Another new poster
LoRezMe
I've been reading and using the talkorigins.org site for a couple of years now
and have found it extremely useful. I've not had time to post to this
newsgroup until now but I've been lurking for a week or so. Feel like I "know"
some of you already <g>
As for my background, I'm a former earth sciences major who attained a lowly AS
before leaving school and work to stay home with a passle of young kids since
spouse was earning more and I was lazier (ha!). Now that the kids are growing
I'm going back to finish up my (institutional) education and maybe see about
ways that I can spread the Good News that Science Rules. I'd like a chance to
counteract some of the bad science to which I've seen school kids exposed.
I've also had a close brush with fundie-ism and all that's negative and
destructive in it. I've got an ax to grind with creationists and their so
called scientific creationism. I've become addicted to reading this newsgroup.
I may not post often but I'll be here reading and cheering you on.
Right now I'm ticked off that a K-8 school in our district in CA (yes, believe
it or not) has managed to ban (even the mention of) evolution from their
campus. It's a fundie-organized school being run with state monies. It appears
that this policy may be on the way ou, but I'm aghast that this can even happen
in this day.
I'm extremely grateful for all the work that's gone into the set up and
maintenance of the website and this newsgroup!
Lorez
Adam Marczyk
news:20010512230726...@ng-mq1.aol.com...
> Hello all,
>
> I've been reading and using the talkorigins.org site for a couple of years
now
> and have found it extremely useful. I've not had time to post to this
> newsgroup until now but I've been lurking for a week or so. Feel like I
"know"
> some of you already <g>
Good to have you. Welcome to the monkey house. ;)
> As for my background, I'm a former earth sciences major who attained a
lowly AS
> before leaving school and work to stay home with a passle of young kids
since
> spouse was earning more and I was lazier (ha!). Now that the kids are
growing
> I'm going back to finish up my (institutional) education and maybe see
about
> ways that I can spread the Good News that Science Rules. I'd like a chance
to
> counteract some of the bad science to which I've seen school kids exposed.
>
> I've also had a close brush with fundie-ism and all that's negative and
> destructive in it. I've got an ax to grind with creationists and their so
> called scientific creationism. I've become addicted to reading this
newsgroup.
> I may not post often but I'll be here reading and cheering you on.
>
> Right now I'm ticked off that a K-8 school in our district in CA (yes,
believe
> it or not) has managed to ban (even the mention of) evolution from their
> campus. It's a fundie-organized school being run with state monies. It
appears
> that this policy may be on the way ou, but I'm aghast that this can even
happen
> in this day.
I agree. Is that even legal? I guess if it's a private religious school they
can teach what they want.
> I'm extremely grateful for all the work that's gone into the set up and
> maintenance of the website and this newsgroup!
We all are. The T.O. site is invaluable, and if things go well we may be
working on a book this summer. :)
--
When I am dreaming,
I don't know if I'm truly asleep, or if I'm awake.
When I get up,
I don't know if I'm truly awake, or if I'm still dreaming...
--Forest for the Trees, "Dream"
To send e-mail, change "excite" to "hotmail"
PhilWoch
Michael Brass
believe
it or not) has managed to ban (even the mention of) evolution from their
campus. It's a fundie-organized school being run with state monies.
A state school? Then you do realise what they have done is against the law
of the country and they can have their asses sued ?
Mike Brass.
newbie
Michael Brass
>
> Right now I'm ticked off that a K-8 school in our district in CA (yes,
believe
> it or not) has managed to ban (even the mention of) evolution from their
> campus. It's a fundie-organized school being run with state monies.
You do know doing that in a state school is illegal? Somebody should take
them to court.
Regards,
Mike Brass.
John Harshman
(LoRezMe) wrote:
If you don't mind the question, where is this exactly? If it's in the bay
area, I'm particularly interested. And if so, the National Center for
Science Education (NCSE) has its headquarters right there. If you want to
do anything about this, a good first step would be contacting them -- even
if you aren't in the bay area.
> I'm extremely grateful for all the work that's gone into the set up and
> maintenance of the website and this newsgroup!
>
> Lorez
--
*Note the obvious spam-defeating modification
to my address if you reply by email.
Stanley Friesen
Our constitution has this little thing in it about the government not
establishing religion. Using government money to establish religion by
denying a valid part of science on purely religious grounds could be
construed as a violation of the US Constitution.
[And, yes, courts have officially ruled that Creationism is religion].
The peace of God be with you.
Stanley Friesen
David Jensen
"Michael Brass" <Mikey_La...@btinternet.com> wrote in
<9dlgao$8nr$1...@uranium.btinternet.com>:
I'm not sure they can get nailed for removing evolution from the
curriculum.
Bobby D. Bryant
> "Michael Brass" <Mikey_La...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> >You do know doing that in a state school is illegal? Somebody should take
> >them to court.
> >
> I'm not sure they can get nailed for removing evolution from the
> curriculum.
It would presumably depend on whether you could convince the court that it had
been removed for specifically religious reasons.
Which, of course, is the whole underpinning of the creation "science"
movement, whereby fundamentalists use a bad parody of science to "prove" that
the world is only 6000 years old, and say that religion isn't among their
motivations for making the claim.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
Michael Brass
> >A state school? Then you do realise what they have done is against the
law
> >of the country and they can have their asses sued ?
> >
> Why?
Because the US Supreme court has ruled against teaching religion as science.
--
Best wishes,
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Michael Brass
Archaeology BSocSc(Hons), University of Cape Town
History BA, U.C.T.
AE & World Prehistory <http://www.users.directonline.net/~archaeology>
Certified computer technician
ICQ 44563988
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------
Michael Brass
> curriculum.
It's virtually guaranteed they'd have replaced it with some religious
teachings disguished as "science"...
Carl Wilson
<da...@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
Probably true. So long as they don't replace it with "creation
science" there is probably little anyone can do.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
LoRezMe
>From: phil...@aol.com (PhilWoch)
>Date: 5/12/2001 11:21 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <20010513022109...@ng-ct1.aol.com>
>
>Welcome. Enjoy the flames.
Why thank you. And, yes, I do.
lorez
LoRezMe
>believe
>> it or not) has managed to ban (even the mention of) evolution from their
>> campus. It's a fundie-organized school being run with state monies. It
>appears
>> that this policy may be on the way ou, but I'm aghast that this can even
>happen
>> in this day.
>
>I agree. Is that even legal? I guess if it's a private religious school they
>can teach what they want.
Ah but it's not. If it were a private religious school that might be par for
the course, but it's a public school. CA has a class of schools called
"charter schools" that are rather like magnet schools in other states. *Anyone*
with the time and ambition can set one up. This one was set up by a group of
fundie parents with the backing of their church. In their charter they've set
this rule. It's hard to believe, but true. Our district has basically had a
public school funded by public monies running with a religious agenda, at least
as far as teaching science goes.
Recently the state has clamped down on regulations for charter schools and we
think that their little "no teaching of evolution" clause will be gone. For six
years they've gotten away with it.
lorez
LoRezMe
>of the country and they can have their asses sued ?
>
>Mike Brass.
>
They slipped through a loophole in CA state law concerning charter schools. I
sat in on some of their beginning meetings nearly ten years ago and listened to
how they were going to do this. Last year they the principal announced that
they weren't renewing their charter in the year 2001-2002 so all of this may
change. They are now becoming a CA School of Choice. The principal assured the
parents that "nothing would change" but I think he was BS-ing them into keeping
their kids signed up for the school. It's interesting...we'll see next fall.
lorez
LoRezMe
>them to court.
I thought it was illegal too but the way that the charter school code was
worded when they were founded allowed them to do this. Their board is very
wiley and stays aware of just how far they can go. Three years ago they wanted
to introduce full on fundie textbooks (anyone ever hear of ABeka texts?) for
their history courses and some of the nonfundie parents objected so they had to
leave off with that idea.
The charter schools were initially promoted as being there for "educational
freedom" and look what else got in the door! The original idea for them was to
get some educational alternatives (arts schools, science and technical schools,
schools with special emphasis that the regular schools weren't able to give)
going in the communities. There are some pretty okay charters out there but
this kind of thing was able to be established too.
lorez
LoRezMe
>curriculum.
Right. It was placed in the original charter. I'm interested to see what
happens when they drop their charter status and become a "School of Choice." CA
ed code is very long and convoluted and I haven't looked through the section on
Schools of Choice.
This is a very conservative area and often parents look at me like I have two
heads when I object to this.
LoRezMe
>Date: 5/13/2001 1:00 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <9dmp59$7tm$1...@uranium.btinternet.com>
>
>> I'm not sure they can get nailed for removing evolution from the
>> curriculum.
>
>It's virtually guaranteed they'd have replaced it with some religious
>teachings disguished as "science"...
>--
>Best wishes,
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>------------------------------
>Michael Brass
>Archaeology BSocSc(Hons), University of Cape Town
>History BA, U.C.T.
>AE & World Prehistory <http://www.users.directonline.net/~archaeology>
>Certified computer technician
>ICQ 44563988
No they couldn't do it this way due to CA state law (as well as the federal
law). What they do is not teach anything at all about origins, even in 8th
grade biology! If the parents want to do the Morris/Gish thing they have to do
it at home.
lorez
LoRezMe
Hi. And I appreciate the information. I've contacted the NCSE and am waiting
to get more information from them.
This isn't the bay area, it's in the Mojave Desert/San Gabriel Mountain area in
southern CA. It's nearly as conservative and fundamentalist an area as Orange
County was a decade or two ago.
lorez
newbie
>
>newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <9dleto$7bp$1...@uranium.btinternet.com>, Michael Brass says...
>>>
>>>
>>>"LoRezMe" <lor...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>>news:20010512230726...@ng-mq1.aol.com...
>>>Right now I'm ticked off that a K-8 school in our district in CA (yes,
>>>believe
>>>it or not) has managed to ban (even the mention of) evolution from their
>>>campus. It's a fundie-organized school being run with state monies.
>>>
>>>A state school? Then you do realise what they have done is against the law
>>>of the country and they can have their asses sued ?
>>>
>>Why?
>
into it? How about if it is a fundie-organized school that state monies would
not have been granted in the first place, and if they had, it would be the state
that should be sued, not the school. IF the school is up-front with their
"fundieism", as is apparent by the word "organized", that is.
>
>Our constitution has this little thing in it about the government not
>establishing religion.
>
>
>Using government money to establish religion by
>denying a valid part of science on purely religious grounds could be
>construed as a violation of the US Constitution.
>
religion by not teaching evolution or even for teaching religion. Teaching is
not establishing. Neither the teaching of a specific religious belief system nor
comparative religion class can be construed as "establishing" a religion - and
is so far off the intent of the amendment that the government can not establish
a religion as to be obvious in the extreme.
>[And, yes, courts have officially ruled that Creationism is religion].
>
separate branch of science. Yet there is no law that requires evolution to be
taught because it is "valid science", and if educators decide what to and not
what to teach based on their religious convictions, there is much room for
debate over whether this constitutes a violation of the amendment. I think the
bottom line here is that the school, in order to receive state monies, must meet
minimum educational requirements. With respect to this, it follows that as a
large majority of Americans adhere to belief in Christianity or Judaism, that
these religions should be a requirement. Our young people should be equipped
with knowledge and understanding of the prevailing belifs and mindsets of the
society in which they will be a part of.
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by "Michael Brass"
<Mikey_La...@btinternet.com>:
It's not illegal (at least not *Federally* so; the states
make their own rules as to requirements), nor should it be,
to remove a subject from the curriculum of *any* school. It
*is* illegal, as it should be, to teach the tenets of a
particular religion as fact, but no mention was made of
that.
