Censorship in Freespace (discussion of weaknesses of evolution in school "unconstitutional")

Discovery Institute ^ | April 17, 2009 | Michael Egnor

[GodGunsGuts]

Censorship in Freespace

Timothy Sandefur is an atheist legal commentator who believes that it is unconstitutional to teach the weaknesses, along with the strengths, of evolutionary theory in schools. His reason: he believes that evolutionary theory has no weaknesses:

...to teach the (non-existent) “weaknesses” of evolution in a government classroom is almost always (a) contrary to the lesson plan—and therefore a violation of a teacher’s employment contract—or (b) in reality an attempt to teach creationism to school children as true...[t]he Establishment Clause forbids the government from declaring any religious viewpoint to be true. [emphasis mine]

Sandefur is particularly upset by the participation of Christians in the public square. His view of the Establishment clause is, even by his own admission, “extreme”:

I believe tax exemptions for churches are unconstitutional violations of the Establishment Clause—a well-respected position in First Amendment law, although not one the Supreme Court has endorsed. I believe “In God We Trust” on the currency is an unconstitutional violation of the Establishment Clause—a position shared by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and many respected First Amendment scholars, and one the Supreme Court chickened out of addressing. Presidents invoking God in speeches is troubling from a First Amendment perspective, but it’s widely understood that they’re speaking only of their own religious views, something a President, like any other citizen, has a right to do. I believe military chaplains are also a violation of the First Amendment—an extreme position, but one I’m proud to say James Madison himself, author of the First Amendment, also held. And if it were true that “atheist ideology” were being taught in government schools, that too would be unconstitutional. It happens not to be true.[Emphasis mine]

Mr. Sandefur’s assertion that “military chaplains are also a violation of the First Amendment” is noteworthy. He presumably would allow our soldiers in Fallujah to pay their chaplains with bake sales, on their own time.

Mr. Sandefur is an atheist fundamentalist. He advocates the expulsion of Christianity from the public square, and he demands judicially enforced censorship of scrutiny of Darwinism in public schools. There is a totalitarian streak in atheism.

Mr. Sandefur’s constraint is that he lives in a democracy, which limits the ability of fringe ideologues to impose their ideology on the majority. So atheist fundamentalists use idiosyncratic interpretations of the First Amendment — which was enacted to protect free speech — to spur the courts to impose by fiat censorship that atheists could never impose by the electoral process. The American public overwhelmingly supports the right to teach both the strengths and weaknesses of evolutionary theory in schools. The Supreme Court, in Edwards v. Aguillard, ruled that it is constitutional to “require that scientific critiques of prevailing scientific theories be taught.” Thousands of evolutionary biologists conduct research on the weaknesses of evolutionary theory using public funds. Teaching public school students about the weaknesses and strengths of evolutionary theory is supported by the overwhelming majority of Americans, is constitutional, and is good science.

Mr. Sandefur disagrees. His argument is this: evolution is a theory without weaknesses, and the discussion of weaknesses in public schools is unconstitutional and can be silenced by legal force.

Mr. Sandefur, on his blog “Freespace,” describes himself as a “libertarian.” On the issue of evolution, "Freespace" refers to Mr. Sandefur’s freedom, not yours.

[GodGunsGuts]

Ping!

[DeLaine]

ping

[Nervous Tick]

>> His reason: he believes that evolutionary theory has no weaknesses

Imagine the look on Mr. Sandefur’s face when the Creator personally explains them to him.

[GodGunsGuts]

LOL!

[metmom]

Sandefur is particularly upset by the participation of Christians in the public square

Which is the problem in a nutshell.

He hates God and wishes to impose his own belief system on the rest of us; the very thing he condemns in others.

The hypocrisy of most atheists is staggering.

[TenthAmendmentChampion]

Is atheism so weak that the fall of Darwinism will shake the foundation? If so they have revealed their Achilles heel.

[Nervous Tick]

>> Is atheism so weak that the fall of Darwinism will shake the foundation?

Probably not. They will be with us until Jesus returns.

In my view, it takes a significant amount of personal courage and faith to believe there is no God.

For me, it’s relatively easier to acknowledge that which seeems obvious. It’s ludicrous to believe that “all of this” came about by accident! My senses tell me that. Should I believe some atheist, or my own lyin’ eyes?

[GodGunsGuts]

Let us all aim our bows at this target and let our arrows fly!

