Louisiana Will Face Lawsuit If New Law Brings Religion Into Public School
buckeye
You can view an HTML version of this email at the following address:
http://www.au.org/site/R?i=UzwrQvpKS7eMeHISTU1i7A..
June 11, 2008
Louisiana Will Face Lawsuit If New Law Brings Religion Into Public School
Science Classes, Says Americans United
Church-State Watchdog Group Warns Against Using Anti-Evolution Legislation
To Advance Fundamentalism In The Classroom
The Louisiana House of Representatives today approved a measure that opens
the door to teaching creationism in public schools, an action that is
likely to spark litigation, says Americans United for Separation of Church
and State.
Approved by a 94-3 vote, the so-called "Science Education Act" (SB 733)
allows public school teachers to use "supplemental materials" when
discussing evolution.
Americans United and other groups contend that those "supplemental
materials" are likely to be anti-evolution books, DVDs and other items
produced by fundamentalist Christian ministries. The measure is being
pushed by the Louisiana Family Forum, the Discovery Institute and other
Religious Right forces.
"It's time for Louisiana to step into the 21st century and stop trying to
teach religion in public schools," said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive
director of Americans United. "Laws like this are an embarrassment."
Lynn noted that Louisiana legislators have repeatedly tried to water down
the teaching of evolution. In the 1980s, the state passed a law mandating
"balanced treatment" between evolution and creationism. The measure was
declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1987. Some parishes in
Louisiana have voted to paste "disclaimers" in science books, casting doubt
on evolution.
"If this new law is used to promote religion in Louisiana public schools, I
can guarantee there will be legal action," Lynn said. "Louisiana students
deserve better, and Louisiana taxpayers should not have their money
squandered on this losing effort."
Americans United and allied organizations successfully brought a lawsuit
against the teaching of "intelligent design" creationism in Dover, Pa.,
public schools in 2005. That case ended with the Dover school board being
required to pay significant legal fees.
Louisiana's new proposal would permit teachers to introduce "supplemental
textbooks and other instructional materials" when studying evolution,
global warming, human cloning and the origin of life.
The measure now returns to the state Senate, which has already approved a
previous version of the bill.
http://www.au.org/site/R?i=dieTbN26KaQ5IXJZn8fsxg..
************************************************************
Americans United is a religious liberty watchdog group based in Washington,
D.C.
Founded in 1947, the organization educates Americans about the importance
of church-state separation in safeguarding religious freedom.
************************************************************
Americans United Press Contacts:
Joe Conn, Rob Boston
www.au.org/press
************************************************************
The First Freedom First Campaign is a joint project of
Americans United for Separation of Church and State
and The Interfaith Alliance Foundation
If you haven't signed the petition yet, visit www.firstfreedomfirst.org.
http://www.au.org/site/R?i=nxBA6e-YFQADxFfJlMGRAQ..
************************************************************
Americans United for Separation of Church and State
518 C Street NE,
Washington, DC 20002
auact...@au.org
www.au.org
Hosea Prieto
> Approved by a 94-3 vote, the so-called "Science Education Act" (SB 733)
> allows public school teachers to use "supplemental materials" when
> discussing evolution.
>
> Americans United and other groups contend that those "supplemental
> materials" are likely to be anti-evolution books, DVDs and other items
> produced by fundamentalist Christian ministries. The measure is being
> pushed by the Louisiana Family Forum, the Discovery Institute and other
> Religious Right forces.
Are anti-evolution materials necessarily religious?
Virgil
Hosea Prieto <hpri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
It is hard to imagine any reason for opposing evolution other than some
kind of religious belief which is incompatible with it.
Jeff Strickland
"Hosea Prieto" <hpri...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Ijc5k.3033$i55...@newsfe22.lga...
I have to wonder if "anti-evolution" IS religion. I think it probably is.
Having said that, I do not think there is a separation issue that arises
from discussion of the merits of the theories of creation and evolution.
Assuming creation is a religious topic, it seems to me that it would
uniformly religious not specifically Christian. Granted, the bend of the
ACLU is that religion is not problematic in and of itself, but teaching
Christianity is a problem, and in America religion and Christianity is the
same thing.
Jeff Strickland
"Virgil" <Vir...@gmale.com> wrote in message
news:Virgil-1EFEB1....@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
On the other hand, God could have created all, and the best that science can
do is question how He did it, and arrive at evolution as the mechanism He
employed. Even God would know better than to reinvent the wheel everytime He
wanted something new.
Darrell Stec
>
> "Hosea Prieto" <hpri...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:Ijc5k.3033$i55...@newsfe22.lga...
>> buckeye wrote:
>>> Approved by a 94-3 vote, the so-called "Science Education Act" (SB 733)
>>> allows public school teachers to use "supplemental materials" when
>>> discussing evolution.
>>> Americans United and other groups contend that those "supplemental
>>> materials" are likely to be anti-evolution books, DVDs and other items
>>> produced by fundamentalist Christian ministries. The measure is being
>>> pushed by the Louisiana Family Forum, the Discovery Institute and other
>>> Religious Right forces.
>>
>> Are anti-evolution materials necessarily religious?
>
> I have to wonder if "anti-evolution" IS religion. I think it probably is.
>
> Having said that, I do not think there is a separation issue that arises
> from discussion of the merits of the theories of creation and evolution.
> Assuming creation is a religious topic, it seems to me that it would
> uniformly religious not specifically Christian.
It is a fundamentalist, ignorant viewpoint. Catholics for instance are not
anti-evolution nor are Christians from countries other than backwater USA.
Even Judaism is not Creationistic. So it is not uniformly religious and
except for fundamentalist Moslems it is primarily Christian in sects that
abhor education.
> Granted, the bend of the
> ACLU is that religion is not problematic in and of itself, but teaching
> Christianity is a problem, and in America religion and Christianity is the
> same thing.
--
Later,
Darrell Stec dar...@neo.rr.com
Webpage Sorcery
http://webpagesorcery.com
We Put the Magic in Your Webpages
Josh Rosenbluth
>
> "Hosea Prieto" <hpri...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:Ijc5k.3033$i55...@newsfe22.lga...
>
>> buckeye wrote:
>>
>>> Approved by a 94-3 vote, the so-called "Science Education Act" (SB 733)
>>> allows public school teachers to use "supplemental materials" when
>>> discussing evolution.
>>> Americans United and other groups contend that those "supplemental
>>> materials" are likely to be anti-evolution books, DVDs and other items
>>> produced by fundamentalist Christian ministries. The measure is being
>>> pushed by the Louisiana Family Forum, the Discovery Institute and other
>>> Religious Right forces.
>>
>>
>> Are anti-evolution materials necessarily religious?
>
>
> I have to wonder if "anti-evolution" IS religion. I think it probably is.
>
> Having said that, I do not think there is a separation issue that arises
> from discussion of the merits of the theories of creation and evolution.
> Assuming creation is a religious topic, it seems to me that it would
> uniformly religious not specifically Christian.
Firstly, creationism is not uniform across religions. It's tilted
towards the monotheistic religions.
Secondly, favoring religion uniformly across sects raises Establishment
Clause issues.
> Granted, the bend of the
> ACLU is that religion is not problematic in and of itself, but teaching
> Christianity is a problem, and in America religion and Christianity is
> the same thing.
Nonsense. The ACLU believes teaching any religion is a potential problem.
Josh Rosenbluth
Jeff Strickland
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrose...@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:O7udnZx5vajf5MjV...@comcast.com...
> Jeff Strickland wrote:
>>
>> "Hosea Prieto" <hpri...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:Ijc5k.3033$i55...@newsfe22.lga...
>>
>>> buckeye wrote:
>>>
>>>> Approved by a 94-3 vote, the so-called "Science Education Act" (SB 733)
>>>> allows public school teachers to use "supplemental materials" when
>>>> discussing evolution.
>>>> Americans United and other groups contend that those "supplemental
>>>> materials" are likely to be anti-evolution books, DVDs and other items
>>>> produced by fundamentalist Christian ministries. The measure is being
>>>> pushed by the Louisiana Family Forum, the Discovery Institute and other
>>>> Religious Right forces.
>>>
>>>
>>> Are anti-evolution materials necessarily religious?
>>
>>
>> I have to wonder if "anti-evolution" IS religion. I think it probably is.
>>
>> Having said that, I do not think there is a separation issue that arises
>> from discussion of the merits of the theories of creation and evolution.
>> Assuming creation is a religious topic, it seems to me that it would
>> uniformly religious not specifically Christian.
>
> Firstly, creationism is not uniform across religions. It's tilted towards
> the monotheistic religions.
>
Duh. Multitheistic religions think that any of several gods are responsible
for whatever the discussion topic is.
> Secondly, favoring religion uniformly across sects raises Establishment
> Clause issues.
>
>> Granted, the bend of the ACLU is that religion is not problematic in and
>> of itself, but teaching Christianity is a problem, and in America
>> religion and Christianity is the same thing.
>
> Nonsense. The ACLU believes teaching any religion is a potential problem.
>
Not entirely true. The ACLU has a long history of raising religous issues in
school where the religion is Christianity, yet ignoring religiouis issues
where Christianity specifically is trampled. The ACLU is remarkably
anti-Christian to a greater degree than they are anti-religion.
Josh Rosenbluth
Good, you agree with me then.
>> Secondly, favoring religion uniformly across sects raises
>> Establishment Clause issues.
>>
>>> Granted, the bend of the ACLU is that religion is not problematic in
>>> and of itself, but teaching Christianity is a problem, and in America
>>> religion and Christianity is the same thing.
>>
>>
>> Nonsense. The ACLU believes teaching any religion is a potential
>> problem.
>>
>
> Not entirely true. The ACLU has a long history of raising religous
> issues in school where the religion is Christianity, yet ignoring
> religiouis issues where Christianity specifically is trampled. The ACLU
> is remarkably anti-Christian to a greater degree than they are
> anti-religion.
Citations?
Josh Rosenbluth
cactus
Constitutional rights of others than are members of other religions.
Christians tend to mount the most frequent and nastiest attacks on the
religious rights of others. So of course they must be constrained.
It will continue this way until Christian religious fascists figure out
that an attack on anyone's religious freedoms are an attack on theirs as
well.
Fat chance. Their fanaticism is too strong and their faith is too weak
to do anything but attack others.
Bob LeChevalier
No one except a certain subset of religious people have any interest
in publishing anti-evolution materials.
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
loj...@lojban.org Lojban language www.lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier
>"Hosea Prieto" <hpri...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:Ijc5k.3033$i55...@newsfe22.lga...
>> buckeye wrote:
>>> Approved by a 94-3 vote, the so-called "Science Education Act" (SB 733)
>>> allows public school teachers to use "supplemental materials" when
>>> discussing evolution.
>>> Americans United and other groups contend that those "supplemental
>>> materials" are likely to be anti-evolution books, DVDs and other items
>>> produced by fundamentalist Christian ministries. The measure is being
>>> pushed by the Louisiana Family Forum, the Discovery Institute and other
>>> Religious Right forces.
>>
>> Are anti-evolution materials necessarily religious?
>
>I have to wonder if "anti-evolution" IS religion. I think it probably is.
>
>Having said that, I do not think there is a separation issue that arises
>from discussion of the merits of the theories of creation and evolution.
There are NO non-religious "theories" of creation. There is no
scientific merit in what religionists write on the subject.
There is a scientific Theory of Evolution. There is plenty of
scientific merit in that theory.
>Assuming creation is a religious topic,
It is nothing else.
>it seems to me that it would uniformly religious not specifically Christian.
Except that no other religions considers Genesis to be literal dogma.
Most other religions are perfectly aware that their creation stories
are just that: stories. They have no need to interpret every word of
some book as if it were literal truth.
>Granted, the bend of the ACLU is that religion is not problematic in and of itself,
As long as it is kept to the private sphere, yes.
>but teaching Christianity is a problem,
Teaching any religion is a problem. Teaching about religions plural,
without implying that ANY of them are "true" could probably be
acceptable.
>and in America religion and Christianity is the same thing.
That isn't true, though some American Christians apparently wish that
it were so. But it was never the case except in those colonies that
had established religions.
thomas p.
"Jeff Strickland" <cr...@verizon.net> skrev i en meddelelse
news:UYe5k.43050$Xu2.2660@trnddc04...
It opposes the teaching of religion in public schools. In the US that is
likely to be Christian, but the ACLU has never given any indication of being
anti-Christian or even anti-religion. I have no doubt that the lawyers of
the ACLU include people of different religions; why wouldn't it?
thomas p.
For science to question "how He did it", it would first have to establish
that there was such a being.
Even God would know better than to reinvent the wheel everytime He
> wanted something new.
You know more about god than I do.
Ben Kaufman
I don't think so. The one who knows the most about god knows the least.
Ben
Jeff Strickland
"thomas p." <gud...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4855f680$0$56780$edfa...@dtext02.news.tele.dk...