--
(Note followups, if any)
Bob C.
Reply to Bob-Casanova @ worldnet.att.net
(without the spaces, of course)
"Men become civilized, not in proportion to their willingness
to believe, but in proportion to their readiness to doubt."
--H. L. Mencken
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by lor...@aol.com (LoRezMe):
Welcome aboard the good ship "Flame"... ;-)
--
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by "Michael Brass"
<Mikey_La...@btinternet.com>:
>"LoRezMe" <lor...@aol.com>
>>
>> Right now I'm ticked off that a K-8 school in our district in CA (yes,
>believe
>> it or not) has managed to ban (even the mention of) evolution from their
>> campus. It's a fundie-organized school being run with state monies.
>
>You do know doing that in a state school is illegal?
Nope; sorry. See my other response.
<snip>
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by Stanley Friesen
<sar...@friesen.net>:
>newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <9dleto$7bp$1...@uranium.btinternet.com>, Michael Brass says...
>>>
>>>
>>>"LoRezMe" <lor...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>>news:20010512230726...@ng-mq1.aol.com...
>>>Right now I'm ticked off that a K-8 school in our district in CA (yes,
>>>believe
>>>it or not) has managed to ban (even the mention of) evolution from their
>>>campus. It's a fundie-organized school being run with state monies.
>>>
>>>A state school? Then you do realise what they have done is against the law
>>>of the country and they can have their asses sued ?
>>>
>>Why?
>
>Our constitution has this little thing in it about the government not
>establishing religion. Using government money to establish religion by
>denying a valid part of science on purely religious grounds could be
>construed as a violation of the US Constitution.
Usually I agree with your posts, but on this I have to
disagree. Unless the school has substituted creationism for
evolutionary theory, there doesn't seem to be any handle by
which to grasp this. Merely removing a particular subject
doesn't seem to be addressed by the Constitution, regardless
of the motive, if no religious beliefs are actually taught.
>
>[And, yes, courts have officially ruled that Creationism is religion].
Yep, and rightly so. But "merely" removing mention of
evolution is *not* the same as teaching creation, no matter
how Luddist (?) it may be.
>
>The peace of God be with you.
And with you.
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by "Bobby D. Bryant"
<bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu>:
>David Jensen wrote:
>
>> "Michael Brass" <Mikey_La...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>
>> >You do know doing that in a state school is illegal? Somebody should take
>> >them to court.
>> >
>> I'm not sure they can get nailed for removing evolution from the
>> curriculum.
>
>It would presumably depend on whether you could convince the court that it had
>been removed for specifically religious reasons.
I don't think so. The Constitution (and presumably the USSC)
are concerned with actions, not motives. So long as religion
isn't actively taught, there doesn't seem to me to be any
way to prevent removal of *any* course from a school
curriculum. (Although concerned parents could presumably
take the school board to court on the grounds of failing to
teach science in science class, this would be difficult to
support for grades K-8, where *very* general science is the
rule.)
>
>Which, of course, is the whole underpinning of the creation "science"
>movement, whereby fundamentalists use a bad parody of science to "prove" that
>the world is only 6000 years old, and say that religion isn't among their
>motivations for making the claim.
And, of course, they're lying through their teeth. But
teaching of creation wasn't mentioned.
Paul J. Gans
> Hello all,
> I've been reading and using the talkorigins.org site for a couple of years now
> and have found it extremely useful. I've not had time to post to this
> newsgroup until now but I've been lurking for a week or so. Feel like I "know"
> some of you already <g>
> As for my background, I'm a former earth sciences major who attained a lowly AS
> before leaving school and work to stay home with a passle of young kids since
> spouse was earning more and I was lazier (ha!). Now that the kids are growing
> I'm going back to finish up my (institutional) education and maybe see about
> ways that I can spread the Good News that Science Rules. I'd like a chance to
> counteract some of the bad science to which I've seen school kids exposed.
> I've also had a close brush with fundie-ism and all that's negative and
> destructive in it. I've got an ax to grind with creationists and their so
> called scientific creationism. I've become addicted to reading this newsgroup.
> I may not post often but I'll be here reading and cheering you on.
> Right now I'm ticked off that a K-8 school in our district in CA (yes, believe
> it or not) has managed to ban (even the mention of) evolution from their
> campus. It's a fundie-organized school being run with state monies. It appears
> that this policy may be on the way ou, but I'm aghast that this can even happen
> in this day.
> I'm extremely grateful for all the work that's gone into the set up and
> maintenance of the website and this newsgroup!
> Lorez
Hey Lorez! Welcome to the nut house. We've got 'em in all
flavors, creationist, evolutionist, punnist, etceteraist.
Enjoy and post when you can!
---- Paul J. Gans
Mark VandeWettering
>Even a school that uses state monies can not be said to be
>"establishing" religion by not teaching evolution or even for
>teaching religion. Teaching is not establishing. Neither the teaching
>of a specific religious belief system nor comparative religion
>class can be construed as "establishing" a religion - and is so
>far off the intent of the amendment that the government can not
>establish a religion as to be obvious in the extreme.
The Supreme Court of the United States does not agree with you.
Mark
--
/* __ __ __ ____ __*/float m,a,r,k,v;main(i){for(;r<4;r+=.1){for(a=0;
/*| \/ |\ \ / /\ \ / /*/a<4;a+=.06){k=v=0;for(i=99;--i&&k*k+v*v<4;)m=k*k
/*| |\/| | \ V / \ \/\/ / */-v*v+a-2,v=2*k*v+r-2,k=m;putchar("X =."[i&3]);}
/*|_| |_ark\_/ande\_/\_/ettering <ma...@telescopemaking.org> */puts("");}}
newbie
VandeWettering says...
>
>On 13 May 2001 17:46:30 -0400, newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:
>>Even a school that uses state monies can not be said to be
>>"establishing" religion by not teaching evolution or even for
>>teaching religion. Teaching is not establishing. Neither the teaching
>>of a specific religious belief system nor comparative religion
>>class can be construed as "establishing" a religion - and is so
>>far off the intent of the amendment that the government can not
>>establish a religion as to be obvious in the extreme.
>
>The Supreme Court of the United States does not agree with you.
>
>
This another argument from authority?
Mark VandeWettering
>In article <slrn9fudm1...@peewee.telescopemaking.org>, Mark
>VandeWettering says...
>>
>>On 13 May 2001 17:46:30 -0400, newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:
>>>Even a school that uses state monies can not be said to be
>>>"establishing" religion by not teaching evolution or even for
>>>teaching religion. Teaching is not establishing. Neither the teaching
>>>of a specific religious belief system nor comparative religion
>>>class can be construed as "establishing" a religion - and is so
>>>far off the intent of the amendment that the government can not
>>>establish a religion as to be obvious in the extreme.
>>
>>The Supreme Court of the United States does not agree with you.
>>
>But aren't they the ones that gave Bush the presidency?
Pretty much, yeah. Is there a point to this?
>This another argument from authority?
Well, in this case they _are_ the authority. The meaning of the
United States Constitution is defined by the Supreme Court.
Mark
newbie
VandeWettering says...
>
>On 13 May 2001 22:02:30 -0400, newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:
>>In article <slrn9fudm1...@peewee.telescopemaking.org>, Mark
>>VandeWettering says...
>>>
>>>On 13 May 2001 17:46:30 -0400, newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:
>>>>Even a school that uses state monies can not be said to be
>>>>"establishing" religion by not teaching evolution or even for
>>>>teaching religion. Teaching is not establishing. Neither the teaching
>>>>of a specific religious belief system nor comparative religion
>>>>class can be construed as "establishing" a religion - and is so
>>>>far off the intent of the amendment that the government can not
>>>>establish a religion as to be obvious in the extreme.
>>>
>>>The Supreme Court of the United States does not agree with you.
>>>
>>But aren't they the ones that gave Bush the presidency?
>
>Pretty much, yeah. Is there a point to this?
>
>
>>This another argument from authority?
>
>Well, in this case they _are_ the authority.
>
>
>The meaning of the
>United States Constitution is defined by the Supreme Court.
>
amendment? Sure it was not Congress?
>
If teaching about religion is unconstitutional, then what to do with money given
to University and grant money given to students. Federal money *does* have a way
of finding itself in the hands of the educational system.
>
I am curious to know what you think constitutes "establishing".
Brian O'Neill
news:9dmp59$7tm$1...@uranium.btinternet.com...
> > I'm not sure they can get nailed for removing evolution from the
> > curriculum.
> It's virtually guaranteed they'd have replaced it with some religious
> teachings disguished as "science"...
Not necessarily. Many states have opted to take the word out of its
teachings and modify the science that is taught to offer less of the direct
evidences of evolution so the kids would even have trouble drawing their own
conclusions.
Of course, teaching Creation is against the rules. But unfortunately,
simply ignoring evolutionary sciences and/or the e-word itself is not. Much
better to have stupid kids than heathens, of course...
-Brian
TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING:
One year, one month, four days, 19 hours, 36 minutes and 49 seconds.
15992 cigarettes not smoked, saving $1,999.08.
Extra life saved: 7 weeks, 6 days, 12 hours, 40 minutes.
See my Sig File FAQ: http://pages.prodigy.net/briank.o/SigFAQ.htm
Mark VandeWettering
>In article <slrn9fukjh...@peewee.telescopemaking.org>, Mark
>VandeWettering says...
>>
>>On 13 May 2001 22:02:30 -0400, newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:
>>>In article <slrn9fudm1...@peewee.telescopemaking.org>, Mark
>>>VandeWettering says...
>>>>
>>>>On 13 May 2001 17:46:30 -0400, newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:
>>>>>Even a school that uses state monies can not be said to be
>>>>>"establishing" religion by not teaching evolution or even for
>>>>>teaching religion. Teaching is not establishing. Neither the teaching
>>>>>of a specific religious belief system nor comparative religion
>>>>>class can be construed as "establishing" a religion - and is so
>>>>>far off the intent of the amendment that the government can not
>>>>>establish a religion as to be obvious in the extreme.
>>>>
>>>>The Supreme Court of the United States does not agree with you.
>>>>
>>>But aren't they the ones that gave Bush the presidency?
>>
>>Pretty much, yeah. Is there a point to this?
>>
>You just made it with that comment.
The Supreme Court's job is to interpret the Constitution of the
United States. It is not very much of a stretch to say that they
actually define what the Constitution means. They stepped into
the election of President Bush and by their ruling effectively
ended any legal challenge that Gore could have mounted. I'm sure
you would like to read more into my original statement, but those
really are the facts.
>>>This another argument from authority?
>>
>>Well, in this case they _are_ the authority.
>>
>Thought so.
This is different from the usual case treated here in talk.origins.
In this case, the Supreme Court is specially empowered to act as the
final authority of what the Constitution means. Scientists cannot
define science by authority: nobody grants them that power. The
SCOTUS _does_ define the Constitution by their rulings, as they are
empowered to do so directly by the Constitution.
>>The meaning of the
>>United States Constitution is defined by the Supreme Court.
>>
>This from authority, or fact. The judiciary defined the meaning of the first
>amendment? Sure it was not Congress?
No, it was the SCOTUS. It is not the job of the legislative branch to
interpret law.
>If teaching about religion is unconstitutional, then what to do
>with money given to University and grant money given to students.
Can you express your question in the form of a question?
>Federal money *does* have a way of finding itself in the hands of
>the educational system.
That of course doesn't mean it is legal or constitutional. The federal
government isn't empowered to create public schools at all, so the fact
that money gets transferred to them from the federal government is an
interesting topic in and of itself.
>I am curious to know what you think constitutes "establishing".
