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.
I read most of the thread and it's kept me up past my bedtime.
Although, I have to admit, I couldn't stomach reading every single solitary word of the Carolina instrument man or tpaine revisited. I read much of them, but didn't want to have their words imprinted on my brain right before sleep.
I have my consciousness to think about.
<< Thomas Jefferson was a liberal? >>
Yes he was -- and a Democrat to boot.
And was also happy.
And gay.
But a wealth of twisting and spinning has gone on since his day in the meaning of language and especially in the preemption of such words as "liberal," now a euphmism for totalitarian socialist and "gay" which stands in for queer, and deviant and sodomist.
And the Democrats of even twenty years ago, let alone two hundred and twenty, wouldn't recognize any relationship between themselves and the lying, looting, stand-over and shake-down criminal gang that these days hides behind that tag.
FYI, FWIW:
Early warning shots-- the War against Religion...
various FR links & stories | 05-06-05 | the heavy equipment guy
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1397759/posts
I don't like the idea of my tax money paying for abortion. It is a subject that's not been thoroughly discussed in the people's legislature and had legislative decision (vote) made on it. It is a ruling by judicial fiat. In other words it is imposed on us. (Planned Parenthood receives government funding.)
Likewise, the evol/creation/id debate has not been discussed in the people's legislature. These reps are elected to weigh all the needs and to find reasonable solutions that balance the various needs of the citizenry. If they get it wrong, they get voted out of office. Additionally, these elected reps are to do their work in light of the constitution. Unfortunately, in many areas, they get immediately over-ruled by a judicial oligarchy that now rules our government.
The legislature would come up with some kind of compromise on crevo. The judges would not allow it based on their wild interpretations of the meaning of the first amendment.
It is just this debate in legilative session that would prevent every lunacy being made part of public policy. HOWEVER, even when turned down, the people involved would know that their pet issue had been given its day to make its case, and that it had lost.
They would then be free to vote reps in and out. They would have a part in the process. To short-circuit that part by judicial fiat is what presents the most danger to this society.
Wait until they read your profile and see what you really believe; and learn who the real Dashwood was. They will know then where you stand, and they will abandon you as well. And like the people you meet offline, they will laugh at you too :)
Like I am laughing at you :)
If Roe v. Wade says abortion is a private matter, then it cannot have public money...
Logical?
You do see how the Marxist operates...
Mis-characterizing the words of others, false analogies, almost all the informal fallacies (I could give them to you in Latin), the art of the smear, accusing others of what they indeed are doing themselves, false assumptions, denying facts, etc...
It is a stated methodology to confuse and confound the language in the Marxist dogma, to re-define words so that they mean nothing or whatever the Marxist can use them for.
My analysis: this weblog and the people that come here are feared by the Leftists, so they have sent their Martinettes and quizzlings to disrupt.
Notice the attempt to play "last word" with me. That is a clue... Shakespeare was great... "Thou protesteth too much."
The lack of education was so evident when I was accused of being Christian Taliban (art of the smear) and using the Bible (oh, the horror), when in fact I quoted the Shakespearean villian Macbeth... "Who is he that is not of woman borne?"
In other words you lied.
I have seen you on other threads to know where your sense of morality comes from.
Did you write my name down in the "book"?
Am I wrong to say that your desire to prohibit gay marriage does not come from your religious belief that it is immoral?
You're wrong to make false assertions in a debate based on what you think. You're wrong to hurl insults when your reasoning is faulty and debunked. And you're wrong to attempt to redefine words when it suits your ideology.
What reason do you have for wanting to ban gay marriage?
I'm not. Gay marriage is oxymoronic. I'm attempting to limit the size of government. I get one vote in that matter.
Does your reasoning not come from your religious belief, ultimately?
I don't argue the redefining of the word marriage from a religious point of view for a reason. You're it. I argue it from a secular point of view so as not to allow the chaff in with the wheat. You and your religion/fascist thing is a perfect example.
I would certainly argue from a religious point of view that the act of homosexuality is wrong but I would also argue that what goes on in the privacy of ones property is not the interest of the state.
I stopped making false accusations when you stopped beating your wife.
Your problem is the evidence on this thread supports my position that you lied, you have no such evidence for your next false assertion in a long list of them.
Yes, I believe people should govern themselves. I do not believe other people should govern them when their actions do not infringe on their rights. I believe in the smallest government possible. You are the one pushing for a strong intrusive government. You obviously have no clue what fascism is. It is the private *ownership* of property and the government control over said property.
Thanks for the attempted lesson but think again. The basic element of fascism is authoritarian central government, public control of property flows from that basic element not the other way around. I have found that there is a segment of the libertarian movement who are very authoritarian. They would, if they could, have an overly strong central government enforcing their world view from DC. Some would even rewrite the Constitution of the Unoted States. Amazing, huh?
The most basic right we have is the right to our own existence, to the ownership of ourselves. You would ban a segment of people from doing something with there property (themselves) when their actions in no way infringed anybody else's rights to life, liberty, or property. You want the government to control the property of someone else. Your view in this matter is fascist.
You sink deeper and deeper into the pit of false assertion. You have no "right" redefine words to your suiting. But authoritarians see that as no particular problem in pursuit of what they see as correct. That shoe fit?
People do not have the right to vote away someone else's right to life, liberty, or property. Mob rule is inconsistent with a free society. Democracy is not an end in itself.
Evidently you disagree with President Reagan that this country is big enough for everybody and every town, county and state must adhere to the 0.5% solution. Your way or the jackboot?
I stopped making false assertions when you stopped beating your wife.
LOL, anybody can see that I never mentioned religion nor do I favor authoritarian rule from an overly strong central government. We live in a pluralist nation that is plenty big enough for those of us who wish to live by different sets of rules while recognizing that certain rights are inalienable. Evidently though, that isn't good enough for you. Too bad.
I was at a M.I.R.A. lecture on the Big Bang Theory given by a professor from M.I.T.
I asked him this at the open forum Q&A session afterwards:
Is the Big Bang theory an admission the universe was initiated by an Immaculate Conception?
A simple Socratic inquiry...
Universities were also divinity schools...
If abortion is a private matter, then it should not have public money. However, it does have public money, by virtue of various judicial decisions and a bit of accounting sleight of hand.
I agree. But discussion such as this are useful for a couple of reasons - helping to sharpen one's intelligence and communication skills, and good for lurkers who haven't made up their minds yet about issues such as this, for instance, young people.
Wow - a new compendium. I'll ping my list to it.
If the heartland of America (Mid-west, and South) wants intelligent design then let them have it.
If the armpit and @$$hole of America (New England,West Coast, New York etc) want to teach Evolution then let them have it.
No Child Left Behind was an awful bill and the GOP should go back to their original and correct position and eliminate the bloated bureaucracy called the Department of Education.
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.