It is, therefore it is. How did it get here? That's the question.
It does not demand faith in God to want to know how it got here. Science can
ignore God and search for how life was formed, or science can accept God and
search for how He formed life. At the end of the day, the key that unlocks
the mystery is the same.
>
> Even God would know better than to reinvent the wheel everytime He
>> wanted something new.
>
>
> You know more about god than I do.
>
Perhaps.
thomas p.
It requires faith to say "goddidit".
Science can
> ignore God and search for how life was formed, or science can accept God
> and search for how He formed life. At the end of the day, the key that
> unlocks the mystery is the same.
How does science accept god before there is any obective evidence that there
is such a thing. How does science ignore something for which there is no
evidence?
>
>>
>> Even God would know better than to reinvent the wheel everytime He
>>> wanted something new.
>>
>>
>> You know more about god than I do.
>>
>
> Perhaps.
And perhaps you have evidence that there is a god and that he is likely to
"know better" about anything, otherwise you are talking about nothing but
ideas in your head. In conclusion science does not ignore, confirm or deny
the existence of any god including the one you claim knowledge of. It can
only deal with objective, testable evidence, so far none has been presented
or encountered for any god.
Hosea Prieto
> Hosea Prieto <hpri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> buckeye wrote:
>>> Approved by a 94-3 vote, the so-called "Science Education Act" (SB 733)
>>> allows public school teachers to use "supplemental materials" when
>>> discussing evolution.
>>>
>>> Americans United and other groups contend that those "supplemental
>>> materials" are likely to be anti-evolution books, DVDs and other items
>>> produced by fundamentalist Christian ministries. The measure is being
>>> pushed by the Louisiana Family Forum, the Discovery Institute and other
>>> Religious Right forces.
>> Are anti-evolution materials necessarily religious?
>
> No one except a certain subset of religious people have any interest
> in publishing anti-evolution materials.
That is an answer to a question I didn't ask.
Could you answer my original question? Are anti-evolution materials
necessarily religious?
Jeff Strickland
But that's not the issue. The mystery to unravel is, how did life form?
Another mystery is, when did life form.
The Darwinists look for how and when in a vacuum. Creationists look for how
and when under the umbrella that God created it. How and when does nto
change just because God comes into the picture for one group of researchers
but not the other.
> Science can
>> ignore God and search for how life was formed, or science can accept God
>> and search for how He formed life. At the end of the day, the key that
>> unlocks the mystery is the same.
>
> How does science accept god before there is any obective evidence that
> there is such a thing. How does science ignore something for which there
> is no evidence?
>
There are lots of scientists that work as creation researchers. They look
for the same how and when as the Darwinists, they only believe through faith
that God did all of this, but want to unravel the mechanism He used. Just
because a scientist is a person of faith does not predispose the science
that is practiced as being flawwed. It might be flawwed, but faith is not
the reason why. Darwin's science might be flawwed too, but you buy it
because he has no faith.
Creation Science AND Darwin both are not able to show that humans evolved
from another species of sapiens. Both are able to show that there are DNA
strains that are similar, but there are similar DNA strains among dogs and
cats, but nobody is suggesting one evolved from the other.
Bob LeChevalier
I sure that it is possible that such things could exist. But I
haven't seen any.
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.atheism:
Not necessarily. Any old lies will do. The lies don't have to be
motivated by religion, but almost every single one is. The most
dishonest folks are the DI which tell their lies, motivated by religion,
while claiming that they are being purely secular. They aren't. Still,
we can call them on the lies they tell, no matter what justification
they give for lying.
Dembski is corrupt.
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.atheism:
>
>"thomas p." <gud...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:4856a7af$0$56790$edfa...@dtext02.news.tele.dk...
>>
>> "Jeff Strickland" <cr...@verizon.net> skrev i en meddelelse
>> news:lzu5k.40474$lE3.17094@trnddc05...
>>>
>>> "thomas p." <gud...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:4855f680$0$56780$edfa...@dtext02.news.tele.dk...
>>>>
>>>> "Jeff Strickland" <cr...@verizon.net> skrev i en meddelelse
>>>> news:uCd5k.15727$8q2.366@trnddc02...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Virgil" <Vir...@gmale.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:Virgil-1EFEB1....@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
>>>>>> In article <Ijc5k.3033$i55...@newsfe22.lga>,
>>>>>> Hosea Prieto <hpri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
...
>>>>>>> Are anti-evolution materials necessarily religious?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is hard to imagine any reason for opposing evolution other than some
>>>>>> kind of religious belief which is incompatible with it.
>>>>>
>>>>> On the other hand, God could have created all, and the best that
>>>>> science can do is question how He did it, and arrive at evolution as
>>>>> the mechanism He employed.
>>>>
>>>> For science to question "how He did it", it would first have to
>>>> establish that there was such a being.
>>>
>>> It is, therefore it is. How did it get here? That's the question.
>>>
>>> It does not demand faith in God to want to know how it got here.
>>
>> It requires faith to say "goddidit".
>
>But that's not the issue. The mystery to unravel is, how did life form?
>Another mystery is, when did life form.
>
>The Darwinists look for how and when in a vacuum. Creationists look for how
>and when under the umbrella that God created it. How and when does nto
>change just because God comes into the picture for one group of researchers
>but not the other.
Creationists refuse to do science. They are so committed to their
religious dogma, that they cannot consider the possibility that the
doctrines they teach could be wrong. Rather than risking that outcome,
they do everything but research.
>>> Science can
>>> ignore God and search for how life was formed, or science can accept God
>>> and search for how He formed life. At the end of the day, the key that
>>> unlocks the mystery is the same.
>>
>> How does science accept god before there is any obective evidence that
>> there is such a thing. How does science ignore something for which there
>> is no evidence?
>>
>
>There are lots of scientists that work as creation researchers.
Zero. Nada. None.
>They look
>for the same how and when as the Darwinists, they only believe through faith
>that God did all of this, but want to unravel the mechanism He used. Just
>because a scientist is a person of faith does not predispose the science
>that is practiced as being flawwed. It might be flawwed, but faith is not
>the reason why. Darwin's science might be flawwed too, but you buy it
>because he has no faith.
You cannot point to a single 'creation researcher'. No one in the
ID/Creationism movement is doing any honest research. At best they
cherrypick scientific evidence to claim that one fact supports them
while ignoring a thousand facts that prove them wrong.
>Creation Science AND Darwin both are not able to show that humans evolved
>from another species of sapiens.
Scientists have clear evidence that we are closely related to the other
great apes.
>Both are able to show that there are DNA
>strains that are similar, but there are similar DNA strains among dogs and
>cats, but nobody is suggesting one evolved from the other.
They share a common ancestry that is older than the common ancestry that
the various great apes share.
Those who claim to be involved in creation science are liars, frauds,
sinners. They mock God because their central thesis is that God lied to
us with the physical evidence. They never abandon their hubris.
thomas p.
Creationists are not researchers. They have no data to research.
>
>
>
>
>> Science can
>>> ignore God and search for how life was formed, or science can accept God
>>> and search for how He formed life. At the end of the day, the key that
>>> unlocks the mystery is the same.
>>
>> How does science accept god before there is any obective evidence that
>> there is such a thing. How does science ignore something for which there
>> is no evidence?
>>
>
> There are lots of scientists that work as creation researchers.
Oh, what data are they working with?
They look
> for the same how and when as the Darwinists, they only believe through
> faith that God did all of this, but want to unravel the mechanism He used.
> Just because a scientist is a person of faith does not predispose the
> science that is practiced as being flawwed.
No it doesn't, nor did I imply that it was. On the other hand creation
science is not science.
It might be flawwed, but faith is not
> the reason why. Darwin's science might be flawwed too, but you buy it
> because he has no faith.
Ad hominem - silly and dishonest. Darwin is dead, and there never was
anything called "Darwin's science".
>
> Creation Science AND Darwin both are not able to show that humans evolved
> from another species of sapiens.
Darwin is dead. There is no scientific theory claiming that humans evolved
from another species of sapiens.
Both are able to show that there are DNA
> strains that are similar, but there are similar DNA strains among dogs and
> cats, but nobody is suggesting one evolved from the other.
Wow!
Josh Rosenbluth
Given that evolution is a scientific theory, it is constantly subject
to scientific attempts to falsify it. If that is what you mean by
"anti-evolution material", then the answer is "no", and it's a good
thing.
However in this case, it is likely the "anti-evolution material" is
not scientific and driven by religion.
Josh Rosenbluth
Josh Rosenbluth
>
> There are lots of scientists that work as creation researchers. They look
> for the same how and when as the Darwinists, they only believe through faith
> that God did all of this, but want to unravel the mechanism He used.
It makes no difference whether a scientist believes he is trying to
figure out God's handiwork or not. The methods to describe the how
and when are the same, and it is science.
The optional belief that God was the architect is not a subject for
science (science is agnostic).
Thus, what you call "creation research" is nothing more than standard
research backed by a belief system. There is no research aspect to
the "creation" portion of your description. Thus, there is no such
thing as "creation research".
Josh Rosenbluth
EskW...@spamblock.panix.com
> > materials" are likely to be anti-evolution books, DVDs and other items
> > produced by fundamentalist Christian ministries. The measure is being
> > pushed by the Louisiana Family Forum, the Discovery Institute and other
> > Religious Right forces.
> Are anti-evolution materials necessarily religious?
Of course not. But very few non-religious folks deny scientific
theories.
--
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so
certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
-- Bertrand Russel
EskW...@spamblock.panix.com
> Not entirely true. The ACLU has a long history of raising religous issues in
> school where the religion is Christianity, yet ignoring religiouis issues
> where Christianity specifically is trampled.
Can you give any examples of the ACLU ignoring the teachng of religion in
public schools?
EskW...@spamblock.panix.com
> The Darwinists look for how and when in a vacuum. Creationists look for how
> and when under the umbrella that God created it. How and when does nto
> change just because God comes into the picture for one group of researchers
> but not the other.
It changes completely if one starts with an unproven assumption.
Cary Kittrell
Oh?
*Rhode Island* ACLU (2006) filed an appeal in federal court on behalf of
an inmate who was barred from preaching during Christian religious
services, something he had done for the past seven years under the
supervision and support of prison clergy. The prisoner, Wesley Spratt,
believes his preaching is a calling from God. Prison officials cited
vague and unsubstantiated security reasons for imposing the preaching
ban on Mr. Spratt. The ACLU argued that the ban violates Mr. Spratt's
religious freedoms guaranteed to prisoners under federal law.
www.riaclu.org/20060111.html <http://www.riaclu.org/20060111.html>
The ACLU of *Nevada* (2005) defended the free exercise rights and free
speech rights of evangelical Christians to preach on the sidewalks of
the Strip in Las Vegas.
www.kvbc.com/Global/story.asp?S=3379553&nav=15MVaB2T
<http://www.kvbc.com/Global/story.asp?S=3379553&nav=15MVaB2T>
The ACLU of *New Mexico* (2005) joined forces with the American Family
Association to succeed in freeing a preacher, Shawn Miller, from the
Roosevelt County jail, where he was held for 109 days for street
preaching. The ACLU became involved at the request of Miller's wife,
Theresa. www.stcynic.com/blog/
archives/2005/08/aclu_defends_another_street_pr.php
<http://www.stcynic.com/blog/archives/2005/08/aclu_defends_another_street_pr.php>;
www.aclu.org/religion/gen/19918prs20050804.html
<http://www.aclu.org/religion/gen/19918prs20050804.html>
The ACLU of *New Jersey* (2005) filed a a motion to submit a
friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of Olivia Turton, a second-grade
student who was forbidden from singing "Awesome God" in a voluntary,
after-school talent show. The only restriction on the student's
selection for the talent show was that it be "G-rated." The case, filed
in federal court, is /Turton, et al. v. Frenchtown Elementary School, et
al. /www.aclu.org/religion/schools/20174prs20050920.html
<http://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/20174prs20050920.html>
The ACLU of *Michigan* (2005) filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of
Joseph Hanas, a Catholic, who was criminally punished for not completing
a drug rehabilitation program run by the Pentecostal group. Part of the
program required reading the Bible for seven hours a day, proclaiming
one's salvation at the alter, and being tested on Pentecostal
principles. Staff confiscated Mr. Hanas's rosary and told him
Catholicism was witchcraft.
www.aclu.org/religion/govtfunding/22354prs20051206.html
<http://www.aclu.org/religion/govtfunding/22354prs20051206.html>
The ACLU of *Pennsylvania* (2005) won a battle against Turtle Creek
Borough that repeatedly denied an occupancy permit to a predominantly
African-American church, Ekklesia, which had purchased the church
building from a predominantly white parish. The case is /Ekklesia Church
v. Borough of Turtle Creek/. The case was settled.