What I think really doesn't matter, as I am not a Supreme Court Justice.
What the SCOTUS says does, and you might want to review some of these
cases to find out what they think contitutes "establishing".
A good list is at:
http://w3.trib.com/FACT/1st.religion.html
Interesting cases include, McCollum vs. BOE (1948), Engel vs. Vitale (1962),
Epperson vs. Arkansas (1968), Edwards vs. Aquillard (1987), and
Sante Fe Independent School District v. Doe (2000).
Brian O'Neill
news:dfJL6.77$6j3....@www.newsranger.com...
> >>>>Even a school that uses state monies can not be said to be
> >>>>"establishing" religion by not teaching evolution or even for
> >>>>teaching religion. Teaching is not establishing. Neither the teaching
> >>>>of a specific religious belief system nor comparative religion
> >>>>class can be construed as "establishing" a religion - and is so
> >>>>far off the intent of the amendment that the government can not
> >>>>establish a religion as to be obvious in the extreme.
> >>>The Supreme Court of the United States does not agree with you.
> >>But aren't they the ones that gave Bush the presidency?
> >Pretty much, yeah. Is there a point to this?
> You just made it with that comment.
No, he didn't. You brought this up, explain why it is relevant.
> >>This another argument from authority?
> >Well, in this case they _are_ the authority.
> Thought so.
> >The meaning of the
> >United States Constitution is defined by the Supreme Court.
> This from authority, or fact. The judiciary defined the meaning of the
first
> amendment? Sure it was not Congress?
Yes, he's sure.
Congress has the power to *create* constitutional law in the form of
amendments. The Supreme Court's job is to interpret how Constitutional Law
is enforced. As such, the statement as made is essentially correct.
An argument from authority is quite legitimate when they *are* the
authority.
You might want to check into our systems of checks and balances. I remember
seeing it on "Schoolhouse Rock" when I was seven.
> If teaching about religion is unconstitutional, then what to do with money
given
> to University and grant money given to students. Federal money *does* have
a way
> of finding itself in the hands of the educational system.
What on earth are you talking about?
> I am curious to know what you think constitutes "establishing".
What he thinks is irrelevant. There is a solid precedent going back to
Thomas Jefferson as to this matter. Read a book.
-Brian
TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING:
One year, one month, five days, 5 hours, 30 minutes and 51 seconds.
16009 cigarettes not smoked, saving $2,001.15.
Extra life saved: 7 weeks, 6 days, 14 hours, 5 minutes.
newbie
>
>newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message
>news:dfJL6.77$6j3....@www.newsranger.com...
>
>> >>>>Even a school that uses state monies can not be said to be
>> >>>>"establishing" religion by not teaching evolution or even for
>> >>>>teaching religion. Teaching is not establishing. Neither the teaching
>> >>>>of a specific religious belief system nor comparative religion
>> >>>>class can be construed as "establishing" a religion - and is so
>> >>>>far off the intent of the amendment that the government can not
>> >>>>establish a religion as to be obvious in the extreme.
>
>> >>>The Supreme Court of the United States does not agree with you.
>
>> >>But aren't they the ones that gave Bush the presidency?
>
>> >Pretty much, yeah. Is there a point to this?
>
>> You just made it with that comment.
>
>No, he didn't. You brought this up, explain why it is relevant.
>
>
>> >>This another argument from authority?
>
>> >Well, in this case they _are_ the authority.
>
>> Thought so.
>
>> >The meaning of the
>> >United States Constitution is defined by the Supreme Court.
>
>> This from authority, or fact. The judiciary defined the meaning of the
>first
>> amendment? Sure it was not Congress?
>
>Yes, he's sure.
>
>
>Congress has the power to *create* constitutional law in the form of
>amendments. The Supreme Court's job is to interpret how Constitutional Law
>is enforced. As such, the statement as made is essentially correct.
>
>
>An argument from authority is quite legitimate when they *are* the
>authority.
>
>You might want to check into our systems of checks and balances. I remember
>seeing it on "Schoolhouse Rock" when I was seven.
>
>> If teaching about religion is unconstitutional, then what to do with money
>given
>> to University and grant money given to students. Federal money *does* have
>a way
>> of finding itself in the hands of the educational system.
>
>What on earth are you talking about?
>
>
>> I am curious to know what you think constitutes "establishing".
>
>What he thinks is irrelevant.
>
>
>There is a solid precedent going back to
>Thomas Jefferson as to this matter. Read a book.
>
Dave Horn
>
> In article <9do1qp$7tf0$1...@newssvr05-en0.news.prodigy.com>, Brian O'Neill
says...
> >
> >newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message
> >news:dfJL6.77$6j3....@www.newsranger.com...
[Snip]
Let's remember that anyone who disagrees with Newbie sooner or later is
branded a liar.
> >You might want to check into our systems of checks and
> >balances. I remember seeing it on "Schoolhouse Rock"
> >when I was seven.
>
> I doubt that statement.
What reason does Newbie have for doubting this statement?
It's simple. Brian is disagreeing with him. Since Newbie cannot make an
intelligent counter argument, he must lay the groundwork so that he can
declare Brian to be a liar.
For what it's worth, I remember a "Schoolhouse Rock" segment that covered
this subject, as well.
I wonder when Newbie will get around to providing the evidence that
"strongly suggests" a component to life other than chemical processes.
While he's at it, perhaps Newbie will gnat-strain about my use of the word
"component." Then again, he also said that I had dishonestly "inserted" it
in his words. Of course, he is challenged to show where I did that, as
well.
But Newbie never answers challenges. He runs from them.
Mark VandeWettering
>In article <9do1qp$7tf0$1...@newssvr05-en0.news.prodigy.com>, Brian O'Neill says...
>>
>>newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message
>>news:dfJL6.77$6j3....@www.newsranger.com...
>>
>>> >>>>Even a school that uses state monies can not be said to be
>>> >>>>"establishing" religion by not teaching evolution or even for
>>> >>>>teaching religion. Teaching is not establishing. Neither the teaching
>>> >>>>of a specific religious belief system nor comparative religion
>>> >>>>class can be construed as "establishing" a religion - and is so
>>> >>>>far off the intent of the amendment that the government can not
>>> >>>>establish a religion as to be obvious in the extreme.
>>
>>> >>>The Supreme Court of the United States does not agree with you.
>>
>>> >>But aren't they the ones that gave Bush the presidency?
>>
>>> >Pretty much, yeah. Is there a point to this?
>>
>>> You just made it with that comment.
>>
>>No, he didn't. You brought this up, explain why it is relevant.
>>
>Yes, he did. Explain why you don't think it is relevant.
I don't know what point you are trying to make. I made the point
that the Supreme Court does not agree with your interpretation of
what "establishment" is. In retrospect, I can see what the point
of your diversion into the election of President Bush was: to try
to draw my personal political views into the discussion to further
cloud the issue.
The issue is nevertheless clear, and has nothing to do with my
personal views: the Supreme Court does not agree with your
interpretation of what "establishment" is.
>>> >>This another argument from authority?
>>
>>> >Well, in this case they _are_ the authority.
>>
>>> Thought so.
>>
>>> >The meaning of the
>>> >United States Constitution is defined by the Supreme Court.
>>
>>> This from authority, or fact. The judiciary defined the meaning of the
>>first
>>> amendment? Sure it was not Congress?
>>
>>Yes, he's sure.
>>
>Speak for yourself.
I'll speak for myself. I am sure.
>>Congress has the power to *create* constitutional law in the form of
>>amendments. The Supreme Court's job is to interpret how Constitutional Law
>>is enforced. As such, the statement as made is essentially correct.
>>
>Essentially, huh. Oddly enough, I agree with your statement about the Judiciary.
Actually, I would amend that statement. It is the job of the Executive to
enforce laws. The judiciary has no power to enforce laws, only to decide
cases (and thereby define what laws actually mean by establishing case law).
But my original statement is correct: the meaning of the Constitution
is defined by the Supreme Court. As there is no higher court to
appeal cases which are brought before the Supreme Court, that would seem
rather obvious.
>>
>>An argument from authority is quite legitimate when they *are* the
>>authority.
>>
>No. It does not mean they are right.
I never said that they were "right". But they are the final authority for
deciding what "establishing" religion is, and their rulings have been rather
consistently against the interpretation that you chose to present.
>>You might want to check into our systems of checks and balances. I remember
>>seeing it on "Schoolhouse Rock" when I was seven.
>>
>I doubt that statement.
Of course you do. But you have no rebuttal for it either.
>>> If teaching about religion is unconstitutional, then what to do with money
>>given
>>> to University and grant money given to students. Federal money *does* have
>>a way
>>> of finding itself in the hands of the educational system.
>>
>>What on earth are you talking about?
>>
>That green stuff that most schools get. Read the whole post before replying.
Try rereading it again. It is jibberish.
>>> I am curious to know what you think constitutes "establishing".
>>
>>What he thinks is irrelevant.
>>
>So what. I asked.
He is right. What I think doesn't really matter in any practical
sense. It is like asking "what do you think about being related
to apes?" What I think doesn't really matter. Humans are related
to apes. You can't pick your relatives. Get on with your life.
>>There is a solid precedent going back to
>>Thomas Jefferson as to this matter. Read a book.
>>
>And with that I leave you with your own advice.
Mark
newbie
VandeWettering says...
>
>On 14 May 2001 03:56:21 -0400, newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:
>>In article <9do1qp$7tf0$1...@newssvr05-en0.news.prodigy.com>, Brian O'Neill says...
>>>
>>>newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message
>>>news:dfJL6.77$6j3....@www.newsranger.com...
>>>
>>>> >>>>Even a school that uses state monies can not be said to be
>>>> >>>>"establishing" religion by not teaching evolution or even for
>>>> >>>>teaching religion. Teaching is not establishing. Neither the teaching
>>>> >>>>of a specific religious belief system nor comparative religion
>>>> >>>>class can be construed as "establishing" a religion - and is so
>>>> >>>>far off the intent of the amendment that the government can not
>>>> >>>>establish a religion as to be obvious in the extreme.
>>>
>>>> >>>The Supreme Court of the United States does not agree with you.
>>>
>>>> >>But aren't they the ones that gave Bush the presidency?
>>>
>>>> >Pretty much, yeah. Is there a point to this?
>>>
>>>> You just made it with that comment.
>>>
>>>No, he didn't. You brought this up, explain why it is relevant.
>>>
>>Yes, he did. Explain why you don't think it is relevant.
>
>I don't know what point you are trying to make. I made the point
>that the Supreme Court does not agree with your interpretation of
>what "establishment" is. In retrospect, I can see what the point
>of your diversion into the election of President Bush was: to try
>to draw my personal political views into the discussion to further
>cloud the issue.
>
Supreme Court "disagreeing" with me. Read "interpretation" to be interchangeable
with personal political view.
>
>The issue is nevertheless clear, and has nothing to do with my
>personal views: the Supreme Court does not agree with your
>interpretation of what "establishment" is.
>
>
>>>> >>This another argument from authority?
>>>
>>>> >Well, in this case they _are_ the authority.
>>>
>>>> Thought so.
>>>
>>>> >The meaning of the
>>>> >United States Constitution is defined by the Supreme Court.
>>>
>>>> This from authority, or fact. The judiciary defined the meaning of the
>>>first
>>>> amendment? Sure it was not Congress?
>>>
>>>Yes, he's sure.
>>>
>>Speak for yourself.
>
>I'll speak for myself. I am sure.
>
if pressed to answer why. You would accuse me of it.
>
>>>Congress has the power to *create* constitutional law in the form of
>>>amendments. The Supreme Court's job is to interpret how Constitutional Law
>>>is enforced. As such, the statement as made is essentially correct.
