Posted on 06/28/2002 4:28:53 PM PDT by mylobean
The US Supreme Court has narrowly decided, by a vote of five justices to four, that state funds can be used to pay for religious schools. The ruling is a victory for the religious right, which wants the biblical story of creation taught in schools instead of evolution.
At issue was a programme in Cleveland, Ohio that allows students from poor families to attend private schools instead of state-funded public schools, using state-funded tuition "vouchers" of up to $2500. Supporters said the scheme would give parents a choice of schools they could not otherwise afford, in a city where public schools, especially in deprived areas, are considered among the worst in the country.
But the US Constitution bars the US government from supporting religious institutions. Some 82 per cent of private schools in Cleveland are religious, the majority Catholic, the rest Islamic or Christian fundamentalist.
In 2000 the Ohio appeals court ruled that the voucher scheme was unconstitutional, as it provided public funding to religious organisations that "incorporate religious concepts... into all facets of their educational planning."
The Supreme Court has now overturned this decision, deciding that the Cleveland scheme merely permits needy families "to exercise genuine choice among options public and private, secular and religious."
Bush's support
Four of the nine justices argued that the vouchers violate the separation of church and state. But the Christian Coalition, a conservative political organisation, called the decision a "victory for school choice" and called on other states, and Congress, to permit vouchers.
President George Bush, who has long supported school vouchers, issued a statement calling it "a victory for parents and children throughout America".
But the decision will mean that even fewer US children will be taught evolution. Repeated attempts since the 1920s by Christian fundamentalists in the US to ban the teaching of evolution in public schools, or at least mandate teaching the biblical account of creation as well, have been defeated in court on the grounds that teaching religion in a state-funded school violates the separation of church and state.
Private schools are under no such restriction. So creationists have turned their efforts towards expanding private schooling. The voucher scheme is widely supported by Christian right wing organizations. One Cleveland voucher school states that "the one cardinal objective of education to which all others point is to develop devotion to God as our Creator".
What a pathetically transparent agenda these folks have.
Someone tell these cretins ("New Scientists," indeed) that the ruling had NOTHING TO DO with the religious right or creationism. It had everything to do with FREEDOM and CHOICE.
Now, those who don't want to listen to your endless, godless theories have an alternative if THEY (not YOU) choose.
H*ll, they can even go somewhere and learn that the Earth is flat, if they want to.
It should never be the Government's business to make sure everyone learns a specific version of the truth. Remember, the Government can't sponsor religion? Heard that before?
You try to make it sound like a pat choice between "truth" and "fable."
Why don't you try a little intellectual honesty, if you can stomach it? (And here's betting you can't).
Instead of "stork theory," how about the "theory" that any sort of sex is okay as long as someone's wearing a condom?
So if I'm a parent, and I think that's grossly objectionable, it doesn't matter to YOU, right? Just as long as the government sponsors YOUR version of "truth," then they are on the noble course of which you approve, right?
How would you like it if your biggest nightmare comes true, and "creationism" displaces "evolution" as the "pravda" ("official truth") of the government? And your kids were forced to learn from the Bible and not from "Origin of the Species". Wouldn't you be a trifle upset, and wouldn't your ire be directed more at the arrogance of those who would FORCE your child to learn something that you are absolutely CERTAIN is false, than the teaching itself?
Maybe if you people were truly as noble in your intention, instead of arrogant as all living h*ll, I might have some small sympathy for you. But as it is, you're just the most intellectually vapid people in "creation."
Brian.
We understand your point, however, and you are in error. Whatever school the kids go to, there are legal standards to be met. Since most of the schools are Catholic, odds are neither the stork theory nor the giant swamp rabbit theory will be taught.
Here's the deal in a nutshell - the SC didn't even need to get to the "establishment of religion" clause to rule - it was a straight up and down "free speech" case. Accepting that, then there is no justification to discriminate against religious institutions (particularly since there is the "free exercise" clause there to protect them from adverse state action).
Some people, for example the NEA, some posters here, most atheists, and assorted riff raff of a variety of manners, simply do not really believe in free speech for anyone but themselves.