www.aclupa.org/downloads/SpringDocket.pdf
<http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/SpringDocket.pdf>
The ACLU of *Oregon* (2004-05) filed suit on behalf of high school
basketball players from an Adventist school against the Oregon School
Activities Association, which administers competitive athletic and
artistic competitions in Oregon high schools. The ACLU argued that the
Adventist basketball players who have made it to the state tournament
should not be required to play tournament games on Saturday, their
Sabbath. The case, argued in Oregon courts, is /Nakashima v. Board Of
Education/. www.aclu-or.org/litigation/portlandadventacademy/PAA.html
<http://www.aclu-or.org/litigation/portlandadventacademy/PAA.html>
The ACLU of *Washington* (2004) reached a favorable settlement on behalf
of Donald Ausderau, a Christian minister, who wanted to preach to the
public on Plaza sidewalks. www.aclu-wa.org/detail.cfm?id=57
<http://www.aclu-wa.org/detail.cfm?id=57>
The ACLU of *Virginia* (2004) interceded with local authorities on
behalf of Baptist preachers who were refused permission to perform
baptisms in the river in Falmouth Waterside Park in Stafford County.
www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A16839-2004Jun4
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A16839-2004Jun4>;
www.aclu.org/religion/discrim/16230prs20040603.html
<http://www.aclu.org/religion/discrim/16230prs20040603.html>
The *Indiana* Civil Liberties Union (2004) filed suit against the city
of Scottsburg for their repeated threats of arrest and/or citation
against members of the Old Paths Baptist Church for demonstrating
regarding various subjects dealing with their religious beliefs.
www.iclu.org/news/news_article.asp?ID=978
<http://www.iclu.org/news/news_article.asp?ID=978>
The ACLU of *Pennsylvania* (2005) won a battle against Turtle Creek
Borough that repeatedly denied an occupancy permit to a predominantly
African-American church, Ekklesia, which had purchased the church
building from a predominantly white parish. The case is /Ekklesia Church
v. Borough of Turtle Creek/. The case was settled. With the help of the
ACLU of Pennsylvania Greater Pittsburgh Chapter (2004), the Church Army,
an Episcopal social service group, was able to keep its program of
feeding the homeless running. The ACLU convinced the County Health
Department to reverse a decision that meals served to homeless people in
a church must be cooked on the premises, as opposed to individual homes.
Had the decision not been reversed, the ministry would have been forced
to cease the program.
The ACLU of *Pennsylvania* (2004) was victorious in its arguments that
government had to accommodate Amish drivers who used highly reflective
gray tape on their buggies instead of orange triangles, to which the
Amish objected for religious reasons.
www.post-gazette.com/localnews/20021020amish1020p6.asp.
<http://www.post-gazette.com/localnews/20021020amish1020p6.asp.>
The ACLU of *Pennsylvania* (2004) settled a lawsuit on behalf of Second
Baptist Church of Homestead, a predominantly African-American church
that had been denied a zoning permit to operate in a church building
purchased by a white congregation. The occupancy permit was awarded in
2002, and in 2004, the Borough of West Mifflin agreed to pay damages and
compensate the church for its loses. The case is /Second Baptist Church
of Homestead v. Borough of West Mifflin/.
www.post-gazette.com/neigh_south/20021029churchsuitsouth2p2.asp
<http://www.post-gazette.com/neigh_south/20021029churchsuitsouth2p2.asp>;
www.post-gazette.com/localnews/20021116aclureg6p6.asp
<http://www.post-gazette.com/localnews/20021116aclureg6p6.asp>;
www.post-gazette.com/pg/04111/303298.stm
<http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04111/303298.stm>
The ACLU of *Massachusetts* (2003) intervened on behalf of a group of
students at Westfield High School who were suspended for distributing
candy canes and a religious message in school. The ACLU succeeded in
having the suspensions revoked and filed an amicus brief in a lawsuit
brought on behalf of the students against the school district. Students
who were suspended include Daniel S. Souza, Stephen J. Grabowski, Sharon
L. Sitler and Paul Sitler.
www.aclu.org/studentsrights/expression/12828prs20030221.html
<http://www.aclu.org/studentsrights/expression/12828prs20030221.html>
The ACLU of *Rhode Island* (2003) interceded on behalf of an
interdenominational group of carolers who were denied the opportunity to
sing Christmas carols on Christmas Eve to inmates at the women's prison
in Cranston, Rhode Island.
www.rifrn.net/blog/blogs/noskin_b.php?p=45&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1
<http://www.rifrn.net/blog/blogs/noskin_b.php?p=45&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1>
The *Iowa* Civil Liberties Union (2002) publicly supported a group of
Christian students who filed a lawsuit against Davenport Schools
asserting their right to distribute religious literature during
non-instructional time. The ICLU filed a friend-of-the-court brief in
the suit on behalf of the students.
www.aclu.org/studentsrights/religion/12811prs20020711.html
<http://www.aclu.org/studentsrights/religion/12811prs20020711.html>
The ACLU of *Massachusetts* (2002) filed a brief supporting the right of
the Church of the Good News to run ads criticizing the secularization of
Christmas and promoting Christianity as the "one true religion" after
the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority refused to allow the paid
advertisements to be posted and to sell additional advertising space to
the church. www.aclu.org/freespeech/gen/10925prs20020108.html
<http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/gen/10925prs20020108.html>
The ACLU of *Virginia* (2002) joined the Rev. Jerry Falwell in winning a
lawsuit arguing the Virginia Constitution's provision that bans
religious organizations from incorporating is unconstitutional.
www.aclu.org/religion/frb/16040prs20020417.html
<http://www.aclu.org/religion/frb/16040prs20020417.html>
The ACLU of *Michigan* (beginning in 2001) represented Abby Moler, a
student at Sterling Heights Stevenson High School, whose yearbook entry
was deleted because of its religious content.
www.freep.com/cgi-bin/forms/printerfriendly.pl
<http://www.freep.com/cgi-bin/forms/printerfriendly.pl>;
www.aclu.org/studentsrights/expression/12845prs20040511.html
<http://www.aclu.org/studentsrights/expression/12845prs20040511.html>
The ACLU of *Massachusetts* (2000) defended inmate Peter Kane's right to
exercise his religious beliefs when prison officials confiscated his
rosary beads. The rosary beads were black and white and prison rules
allow only solid-colored beads. www.firmstand.org/news/rosary.html
<http://www.firmstand.org/news/rosary.html>
The ACLU of *Virginia* (2000) represented Charles D. Johnson, a street
preacher who was convicted under Richmond's noise ordinance. The
Virginia Court of Appeals reversed his conviction in 2000. The case is
/Johnson v. City of Richmond/, 2000 WL 1459848 (Va. App. 2000).
The ACLU of Eastern *Missouri* (1999) secured a favorable settlement for
a nurse, Miki M. Cain, who was fired for wearing a cross-shaped lapel
pin on her uniform. legalminds.lp.findlaw.com/list/news/msg00021.html
<http://legalminds.lp.findlaw.com/list/news/msg00021.html>
The ACLU of *Virginia* (1997-1999) represented Rita Warren and her
mission to erect a crèche on Fairfax County government space that had
been set aside as a public forum. The ACLU argued restricting the use of
the public forum to county residents only was an unreasonable
restriction. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the ACLU.
www.providence.edu/polisci/cammarano/article-Masters.htm
<http://www.providence.edu/polisci/cammarano/article-Masters.htm>;
www.catholicherald.com/eddesk/97ed/ed971211.htm
<http://www.catholicherald.com/eddesk/97ed/ed971211.htm>
The ACLU of *Iowa* (1997) represented Conservative Christians in Clarke
County and won the right to force a county referendum on gambling.
www.aclu.org/studentsrights/expression/12852prs20050429.html
<http://www.aclu.org/studentsrights/expression/12852prs20050429.html>
The ACLU of *Pennsylvania* Greater Pittsburgh Chapter (1997) represented
Carlyn Kline, a fundamentalist Christian woman who challenged the
legality of a mandatory divorce-counseling program conducted by Catholic
Charities. Her religious beliefs prohibited her from attending
"non-Christian" counseling.
The ACLU of *Pennsylvania* Greater Pittsburgh Chapter (1997) intervened
on behalf of a Mennonite nurse and prevented his firing for refusing to
shave his beard for religious reasons. The employer demanded the nurse
shave his beard so the state-issued mask to guard against tuberculosis
would fit tightly despite the employee's offer to purchase a more
expensive mask that would is approved for work with T.B. patients and
that would fit properly with his beard intact. After receiving telephone
calls and letters from the ACLU, the state employer agreed to
accommodate the nurse's religion.
Amish farmers benefited from the ACLU of *Pennsylvania* Greater
Pittsburgh Chapter's letter threatening a lawsuit if the Elk Lick
Township rescind a municipal ordinance that prohibited farm tractors
with steel wheels from traveling on or over the township's roads. Amish
religious beliefs dictate that they maintain steel wheels on their
tractors and the ordinance prevented Amish farmers from moving their
tractors from one farm to another, and in some cases from one part of
their property to another. The township rescinded the ordinance in 1995
and dropped all charges against the various persons charged under the
ordinance.
The ACLU of *Pennsylvania* Greater Pittsburgh Chapter (1995) represented
a 17-year-old foster child who was being forced to attend her foster
family's church. The foster child was Methodist and the church she was
being forced to attend was not of the Methodist faith. After the ACLU
threatened to sue the county allowed the child to attend a Methodist
church and placed her in a different foster home.
The ACLU of *Pennsylvania* Greater Pittsburgh Chapter (1995) secured the
right of a minister from the United Methodist Church to hold meetings in
the Harmony Township Borough building that was open for use by community
groups.
*Iowa* affiliate of the ACLU (1995) represented and vindicated the free
speech and religious expression of a conservative Christian activist,
Elaine Jaquith of Waterloo, who had been denied access to broadcast her
message on public television.
www.aclu.org/studentsrights/expression/12852prs20050429.html
<http://www.aclu.org/studentsrights/expression/12852prs20050429.html>
The ACLU of *Texas* (beginning in 1995) represented Catholic and Mormon
Santa Fe High School students who opposed the proselytizing prayers
offered by the school's student council chaplain over the public address
system prior to home football games. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed that
public schools should not be used to proselytize on behalf of religion.
/Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe/, 530 U.S. 290 (2000)
www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/683
<http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/683>
The ACLU of *Vermont* (1994-95) represented evangelical Christians Freda
and Perry Hollyer, who were denied Medicaid and food stamp benefits
because they refused to obtain social security numbers for their
children. The Hollyers believed that obtaining social security numbers
for their children ran contrary to their understanding of the Book of
Revelations. The ACLU appealed the denial to the state's Human Services
Board. The Board ruled in favor of the Hollyers holding that the state's
legitimate interests in preventing fraud could be achieved without use
of a social security number. The Board's ruling is on file with the
ACLU's Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief.
The ACLU of *Utah* (1990s) represented an evangelical Christian ministry
that had been evicted and denied future access as a vendor at a state
fair because fair-goers objected to the religious content of the
message. www.acluutah.org/01report.htm
Fr...@pastor.it
This is all lies. The ACLU is Anti-Christian, and Anti-Liberty.
The ACLU is Communist. The ACLU is UnAmerican. The ACLU Hates God and
jesus.
> Oh?
> mission to erect a cr??che on Fairfax County government space that had
Cary Kittrell
>
>
>
>
> This is all lies. The ACLU is Anti-Christian, and Anti-Liberty.
> The ACLU is Communist. The ACLU is UnAmerican. The ACLU Hates God and
> jesus.
Oh?
mission to erect a crèche on Fairfax County government space that had
Darrell Stec
> Fr...@Pastor.it
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> This is all lies. The ACLU is Anti-Christian, and Anti-Liberty.
>> The ACLU is Communist. The ACLU is UnAmerican. The ACLU Hates God and
>> jesus.
>
> Oh?
>
>
Is that the same idiot who calls himself Pastor Frank or is there a mad
scientist cloning stupidity? He will ignore the links even if they go
directly into the courthouse and will reinsert his asininity, after the
fashion of all rabid fundie Christians.
--
Later,
Darrell Stec dar...@neo.rr.com
Webpage Sorcery
http://webpagesorcery.com
We Put the Magic in Your Webpages
Bob LeChevalier
>This is all lies. The ACLU is Anti-Christian, and Anti-Liberty.
>The ACLU is Communist. The ACLU is UnAmerican. The ACLU Hates God and
>jesus.
Do you have any *evidence* that the following are incorrect
descriptions of the cases mentioned (or that the cases were invented),
or is it just your insanity talking?
lojbab
cactus
The ACLU defends the rights of individuals to practice their religion
without interference from others. What's your problem?
Is it that they don't reflexively allow you to proselytize anywhere you
damn please? You don't seem to understand that infringement on the
rights of anyone is an attack on everyone. You are only out for
yourselves, and have no sense of community.
cactus
Nicely done. If he reads it, Frank might learn a thing or two. Maybe
he will see that the ACLU defends everybody's civil liberties. After
all, an attack on any group's rights is an attack on the rights of all
groups. But I'm not sure that he will ever understand that as long as
he thinks he is in the majority.
cactus
> Cary Kittrell wrote:
>
>> Fr...@Pastor.it
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> This is all lies. The ACLU is Anti-Christian, and Anti-Liberty.