[Tublecane]

“I believe military chaplains are also a violation of the First Amendment—an extreme position, but one I’m proud to say James Madison himself, author of the First Amendment, also held.”

In what context did Madison come out against chaplains? Did he kick them out of camps during the War of 1812, or something? Madison did partake in some wacky theories from time to time, for instance his hesitant proposal that the government restrict lawyers fees so as to make the criminal justice system more equitable, or something. In fact, all that would happen is the government would win more cases because bright and ambitious people would seek other careers. Then again, we do have too many damn lawyers. maybe it was a winning idea after all.

Anyway, the first amendment bars the establishment of an official church. All the federal government is doing is providing for the needs of its employees. Chaplains minister to people of various faiths. They don’t, so far as I know, seek conversion.

[Oztrich Boy]

His view of the Establishment clause is, even by his own admission, “extreme”:

I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. - Barry Goldwater

Timothy Sandefur is a Senior Staff Attorney at the Pacific Legal Foundation. As the lead attorney in the Economic Liberty Project, he works to protect businesses against abusive government regulation. He also works to prevent the abuse of eminent domain, having litigated important eminent domain cases in California, Missouri, and elsewhere, and having filed briefs in many significant eminent domain cases, including Kelo v. New London. A prolific writer, his book Cornerstone of Liberty: Property Rights in 21st Century America was published by the Cato Institute in 2006, and he has published many scholarly articles on subjects ranging from eminent domain and economic liberty to copyright, evolution and creationism, and the legal issues of slavery and the Civil War. He is also a contributing editor of Liberty magazine, and has written for many magazines and newspapers, including National Review Online, The Humanist, The San Francisco Chronicle, Regulation, and The Washington Times. In February, 2006, he became one of the youngest attorneys ever featured on the cover of California Lawyer magazine. He is a frequent guest on radio and television programs, including the Jim Lehrer News Hour, CNBC's Street Signs, Now with David Brancaccio and CPSAN's Book TV, and elsewhere. Sandefur is a graduate of Chapman University School of Law and Hillsdale College. - Cato Institute

But you would never learn that from the "Social-Controllers"

[combat_boots]

Weakness?

Proof.

For something so steeped in science, that says a lot.

[LiteKeeper]

Nothing worse than the intellectual blindness of the indoctrinated kool aid drinker!

[LiteKeeper]

A man named Job doubted the Creator, and the Creator subjected him to a 77 question quiz on Creation. At the end of the quiz, Job got it. I wonder if Sandefur will have an opportunity to take the same quiz. (see Job 38ff)

[LiteKeeper]

As I retired Army chaplain, let me offer just a couple of thoughts: the mission of an Army chaplain is to provide or perform religious support...to ensure that every soldier has the opportunity to "the free exercise of religion"

The "provide" mission is to ensure that soldiers of all faiths have an opportunity to worship with others of their own faith.

The "perform" mission is to ensure that soldiers of like faith and practice of the chaplain can worship together

There is no restriction on conversion. We are not prohibited from seeking conversion...sheep-stealing is, however, frowned upon.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[RussP]

“...[t]he Establishment Clause forbids the government from declaring any religious viewpoint to be true. [emphasis mine]”

Has this moron ever heard of the Declaration of Independence? I vaguely recall something in it about “self-evident truths” and “all men are created equal.” Did I just imagine that?

[varmintman]

This **** is about (perverted) sex, and not about science. Evolution has been massively and overwhelmingly disproven multiple times and in multiple ways and anybody who doesn’t know that by now hasn’t been watching.

[gondramB]

>>I believe tax exemptions for churches are unconstitutional violations of the Establishment Clause—a well-respected position in First Amendment law,<<

Since the founders accepted tax exemptions for churches it clearly did not violate the establishment clause they wrote and confirmed.

[gondramB]

>>This **** is about (perverted) sex, and not about science. Evolution has been massively and overwhelmingly disproven multiple times and in multiple ways and anybody who doesn’t know that by now hasn’t been watching.<<

What?!

>>Timothy Sandefur is an atheist legal commentator who believes that it is unconstitutional to teach the weaknesses, along with the strengths, of evolutionary theory in schools. His reason: he believes that evolutionary theory has no weaknesses:<<

So Sandefur is an idiot and apparently not a scientist - all major theories have questions, things that are not known, things that could come up.

The reason that you don;t single out evolution for special counter-teaching in science class is that its so overwhelmingly accepted and the objections are religious and belong in religion or philosophy class. To do so otherwise WOULD violate the establishment clause.