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 already told you I don't give a damn, it is completely irrelevant. (I will point out though that this quote was from a book (the Bible)...
Actually, it was Macbeth in William Shakespeare's Macbeth.
Shows what you know.
They are of a free and open nature, that thinks men honest that but seem to be so, and will as tenderly be led by the nose as asses are.
Who is he that is not of woman borne?
You already know the answer...
Marriage is a public act... and the original topic of discussion you initiated...
Who is he that is not of woman borne?
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
You are a mindless sheep. Unable to find one rational reason for anything you believe.
Your ad hominem is an informal fallacy in logic, among others you have attempted. I also do not attempt to rationalize with such inductive arguments as you have (appeals to false authority, among others).
Biology does not require belief or human permission.
Simple Socratic questions (even though they may be borrowed from literary masterpieces you have obviously never studied) is a logically valid course of inquiry.
It is not a matter of belief, it is a matter of deductive argument and the use of logic, something you have made overt demonstrations to avoid.
As it is with the original topic of this thread:
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 referendums 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?
The greater question is if the Congress can pass a law defining what lawful marriage is without a Constitutional Amendment and the Supreme Court has said yes, upholding that power. Congress can pass a marriage definition and enforcement law under the powers conferred to it by Reynolds v. United States...
"…In our opinion, the statute immediately under consideration is within the legislative power of Congress. It is constitutional and valid as prescribing a rule of action for all those residing in the Territories, and in places over which the United States have exclusive control... Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices... So here, as a law of the organization of society under the exclusive dominion of the United States, it is provided that plural marriages shall not be allowed..."[Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 8 Otto 145, 24 L. Ed. 244 (1878).]
The important aspect is the power of Congress and the state legislatures (not local municipalities or the courts) to legislate, by statute alone, restrictions on marriage. The Congress can either make lawful polygamy and homosexual marriage, or make both illegal based on what the Congress thinks will be beneficial. The Defense of Marriage Act by Congress and constitutional prohibitions by most of the states is consistent with these ends: Reynolds v. United States is legal precedent set by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Activist elements of the judiciary have ignored the case law precedent set by the Supreme Court concerning statutory law regulating marriage practices and corrupted the Constitutional 'separation of powers' by legislating from the bench. It is time legislative and executive bodies of government do their sworn duty to defend the Constitution. Legislators need to impeach and remove judges from the courts (and other officials from public office) who break the law by acting beyond their legal jurisdiction. This is not exclusive to an issue of "states' rights" at all…
Of course it is...
The point is, in reference to this thread and this topic of the mythical "separation of church and state," is cramming it right back down their leftist throats.
If the Left wants "separation of church and state," then why should they also be allowed to insert phantasmagoric fetishisms into secular law?
Should we really be canonizing special societal privileges in secular law based on idolatrous fetishes?
P.S.
Your improved html formatting would greatly benefit your message...
There are several instructional threads here on FR...
Should we really be canonizing special societal privileges in secular law based on idolatrous fetishes? (i.e. homosexual monogamy)
This is an establishment of religion... Homosexuals cannot be monogamous... they cannot reproduce...
What html problems do you see in the formatting of my post? -- It looks just fine on my screen.
Should we really be canonizing special societal privileges in secular law based on idolatrous fetishes? (i.e. homosexual monogamy)
Canonizing? How are queers who legalize their living arrangements with marriage contracts 'canonizing' anything?
This is an establishment of religion...
What is?
Homosexuals cannot be monogamous... they cannot reproduce...
Why should I care?
Congress doesn;t regulate marriage, the states do. The states and Congress can certainly amend the constitution to define marriage as the union of one man and one woma if they so choose.
But current jurisprudence considers marriage a "fundamantal right" which is why the government can't force your spouse to testify against you. So while government can regulate marriage any way they please they can not abridge the right to marry. That right to marry has traditionally been between a man and a woman. I would hope it would stay that way in the preponderance of states. We'll see.
Congress doesn;t regulate marriage, the states do.
States cannot make laws that decree marriage 'illegal' based on what the state legislators think will be beneficial to society. - Same principle, - neither feds nor states have ever been delegated such powers.
The states and Congress can certainly amend the constitution to define marriage as the union of one man and one woma if they so choose.
They could try, but I doubt that such an amendment could be drafted to avoid infringing on our individual right to make valid contracts.
But current jurisprudence considers marriage a "fundamantal right" which is why the government can't force your spouse to testify against you. So while government can regulate marriage any way they please they can not abridge the right to marry.
That right to marry has traditionally been between a man and a woman. I would hope it would stay that way in the preponderance of states. We'll see.
Yep, we could live to long enough to see government doing anything "they please", but I doubt it.
Your very right. A historian that I heard recently states that the phrase separation of church and state is not found in any of the original American historical documents, including personal correspondence. It is found in the communist manifesto.
Pssst... I'm an atheist... ad hominems are the art of the smear, typical Marxist, as you are...
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
No, it is a PRIVATE RELIGIOUS ACT.
We don't need a religious Taliban in the U.S.A. inserting the esoteric pantheon of fantasies that establishing a religion, as with the idea of homosexual monogamy incorporated into law, is in any way a secular, biological attribute of human existence.
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
You really can't find one rational, non-mystical reason for any of the axioms that make up your moral code.
I have no "morals." Again, morals and all of the associated concepts are from the belief some higher power defines what is correct in human behavior. Any atheist saying someone is immoral is no different than a preacher or rabbi saying I am a sinner...
I just gave you your non-mystical logic on that...
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
Why as a matter of secular law, should homosexual monogamy be sanctified and exalted by government for reception of tax dollars, Social Security, tax deductions, etc.? It is an establishment of religion in the law (violating the 1st Amendment) since it is not a reproductive biological component of the human species.
Thou protesteth too much... (more Shakespeare)
Who is he that is not of woman borne?
Surely, the angel that thou must serve would have told thee... that thou was't borne of woman...
Sex Education, Biology 101:
Lesson #1... Human Beings are mammals
Lesson #2... Male + female = baby
Lesson #3... Female gives live birth to baby
Lesson #4... Baby is either male or female
Lesson #5... Baby becomes adult, finds a mate of opposite sex
Lesson #6... It all starts over with Lesson #2
I'll de-mystify it for you in more basic terms...
Who could rule a Constitutioal Amendment Un-Constitutional? Would that be anything like how liquor contracts were once prohibited by Constitional Amendment?
We can amend anything we like and there is nothing anyone could do to overturn it except by amendment...
The Court certainly cannot...
Thomas Jefferson. That "historian" is full of it.
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 (as far as the court is concerned).
Human anatomy at Stanford University...
You are truly a jerk-off...
And a troll who came here in late 2004, probably from the DUmmies...
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.