>>> The ACLU is Communist. The ACLU is UnAmerican. The ACLU Hates God and
>>> jesus.
>> Oh?
>>
>>
>
> Is that the same idiot who calls himself Pastor Frank or is there a mad
> scientist cloning stupidity? He will ignore the links even if they go
> directly into the courthouse and will reinsert his asininity, after the
> fashion of all rabid fundie Christians.
>
>
and his fellow Taliban from trampling everybody's religious freedoms.
Jeff Strickland
"Free Lunch" <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:pk2e54h4656kejfsm...@4ax.com...
I happen to have personal experience that creationsist do do research. You
might think otherwise, but I was once a contactor for the Institution for
Creation Research.
I'm not here to sell creation research, I don't give a rat's ass if you
believe it or not, but creationists do not refuse science.
Jeff Strickland
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrose...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:0a83f1d0-b6ce-4338...@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 16, 8:38 pm, "Jeff Strickland" <cr...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> There are lots of scientists that work as creation researchers. They look
> for the same how and when as the Darwinists, they only believe through
> faith
> that God did all of this, but want to unravel the mechanism He used.
It makes no difference whether a scientist believes he is trying to
figure out God's handiwork or not. The methods to describe the how
and when are the same, and it is science.
The optional belief that God was the architect is not a subject for
science (science is agnostic).
<JS>
Josh, you are suggesting that science demands an absence of faith. That is
simply untrue.
</JS>
Jeff Strickland
<Nic...@Click.com> wrote in message
news:m8lf54l8bj00f64a6...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 00:38:15 GMT, "Jeff Strickland"
>
>>
>>But that's not the issue. The mystery to unravel is, how did life form?
>>Another mystery is, when did life form.
>
>
Philosophy? How did life form, and when did life form, are not philosophical
ideas.
>>The Darwinists look for how and when in a vacuum. Creationists look for
>>how
>>and when under the umbrella that God created it. How and when does nto
>>change just because God comes into the picture for one group of
>>researchers
>>but not the other.
>
> The claim that; "..Darwinists look for how and where in
> a vacuum" is nonsense statement. No evidence supports
> that claim---you merely assigned that definition
> yourself---then contend it's a true statement.
>
> Creationists can't prove existence of god, therefore
> they cannot assign any credible truth to anything the
> conclude.
>
They don't have to prove the existence of God. That is not the goal.
You can buy into God or not, nobody cares. You can ask, how did God do that?
and then set about to figure it out, or you can say, all of this just
happened on its own, then set about to figure it out. At the end of the day,
when you figure it out, you can choose to have faith that God made it
happen, or that it happened all by itself.
Bob LeChevalier
>> Creationists refuse to do science. They are so committed to their
>> religious dogma, that they cannot consider the possibility that the
>> doctrines they teach could be wrong. Rather than risking that outcome,
>> they do everything but research.
>
>I happen to have personal experience that creationsist do do research.
Since you don't know what scientific research is, your "personal
experience" isn't worth much.
>You might think otherwise, but I was once a contactor for the Institution for
>Creation Research.
That may mean that you met some of the turkeys, but to be convincing,
you'll have to describe some things that they did that you think
qualify as "scientific research".
>I'm not here to sell creation research, I don't give a rat's ass if you
>believe it or not, but creationists do not refuse science.
They don't DO science, and they reject the conclusions of scientists
that are their betters, without evidence.
Josh Rosenbluth
> "Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbl...@comcast.net> wrote in message
I said science needs to be *agnostic* when it comes to faith. It can
happily accept those who are faithful and those who are not.
But, the faith part of your argument is not itself science (although
it does not conflict with science).
Josh Rosenbluth
Bob LeChevalier
><Nic...@Click.com> wrote in message
>news:m8lf54l8bj00f64a6...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 00:38:15 GMT, "Jeff Strickland"
>> <cr...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>But that's not the issue. The mystery to unravel is, how did life form?
>>>Another mystery is, when did life form.
>>
>> Which would be related to Philosophy
>
>Philosophy? How did life form, and when did life form, are not philosophical
>ideas.
Actually they are, because "life" is itself an ill-defined concept.
>> The claim that; "..Darwinists look for how and where in
>> a vacuum" is nonsense statement. No evidence supports
>> that claim---you merely assigned that definition
>> yourself---then contend it's a true statement.
>>
>> Creationists can't prove existence of god, therefore
>> they cannot assign any credible truth to anything the
>> conclude.
>
>They don't have to prove the existence of God.
They do, if they wish to mention His existence in any work of science.
>That is not the goal.
No. It is a prerequisite to any consideration of God within science.
>You can buy into God or not, nobody cares. You can ask, how did God do that?
You cannot do that in science without proving that "there is a God"
first.
>and then set about to figure it out,
in order to figure out "how did God do that" you would need to find
some evidence of something God did, which necessarily requires proving
that God exists.
>or you can say, all of this just happened on its own,
You cannot do that in science without proving that "it just happened
on its own". Science merely observes that "it just happened", and lets
the evidence indicate if there was any agent involved. No evidence,
no agent.
>then set about to figure it out.
If you find a mechanism that does not require an agent, then adding an
agent (God or an intelligent designer) is insupportable.
>At the end of the day,
>when you figure it out, you can choose to have faith that God made it
>happen, or that it happened all by itself.
Or you can choose not to give a damn, because that which can be had
only be faith isn't necessary or useful to science, and is therefore
quite irrelevant to the process AND to the conclusions.
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.atheism:
They were not doing scientific research. They had already agreed as a
condition of employment that they would _never_ ever consider a result
that showed that their uncorroborated religious doctrines were mistaken.
With that attitude, it is absolutely impossible to do scientific
research.
>I'm not here to sell creation research, I don't give a rat's ass if you
>believe it or not, but creationists do not refuse science.
Provide some evidence. I know how creationists work and I have never
seen any of them doing scientific research that could possibly ever
question their core religious doctrines.
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.atheism:
>
>"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrose...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:0a83f1d0-b6ce-4338...@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>On Jun 16, 8:38 pm, "Jeff Strickland" <cr...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>> There are lots of scientists that work as creation researchers. They look
>> for the same how and when as the Darwinists, they only believe through
>> faith
>> that God did all of this, but want to unravel the mechanism He used.
>
>It makes no difference whether a scientist believes he is trying to
>figure out God's handiwork or not. The methods to describe the how
>and when are the same, and it is science.
I know how science works. I also know that creationists have repeatedly
rejected science because they know that their religious doctrines do not
square with the scientific evidence. It's not about interpretation, it's
about absolute dishonesty on their part. I suppose you are just
following in their lying footsteps.
>The optional belief that God was the architect is not a subject for
>science (science is agnostic).
The only legitimate theistic doctrine about creation is some form of
theistic evolution. Anyone who rejects evolution is rejecting millions
of pieces of data.
><JS>
>Josh, you are suggesting that science demands an absence of faith. That is
>simply untrue.
>
></JS>
Science can only be done if you don't let your faith blind you. It is
faith that is used to forbid science.
Free Lunch
alt.atheism:
>On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 00:38:15 GMT, "Jeff Strickland"
><cr...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>But that's not the issue. The mystery to unravel is, how did life form?
>>Another mystery is, when did life form.
>
>Which would be related to Philosophy
>
>>The Darwinists look for how and when in a vacuum. Creationists look for how
>>and when under the umbrella that God created it. How and when does nto
>>change just because God comes into the picture for one group of researchers
>>but not the other.
>
>The claim that; "..Darwinists look for how and where in
>a vacuum" is nonsense statement. No evidence supports
>that claim---you merely assigned that definition
>yourself---then contend it's a true statement.
>
>Creationists can't prove existence of god, therefore
>they cannot assign any credible truth to anything the
>conclude.
>
>THey CAN, however, choose to BELIEVE anything they
>want----based on faith.
>
>Faith, however, doesn't need truth to be acceptable.
True, but if it demands that you reject actual evidence, it is a
pathetic, dishonest faith.
malcolmki...@yahoo.com
seen any of them doing scientific research that could possibly ever
question their core religious doctrines."
Isaac Newton was a Biblical literalist.
Nothing stops a believer from doing good work in Math, Chenistry,
Physics, or those areas of Biology which do not directly challenge the
creation story (e.g., cell physiology).
Rather than argue what should be taught in State (government,
generally) schools, how 'bout making a long list of things we can
agree should be taught (Math, languages, Physics, Chemistry, Biology,
Music, Dance, History, Economics, Anthropology, Psychology, etc. and
mandate that school districts must pay parents if their kids
accomplish --any-- of these at grade level, if their kids are not in
the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel's schools (the "public" schools). Make
payment equal to some fraction 1/2 < a/b < 1 of the district's regular-
ed per pupil budget. Religious believers could then homeschool, hire
tutors, or supplement the contract amount and send their kids to
parochial school. If parochial schools or Biblical literalist
homeschoolers leave something out (e.g., Evolutionary Biology), so
what? No school teaches everything and no student learns
everything.
thomas p.
Perhaps you could cite one of their studies. I would love to know how one
researches creation.
thomas p.
>
> "Josh Rosenbluth" <jrose...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:0a83f1d0-b6ce-4338...@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 16, 8:38 pm, "Jeff Strickland" <cr...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>> There are lots of scientists that work as creation researchers. They look
>> for the same how and when as the Darwinists, they only believe through
>> faith
>> that God did all of this, but want to unravel the mechanism He used.
>
> It makes no difference whether a scientist believes he is trying to
> figure out God's handiwork or not. The methods to describe the how
> and when are the same, and it is science.
>
> The optional belief that God was the architect is not a subject for
> science (science is agnostic).
Yes, that is the point; there is no such thing as creation research or
creation science.
thomas p.
<malcolmki...@yahoo.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:d7a41139-ceec-4fe2...@v26g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
> Free Lunch wrote: " I know how creationists work and I have never
> seen any of them doing scientific research that could possibly ever
> question their core religious doctrines."
>
> Isaac Newton was a Biblical literalist.
He was not a creation scientist.
>
> Nothing stops a believer from doing good work in Math, Chenistry,
> Physics, or those areas of Biology which do not directly challenge the
> creation story (e.g., cell physiology).
If they are doing good work, they are not doing creation science. No matter
what Newton's religious beliefs were, he was not a creation scientist.
>
> Rather than argue what should be taught in State (government,
> generally) schools, how 'bout making a long list of things we can
> agree should be taught (Math, languages, Physics, Chemistry, Biology,
> Music, Dance, History, Economics, Anthropology, Psychology, etc. and
> mandate that school districts must pay parents if their kids
> accomplish --any-- of these at grade level, if their kids are not in
> the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel's schools (the "public" schools). Make
> payment equal to some fraction 1/2 < a/b < 1 of the district's regular-
> ed per pupil budget. Religious believers could then homeschool, hire
> tutors, or supplement the contract amount and send their kids to
> parochial school. If parochial schools or Biblical literalist
> homeschoolers leave something out (e.g., Evolutionary Biology), so
> what? No school teaches everything and no student learns
> everything.
And nothing in the above addresses the actual issue. Public schools may not
teach religious beliefs, and, at the very least, they should not be
encouraging ignorance.
Bob LeChevalier
>Free Lunch wrote: " I know how creationists work and I have never
>seen any of them doing scientific research that could possibly ever
>question their core religious doctrines."
>
>Isaac Newton was a Biblical literalist.
Except of course that he disputed what the text of the literal Bible
contained
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Account_of_Two_Notable_Corruptions_of_the_Scriptures
in order to support his idiosyncratic beliefs
and had a "heretical" interpretation of the rest
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton
<Historian Stephen D. Snobelen says of Newton, "Isaac Newton was a
< heretic. But like Nicodemus, the secret disciple of Jesus, he never
< made a public declaration of his private faith - which the orthodox
< would have deemed extremely radical. He hid his faith so well that
< scholars are still unravelling his personal beliefs." [19]. Snobelen
< concludes that Newton was at least a Socinian sympathiser (he owned
< and had thoroughly read at least eight Socinian books), possibly an
< Arian and almost certainly an antitrinitarian.[19] In an age notable
< for its religious intolerance there are few public expressions of
< Newton's radical views, most notably his refusal to take holy orders
< and his refusal, on his death bed, to take the sacrament when it was
< offered to him.[19]
<
<In a view disputed by Snobelen,[19] T.C. Pfizenmaier argues that
< Newton held the Eastern Orthodox view of the Trinity rather than the
< Western one held by Roman Catholics, Anglicans, and most
< Protestants.[20] In his own day, he was also accused of being a
< Rosicrucian (as were many in the Royal Society and in the court of
< Charles II).[21]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton%27s_religious_views
<Newton saw God as the masterful creator whose existence could not be
< denied in the face of the grandeur of all creation.[6] But the
< unforeseen theological consequence of his conception of God, as
< Leibniz pointed out, was that God was now entirely removed from the
< world’s affairs, since the need for intervention would only evidence
< some imperfection in God’s creation, something impossible for a
< perfect and omnipotent creator.[7] Newton's view has been considered
< to be close to deism but differed in that he invoked God as a special
< physical cause to keep the planets in orbits.[8]
<
<On the other hand, latitudinarian and Newtonian ideas taken too far
< resulted in the millenarians, a religious faction dedicated to the
< concept of a mechanical universe, but finding in it the same
< enthusiasm and mysticism that the Enlightenment had fought so hard to
< extinguish.[9] Newton himself may have had some interest in
< millenarianism as he wrote about both the Book of Daniel and the Book
< of Revelation in his Observations Upon the Prophecies
I doubt that you will find many "creation scientists" that would read
that and conclude that Newton was a "literalist". (of course, this
may merely show the folly of calling oneself a "literalist" when one
does interpretation of the text).