>>>
>>Essentially, huh. Oddly enough, I agree with your statement about the Judiciary.
>
>Actually, I would amend that statement. It is the job of the Executive to
>enforce laws. The judiciary has no power to enforce laws, only to decide
>cases (and thereby define what laws actually mean by establishing case law).
>
>
>But my original statement is correct: the meaning of the Constitution
>is defined by the Supreme Court. As there is no higher court to
>appeal cases which are brought before the Supreme Court, that would seem
>rather obvious.
>
correct.
>
>>>
>>>An argument from authority is quite legitimate when they *are* the
>>>authority.
>>>
>>No. It does not mean they are right.
>
>I never said that they were "right". But they are the final authority for
>deciding what "establishing" religion is, and their rulings have been rather
>consistently against the interpretation that you chose to present.
>
might as well have said that they are the final authority for deciding what the
intent of laws are and no one can stop them.
>>>You might want to check into our systems of checks and balances. I remember
>>>seeing it on "Schoolhouse Rock" when I was seven.
>>>
>>I doubt that statement.
>
>Of course you do. But you have no rebuttal for it either.
>
>
>>>> If teaching about religion is unconstitutional, then what to do with money
>>>given
>>>> to University and grant money given to students. Federal money *does* have
>>>a way
>>>> of finding itself in the hands of the educational system.
>>>
>>>What on earth are you talking about?
>>>
>>That green stuff that most schools get. Read the whole post before replying.
>
>Try rereading it again. It is jibberish.
>
you don't see how many patterns there are - one of them is your's)
>
>>>> I am curious to know what you think constitutes "establishing".
>>>
>>>What he thinks is irrelevant.
>>>
>>So what. I asked.
>
>He is right. What I think doesn't really matter in any practical
>sense.
>
then here take issue with being asked what your opinion was? The Supreme Court
has been divided over this issue, as has/is the country. And it doesn't matter
to me whether you think some rulings have shown they disagree with me, my point
still stands. Your citing case law is not a refutation.
>
>It is like asking "what do you think about being related
>to apes?" What I think doesn't really matter. Humans are related
>to apes. You can't pick your relatives. Get on with your life.
>
>
>>>There is a solid precedent going back to
>>>Thomas Jefferson as to this matter. Read a book.
>>>
>>And with that I leave you with your own advice.
>
Al Petterson
LoRezMe wrote:
> Three years ago they wanted
> to introduce full on fundie textbooks (anyone ever hear of ABeka
> texts?) for their history courses and some of the nonfundie parents
> objected so they had to leave off with that idea.
I hadn't heard of them. Did a websearch and found www.abeka.com.
I experienced the reaction of a passerby observing a train wreck or
Pauly Shore movie. I found it difficult to look away.
The following quotes are from their online 7-12 science catalog, and are
representative of the content of the catalog:
"Students begin their study with a section on astronomy, in which they
learn how the heavens proclaim the glory of God."
"The text closes with a chapter on science versus the false philosophy
on education."
"The geology section includes a good refutation of the 'principle of
uniformity' and other ideas of evolutionary philosophers."
"Thoroughly Christian in perspective and tone / Truly nonevolutionary in
philosophy, spirit, and sequence of study."
"Environmental issues such as ozone depletion, global warming, and
nuclear power are presented from a balanced, conservative perspective."
"Interspersed throughout the text are biographies of great physicists
who were also Bible-believing Christians."
I suppose I knew things like this must exist. This is... words fail
me.
--
"See that? That's the Moon. A long time ago, we used to go there."
pz
wrote:
> LoRezMe wrote:
> > Three years ago they wanted
> > to introduce full on fundie textbooks (anyone ever hear of ABeka
> > texts?) for their history courses and some of the nonfundie parents
> > objected so they had to leave off with that idea.
>
> I hadn't heard of them. Did a websearch and found www.abeka.com.
>
> I experienced the reaction of a passerby observing a train wreck or
> Pauly Shore movie. I found it difficult to look away.
Ditto. I found myself simultaneously appalled and acutely interested in
ordering one of their books.
>
> The following quotes are from their online 7-12 science catalog, and are
> representative of the content of the catalog:
>
> "Students begin their study with a section on astronomy, in which they
> learn how the heavens proclaim the glory of God."
>
> "The text closes with a chapter on science versus the false philosophy
> on education."
You mean "evolution", not "education".
>
> "The geology section includes a good refutation of the 'principle of
> uniformity' and other ideas of evolutionary philosophers."
>
> "Thoroughly Christian in perspective and tone / Truly nonevolutionary in
> philosophy, spirit, and sequence of study."
>
> "Environmental issues such as ozone depletion, global warming, and
> nuclear power are presented from a balanced, conservative perspective."
Yeah, and we get "a christian perspective" on chemistry. I'm not sure
what that means, but it worries me.
>
> "Interspersed throughout the text are biographies of great physicists
> who were also Bible-believing Christians."
>
> I suppose I knew things like this must exist. This is... words fail
> me.
I feel so sorry for the kids who get taught this garbage.
--
pz
Ken Cox
> Al Petterson <aa...@oro.net> wrote:
> > I hadn't heard of them. Did a websearch and found www.abeka.com.
[snip much]
> Yeah, and we get "a christian perspective" on chemistry. I'm not sure
> what that means, but it worries me.
Ah, but you at least had some years experience with the
creationist mindset on talk.origins. I fear that most
scientists will be taken completely by surprise when
their own oxen start getting gored.
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
Nathan Urban
> Yeah, and we get "a christian perspective" on chemistry. I'm not sure
> what that means, but it worries me.
Forget that, what about "Christian" *mathematics*??
http://www.messiah.edu/acdept/depthome/mathsci/acms/bibliog.htm
A Beka Book Publications
1983 Traditional arithmetic for Christian schools
News release. Jan 1983: 1.
A Beka Book Publications; Pensacola Christian College.
*
Stresses absolutes, concrete facts, drill for training; ``set theory
has done to ... mathematics what the theory of evolution has done to
... science.'' [GBC]
More amusement (mostly old books):
Alberda, Willis
1975 What is number?
Pro Rege 3, 3, Mar 1975:2-8, Dordt College
Professor of Mathematics, Dordt College(sa)
*
Number is an irreducible aspect of God's creation, subject to law, with
existence independent of human thought, which we apprehend intuitively,
and use to God's glory. [GBC]
Brondsema, John; Hoeksema, Klaas; Lanning, Arthur; Likkel, Gerrit; Vanden Hock,
John
1958 Mathematics Curriculum Guide
Grand Rapids, MI: National Union of Christian Schools [now Christian Schools International], 38
p+biblio.
?
Revised version of National Union of Christian Schools [1953],
though still written from the perspective of ``old math''; for
later revisions see Boonstra [1971] and Boonstra et al. [1982]. ``A
deliberate attempt to help the teacher present mathematics from the
Christian viewpoint.'' Relates mathematical ideas to God as their
source. Children should learn to praise the Creator through their
study of mathematics. [CJ]
Fakkema, Mark
1940? The Christian way of teaching arithmetic
Christian Philosophy and its Educational Implications
Book 3, Chapter 5: 78-81
Chicago, IL: National Association of Christian Schools, ca. 1940
Educational Director of National Association of Christian Schools
*
True motivation for learning mathematics is man's desire to be God's
image-bearer, to do as God ``the Master Mathematician,'' to discover
abstract concepts that God has thought before him. Mathematics reveals
the eternal existence and various attributes of God. Redeemed man
alone can honor God through mathematics. [CJ]
Fritz, Henry J
1955 Mathematics and the humanities
Catholic Educator 26, Oct 1955: 130-131, 144
Marycliffe Novitiate, Glencoe MO
?
The content of mathematics is practical; its method is good mental
training. It points to the Creator in its orderly procedure,
in its unitary principles, and in its clarity (clear because
abstract). However, it is a danger to the brilliant: ``The very light
shed by mathematics makes them blind to any other light.'' (131) [GBC]
Hengstman, Albert
1970 Mathematics in the Christian school
Christian Home and School, Jan 1970: 13,27
*
Christians can see God's greatness in mathematics. They know that
mathematical results are certain because of God's laws and faithfulness
to his creation. Doing mathematics Christianly focuses on God's role
and adopts an attitude of humility. Mathematics, together with the
rest of the curriculum, must form one ``family of knowledge.'' [CJ]
Keister, J C
1982 Math and the Bible
The Trinity Review 27, Sep-Oct 1982: 1-3
Professor of Physics, Covenant College
*
An attempt to use the Bible to generate and validate the axiomatic
foundations of mathematics, particularly the axioms for arithmetic. [CJ]
Lay, Stephen R
1973 Relating mathematics and the Christian faith
In: Christian College Consortium [1973]
Professor of Mathematics, Aurora College (sa)
* 7p ms 8/24/73
There is a reciprocal interplay between mathematics and
Christianity. The former needs the latter to be grounded in truth;
the latter benefits from the former because mathematics teaches us to
distrust our mere senses. [GBC]
LeMieux, Louis A
1950 Christ-centered teaching of science and mathematics
Catholic School Journal 50, Apr 1950: 121-123
Head, Department of Chemistry, Marquette University High School, Milwaukee WI
*
Mathematics is Christ-centered rather than secular when it is done
well, with gratitude toward God, enriching and clarifying faith,
pointing beyond laws to the Lawgiver. [GBC]
Neuhouser, David L
1973a Understanding 'proofs' in mathematics and faith
Universitas 1, 8, May 1973: 1,3,4
Chairman & Professor of Mathematics, Taylor University(a)
*
Just as a mathematician does not discard a model because of paradoxes,
neither should a Christian disregard the Bible in the face of
paradoxes. Compare his [1979]. [GBC]
O'Toole, G Barry
1944 Physical mathematics and mathematical metaphysics
Catholic Educational Review 42, May 1944: 257-270
?
Mathematics is neither transcendent (metaphysical) nor sensible
(physical). Modern algebra invades metaphysics by predicating things
of predicates or by claiming that 0 is a number. Modern non-Euclidean
geometries invade the physical, leading to nominalism. Recommends a
return to Euclid: definitions are analyses of concepts, postulates
are evident possibilities, axioms are statements of necessary
relations. None of the three are ``assumptions'' per current
``relativistic sophistry.'' [GBC]
Riordan, James T, S.J.
1964 Is there a Christian mathematics?
Catholic Educational Review 62, Sep 1964: 361-368
Loyola Seminary, Shrub Oak, NY
*
Mathematics is a sign, like a sacrament, pointing beyond itself
(the eschatological emphasis), and an art worthwhile in itself (the
incarnational emphasis). 2000 years from now the Church may be the
guardian of mathematics to the same degree that it preserved the
treasures of the classic era in the past. [GBC]
Sullivan, Helen, O.S.B.
1947 Mathematics for women
http://www.messiah.edu/acdept/depthome/mathsci/acms/bibliog.htm
Catholic Educational Review 45, Mar 1947: 160-165
?
God made women different from men, so we should teach them mathematics
differently--as a liberal art, yes, but with emphasis on the universal,
not the specialized; the concrete, not the abstract; the aesthetic,
not the practical. [GBC]
Zimmerman, Larry L
1980 Mathematics: is God silent? Parts I, II, III
The Biblical Educator 2, 1-3, Jan, Feb, Mar, 1980.
Institute for Christian Economics, 1007 E. North St., Anaheim, CA 92805
*
If mathematics is a free artistic creation, why are important
discoveries like calculus often simultaneous? why is it so useful? Only
a theistic view has accounted for it. Mathematics deals with truths,
not just logical validity. Its beauty reflects its Creator. [GBC]
Mark VandeWettering
Are you actually claiming that the SCOTUS agrees with your interpretation
of what "establishing" is? I think the evidence argues against that.