I encourage them all to purchase one way tickets for a country more to their liking. It's just North of here. They are friendly and like the Yankee dollar, so you won't feel left out for long. But they don't believe in free speech either. In fact, they punish people for indulging in it. (Oh, you won't like their school system at all - they send the money directly to the Catholic church - not just to the parents! It's much more efficient when they cut out the middle-man.)
Guess it's true that you can't have it all.
Private schools are under no such restriction. So creationists have turned their efforts towards expanding private schooling. The voucher scheme is widely supported by Christian right wing organizations. One Cleveland voucher school states that "the one cardinal objective of education to which all others point is to develop devotion to God as our Creator".
Yeah, so? People have a right to educate their kids in their own religion and to do so in a religious school. I don't see how kids are going to be handicapped mentally, socially, or vocationally by being taught that not everybody buys Darwinism. Or by not having condoms or discussions of "gay sex" at school. For parents like me, and more schoolkids than liberal @-holes like to contemplate, it'd be a welcome relief.
Bottom line: I'd rather see my tax dollars spent on vouchers for kids to go to religious school than on the public school Gulag. Let's hope the Supreme Court decision is a first step to demolishing this Berlin Wall!
Rigorous scientific investigation always leads to the Truth.
The sky is falling, the sky is falling! This is a setback for progress! We're all going to be using horses instead of cars! Help! Help! We've lost control of the science curriculum! Who is going to teach truth?
They've abused their power and now they have to give some back to parents. I feel sorry for the educationists.
I had no idea the evolutionists were worried about vouchers. I would love to have read what the late Stephen J. Gould would have written about the USSC decision.
If they're not honest about that, they're not honest about anything.
Brian.
The error of replacement theology notwithstanding, Christ fulfilling the OT Law is not the same as Christ doing away with the OT Law.
The universe had a beginning, Genesis 1:1 introduces us to the "Beginner". If you can make the case that teaching school children this [not as science so much as a foundation for a worldveiw] constitutes an abandonment of reason and logic...GOD BLESS YOU.
Brian.
I'd rather keep my tax dollars and spend it on education that best suits individual needs.
What was the meaning of the term "day", prior to the creation of the Sun and the Moon? And since the terrestrial concepts of "morning" and "evening" are local phenomena, how would those who insist on a literal interpretation of Genesis interpret those?
Maybe if you people were truly as noble in your intention, instead of arrogant as all living h*ll, I might have some small sympathy for you. But as it is, you're just the most intellectually vapid people in "creation."
After all these discussions you still don't understand the position of most (nearly all) evolutionist FReepers? Somehow I'm not surprised. Well, I shouldn't speak for others, but here is my position:
As far as the public schools go, I do not, in principle, support or oppose the teaching of ANY PARTICULAR theory.
I DO insist that public schools teach curricula that is in line with professional scholarship in the respective fields of science covered. I DO insist that theories or principles proposed for inclusion in curricula have achieved standing in the market place of scientific ideas (i.e. are not included for "political" reasons, or because of popular pressure, or by means of a kind of "intellectual affirmative action"). Such standing is objectively verifiable by reference to the professional literature reporting the ideas, theories and principles that scientists are actually utilizing in their ongoing research. IOW, in the public schools, if you are going to present something as part of science, it should actually be part of science. Again, whether it is or not is objectively determinable.
Please note that my support for the teaching of evolution, and opposition to the teaching of creationism in the public schools is entirely incidental to the foregoing principles. However unlikely I may consider the possibility, I can certainly imagine circumstances where I would support the teaching of creationism and oppose the teaching of evolution (even if I personally remained an evolutionist). All that is necessary to bring this about is for some creationistic theory to succeed as a scientific principle in the market place of scientific ideas. At this point I will advocate the inclusion of said creationistic theory. Should such a theory succeed to the point of supplanting evolution theory, I will advocate the exclusion of evolution.
Do you get it yet? While there may be some evolutionists here who would support their pet theory in any event (in the manner of creationists) most of us support evolution incidental to more fundamental principles like academic integrity, hard nosed academic standards, and simple honesty (not leading students to believe a view has survived the critical process of scientific review when in fact it has never even been seriously submitted to the process.)
As far as private schools, they can teach whatever they damn well please... but should be subjected to appropriate (non-governmental) criticism for adopting shoddy academic standards.
Brian.
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.