Bob LeChevalier
>Christian fundamentalist evangelicals, to a cult
>member, believe in the absolute, un wavering truth of
>every word in the Bible.
In light of what I posted just now on Newton, I would add "... as they
interpret it, rejecting all other interpretations".
Cary Kittrell
> 05> <4856a7af$0$56790$edfa...@dtext02.news.tele.dk> <XHD5k.15935$8q2.10833@trnddc02> <pk2e54h4656kejfsm...@4ax.com> <IjV5k.60852$Ni1.10964@trnddc01>
> Subject: Re: Louisiana Will Face Lawsuit If New Law Brings Religion Into Public School
> Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 06:34:01 +0200
> X-Priority: 3
> X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
> X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138
> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198
> X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Response
> Lines: 75
> Message-ID: <48589038$0$56769$edfa...@dtext02.news.tele.dk>
> Organization: TDC Totalloesninger
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 87.56.143.48
> X-Trace: 1213763640 dtext02.news.tele.dk 56769 87.56.143.48:55201
> X-Complaints-To: ab...@post.tele.dk
> Xref: news.arizona.edu alt.politics.usa.constitution:77649 alt.education:109160 alt.atheism:1915431 alt.religion.christian:620784
To take an oldie but a goodie, we might mention Henry Morris' "The Genesis
Flood". Morris was a young-earth creationist, and founder of the Institution
for Creation Research.
For a fun time, google on "hydrodynamic sorting". You cannot make up
stuff like this.
-- cary
Cary Kittrell
>
>
> <malcolmki...@yahoo.com> skrev i en meddelelse
> news:d7a41139-ceec-4fe2...@v26g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
> > Free Lunch wrote: " I know how creationists work and I have never
> > seen any of them doing scientific research that could possibly ever
> > question their core religious doctrines."
> >
> > Isaac Newton was a Biblical literalist.
>
>
> He was not a creation scientist.
But he did allow his beliefs to undermine his own work: apparently
upset that his discoveries in dynamical and gravitational science
left God without a whole lot to do when it came to celestial
mechanics, he declared that God still had to step in from time
to time to correct things.
There was nothing whatsoever in his concepts or equations that implied this.
It was a purely religious reaction, a withdrawal from the deus abscondus
implicit in his discoveries.
(Newton also carefully concealed his anti-trinitarian views, but that's
a different story)
-- cary
Cary Kittrell
Oh some do -- and I'm talking about in the eyes of other creationists.
More specifically, there is a great schism between the Young Earthers,
who hold to a literal, 6000-10,000 year old Earth, and those who
accept an Earth which is billions of years old, but which nonetheless
created by God.
These days, from what I read, the IDers widely accept such things
as radiometric dating and geological evidence that the Earth is
far far older than the YECers believe, and are often in fact
a bit dismissive of the Young Earth Creationists, the old guard,
left over from the days of the Morrises, father and son, Gish, et al.
Thus -- in they eyes of the more "modern" creationists themselves --
there is indeed an entire school of creationists who do "refuse science".
-- cary
Cary Kittrell
"Socinian", eh? That was a new one to me.
Pretty interesting stuff. And pretty radical.
-- cary
Kenny McCormack
Cary Kittrell <ca...@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote:
>"thomas p." <gud...@yahoo.com> writes:
>>
>>
>> <malcolmki...@yahoo.com> skrev i en meddelelse
>> news:d7a41139-ceec-4fe2...@v26g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
>> > Free Lunch wrote: " I know how creationists work and I have never
>> > seen any of them doing scientific research that could possibly ever
>> > question their core religious doctrines."
>> >
>> > Isaac Newton was a Biblical literalist.
I think you need to keep in mind that in those days, if you didn't pay
religion the appopriate amount of "respect", you generally ended up dead
(or worse). Generally, whenever I hear "so and so famous scientist was
religious", I just dismiss it as "They were just pretending, to stay
alive". I see no shame in that.
Cary Kittrell
But in the case of Newton, there is every evidence for a religious
involvment that might be a little unsettling even by today's standards.
In particular, he devoted a great deal of time and effort in trying
to "decode" the book of Daniel.
-- cary
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.atheism:
>Free Lunch wrote: " I know how creationists work and I have never
>seen any of them doing scientific research that could possibly ever
>question their core religious doctrines."
>
>Isaac Newton was a Biblical literalist.
He was not a creationist in the sense you are saying.
>Nothing stops a believer from doing good work in Math, Chenistry,
>Physics, or those areas of Biology which do not directly challenge the
>creation story (e.g., cell physiology).
Physics, geology, even chemistry show us that the doctrines of
creationists are false.
>Rather than argue what should be taught in State (government,
>generally) schools, how 'bout making a long list of things we can
>agree should be taught (Math, languages, Physics, Chemistry, Biology,
>Music, Dance, History, Economics, Anthropology, Psychology, etc. and
>mandate that school districts must pay parents if their kids
>accomplish --any-- of these at grade level, if their kids are not in
>the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel's schools (the "public" schools). Make
>payment equal to some fraction 1/2 < a/b < 1 of the district's regular-
>ed per pupil budget. Religious believers could then homeschool, hire
>tutors, or supplement the contract amount and send their kids to
>parochial school. If parochial schools or Biblical literalist
>homeschoolers leave something out (e.g., Evolutionary Biology), so
>what? No school teaches everything and no student learns
>everything.
Religionists can tell lies to their children on their own dime. I do not
want my taxes spent indoctrinating children into religious falsehoods.
Your cynicism is either a pose to make you look like you are not just
another religionist or pure foolishness.
Free Lunch
(Cary Kittrell) wrote in alt.atheism:
There is also evidence that he was a total fool when it came to
chemistry. So what?
Free Lunch
alt.atheism:
>On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 20:41:12 GMT, "Jeff Strickland"
><cr...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>> Creationists refuse to do science. They are so committed to their
>>> religious dogma, that they cannot consider the possibility that the
>>> doctrines they teach could be wrong. Rather than risking that outcome,
>>> they do everything but research.
>>>
>>
>>I happen to have personal experience that creationsist do do research. You
>>might think otherwise, but I was once a contactor for the Institution for
>>Creation Research.
>
>Well, that explains a lot
>
>
>>I'm not here to sell creation research, I don't give a rat's ass if you
>>believe it or not, but creationists do not refuse science.
>
>Christian fundamentalist evangelicals, to a cult
>member, believe in the absolute, un wavering truth of
>every word in the Bible.
As they interpret it.
>They are literal, adamant and reject any notion of
>compromise.
>
>THEY are the power of the rightwing social
>conservatives---willing to cough up every penny and
>send it to the Falwells, Dobsons, and other loony
>megamillionaire televangelists who funnel millions into
>p olitical propaganda and campaigns
>
>This nonsense "creationist" crap is nothing more than a
>silly way to legitimize religous quackery.
Hosea Prieto
> On Jun 16, 8:25 pm, Hosea Prieto <hprie...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>>> Hosea Prieto <hprie...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> buckeye wrote:
>>>>> Approved by a 94-3 vote, the so-called "Science Education Act" (SB 733)
>>>>> allows public school teachers to use "supplemental materials" when
>>>>> discussing evolution.
>>>>> Americans United and other groups contend that those "supplemental
>>>>> materials" are likely to be anti-evolution books, DVDs and other items
>>>>> produced by fundamentalist Christian ministries. The measure is being
>>>>> pushed by the Louisiana Family Forum, the Discovery Institute and other
>>>>> Religious Right forces.
>>>> Are anti-evolution materials necessarily religious?
>>> in publishing anti-evolution materials.
>> That is an answer to a question I didn't ask.
>>
>> Could you answer my original question? Are anti-evolution materials
>> necessarily religious?
>
> Given that evolution is a scientific theory, it is constantly subject
> to scientific attempts to falsify it. If that is what you mean by
> "anti-evolution material", then the answer is "no", and it's a good
> thing.
So, how is a law regarding "supplemental materials" subject to
challenge? AU is inferring far too much here.
EskW...@spamblock.panix.com
> Physics, geology, even chemistry show us that the doctrines of
> creationists are false.
Not to mention paleontology. And biology.
EskW...@spamblock.panix.com
> > I happen to have personal experience that creationsist do do research. You
> > might think otherwise, but I was once a contactor for the Institution for
> > Creation Research.
> >
> > I'm not here to sell creation research, I don't give a rat's ass if you
> > believe it or not, but creationists do not refuse science.
> Perhaps you could cite one of their studies. I would love to know how one
> researches creation.
I'd really like to read them too. All I've ever seen are screeds that try
to say "Darwin was wrong, so that leaves no choice but the Bible".
--
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so
certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
-- Bertrand Russel
Cary Kittrell
No, he wasn't, he was studying what was the "state of the art" at
a time when alchemy handn't really laid enough groundwork that
modern chemistry could emerge. "Foolish" would have been to
do what he did if he knew what we knew today, or even in
the 19th century.
Course, all those mercury vapors couldn't really have helped matters.
-- cary
Free Lunch
I stand corrected. I should have said that by the standards that claim
that Newton was a creationist, he was a fool in science. Both claims are
meaningless because they rely on the modern context.
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.atheism:
Why wouldn't it be subject to challenge. The law clearly allows
nonscientific material, read that as religious propaganda, to be
included by teachers.
malcolmki...@yahoo.com
malcolmkirkpatrick wrote:...
Free Lunch wrote:
Jeff Strickland wrote:
(Strickland): "I happen to have personal experience that creationsist
do do research. You might think otherwise, but I was once a contactor
for the Institution for Creation Research."
(Lunch): "They were not doing scientific research. They had already
agreed as a
condition of employment that they would _never_ ever consider a
result
that showed that their uncorroborated religious doctrines were
mistaken.
With that attitude, it is absolutely impossible to do scientific
research."
(Strickland): "I'm not here to sell creation research, I don't give a
rat's ass if you
believe it or not, but creationists do not refuse science. "
(FL): "Provide some evidence. I know how creationists work and I have
never
seen any of them doing scientific research that could possibly ever
question their core religious doctrines."
(MK): "Isaac Newton was a Biblical literalist."
(TP): "He was not a creation scientist.
Didn't say he was. I addressed Strickland's claim "creationists do not
refuse science" and Free Lunch's counter that "creationists" "never"
do "scientific research that could possibly ever question their core
religious doctrines."
(MK): "Nothing stops a believer from doing good work in Math,
Chenistry,
Physics, or those areas of Biology which do not directly challenge the
creation story (e.g., cell physiology)."
(TP): "If they are doing good work, they are not doing creation
science. No matter
what Newton's religious beliefs were, he was not a creation
scientist."
This discussion could easily degenerate into a dispute over the
meaning of words. Let's not. Religious believers can do good
scientific work.
(MK): "Rather than argue what should be taught in State (government,
generally) schools, how 'bout making a long list of things we can
agree should be taught (Math, languages, Physics, Chemistry, Biology,
Music, Dance, History, Economics, Anthropology, Psychology, etc. and
mandate that school districts must pay parents if their kids
accomplish --any-- of these at grade level, if their kids are not in
the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel's schools (the "public" schools). Make
payment equal to some fraction 1/2 < a/b < 1 of the district's regular-
ed per pupil budget. Religious believers could then homeschool, hire
tutors, or supplement the contract amount and send their kids to
parochial school. If parochial schools or Biblical literalist
homeschoolers leave something out (e.g., Evolutionary Biology), so
what? No school teaches everything and no student learns everything."
(TP): "And nothing in the above addresses the actual issue. Public
schools may not teach religious beliefs, and, at the very least, they
should not be encouraging ignorance."