>>The issue is nevertheless clear, and has nothing to do with my
>>personal views: the Supreme Court does not agree with your
>>interpretation of what "establishment" is.
>>
>And the band plays on.
Translation: "I can't make a real argument, so I'll pretend like
I did, and maybe nobody will notice just how vacant my position
is."
>>
>>>>> >>This another argument from authority?
>>>>
>>>>> >Well, in this case they _are_ the authority.
>>>>
>>>>> Thought so.
>>>>
>>>>> >The meaning of the
>>>>> >United States Constitution is defined by the Supreme Court.
>>>>
>>>>> This from authority, or fact. The judiciary defined the meaning of the
>>>>first
>>>>> amendment? Sure it was not Congress?
>>>>
>>>>Yes, he's sure.
>>>>
>>>Speak for yourself.
>>
>>I'll speak for myself. I am sure.
>>
>Of course you would not "nit-pick" about the definitions of defined
>and meaning if pressed to answer why. You would accuse me of it.
It amuses me how often you attempt to turn discussions to center
around yourself newbie. The fact of the matter is that neither
your views nor my views define what "establishing of religion" is:
only the Supreme Court's views matter. That is not a matter of
opinion: that is just a matter of law. You can argue that it is
not "good", but it is correct. How you feel about the SCOTUS isn't
particularly relevent.
>>
>>>>Congress has the power to *create* constitutional law in the form of
>>>>amendments. The Supreme Court's job is to interpret how Constitutional Law
>>>>is enforced. As such, the statement as made is essentially correct.
>>>>
>>>Essentially, huh. Oddly enough, I agree with your statement about the Judiciary.
>>
>>Actually, I would amend that statement. It is the job of the Executive to
>>enforce laws. The judiciary has no power to enforce laws, only to decide
>>cases (and thereby define what laws actually mean by establishing case law).
>>
>Wow. Now case law determines the meaning of laws. Wow.
Of course it does. Is this news to you?
>>But my original statement is correct: the meaning of the Constitution
>>is defined by the Supreme Court. As there is no higher court to
>>appeal cases which are brought before the Supreme Court, that would seem
>>rather obvious.
>>
>You argue in support of your own interpretation with no further support it is
>correct.
Read a high school civics text.
>>>>An argument from authority is quite legitimate when they *are* the
>>>>authority.
>>>>
>>>No. It does not mean they are right.
>>
>>I never said that they were "right". But they are the final authority for
>>deciding what "establishing" religion is, and their rulings have been rather
>>consistently against the interpretation that you chose to present.
>>
>I wouldn't argue with this, because of the way you chose your words. Though you
>might as well have said that they are the final authority for deciding what the
>intent of laws are and no one can stop them.
That is pretty much true as well, as their appointments are for life, and the
removal of Supreme Court Justices is pretty difficult.
>>>>You might want to check into our systems of checks and balances. I remember
>>>>seeing it on "Schoolhouse Rock" when I was seven.
>>>>
>>>I doubt that statement.
>>
>>Of course you do. But you have no rebuttal for it either.
>>
>Yes I do. I doubted the statement.
I'm not suprised that you think that personal doubt is a rebuttal.
Of course, that doesn't make it rebuttal.
>>>>> If teaching about religion is unconstitutional, then what to do with money
>>>>given
>>>>> to University and grant money given to students. Federal money *does* have
>>>>a way
>>>>> of finding itself in the hands of the educational system.
>>>>
>>>>What on earth are you talking about?
>>>>
>>>That green stuff that most schools get. Read the whole post before replying.
>>
>>Try rereading it again. It is jibberish.
>>
>You do the same. It is not jibberish. ( you are seeing a pattern here, except
>you don't see how many patterns there are - one of them is your's)
Look at the sentence:
NEWBIE> If teaching about religion is unconstitutional, then what to do
NEWBIE> with money given to University and grant money given to students.
There is a missing verb in the second clause.
>>>>> I am curious to know what you think constitutes "establishing".
>>>>
>>>>What he thinks is irrelevant.
>>>>
>>>So what. I asked.
>>
>>He is right. What I think doesn't really matter in any practical
>>sense.
>>
>Then why did you give your opinion in the first place about the Supreme Court
>then here take issue with being asked what your opinion was? The Supreme Court
>has been divided over this issue, as has/is the country. And it doesn't matter
>to me whether you think some rulings have shown they disagree with me, my point
>still stands. Your citing case law is not a refutation.
Uh, yes it is. The SCOTUS has ruled what establishing of religion entails.
It differs signicantly from your description. Their opinion establishes the
meaning of law. Your opinion is.. well... your opinion.
>>It is like asking "what do you think about being related
>>to apes?" What I think doesn't really matter. Humans are related
>>to apes. You can't pick your relatives. Get on with your life.
>>
>Blah blah blah.
No real response? I'm not surprised.
>>>>There is a solid precedent going back to
>>>>Thomas Jefferson as to this matter. Read a book.
>>>>
>>>And with that I leave you with your own advice.
>>
>And do you agree about this solid precedent in this implied context?
Of course there is.
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by newbie <nos...@newsranger.com>:
>In article <slrn9fudm1...@peewee.telescopemaking.org>, Mark
>VandeWettering says...
>>
>>On 13 May 2001 17:46:30 -0400, newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:
>>>Even a school that uses state monies can not be said to be
>>>"establishing" religion by not teaching evolution or even for
>>>teaching religion. Teaching is not establishing. Neither the teaching
>>>of a specific religious belief system nor comparative religion
>>>class can be construed as "establishing" a religion - and is so
>>>far off the intent of the amendment that the government can not
>>>establish a religion as to be obvious in the extreme.
>>
>>The Supreme Court of the United States does not agree with you.
>>
>But aren't they the ones that gave Bush the presidency?
No.
>>
>This another argument from authority?
Er, you really don't know what that means, do you?
Andrew Glasgow
<http://www.ozyandmillie.org/d/20010427.html>
<http://www.ozyandmillie.org/d/20010428.html>
<http://www.ozyandmillie.org/d/20010430.html>
<http://www.ozyandmillie.org/d/20010501.html>
--
| Andrew Glasgow <amg39(at)cornell.edu> |
| SCSI is *NOT* magic. There are *fundamental technical |
| reasons* why it is necessary to sacrifice a young goat |
| to your SCSI chain now and then. -- John Woods |
pz
nur...@crib.corepower.com (Nathan Urban) wrote:
Urk. OK, you've convinced me -- creationists are idiots.
--
pz
newbie
>
>On 13 May 2001 22:02:30 -0400, the following appeared in
>talk.origins, posted by newbie <nos...@newsranger.com>:
>
>>In article <slrn9fudm1...@peewee.telescopemaking.org>, Mark
>>VandeWettering says...
>>>
>>>On 13 May 2001 17:46:30 -0400, newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:
>>>>Even a school that uses state monies can not be said to be
>>>>"establishing" religion by not teaching evolution or even for
>>>>teaching religion. Teaching is not establishing. Neither the teaching
>>>>of a specific religious belief system nor comparative religion
>>>>class can be construed as "establishing" a religion - and is so
>>>>far off the intent of the amendment that the government can not
>>>>establish a religion as to be obvious in the extreme.
>>>
>>>The Supreme Court of the United States does not agree with you.
>>>
>>But aren't they the ones that gave Bush the presidency?
>
>No.
>
>>>
>>This another argument from authority?
>
>Er, you really don't know what that means, do you?
>
newbie
Obviously you are not trying to understand what my claim is.
>>>The issue is nevertheless clear, and has nothing to do with my
>>>personal views: the Supreme Court does not agree with your
>>>interpretation of what "establishment" is.
>>>
>>And the band plays on.
>
>Translation: "I can't make a real argument, so I'll pretend like
>I did, and maybe nobody will notice just how vacant my position
>is."
>
with me?
>
>>>
>>>>>> >>This another argument from authority?
>>>>>
>>>>>> >Well, in this case they _are_ the authority.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Thought so.
>>>>>
>>>>>> >The meaning of the
>>>>>> >United States Constitution is defined by the Supreme Court.
>>>>>
>>>>>> This from authority, or fact. The judiciary defined the meaning of the
>>>>>first
>>>>>> amendment? Sure it was not Congress?
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes, he's sure.
>>>>>
>>>>Speak for yourself.
>>>
>>>I'll speak for myself. I am sure.
>>>
>>Of course you would not "nit-pick" about the definitions of defined
>>and meaning if pressed to answer why. You would accuse me of it.
>
>It amuses me how often you attempt to turn discussions to center
>around yourself newbie. The fact of the matter is that neither
>your views nor my views define what "establishing of religion" is:
>only the Supreme Court's views matter. That is not a matter of
>opinion: that is just a matter of law. You can argue that it is
>not "good", but it is correct. How you feel about the SCOTUS isn't
>particularly relevent.
>
>>>
>>>>>Congress has the power to *create* constitutional law in the form of
>>>>>amendments. The Supreme Court's job is to interpret how Constitutional Law
>>>>>is enforced. As such, the statement as made is essentially correct.
>>>>>
>>>>Essentially, huh. Oddly enough, I agree with your statement about the Judiciary.
>>>
>>>Actually, I would amend that statement. It is the job of the Executive to
>>>enforce laws. The judiciary has no power to enforce laws, only to decide
>>>cases (and thereby define what laws actually mean by establishing case law).
>>>
>>Wow. Now case law determines the meaning of laws. Wow.
>
>Of course it does. Is this news to you?
>
to interpret the constitution the way it was intended by the framers. You may
say that the SC determines the meaning, but that is a generalized and confusing
statement.
>>>But my original statement is correct: the meaning of the Constitution
>>>is defined by the Supreme Court. As there is no higher court to
>>>appeal cases which are brought before the Supreme Court, that would seem
>>>rather obvious.
>>>
>>You argue in support of your own interpretation with no further support it is
>>correct.
>
>Read a high school civics text.
>
>
>>>>>An argument from authority is quite legitimate when they *are* the
>>>>>authority.
>>>>>
>>>>No. It does not mean they are right.
>>>
>>>I never said that they were "right". But they are the final authority for
>>>deciding what "establishing" religion is, and their rulings have been rather
>>>consistently against the interpretation that you chose to present.
>>>
>>I wouldn't argue with this, because of the way you chose your words. Though you
>>might as well have said that they are the final authority for deciding what the
>>intent of laws are and no one can stop them.
>
>That is pretty much true as well, as their appointments are for life, and the
>removal of Supreme Court Justices is pretty difficult.
>
>
>>>>>You might want to check into our systems of checks and balances. I remember
>>>>>seeing it on "Schoolhouse Rock" when I was seven.
>>>>>
>>>>I doubt that statement.
>>>
>>>Of course you do. But you have no rebuttal for it either.
>>>
>>Yes I do. I doubted the statement.
>
>I'm not suprised that you think that personal doubt is a rebuttal.
>Of course, that doesn't make it rebuttal.
>
>
>>>>>> If teaching about religion is unconstitutional, then what to do with money
>>>>>given
>>>>>> to University and grant money given to students. Federal money *does* have
>>>>>a way
>>>>>> of finding itself in the hands of the educational system.
>>>>>
>>>>>What on earth are you talking about?
>>>>>
>>>>That green stuff that most schools get. Read the whole post before replying.
>>>
>>>Try rereading it again. It is jibberish.
