The democrats are uncomfortable that the Legislative days are opening with prayer, that they say, is far too often Christian in nature.
To that charge I would like offer the following statistics:
Indiana's Religious Makeup
Protestant-67%
Roman Catholic-20%
Other Christian-1%
Other Religions-1%
Non-Religious-8%
Now, given these numbers, how often would you say it would be appropriate to start the day with a Christian prayer?
A civil society, involves certain communal aspects, to keep the commons healthy. One can debate what they are, but to deny the commons exist, is to deny reality, and to sink into the libertarian swamp of denying the existence of important questions. I say that as one who favors gay marriage enacted into law. There are no ideological shortcuts to pondering the tough issues. None at all.
You haven't provided any rational debate.
LOL.
I simply didn't think of you.
Do you generally make false assertions behind peoples backs or just here at FR?
208 posted on 06/05/2005 7:08:38 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 206 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
No, he is just a Marxist troll...
Moral Absolutes Ping and Public School/no Public School Alert.
Interesting editorial and lively discussion. I'm a bit late to the party, maybe some of you made it over here already.
Personally, I'm all for the separation of State and School. Or at least, total local control and total local funding.
Let me know if you want on/off this pinglist.
Your post was most accurate about the beginnings of "Separation of Church and State."
It was landmark U.S. Supreme Court precedent Reynolds v. United States in 1878 that made "separation of church and state" a dubiously legitimate point of case law, but more importantly; it confirmed the Constitutionality in statutory regulation of marriage practices. Congress, state legislatures and public referenda have statutorily determined polygamous, pederast, homosexual, and incestuous marriages are unlawful. No Constitutional Amendment restricting marriage is required to regulate "practice" according to the Reynolds decision.
Marriage is a religious "rite," not a civil "right;" a secular standard of human reproductive biology united with the Judaic Adam and Eve model of monogamy in creationist belief. Two homosexuals cannot be "monogamous" because the word denotes a biological procreation they are not capable of together; human reproductive biology is an obvious secular standard.
All adults have privilege to marry one consenting adult of opposite gender; therefore, Fourteenth Amendment "equal protection" argument about "privileges and immunities" for homosexual marriage is invalid. Driving, marriage, legal and medical practices are not enumerated rights; they are privileged practices that require statutory license.
Homosexual monogamy advocates are a cult of perversion seeking ceremonious sanctification for voluntary deviancy with anatomical function, desperately pursuing esoteric absolution to justify their guilt-ridden egos. This has no secular standard; it is an idolatrous fetish. Why not properly apply the adjudicated Reynolds 'separation of church and state' here???
Your arguments are awesome and a joy to read.
Homosexual Agenda Ping.
Check out the discussion between Sir Francis Dashwood and the other dude. Goes back a bit. Just awesome.
Let me know if you want on/off this pinglist.
Scroll through the thread and look at the counter arguments... (excuse my brutal and blunt soldier's nature)
I want you to see how the Marxists use smear tactics and informal fallacies of logic...
got a thread post number?
Percentage wise, I would say every weekday and let the non-religious have the weekend off! ;^)
Hmmm - I thought I did ping to a particular comment by Sir Francis. It didn't work.
Just go back a bit, pretty much starts near the beginning. The debate between he and Carolina Guitarman is pretty sizzling.
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.