A. I'm not sure what "the issue" is. I suggest a way to defuse the
conflict, by lowering the stakes. The State cannot subsidize education
without a definition of "education". The conflict arises when
different parties promote different definitions. Let's have either a
very narrow definition (literacy in any language, and Math) and let
kids move on to post-secondary education or on-the-job training when
they pass the GED (at any age) or a very large definition, so large
that the system considers a student "educated" when s/he accomplishes
some small fraction of it. Maybe Lucy can't solve simultaneous linear
equations in three variables, but she speaks four languages fluently
and knows how to prepare beef wellington. Let her enter the adult
world.
B. The NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel's schools (the "public" schools) already
encourage ignorance.
Please read this one page Marvin Minsky comment on school.
http://www.rru.com/~meo/hs.minski.html
This article on artificially extended adolescence by Ted Kolderie.
http://www.educationevolving.org/pdf/Adolescence.pdf
Parent Performance Contracting
http://harriettubmanagenda.blogspot.com/2005/12/proposal.html
thomas p.
How did you do that if Newton was not a creationist?
>
> (MK): "Nothing stops a believer from doing good work in Math,
> Chenistry,
> Physics, or those areas of Biology which do not directly challenge the
> creation story (e.g., cell physiology)."
> (TP): "If they are doing good work, they are not doing creation
> science. No matter
> what Newton's religious beliefs were, he was not a creation
> scientist."
>
------------------------------------------
> This discussion could easily degenerate into a dispute over the
> meaning of words. Let's not. Religious believers can do good
> scientific work.
Which is not the point under discussion. Nobody has denied that they can.
>
> (MK): "Rather than argue what should be taught in State (government,
> generally) schools, how 'bout making a long list of things we can
> agree should be taught (Math, languages, Physics, Chemistry, Biology,
> Music, Dance, History, Economics, Anthropology, Psychology, etc. and
> mandate that school districts must pay parents if their kids
> accomplish --any-- of these at grade level, if their kids are not in
> the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel's schools (the "public" schools). Make
> payment equal to some fraction 1/2 < a/b < 1 of the district's regular-
> ed per pupil budget. Religious believers could then homeschool, hire
> tutors, or supplement the contract amount and send their kids to
> parochial school. If parochial schools or Biblical literalist
> homeschoolers leave something out (e.g., Evolutionary Biology), so
> what? No school teaches everything and no student learns everything."
>
thomas
> (TP): "And nothing in the above addresses the actual issue. Public
> schools may not teach religious beliefs, and, at the very least, they
> should not be encouraging ignorance."
>
mk
> A. I'm not sure what "the issue" is. I suggest a way to defuse the
> conflict, by lowering the stakes.
The conflict/issue is the attempt to introduce religious teachings into
public schools. Your solution to the conflict has nothing to do with it.
thomas p.
<EskW...@spamblock.panix.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:g3cdsq$fum$5...@reader2.panix.com...
> In alt.religion.christian thomas p. <gud...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> > I happen to have personal experience that creationsist do do research.
>> > You
>> > might think otherwise, but I was once a contactor for the Institution
>> > for
>> > Creation Research.
>> >
>> > I'm not here to sell creation research, I don't give a rat's ass if you
>> > believe it or not, but creationists do not refuse science.
>
>> Perhaps you could cite one of their studies. I would love to know how
>> one
>> researches creation.
>
> I'd really like to read them too. All I've ever seen are screeds that try
> to say "Darwin was wrong, so that leaves no choice but the Bible".
It is hardly surprising that he did not bother to respond to my request. He
very likely believes what he is posting, but it looks like he cannot bear to
take an objective look at it.
Bob LeChevalier
>(FL): "Provide some evidence. I know how creationists work and I have
>never
>seen any of them doing scientific research that could possibly ever
>question their core religious doctrines."
>(MK): "Isaac Newton was a Biblical literalist."
>(TP): "He was not a creation scientist.
>
>Didn't say he was. I addressed Strickland's claim "creationists do not
>refuse science" and Free Lunch's counter that "creationists" "never"
>do "scientific research that could possibly ever question their core
>religious doctrines."
The point (which was eventually clarified) is that Newton was not a
"creationist" a term which has meaning in the modern context (since
the meaning of "creationist" includes that one deny evolution despite
the evidence). Thus the statement could not apply to Newton.
It has also been mentioned that Newton did NOT do research that would
question his core religious doctrines, and indeed his Biblical
interpretation was informed by his work. When his beliefs DID come in
conflict with the science, he indeed did back away from the science
>This discussion could easily degenerate into a dispute over the
>meaning of words. Let's not. Religious believers can do good
>scientific work.
That wasn't the issue.
>(MK): "Rather than argue what should be taught in State (government,
>generally) schools, how 'bout making a long list of things we can
>agree should be taught (Math, languages, Physics, Chemistry, Biology,
>Music, Dance, History, Economics, Anthropology, Psychology, etc. and
>mandate that school districts must pay parents if their kids
>accomplish --any-- of these at grade level, if their kids are not in
>the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel's schools (the "public" schools). Make
>payment equal to some fraction 1/2 < a/b < 1 of the district's regular-
>ed per pupil budget. Religious believers could then homeschool, hire
>tutors, or supplement the contract amount and send their kids to
>parochial school. If parochial schools or Biblical literalist
>homeschoolers leave something out (e.g., Evolutionary Biology), so
>what?
One cannot teach modern Biology without teaching evolution, and in any
case, you miss the issue again. The creationist does not "leave
something out", but rather replaces it with "something contradictory
to what is known".
And parochial schools have no trouble teaching evolution, since the
Catholic church fully accepts evolution.
>No school teaches everything and no student learns everything."
The government payment issue comes in part from the fact that what is
taught includes religious doctrine (along with the fact that most
people want government money to be spent by the government - I think
the wave of privatization of government activities is going to start
to be reversed).
>A. I'm not sure what "the issue" is. I suggest a way to defuse the
>conflict, by lowering the stakes.
"Defusing the issue" means surrendering to the enemies of science and
separation of church and state. Why would we want to "defuse the
issue"?
>The State cannot subsidize education without a definition of "education".
The State doesn't subsidize education. At the K-12 level it *provides
certain educational services*. At the college level it provides
grants and loan guarantees for students enrolled in certain
educational programs - the programs are defined without defining
"education", though.
The government also doesn't define "church" or "religion", but there
is a large body of law that pertains to what "separation of church and
state" and "establishment of religion" means.
buckeye
>:| . . . and in America religion and Christianity is the
>:|same thing.
Now another point of view:
From: buckeye
Date: Mon, Aug 20 2001 4:34 pm
From that material: The National Reform Association and the religious
Amendments to the Constitution, 1864-1876, by Steven Keith Green, An
unpublished Masters thesis, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill,
(1987) Pages 44-47
------------------------------------------------------
In 1870, the practice of Protestant Bible reading and religious
exercises in public schools received its first serious challenge. On
November 1, 1869, the Cincinnati city school board passed two significant
resolutions. First, it prohibited the reading of all religious books,
including the Bible, and religious instruction in public schools. It also
repealed a rule that required teachers to begin each day with a reading
from the Bible and the singing of a hymn. Before the new resolutions were
put into practice, a group of evangelicals, including members of the local
N.R.A., quickly obtained an injunction from the state Superior Court
against their enforcement, The school board appealed the matter to the Ohio
Supreme Court.(87)
The Cincinnati case received national attention while awaiting appeal.
Observers touted it as a test case for similar practices in other states.
People on both sides of the Christian Amendment issue payed special
attention to the outcome of the case. The N.R.A. saw the case as further
proof of the need for the amendment. Speaking in New York in April of 1872,
David McAllister decried the tactics of the opponents of Christianity who
sought to remove the Bible from public schools. "(I)f we had in our
national Constitution that acknowledgement we had in nearly every State
constitution, it would not only sustain the decision of the Ohio (Superior
Court) judge, but would greatly strengthen the friends of our Christian
system of education. And it is the aim of the association to have that
undeniably legal basis in our Constitution, so that there will never be any
question raised about the matter, and so that when men stand up to resist
the Bible we may say, ‘No; we recognize the Christian religion as a
fundamental law of our Constitution,'"
While people awaited the outcome of the Cincinnati decision, the
tension surrounding the school issue mounted. In June 1872, the State
Superintendent of the New York public schools ordered several school boards
on Long Island to suspend the practice of daily Bible readings and
religious exercises in response to Catholic complaints. Similar moves were
underway in Michigan and other northern states. For the first time, the
average Protestant became aware of challenges to his religious way-of-life.
Finally, in December, the Ohio Supreme Court handed down its decision.
The Supreme Court reversed the injunction of the trial court, reinstated
the schools board's resolutions, and dismissed the case. The Court
acknowledged that since the Ohio Constitution recognized that "religion,
morality and knowledge are essential to good government," the state
legislature could pass laws to protect the practice of every religion. But,
said the Court, it could not agree with those who argued that "religion"
must mean Christianity or that Christianity was part of the common law of
the country. "Those who make this assertion can hardly be serious, and
intend the real import of their language. If Christianity is the law of the
State, like every other law, it must have a sanction. Adequate penalties
must be provided to enforce obedience to all its requirements and precepts.
No one seriously contends for any such doctrine in this country, or, I
might almost say, in this age of the world."
"Religion is not," continued the Court in a reference to the Christian
Amendment, much less Christianity or any other particular system of
religion - named in the preamble to the Constitution of the United States
as one of the declared objects of government; nor is it mentioned in the
clause in question, in our own Constitution, as being essential to anything
beyond mere human government. . . (U)nited with religion, government never
rises above the merest despotism; and all history shows us that the more
widely and completely they are separated, the better it is for both."
Not only was the Cincinnati decision a loss for the pro-Bible reading
faction throughout the nation, it also was a slap in the face of those who
supported the Christian Amendment.
SOURCE: the Ohio Supreme Court had ruled in the Case of
Board of Ed of Cincinnati v Minor, et al., 23 Ohio State Rep 211 (1872),
The reference material used for that post was The Congressional Globe and
The National Reform Association and the religious Amendments to the
Constitution, 1864-1876, by Steven Keith Green, An unpublished Masters
thesis, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, (1987)
==================================================
Another source:
Ohio and Religious Liberty in the Public Schools (P. 724)
The opinion in Board of Education v. Minor was rendered by Mr.
Justice Welch. The defendants had brought their action (Minor v.
Board of Education) to the Superior Court of Cincinnati to enjoin the
board from carrying into effect two resolutions adopted by the board,
November 1, 1869, which read as follows:
“Resolved, That religious instruction, and the reading of religious
books, including the Holy Bible, are prohibited in the common schools
of Cincinnati, it being the true object and intent of this rule to allow
the children of the parents of all sects and opinions, in matters of faith
and worship, to enjoy alike the benefit of the common-school fund.
“Resolved, That so much of the regulations on the course of study
and text-books in the intermediate and district schools (page 213,
annual report) as reads as follows, ‘The opening exercises in every
department shall commence by reading a portion of the Bible by or
under the direction of the teacher, and appropriate singing by the
pupils,’ be repealed.”
Two of the judges of the superior court, Hagans and Storer, decided in
favor of religion in the public schools, and enjoined the board from
carrying the foregoing resolutions into effect. The other member of the
court, Judge Taft, dissented. The case was then carried to the State
supreme court, which reversed the decision of the lower court. Stanley
Matthews, afterward a justice of the United States Supreme Court, and
George Hoadley, subsequently governor of Ohio, were of the counsel for the
board of education, and delivered clear and effective speeches at the trial
of the case before the supreme court.
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: American State Papers on Freedom in Religion. 4th
Revised Edition. Published in 1949 for The Religious Liberty Association,
Washington, D.C. First Edition Compiled by William Addison Blakely, of the
Chicago Bar. (1890) under the Title American State Papers Bearing on Sunday
Legislation. pp. 864-65
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, what was the ultimate outcome of the decision?
Why was it a loss for the pro-Bible reading faction throughout the nation,
it also was a slap in the face of those who supported the Christian
Amendment?
Unconstitutional? Perhaps those words were not used but the immediate
outcome was the same as if they had been used.
It was a case that was cited nationally time and time again as other state
courts began to reach the same opinions and did in fact state such
practices violated their state constitution.
If one reads the entire opinion (which I have and will be very happy to
post for you) you will see that word is all but said in those things that
were said.
I think one will find that case was a major set back, in many ways, for
those who were trying to link state and church.
I'll be sure to change any future references to Minor as meaning "you
can't do it" instead of "unconstitutional."
*American Council on Education, Committee on Religion and Public Education,
The Relation of Religion to Public Education—The Basic Principles,
Washington, D.C., 1947. CS
The importance of this study is due both to the responsible auspices under
which it was made, and the representative character of the committee under
the chairmanship of Dr. F. Ernest Johnson, Professor of Education, Teachers
College, Columbia University. The major conclusions of the committee are
that no religious indoctrination of any kind should be permitted in public
schools, nothing in the way of specific religious instruction; but that the
religious phases of culture should be objectively included, where they
naturally occur in courses dealing with history, literature, art,
sociology, etc. Without such study our civilization past and present and
human personality cannot be fully understood, and without sympathetic
treatment of religious subject matter along with other factors, the
importance of religion would seem to be disregarded by the State. Religious
instruction must be left entirely to home and church, but there is no
fundamental objection to a wisely conducted "released time" plan. This
study was published prior to the decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court in
the Everson and McCollum cases.