>>>
>>You do the same. It is not jibberish. ( you are seeing a pattern here, except
>>you don't see how many patterns there are - one of them is your's)
>
>Look at the sentence:
>
>NEWBIE> If teaching about religion is unconstitutional, then what to do
>NEWBIE> with money given to University and grant money given to students.
>
>There is a missing verb in the second clause.
>
>
>>>>>> I am curious to know what you think constitutes "establishing".
>>>>>
>>>>>What he thinks is irrelevant.
>>>>>
>>>>So what. I asked.
>>>
>>>He is right. What I think doesn't really matter in any practical
>>>sense.
>>>
>>Then why did you give your opinion in the first place about the Supreme Court
>>then here take issue with being asked what your opinion was? The Supreme Court
>>has been divided over this issue, as has/is the country. And it doesn't matter
>>to me whether you think some rulings have shown they disagree with me, my point
>>still stands. Your citing case law is not a refutation.
>
>Uh, yes it is. The SCOTUS has ruled what establishing of religion entails.
>
>
>It differs signicantly from your description. Their opinion establishes the
>meaning of law. Your opinion is.. well... your opinion.
>
>
>>>It is like asking "what do you think about being related
>>>to apes?" What I think doesn't really matter. Humans are related
>>>to apes. You can't pick your relatives. Get on with your life.
>>>
>>Blah blah blah.
>
>No real response? I'm not surprised.
>
>
>>>>>There is a solid precedent going back to
>>>>>Thomas Jefferson as to this matter. Read a book.
>>>>>
>>>>And with that I leave you with your own advice.
>>>
>>And do you agree about this solid precedent in this implied context?
>
>Of course there is.
>
>
http://members.aol.com/larrypahl/estab1.htm
Adam Marczyk
news:9dpi8m$mbq$1...@crib.corepower.com...
> In article <myers-4DB0EC....@news.onvoy.net>, pz
<my...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> > Yeah, and we get "a christian perspective" on chemistry. I'm not sure
> > what that means, but it worries me.
>
> Forget that, what about "Christian" *mathematics*??
I think that's what Erik used on his spreadsheet. You know, the kind of
mathematics that proves evolution is impossible.
[snip]
--
When I am dreaming,
I don't know if I'm truly asleep, or if I'm awake.
When I get up,
I don't know if I'm truly awake, or if I'm still dreaming...
--Forest for the Trees, "Dream"
To send e-mail, change "excite" to "hotmail"
Mark VandeWettering
[ Classic newbie stripped ]
Sorry, I am not going to subject myself to another newbie thread. The
tactics of avoid and counterattack are just too childish for words. I
may not have something much better to do with my time, but I am willing
to bet that with some effort I could find something.
Alturalan
RE: >"a christian perspective" on chemistry. I'm not sure
>> > what that means, but it worries me.
>>
>> Forget that, what about "Christian" *mathematics*??
Well, cripes, I had a Catholic math book in Junior High, believe it or no.
despite the fact that math is universal and non-sectarian. Somehow, a
"Christian perspective on chemistry" reminds me of a line from "1984": "Chess
and its Relations to Ingsoc."
How many chem labs did Jesus go to? Is that how he learned to turn water into
wine?
-- K-Man
Adam Marczyk
news:20010515002759...@ng-bh1.aol.com...
Personally, I think it was some form of cold fusion.
newbie
VandeWettering says...
>
>On 14 May 2001 20:11:17 -0400, newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:
>
>[ Classic newbie stripped ]
>
>Sorry, I am not going to subject myself to another newbie thread. The
>
there has not been a clear precedent concerning establishment of religion.
>
>tactics of avoid and counterattack are just too childish for words. I
>
>
>may not have something much better to do with my time, but I am willing
>to bet that with some effort I could find something.
>
did in this thread.
>
Mark V.: You are wrong. Supreme Court says so. End of story.
>
Very interesting, Mark.
Dave Horn
[Snip]
If one removes Mark's comments, one would remove the only meaningful
contribution to this exchange. So there really is no point in quoted
Newbie's rantings. Let's just remind him of a few things from which he,
that is, Glenn (I never run from argument) Sheldon has left unanswered:
What is the evidence that "strongly suggests" that there is a component to
life other than chemical processes?
What is the "science" to "creation 'science?'"
How did science reveal the Piltdown hoax and fail to use the scientific
method while doing so?
What "laws of matter" does life fail to obey (and how)?
There appears to have been a recent admission that there is no evidence that
"wilderness_voice" lied when he said he had a masters in Bible and held a
pastorate. Why, then, was this person addressed and stigmatized as having
lied?
What is the evidence that "Just Another Lurker" is a mental patient named
"George?"
How can one read a summary of a book that included specific identification
of a chapter titled, "biogeography" and then later claim that the impression
left is that there is "no chapter entitled as such."
These and other questions will not go away.
But Newbie will run away...again...
Dave Horn
[Snip]
Let's remember that anyone who disagrees with Newbie sooner or later is
branded a liar.
> >You might want to check into our systems of checks and
> >balances. I remember seeing it on "Schoolhouse Rock"
> >when I was seven.
>
> I doubt that statement.
What reason does Newbie have for doubting this statement?
wilkins
> Alturalan <altu...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20010515002759...@ng-bh1.aol.com...
> > >Subject: Re: ABeka books (was: Another new poster)
> >
> > RE: >"a christian perspective" on chemistry. I'm not sure
> > >> > what that means, but it worries me.
> > >>
> > >> Forget that, what about "Christian" *mathematics*??
> >
> > Well, cripes, I had a Catholic math book in Junior High, believe it or no.
> > despite the fact that math is universal and non-sectarian. Somehow, a
> > "Christian perspective on chemistry" reminds me of a line from "1984":
> "Chess
> > and its Relations to Ingsoc."
> >
> > How many chem labs did Jesus go to? Is that how he learned to turn water
> into
> > wine?
>
> Personally, I think it was some form of cold fusion.
>
Rubbish. All you have to do is put the water on vines, then squeeze the
result and add fermenting bacteria. Simple...
--
John Wilkins, Head, Communication Services, The Walter and Eliza Hall
Institute of Medical Research, Melbourne, Australia
Homo homini aut deus aut lupus - Erasmus of Rotterdam
<http://www.users.bigpond.com/thewilkins/darwiniana.html>
David Jensen
newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in
<dfJL6.77$6j3....@www.newsranger.com>:
>This from authority, or fact. The judiciary defined the meaning of the first
>amendment? Sure it was not Congress?
All of the Federal Government (and via the fourteenth amendment the
states) are constrained by the Constitution. Congress should keep those
constraints in mind while passing laws. Presidents should keep those
constraints in mind while signing or vetoing them. The last defense
against unconstitutional behavior by the government is the Supreme Court
and their decisions are generally accepted by Congress and the
President.
Paul J. Gans
It's almost too bad that the Good Professor isn't here to explain
to use exactly why we are evil for worrying about books such as
these....
----- Paul J. Gans
PS: For those of you who care, he currently lives over on soc.
history.medieval where he's on "posting break" at present.
Ferrous Patella
says...
>
>Adam Marczyk <ebon...@excite.com> wrote:
>
>> Alturalan <altu...@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:20010515002759...@ng-bh1.aol.com...
>> > >Subject: Re: ABeka books (was: Another new poster)
>> >
>> > RE: >"a christian perspective" on chemistry. I'm not sure
>> > >> > what that means, but it worries me.
>> > >>
>> > >> Forget that, what about "Christian" *mathematics*??
>> >
>> > Well, cripes, I had a Catholic math book in Junior High, believe it or
no.
>> > despite the fact that math is universal and non-sectarian. Somehow, a
>> > "Christian perspective on chemistry" reminds me of a line from "1984":
>> "Chess
>> > and its Relations to Ingsoc."
>> >
>> > How many chem labs did Jesus go to? Is that how he learned to turn water
>> into
>> > wine?
>>
>> Personally, I think it was some form of cold fusion.
>>
>Rubbish. All you have to do is put the water on vines, then squeeze the
>result and add fermenting bacteria. Simple...
Real question: Yeasties aren't bacteria, are they? or What is the taxonomy of
yeasts.
>--
>John Wilkins, Head, Communication Services, The Walter and Eliza Hall
>Institute of Medical Research, Melbourne, Australia
--
Ferrous Patella
who's working through the encylopedia and hasn't gotten to zymurgy yet.
Ken Cox
> >>This another argument from authority?
> >Er, you really don't know what that means, do you?
> Er, you really are not asking, are you?
Probably not. It's clear from the way that you use the
phrase that you don't know what "argument from authority"
means.
I congratulate you on your ability to recognize a
rhetorical question, though.
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
Andrew Glasgow
wil...@wehi.edu.au (wilkins) wrote:
> Adam Marczyk <ebon...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> > Alturalan <altu...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:20010515002759...@ng-bh1.aol.com...
> > > >Subject: Re: ABeka books (was: Another new poster)
> > >
> > > RE: >"a christian perspective" on chemistry. I'm not sure
> > > >> > what that means, but it worries me.
> > > >>
> > > >> Forget that, what about "Christian" *mathematics*??
> > >
> > > Well, cripes, I had a Catholic math book in Junior High, believe it or no.
> > > despite the fact that math is universal and non-sectarian. Somehow, a
> > > "Christian perspective on chemistry" reminds me of a line from "1984":
> > "Chess
> > > and its Relations to Ingsoc."
> > >
> > > How many chem labs did Jesus go to? Is that how he learned to turn water
> > into
> > > wine?
> >
> > Personally, I think it was some form of cold fusion.
> >
> Rubbish. All you have to do is put the water on vines, then squeeze the
> result and add fermenting bacteria. Simple...
Yeasts are FUNGI, you heathen!
Paul J. Gans
>> Alturalan <altu...@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:20010515002759...@ng-bh1.aol.com...
>> > >Subject: Re: ABeka books (was: Another new poster)
>> >
>> > RE: >"a christian perspective" on chemistry. I'm not sure
>> > >> > what that means, but it worries me.
>> > >>
>> > >> Forget that, what about "Christian" *mathematics*??
>> >
>> > Well, cripes, I had a Catholic math book in Junior High, believe it or no.
>> > despite the fact that math is universal and non-sectarian. Somehow, a
>> > "Christian perspective on chemistry" reminds me of a line from "1984":
>> "Chess
>> > and its Relations to Ingsoc."
>> >
>> > How many chem labs did Jesus go to? Is that how he learned to turn water
>> into
>> > wine?
>>
>> Personally, I think it was some form of cold fusion.
>>
> Rubbish. All you have to do is put the water on vines, then squeeze the
> result and add fermenting bacteria. Simple...
In many locales you don't even have to add the ferment. God
takes care of that...
---- Paul J. Gans
Bob Casanova
Not really. The fact that you could ask that particular
question in this particular context told me that the
inevitable answer to my question was "No". HTH
Thomas Griffin
Bob Casanova wrote:
> On 14 May 2001 19:57:25 -0400, the following appeared in
> talk.origins, posted by newbie <nos...@newsranger.com>:
>
> >In article <b4l0gtkdl14qn71li...@4ax.com>, Bob Casanova says...
> >>
> >>On 13 May 2001 22:02:30 -0400, the following appeared in
> >>talk.origins, posted by newbie <nos...@newsranger.com>:
> >>
> >>>In article <slrn9fudm1...@peewee.telescopemaking.org>, Mark
> >>>VandeWettering says...
> >>>>
> >>>>On 13 May 2001 17:46:30 -0400, newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:
> >>>>>Even a school that uses state monies can not be said to be
> >>>>>"establishing" religion by not teaching evolution or even for
> >>>>>teaching religion. Teaching is not establishing. Neither the teaching
> >>>>>of a specific religious belief system nor comparative religion
> >>>>>class can be construed as "establishing" a religion - and is so
> >>>>>far off the intent of the amendment that the government can not
> >>>>>establish a religion as to be obvious in the extreme.
All children must go to school, by law. Those shcools must meet certain minimum
standards in specified core subjects.
One of those subjects is biology. There is no basis whatever for the exclusion of
evolution other than religiously motivated attempts to suppress information that
conflicts with specific religious views. Therefore, to exclude evolution is to use
gov sponsored facilities and the force of gov laws requiring school attendence to
promote a specific religious viewpoint thru the intentful exclusion of other
viewpoints.
Nathan Urban
> All children must go to school, by law.
Not true.
> Those shcools must meet certain minimum standards in specified core subjects.
> One of those subjects is biology.
Sometimes there are minimum standards in biology. Sometimes not.
Sometimes these standards include evolutionary theory. Sometimes not.
> There is no basis whatever for the exclusion of
> evolution other than religiously motivated attempts to suppress information
No, they could just choose not to teach it. In _practice_, it tends to
be just the religious nuts who want to exclude it, but there's no law
against excluding any specific topic, unless state standards mandate its
inclusion. There's certainly no _Constitutional_ reason why evolution
can't be excluded.
There are plenty of normal, honest-to-goodness secular public schools that
don't teach evolution. It's not even that they have a religious agenda.
It's just their way of avoiding the whole controversy.
> Therefore, to exclude evolution is to use
> gov sponsored facilities and the force of gov laws requiring school
> attendence to promote a specific religious viewpoint
No, that is nonsense. Even if evolution were excluded solely because
of religious politics, that is not the same as actively promoting any
religious view.
Remember, Kansas quite legally removed evolution from their state
standards... we all know it was due to creationist influence, but it
wasn't unconstitutional.
wilkins
> In article <1etglyo.elq9m25o2g1sN%wil...@wehi.edu.au>,
> wil...@wehi.edu.au (wilkins) wrote:
>
> > Adam Marczyk <ebon...@excite.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Alturalan <altu...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > > news:20010515002759...@ng-bh1.aol.com...
> > > > >Subject: Re: ABeka books (was: Another new poster)
> > > >
> > > > RE: >"a christian perspective" on chemistry. I'm not sure
> > > > >> > what that means, but it worries me.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Forget that, what about "Christian" *mathematics*??
> > > >
> > > > Well, cripes, I had a Catholic math book in Junior High, believe it
> > > or no. > despite the fact that math is universal and non-sectarian.
> > > Somehow, a > "Christian perspective on chemistry" reminds me of a line
> > > from "1984": "Chess > and its Relations to Ingsoc."
> > > >
> > > > How many chem labs did Jesus go to? Is that how he learned to turn water
> > > into
> > > > wine?
> > >
> > > Personally, I think it was some form of cold fusion.
> > >
> > Rubbish. All you have to do is put the water on vines, then squeeze the
> > result and add fermenting bacteria. Simple...
>
> Yeasts are FUNGI, you heathen!
Mea culpa. I couldn't remember what the fermenting agents actually were.
I only drink the stuff.
newbie
>
>On 14 May 2001 19:57:25 -0400, the following appeared in
>talk.origins, posted by newbie <nos...@newsranger.com>:
>
>>In article <b4l0gtkdl14qn71li...@4ax.com>, Bob Casanova says...
>>>
>>>On 13 May 2001 22:02:30 -0400, the following appeared in
>>>talk.origins, posted by newbie <nos...@newsranger.com>:
>>>
>>>>In article <slrn9fudm1...@peewee.telescopemaking.org>, Mark
>>>>VandeWettering says...
>>>>>
>>>>>On 13 May 2001 17:46:30 -0400, newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:
>>>>>>Even a school that uses state monies can not be said to be
>>>>>>"establishing" religion by not teaching evolution or even for
>>>>>>teaching religion. Teaching is not establishing. Neither the teaching
>>>>>>of a specific religious belief system nor comparative religion
>>>>>>class can be construed as "establishing" a religion - and is so
>>>>>>far off the intent of the amendment that the government can not
>>>>>>establish a religion as to be obvious in the extreme.
>>>>>
>>>>>The Supreme Court of the United States does not agree with you.
>>>>>
>>>>But aren't they the ones that gave Bush the presidency?
>>>
>>>No.
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>This another argument from authority?
>>>
>>>Er, you really don't know what that means, do you?
>>>
>>Er, you really are not asking, are you?
>
>Not really. The fact that you could ask that particular
>question in this particular context told me that the
>inevitable answer to my question was "No". HTH
>
newbie
>
>On 14 May 2001 19:57:25 -0400, the following appeared in
>talk.origins, posted by newbie <nos...@newsranger.com>:
>
form. If one links back to the post that Bob is replying to, the first part of
the below does not appear. SOP Bob?
Dave Horn
>
> In article <5oa3gt4jh0hohm7nf...@4ax.com>, Bob Casanova
says...
> >
> >On 14 May 2001 19:57:25 -0400, the following appeared in
> >talk.origins, posted by newbie <nos...@newsranger.com>:
[Snip]
> >>>>This another argument from authority?
> >>>
> >>>Er, you really don't know what that means, do you?
> >>>
> >>Er, you really are not asking, are you?
> >
> >Not really. The fact that you could ask that particular
> >question in this particular context told me that the
> >inevitable answer to my question was "No". HTH
> >
> But then you don't know to whose authority I was
> referring, do you?
Once again, Newbie's vague method of argumentation leaves him having to try
to squirm around what was pretty clear to everyone else.
But Newbie thinks other things will be forgotten in the wake of new, silly
arguments.
They won't.
[Begin repost]
"newbie" <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message
news:855M6.1893$6j3.1...@www.newsranger.com...
>
> Arf! Arf!
Unmarked snips and evasions are Newbie's specialty - this time he did it
twice. That's how enamored Newbie is with himself and his own "cleverness."
But there's always good ol' cut-and-paste.
Here's what Newbie snipped and what he's running from:
[Begin repost]
[Begin repost]
"Mark VandeWettering" <ma...@peewee.telescopemaking.org> wrote in message
news:slrn9bcj5v...@peewee.telescopemaking.org...
>
> On 19 Mar 2001 04:36:20 -0500, G <she...@phnx.uswest.net> wrote:
[Snip]
> I've collected the four separate responses that newbie made
> to this post.
>
> http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/bios/j_bergman.asp
>
> Jerry Bergman has seven degrees, including in biology,
> psychology, and evaluation and research, from Wayne State
> University (Detroit), Bowling Green State University and
> other colleges. He has taught at Bowling Green State
> University (Ohio) and at the University of Toledo. He is
> now a professor of science at Northwest College, Archbold
> (Ohio), and is working on a third Ph.D., this one in
> molecular biology.
>
> He was dismissed from his position at Bowling Green.
> The only school matching the name "Northwest College"
> is apparently Northwest State Community College in
> Archibold, OH. One can examine their website at
> http://www.nscc.cc.oh.us/ and decide what a distinguished
> research institution they appear to be.
Yes...I'd wonder about the facilities available to do a *third* Ph.D. in
molecular biology, of all things.
> http://www.khouse.org/articles/technical/19971201-143.html
>
> Basically an introductory article about DNA, it isn't too bad until
> it strays into "speculation". I quote:
>
> All living things use DNA and RNA to build life from four
> simple bases. The process described above is common to
> all creatures from simple bacteria all the way to humans.
>
> Evolutionists point to this as evidence for their theory-but
> the new discoveries of the complexity of the process, and
> the fact that bacterial ribosomes are so similar to those
> in humans, is strong evidence against evolution. The
> complexities of cell replication must have been present at
> the beginning of life.
>
> A simple explanation for the similarities of the basic
> building blocks can be found if one realizes that all life
> originates from a single "software house." He is awesome
> indeed!
>
> Uh huh. Perhaps he could elucidate on the idea that the
> similarity of bacterial ribosomes to human ribosomes is
> evidence against evolution?
I didn't find any of the argumentation to be particularly compelling and you
are right - it's actually quite elementary.
> http://www.visi.com/~contra_m/cm/cmauthors.html
>
> Links to various papers by Bergman, none of which apparently deal
> with any scientific topics.
>
> http://www.visi.com/~contra_m//cm/features/cm12_abuse.html
>
> Interesting article, I'm not sure what it has to do with Bergman's
> credentials?
And again, this wasn't all that advanced an article or subject. I posted
something last night on Bergman's credentials, though:
"The district court found that one concern of the tenured faculty was
plaintiff's ethics. For instance, Dr. Davidson testified that plaintiff's
misrepresentation of himself was the reason for the denial of tenure. He
stated that Dr. Bergman said he was a psychologist when he had no
psychological credentials. Dr. Wiersma indicated difficulty in documenting
the actual existence of plaintiff's books. Plaintiff argues that any such
allegations of misconduct can be disproved by him. Nevertheless, the
evidence reveals that the tenured faculty members were genuinely concerned
about plaintiff's ethics and that their confusion over his actual
qualifications was premised on the difficulty in verifying his vita."
"The district court also found that the tenure denial was based [*19] on
concerns regarding the quality and relevance of plaintiff's work. Dr.
Siefert, Dr. Yonker, Dr. Davidson, Dr. Rurke, and Dr. Wiersma, for example,
all testified to their negative impressions of plaintiff's work. Although
plaintiff may believe that their evaluations of his work were incorrect,
this does not negate the fact that they based their tenure votes on their
negative perceptions of his work."
From the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit in the case of Bergman v. Bowling Green State University, et al., as
detailed at http://jehovah.to/freedom/bergman.htm
[End repost]
Except for a couple of tests, nothing was seen from Newbie further in the
thread at the time.
No surprise there.
[End Repost]
LoRezMe
Why thank you! :-D
lorez
LoRezMe
>ordering one of their books.
You could always sell it at auction on ebay when you're done with it. ;-)
Take a look at ebay in Books, Homeschooling. Fundie homeschoolers eat this
stuff up.
lorez
LoRezMe
>From: "Paul J. Gans" ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu
>Date: 5/13/01 6:27 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id:
>Hey Lorez! Welcome to the nut house. We've got 'em in all
>flavors, creationist, evolutionist, punnist, etceteraist.
>
>Enjoy and post when you can!
>
> ---- Paul J. Gans
Thanks! :-)
You all are prolific, I...can't....begin...to...keep...up. But I love it!
lorez
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by Thomas Griffin <tgri...@uic.edu>:
<snip>
>All children must go to school, by law. Those shcools must meet certain minimum
>standards in specified core subjects.
>One of those subjects is biology. There is no basis whatever for the exclusion of
>evolution other than religiously motivated attempts to suppress information that
>conflicts with specific religious views. Therefore, to exclude evolution is to use
>gov sponsored facilities and the force of gov laws requiring school attendence to
>promote a specific religious viewpoint thru the intentful exclusion of other
>viewpoints.
Sorry, but I disagree. Local school districts may set
curricula *any way they want* which doesn't violate state
law WRT requirements and *which doesn't include the actual
teaching of a particular religion as fact*. They are *not*
required by any Federal law to include any particular course
or course content.
Note that the above is my opinion based on fairly extensive
reading on this subject in the past; if you can cite a
Federal law or USSC decision which contradicts what I stated
I'd be glad to hear about it.
<snip>
Bob Casanova
Well, from most rational posters I'd assume the "authority"
you were referring to was the USSC, since your question
immediately followed the statement that the USSC disagreed
with you. But I'd be fascinated to hear from you what
unmentioned authoritative body you were actually referring
to. The Gang of Four, perhaps? Or the Rosicrucians? At any
rate, the concept of "argument from authority" doesn't apply
in this context, which was your original mistake to which I
responded.