*****************************************************************************
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Historical Reality SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
***************************************************************
. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
Josh Rosenbluth
AU only claimed that the law could be subject to challenge depending
on what the "supplemental materials" turn out to be.
"Louisiana Will Face Lawsuit *If* (my emphasis) New Law Brings
Religion Into Public School Science Classes, Says Americans United.
Church-State Watchdog Group *Warns* (my emphasis) Against Using Anti-
Evolution Legislation To Advance Fundamentalism In The Classroom.
Josh Rosenbluth
Cary Kittrell
Oh, I totally agree. Newton was no more a Discovery Institute-style
creationist than he was a New Ager earth/air/fire/water alchemist.
-- cary
SkyEyes
> Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > malcolmkirkpatr...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > >Free Lunch wrote: " I know how creationists work and I have never
> > >seen any of them doing scientific research that could possibly ever
> > >question their core religious doctrines."
>
> > >Isaac Newton was a Biblical literalist.
>
> > Except of course that he disputed what the text of the literal Bible
> > contained
And to me. Something new to read up on, thanks!
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
BAAWA Knight
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.atheism:
>thomas p. wrote:
Maybe you are confused about who is causing the ignorance.
malcolmki...@yahoo.com
malcolmkirkpatrick wrote:
thomas p. wrote:
malcolmkirkpatrickwrote:...
Free Lunch wrote:
Jeff Strickland wrote:
(Strickland): "I happen to have personal experience that creationsist
do do research. You might think otherwise, but I was once a contactor
for the Institution for Creation Research."
(Lunch): "They were not doing scientific research. They had already
agreed as a condition of employment that they would _never_ ever
consider a result
that showed that their uncorroborated religious doctrines were
mistaken. With that attitude, it is absolutely impossible to do
scientific research."
(Strickland): "I'm not here to sell creation research, I don't give a
rat's ass if you believe it or not, but creationists do not refuse
science."
(FL): "Provide some evidence. I know how creationists work and I have
never seen any of them doing scientific research that could possibly
ever question their core religious doctrines."
(MK): "Isaac Newton was a Biblical literalist."
(TP): "He was not a creation scientist.
do not refuse science' and Free Lunch's counter that 'creationists'
'never'
do 'scientific research that could possibly ever question their core
(TP): "How did you do that if Newton was not a creationist?"
Depends on how you use the term "creatonist". "Creation science"
refers to attempts to support the biblical creation myth. Not all
science conducted by biblical literalists is "creation science".
Mathematics and metallurgy, for ecample. Newton's Physics, for
example.
(MK): "Nothing stops a believer from doing good work in Math,
Chenistry, Physics, or those areas of Biology which do not directly
challenge the creation story (e.g., cell physiology)."
(TP): "If they are doing good work, they are not doing creation
science."
We agree, here.
(TP): "No matter what Newton's religious beliefs were, he was not a
creation scientist."
Didn't say he was. Even if he was, his good work wasn't in "creation
science" but in physics.
(MK): "This discussion could easily degenerate into a dispute over the
meaning of words. Let's not. Religious believers can do good
scientific work.
(TP): "Which is not the point under discussion. Nobody has denied
that they can.
Oh?
(Lunch): "They had already agreed as a condition of employment that
they would _never_ ever consider a result that showed that their
uncorroborated religious doctrines were mistaken....
(wait for it)...
With that attitude, it is absolutely impossible to do scientific
research."
This is false.
(MK): "Rather than argue what should be taught in State (government,
generally) schools, how 'bout making a long list of things we can
agree should be taught (Math, languages, Physics, Chemistry, Biology,
Music, Dance, History, Economics, Anthropology, Psychology, etc. and
mandate that school districts must pay parents if their kids
accomplish --any-- of these at grade level, if their kids are not in
the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel's schools (the "public" schools). Make
payment equal to some fraction 1/2 < a/b < 1 of the district's regular-
ed per pupil budget. Religious believers could then homeschool, hire
tutors, or supplement the contract amount and send their kids to
parochial school. If parochial schools or Biblical literalist
homeschoolers leave something out (e.g., Evolutionary Biology), so
what? No school teaches everything and no student learns everything."
(TP): "And nothing in the above addresses the actual issue. Public
schools may not teach religious beliefs, and, at the very least, they
should not be encouraging ignorance."
(MK): "A. I'm not sure what "the issue" is. I suggest a way to defuse
the conflict, by lowering the stakes."
(TP): "The conflict/issue is the attempt to introduce religious
teachings into public schools. Your solution to the conflict has
nothing to do with it."
We disagree. There is conflict because of differences over what is
taught. If policymakers were less concerned to impose one curriculum,
and allowed parents to determine the choice of curriculum and the pace
and method of instruction, either a minimal definition of
"education" (math and literacy) or an expansive definition so large as
to allow a lot of room would reduce the stakes and so defuse the
conflict, seems to me. Parents who object to some aspect of the
curriculum in the NEA/AFT/AFSCNE cartel's schools (the "public"
schools) could take the taxpayers' K-12 education subsidy elsewhere
and, so long as they produced "education" by either the minimalist or
the expanded definition, taxpayers would get value for their
money.
malcolmki...@yahoo.com
malcolmkirkpatrick wrote:
(Discussion deleted)
(MK): "Rather than argue what should be taught in State (government,
generally) schools, how 'bout making a long list of things we can
agree should be taught (Math, languages, Physics, Chemistry, Biology,
Music, Dance, History, Economics, Anthropology, Psychology, etc. and
mandate that school districts must pay parents if their kids
accomplish --any-- of these at grade level, if their kids are not in
the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel's schools (the "public" schools). Make
payment equal to some fraction 1/2 < a/b < 1 of the district's regular-
ed per pupil budget. Religious believers could then homeschool, hire
tutors, or supplement the contract amount and send their kids to
parochial school. If parochial schools or Biblical literalist
homeschoolers leave something out (e.g., Evolutionary Biology), so
what? No school teaches everything and no student learns everything."
(TP): "And nothing in the above addresses the actual issue. Public
schools may not teach religious beliefs, and, at the very least, they
should not be encouraging ignorance."
the conflict, by lowering the stakes. The State cannot subsidize
education without a definition of 'education'. The conflict arises
when different parties promote different definitions. Let's have
either a very narrow definition (literacy in any language, and Math)
and let kids move on to post-secondary education or on-the-job
training when they pass the GED (at any age) or a very large
definition, so large that the system considers a student 'educated'
when s/he accomplishes
some small fraction of it. Maybe Lucy can't solve simultaneous linear
equations in three variables, but she speaks four languages fluently
and knows how to prepare beef wellington. Let her enter the adult
world.
B. The NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel's schools (the "public" schools) already
encourage ignorance."
Maybe. With international comparisons placing the US State-monopoly
school system in the cellar, maybe not.
thomas p.
thomas
I never said that it was. Creation science is not science.
mk
Mathematics and metallurgy, for ecample. Newton's Physics, for
example.
thomas
Irrelevant. The issue is creation science not all work ever done by
scientists who are literalists.
(MK): "Nothing stops a believer from doing good work in Math,
Chenistry, Physics, or those areas of Biology which do not directly
challenge the creation story (e.g., cell physiology)."
(TP): "If they are doing good work, they are not doing creation
science."
We agree, here.
(TP): "No matter what Newton's religious beliefs were, he was not a
creation scientist."
Didn't say he was. Even if he was, his good work wasn't in "creation
science" but in physics.
(MK): "This discussion could easily degenerate into a dispute over the
meaning of words. Let's not. Religious believers can do good
scientific work.
(TP): "Which is not the point under discussion. Nobody has denied
that they can.
Oh?
(Lunch): "They had already agreed as a condition of employment that
they would _never_ ever consider a result that showed that their
uncorroborated religious doctrines were mistaken....
(wait for it)...
With that attitude, it is absolutely impossible to do scientific
research."
This is false.
thomas
No, it is obviously true.
(MK): "Rather than argue what should be taught in State (government,
generally) schools, how 'bout making a long list of things we can
agree should be taught (Math, languages, Physics, Chemistry, Biology,
Music, Dance, History, Economics, Anthropology, Psychology, etc. and
mandate that school districts must pay parents if their kids
accomplish --any-- of these at grade level, if their kids are not in
the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel's schools (the "public" schools). Make
payment equal to some fraction 1/2 < a/b < 1 of the district's regular-
ed per pupil budget. Religious believers could then homeschool, hire
tutors, or supplement the contract amount and send their kids to
parochial school. If parochial schools or Biblical literalist
homeschoolers leave something out (e.g., Evolutionary Biology), so
what? No school teaches everything and no student learns everything."
(TP): "And nothing in the above addresses the actual issue. Public
schools may not teach religious beliefs, and, at the very least, they
should not be encouraging ignorance."
(MK): "A. I'm not sure what "the issue" is. I suggest a way to defuse
the conflict, by lowering the stakes."
(TP): "The conflict/issue is the attempt to introduce religious
teachings into public schools. Your solution to the conflict has
nothing to do with it."
mk
We disagree. There is conflict because of differences over what is
taught. If policymakers were less concerned to impose one curriculum,
and allowed parents to determine the choice of curriculum and the pace
and method of instruction, either a minimal definition of
"education" (math and literacy) or an expansive definition so large as
to allow a lot of room would reduce the stakes and so defuse the
conflict, seems to me. Parents who object to some aspect of the
curriculum in the NEA/AFT/AFSCNE cartel's schools (the "public"
schools) could take the taxpayers' K-12 education subsidy elsewhere
and, so long as they produced "education" by either the minimalist or
the expanded definition, taxpayers would get value for their
money.
thomas
In othere words if the creationists get what they want there won't be a
problem. Sorry, that is nonsense.
thomas p.
thomas
There is no monopoly school system in the US. There are a lot of problems
with public education in the US, but they are not the result of a
non-existatent monopoly. Giving in to fundamentalist pressure to teach
religious doctrines in public schools will hardly improve public education.
Bob LeChevalier
>(TP): "How did you do that if Newton was not a creationist?"
>
>Depends on how you use the term "creatonist".
Well, the term certainly is meaningless with regard to anyone before
Darwin, since all definitions I've ever seen contrast creationism with
(Darwinian) evolutionary biology.
In most net discussions the word either means one who claims to do
"creation research" or one who believes that "creation research" is
not only as valid as evolutionary biology, but is also "true" because
creation is by Biblical fiat "true", or in the political sense one who
supports the teachings of creationism or intelligent design in the
science classroom.
>"Creation science"
>refers to attempts to support the biblical creation myth. Not all
>science conducted by biblical literalists is "creation science".
Not all biblical literalists are necessarily "creationists". The Pope
undoubtedly considers himself a biblical literalist. However, he has
different literal readings of the Bible that Protestant biblical
literalists. All of these so-called literalists in fact do
*interpretation* of the Bible and treat words and events therein
symbolically, which means that the whole concept of Biblical
literalism is baloney.
(a REAL Biblical literalist would see NO references to or indications
of Jesus Christ in the Old Testament, because His name does not occur
in the Old Testament).
Bob LeChevalier
>B. The NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel's schools (the "public" schools) already
>encourage ignorance."
>(Lunch): "Maybe you are confused about who is causing the ignorance."
>
>Maybe. With international comparisons placing the US State-monopoly
>school system in the cellar, maybe not.
Our system is NOT in the cellar, because a) there is no single school
system that COULD be in the cellar, b) we produce internationally
competitive scholars (and indeed a larger number than other countries,
including the much more populous China and India), and c) because
residents of many other countries are quite happy to have their kids
attend schools in this country.
Our top students are as successful as those in any country. We fail
some of the weaker students, but that is a weakness in the students (a
weakness that may not be innate), and in our culture.
Alex W.
"Bob LeChevalier" <loj...@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:f7np54dpgj821t1oq...@4ax.com...
> malcolmki...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>B. The NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel's schools (the "public" schools) already
>>encourage ignorance."
>>(Lunch): "Maybe you are confused about who is causing the ignorance."
>>
>>Maybe. With international comparisons placing the US State-monopoly
>>school system in the cellar, maybe not.
>
> Our system is NOT in the cellar, because a) there is no single school
> system that COULD be in the cellar, b) we produce internationally
> competitive scholars (and indeed a larger number than other countries,
> including the much more populous China and India), and c) because
> residents of many other countries are quite happy to have their kids
> attend schools in this country.
Not entirely correct.
To start with, foreign parents who send their kids to the US certainly do
not spend a six-fiugure sum on state ducation -- their kids go to the very
best private schools, and these are, almost by definition, outside "the
system".
Secondly, the one major area of genuine excellence is in the American
post-graduate programmes (including academic research), not schools or
indeed undergraduate levels of college education. Here, money plays a big
role as much of this excellence in learning and teaching is built on
seducing the best and brightest of the rest of the world with salaries and
working conditions unattainable elsewhere.
malcolmki...@yahoo.com
malcolmkirkpatrick wrote:.
Discussion deleted
(MK): "Religious believers can do good scientific work.
(TP): "Which is not the point under discussion. Nobody has denied
that they can."
(MK): "Oh?
(Lunch): 'They had already agreed as a condition of employment that
they would _never_ ever consider a result that showed that their
uncorroborated religious doctrines were mistaken....
(wait for it)...
With that attitude, it is absolutely impossible to do scientific
research.'
This is false."
(TP): "No, it is obviously true."
Suppose someone says "I promise never to question the Bible's theory
of creation" Must that person's research on, say, semiconductors, be
dismissed?
(MK): "Rather than argue what should be taught in State (government,
generally) schools, how 'bout making a long list of things we can
agree should be taught (Math, languages, Physics, Chemistry, Biology,
Music, Dance, History, Economics, Anthropology, Psychology, etc. and
mandate that school districts must pay parents if their kids
accomplish --any-- of these at grade level, if their kids are not in
the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel's schools (the "public" schools). Make
payment equal to some fraction 1/2 < a/b < 1 of the district's
regular-
ed per pupil budget. Religious believers could then homeschool, hire
tutors, or supplement the contract amount and send their kids to
parochial school. If parochial schools or Biblical literalist
homeschoolers leave something out (e.g., Evolutionary Biology), so
what? No school teaches everything and no student learns everything."
(TP): "And nothing in the above addresses the actual issue. Public
schools may not teach religious beliefs, and, at the very least, they
should not be encouraging ignorance."
(MK): "A. I'm not sure what "the issue" is. I suggest a way to defuse
the conflict, by lowering the stakes."
(TP): "The conflict/issue is the attempt to introduce religious
teachings into public schools. Your solution to the conflict has
nothing to do with it."
(MK): "We disagree. There is conflict because of differences over what
is taught. If policymakers were less concerned to impose one
curriculum, and allowed parents to determine the choice of curriculum
and the pace and method of instruction, either a minimal definition
of 'education' (math and literacy) or an expansive definition so
large as to allow a lot of room would reduce the stakes and so defuse
the conflict, seems to me. Parents who object to some aspect of the
curriculum in the NEA/AFT/AFSCNE cartel's schools (the 'public'
schools) could take the taxpayers' K-12 education subsidy elsewhere
and, so long as they produced "education" by either the minimalist or
the expanded definition, taxpayers would get value for their money."
(TP): "In othere words if the creationists get what they want there
won't be a
problem. Sorry, that is nonsense.
It's "nonsense" to suppose that giving people what they want reduces
conflict? Now THAT'S nonsense. What is gained by cramming evolutionary
theory down the throats of children whose parents resist? Let the NEA/
AFT/AFSCME cartel's schools (the "public" schools) teach evolutionary
theory. So long as parents have escape options, and so long as
children receive a decent education in general (i.e., literacy, math,
vocational skills), calling down the Thought Police on doctrinal error
just invites trouble. If you accept the modern creation story, you
have to accept that physiologically modern humans survived on this
planet for over 20,000 years in complete ignorance of evolutionary
theory.
Josh Rosenbluth
>
> What is gained by cramming evolutionary
> theory down the throats of children whose parents resist?
Students will be taught the scientific method and how to properly apply it.
If parents resisted that the Earth is flat, would that be a good reason
not teach it?
> Let the NEA/
> AFT/AFSCME cartel's schools (the "public" schools) teach evolutionary
> theory. So long as parents have escape options,
They do. Private schools.
> and so long as
> children receive a decent education in general (i.e., literacy, math,
> vocational skills), calling down the Thought Police on doctrinal error
> just invites trouble.
A decent education includes learning and properly applying the
scientific method.
Josh Rosenbluth
malcolmki...@yahoo.com
malcolmkirkpatrick wrote
(MK): "Maybe. With international comparisons placing the US State-
monopoly
school system in the cellar, maybe not."
(TP): "There is no monopoly school system in the US. There are a lot
of problems
with public education in the US, but they are not the result of a non-
existatent monopoly. Giving in to fundamentalist pressure to teach
religious doctrines in public schools will hardly improve public
education."
The NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel's schools (the "public" schools) occupy in
many US States an exclusive position in receipt of the taxpayers' pre-
college education subsidy. They qualify as a monopoly. I agree that
policy makers would not improve overall system performance by "giving
in to fundamentalist pressure" and forcing the cartel's employees to
teach the Genesis story of creation. Subsidizing education options --
outside-- the cartel's schools would improve overall system
performance.
thomas p.
thomas
You certainly have a right to your opinion. Bye.
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.atheism:
>Free Lunch wrote:
Apparently you are not familiar with the education system in the United
States. There are thousands of school districts, run locally by school
boards that are only moderately responsive to state regulations and only
touched by federal standards in small areas.
In Dover it was the teachers who refused to violate the Constitution and
teach religion in the classroom. In Mt. Vernon, Ohio, it was the school
board that refused to act for over a decade after Mr. Freshwater was
proselytizing in class. You will note that the unions are not the
problem. Maybe you have them confused with the pre-Thatcher unions in
England.
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.atheism:
> "thomas p." wrote:
Do you repeat your lies because you are unable to learn or because the
facts don't fit your biases?
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.atheism:
>malcolmki...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>B. The NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel's schools (the "public" schools) already
>>encourage ignorance."
>>(Lunch): "Maybe you are confused about who is causing the ignorance."
>>
>>Maybe. With international comparisons placing the US State-monopoly
>>school system in the cellar, maybe not.
>
>Our system is NOT in the cellar, because a) there is no single school
>system that COULD be in the cellar, b) we produce internationally
>competitive scholars (and indeed a larger number than other countries,
>including the much more populous China and India), and c) because
>residents of many other countries are quite happy to have their kids
>attend schools in this country.
>
>Our top students are as successful as those in any country. We fail
>some of the weaker students, but that is a weakness in the students (a
>weakness that may not be innate), and in our culture.
Yes, they do very well.
Those who do badly do very badly. Our averages are worse, but the
ability to do college work for those who go to college appears to be a
bit better.
Of course MK also ignores the evidence that private schools that are
given vouchers do no better than public schools, all other things being
equal.
Free Lunch
in alt.atheism:
Have you seen any list of the best colleges in the world that is not
dominated by US colleges?
malcolmki...@yahoo.com
malcolmkirkpatrick wrote:
(MK): "What is gained by cramming evolutionary theory down the throats
of children whose parents resist?"
(JR): "Students will be taught the scientific method and how to
properly apply it."
How many moons orbit your planet? This doesn't happen now in the NEA/
AFT/AFSCME cartel's schools. If you really believe evolutionary
theory, you'll encourage competition between suppliers of education
services. Superior instruction will win.
(JR): "If parents resisted that the Earth is flat, would that be a
good reason
not teach it?"
It would be a good reason not to teach it to those parents' children.
By and large, parents exert a benign influence on their children. The
State is a poor substitute. Some parents are abusive, but so are some
teachers. Foster care, teaching, and other youth services attract
child molesters. Further, even decent teachers who challenge parents'
beliefs in class undermine parent authority.
(MK): "Let the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel's schools (the "public" schools)
teach evolutionary theory. So long as parents have escape options..."
(JR). They do. Private schools.
If parents can afford the tuition. Policies which restrict parents'
options for the use of the taxpayers' K-12 education subsidy to
schools operated by dues-paying memners of the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel
confine poor parents to the cartel's wretched schools.
(MK): "...and so long as children receive a decent education in
general (i.e., literacy, math, vocational skills), calling down the
Thought Police on doctrinal error
just invites trouble."
(JR): "A decent education includes learning and properly applying the
scientific method."
Few in the US receive a decent eduucation today. "What works?" is an
empirical question, which only an experiment can answer. A single
monopoly industry is like an experiment with one treatment and no
controls, a retarded experimental design.
malcolmki...@yahoo.com
malcolmkirkpatrick wrote:
malcolmkirkpatrickwrote
Free Lunch wrote
>
> >(Discussion deleted)
> >(MK): "Rather than argue what should be taught in State (government,
> >generally) schools, how 'bout making a long list of things we can
> >agree should be taught (Math, languages, Physics, Chemistry, Biology,
> >Music, Dance, History, Economics, Anthropology, Psychology, etc. and
> >mandate that school districts must pay parents if their kids
> >accomplish --any-- of these at grade level, if their kids are not in
> >the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel's schools (the "public" schools). Make
> >payment equal to some fraction 1/2 < a/b < 1 of the district's regular-
> >ed per pupil budget. Religious believers could then homeschool, hire
> >tutors, or supplement the contract amount and send their kids to
> >parochial school. If parochial schools or Biblical literalist
> >homeschoolers leave something out (e.g., Evolutionary Biology), so
> >what? No school teaches everything and no student learns everything."
(MK): "A. I'm not sure what 'the issue' is. I suggest a way to defuse
the conflict, by lowering the stakes. The State cannot subsidize
education without a definition of 'education'. The conflict arises
when different parties promote different definitions. Let's have
either a very narrow definition (literacy in any language, and Math)
and let kids move on to post-secondary education or on-the-job
training when they pass the GED (at any age) or a very large
definition, so large that the system considers a student 'educated'
when s/he accomplishes some small fraction of it. Maybe Lucy can't
solve simultaneous linear equations in three variables, but she speaks
four languages fluently and knows how to prepare beef wellington. Let
her enter the adult world.
B. The NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel's schools (the "public" schools) already
encourage ignorance."
(Lunch): "Maybe you are confused about who is causing the ignorance."
(MK): "Maybe. With international comparisons placing the US State-
monopoly
school system in the cellar, maybe not."
(TP): "There is no monopoly school system in the US. There are a lot
of problems with public education in the US, but they are not the
result of a non-
existatent monopoly. Giving in to fundamentalist pressure to teach
religious doctrines in public schools will hardly improve public
education."
occupy in
many US States an exclusive position in receipt of the taxpayers' pre-
college education subsidy. They qualify as a monopoly. I agree that
policy makers would not improve overall system performance by "giving
in to fundamentalist pressure" and forcing the cartel's employees to
teach the Genesis story of creation. Subsidizing education options --
outside-- the cartel's schools would improve overall system
performance."
because the
facts don't fit your biases?"
Please try be civil.
malcolmki...@yahoo.com
malcolmkirkpatrick wrote:
(Discussion deleted)
(TP): "...Public schools may not teach religious beliefs, and, at the
very least, they should not be encouraging ignorance."
(MK): "The NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel's schools (the "public" schools)
already
encourage ignorance."
(Lunch): "Maybe you are confused about who is causing the ignorance."
(MK): "Maybe. With international comparisons placing the US State-
monopoly
school system in the cellar, maybe not."
(FL): "Apparently you are not familiar with the education system in
the United States. There are thousands of school districts, run
locally by school boards that are only moderately responsive to state
regulations and only touched by federal standards in small areas. In
Dover it was the teachers who refused to violate the Constitution and
teach religion in the classroom. In Mt. Vernon, Ohio, it was the
school board that refused to act for over a decade after Mr.
Freshwater was proselytizing in class. You will note that the unions
are not the problem. Maybe you have them confused with the pre-
Thatcher unions in England."
I was for ten years a teacher in the Hawaii DOE. In many US States,
districts are not independent of State-level curricular mandates and
teacher credential requirements. States mandate the hours days, and
years of school attendance. Colleges of Education impose a uniformity
on the teacher corps. Accreditation agencies and the system of
"Carnegie" units impose unnecessary uniformity on the US pre-college
education system.
EskW...@spamblock.panix.com
> If you really believe evolutionary
> theory, you'll encourage competition between suppliers of education
> services. Superior instruction will win.
Huh? Kids have limited time in school. We cannot teach them every wacky
theory, in the hopes that they will ignore them eventually.
Alex W.
"Free Lunch" <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:v53q54prul5bueglv...@4ax.com...
Depending on the criteria used, yes. Throw in capitalisation, research
facilities and postgraduate work, then Americans clearly dominate. For
doctorate work, research or an MBA, I'd have to think long and hard before
deciding against the US. Schools -- it depends: private schooling is among
the best in the world, but not that dominant. American undergraduates,
however, I would hesitate to hire.
malcolmki...@yahoo.com
malcolmkirkpatrick wrote:
(MK): "If you really believe evolutionary theory, you'll encourage
competition between suppliers of education services. Superior
instruction will win."
every wacky
theory, in the hopes that they will ignore them eventually."
Competition between education providers will winnow out obsolete
curricula, abusive instruction, and inefficient operations.