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by newbie <nos...@newsranger.com>:
>In article <5oa3gt4jh0hohm7nf...@4ax.com>, Bob Casanova says...
>>
>>On 14 May 2001 19:57:25 -0400, the following appeared in
>>talk.origins, posted by newbie <nos...@newsranger.com>:
>>
>It may have appeared somewhere in the aether, but to my knowledge not in this
>form. If one links back to the post that Bob is replying to, the first part of
>the below does not appear. SOP Bob?
I made a direct followup; no unmarked snips or additions.
What I responded to is exactly what I read; AAMOF, I just
checked in my "sent" folder, and the message looks exactly
the same. I don't know what "first part" you're referring
to, but the problem doesn't seem to be on this end.
Mark VandeWettering
>Sorry, but I disagree. Local school districts may set
>curricula *any way they want* which doesn't violate state
>law WRT requirements and *which doesn't include the actual
>teaching of a particular religion as fact*. They are *not*
>required by any Federal law to include any particular course
>or course content.
That is true, but...
>Note that the above is my opinion based on fairly extensive
>reading on this subject in the past; if you can cite a
>Federal law or USSC decision which contradicts what I stated
>I'd be glad to hear about it.
I've been examining the case of Epperson vs. Arkansas 1968.
http://www.law.ukmc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/Epperso.htm
The basic idea of the case was:
Susan Epperson, a young woman who graduated from Arkansas'
school system and then obtained her master's degree in
zoology at the University of Illinois, was employed by the
Little Rock school system in the fall of 1964 to teach 10th
grade biology at Central High School. At the start of the
next academic year, 1965, she was confronted by the new
textbook (which one surmises from the record was not
unwelcome to her). She faced at least a literal dilemma
because she was supposed to use the new textbook for
classroom instruction and presumably to teach the statutorily
condemned chapter; but to do so would be a criminal offense
and subject her to dismissal.
Justice Fortas gave the decision of the court. Some excerpts...
In any event, we do not rest our decision upon the asserted
vagueness of the statute. On either interpretation of its
language, Arkansas' statute cannot stand. It is of no moment
whether the law is deemed to prohibit mention of Darwin's
theory, or to forbid any or all of the infinite varieties
of communication embraced within the term 'teaching.' Under
either interpretation, the law must be stricken because of
its conflict with the constitutional prohibition of state
laws respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting
the free exercise thereof. The overriding fact is that
Arkansas' law selects from the body of knowledge a particular
segment which it proscribes for the sole reason that it is
deemed to conflict with a particular religious doctrine;
that is, with a particular interpretation of the Book of
Genesis by a particular religious group.
and
There is and can be no doubt that the First Amendment does
not permit the State to require that teaching and learning
must be tailored to the principles or prohibitions of any
religious sect or dogma. In Everson v. Board of Education,
this Court, in upholding a state law to provide free bus
service to school children, including those attending
parochial schools, said: 'Neither (a State nor the Federal
Government) can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all
religions, or prefer one religion over another....'
These precedents inevitably determine the result in the
present case. The State's undoubted right to prescribe the
curriculum for its public schools does not carry with it
the right to prohibit, on pain of criminal penalty, the
teaching of a scientific theory or doctrine where that
prohibition is based upon reasons that violate the First
Amendment. It is much too late to argue that the State may
impose upon the teachers in its schools any conditions that
it chooses, however restrictive they may be of constitutional
guarantees.
I read this statement to basically read that the banning of evolution
from science curriculum can only be to promote a particular religious
view and/or doctrine, and that it is against the First Amendment.
Has later case law refined this basic position?
><snip>
>
>--
>
>(Note followups, if any)
>
>Bob C.
>
>Reply to Bob-Casanova @ worldnet.att.net
>(without the spaces, of course)
>
>"Men become civilized, not in proportion to their willingness
>to believe, but in proportion to their readiness to doubt."
>--H. L. Mencken
>
--
/* __ __ __ ____ __*/float m,a,r,k,v;main(i){for(;r<4;r+=.1){for(a=0;
/*| \/ |\ \ / /\ \ / /*/a<4;a+=.06){k=v=0;for(i=99;--i&&k*k+v*v<4;)m=k*k
/*| |\/| | \ V / \ \/\/ / */-v*v+a-2,v=2*k*v+r-2,k=m;putchar("X =."[i&3]);}
/*|_| |_ark\_/ande\_/\_/ettering <ma...@telescopemaking.org> */puts("");}}
newbie
VandeWettering says...
fact is that Arkansas' law selects...."
>
>Has later case law refined this basic position?
>
Dave Horn
[Snip]
> >I read this statement to basically read that the banning of
> >evolution from science curriculum can only be to promote
> >a particular religious view and/or doctrine, and that it is
> >against the First Amendment.
>
> Replace "can only be to" with "was found by this court to".
> Read "The overriding fact is that Arkansas' law selects...."
So Newbie, who has a frequently demonstrated tendency to fail to read for
comprehension, would now tell Mark how to read?
This is the same Newbie who took a series of statements that I made about
Walter ReMine's "The Biotic Message" and got them all confused. I wrote
about a chapter titled, "biogeography," and Newbie claimed that his reading
left him with the impression that there was "no chapter entitled as such."
This is rather amusing, actually.
> >Has later case law refined this basic position?
>
> What basic position; your strawman, or "There is and can
> be no doubt that the First Amendment does not permit
> the State to require that teaching and learning must be
> tailored to the principles or prohibitions of any religious
> sect or dogma."
I'd be curious to see an explanation for Mark's alleged "straw man" if I
wasn't so sure that Newbie would run from such a challenge and refuse to
explain it.
Mark has interpreted the events according to what is commonly understood
about the history of this case and its ramifications. I don't see anything
approaching a "straw man" by him. I'm curious if anyone else saw a "straw
man."
And maybe Newbie will get around to explaining the evidence that "strongly
suggests" a component to life other than chemical processes...or the
physical laws that life allegedly does not obey...or the myriad other
unanswered questions and challenges put to him.
Then again...maybe not.
Mark VandeWettering
Sigh. The context was indeed "was found by this court". Of course,
in this context, "this court" was in fact the SCOTUS.
>Read "The overriding fact is that Arkansas' law selects...."
Quoted below:
"The overriding fact is that Arkansas' law selects from the
body of knowledge a particular segment which it proscribes
for the sole reason that it is deemed to conflict with a
particular religious doctrine; that is, with a particular
interpretation of the Book of Genesis by a particular
religious group."
Note that court didn't claim it was the opinion of the court that
the law selected to exclude this knowledge on the basis of conflict
with religious doctrine, it claimed that it was _fact_.
>>Has later case law refined this basic position?
>What basic position; your strawman, or "There is and can be no
>doubt that the First Amendment does not permit the State to require
>that teaching and learning must be tailored to the principles or
>prohibitions of any religious sect or dogma."
Remind me again newbie, just what difference is their between "my
strawman" and the sentence that you quoted?
Mark
Mark VandeWettering
>> >Has later case law refined this basic position?
>>
>> What basic position; your strawman, or "There is and can
>> be no doubt that the First Amendment does not permit
>> the State to require that teaching and learning must be
>> tailored to the principles or prohibitions of any religious
>> sect or dogma."
>
>I'd be curious to see an explanation for Mark's alleged "straw man" if I
>wasn't so sure that Newbie would run from such a challenge and refuse to
>explain it.
In fact, I wonder just what position newbie thinks I hold. My position
is that Justice Fortas in his capacity of Supreme Court Justice issuing
a precedence setting majority opinion said precisely what newbie quoted
above:
"There is and can be no doubt that the First Amendment does
not permit the State to require that teaching and learning
must be tailored to the principles or prohibitions of any
religious sect or dogma."
This finding of the SCOTUS struck down the Arkansas statute which forbid
the teaching of evolution. These are really matters of fact, not
matters of opinion, either mine or newbie's.
You'll see that I was asking a question: I was unsure whether
subsequent cases had modified this pretty straightforward result
from the Supreme Court. Bob Cassanova had originally claimed that
the state boards of education had complete freedom in their ability
to exclude material from consideration, which I interpret as being
in conflict with the findings of the SCOTUS in this case, although
the basic themes he brought up are echoed in Justice Black's
concurring opinion in this case. There are a number of possibilities
that could account for this apparent discrepency:
1. That the Supreme Court Decision only applied to this particular
Arkansas statute and did not establish precedent setting case law.
Someone with more legal knowledge than myself could perhaps address
that question.
2. Later case law could have established a different precedent.
3. That prohibition of evolution could be legal if grounds other than
religious reasons were found to justify its ban. If evolution were
banned for other reasons than religion, presumably First Amendment
protections would not apply. I believe the entirety of the "Intelligent
Design" theory is an attempt to utilize this particular strategy.
4. Bob could have been wrong, and in fact state boards cannot
legally exclude material on evolution.
5. Justice Black, while submitting a concurring opinion, did not
agree with the idea that the law should or could be struck down on
First Amendment principles. He preferred to strike it down on the
principle that it was too vague to be enforceable and that it was
impossible for a teacher to know whether they were breaking the
law when teaching anything about Darwin or evolution. He also
expressed considerable skepticism that this case should have been
brought before the court, since in the history of the Arkansas
statute no one had ever been charged under it, nor had it prevented
the teaching of evolution from textbooks that would have been
illegal under that statute. He also was hesitant to claim that the
only objection to evolution could have been religious:
1. In the first place I find it difficult to agree with
the Court's statement that 'there can be no doubt that
Arkansas has sought to prevent its teachers from discussing
the theory of evolution because it is contrary to the belief
of some that the Book of Genesis must be the exclusive
source of doctrine as to the origin of man.' It may be
instead that the people's motive was merely that it would
be best to remove this controversial subject from its
schools; there is no reason I can imagine why a State is
without power to withdraw from its curriculum any subject
deemed too emotional and controversial for its public
schools.
He further didn't find the idea that something could not be banned
for being anti-religious, or that teachers had "a constitional
right to teach socialogical, economic, political or religious
subjects that the school's managers do not want discussed". Reasoned
arguments, if somewhat flawed in my opinion.
There are undoutably others. The reason that I brought up Epperson
vs. Arkansas was because firstly it seemed to be in conflict with what
Bob had to say about the law, and Bob specifically said that he had
examined such laws and would like to hear about cases which might
have contradicted his claims.
I don't claim that I completely understand, agree or even disagree
with the findings of the court. But I don't feel that I have
misinterpreted the opinion of the court in any significant way,
and certainly newbie has done nothing to demonstrate that I have
done so. If anyone wishes to correct any misconceptions or
misunderstandings that I have made, by all means do so.
The Court did find the Arkansas statute to be illegal under the First
and Fourteenth Amendment. The justification presented by Justice
Fortas in the majority opinion would seem to apply to any case where
a scientific theory was specifically excluded from public school
curricula because of religious objections.
>Mark has interpreted the events according to what is commonly understood
>about the history of this case and its ramifications. I don't see anything
>approaching a "straw man" by him. I'm curious if anyone else saw a "straw
>man."
I doubt newbie did either. He just likes to argue. It is all about
personalities with him. Since he can't respond constructively or with
evidence, he is left with the classic strategy of divert, deceive, and
just outright lie.
Mark
Dave Horn
>
> On 17 May 2001 16:06:51 -0400, Dave Horn <dave...@ns.home.com> wrote:
>
> >> >Has later case law refined this basic position?
> >>
> >> What basic position; your strawman, or "There is and can
> >> be no doubt that the First Amendment does not permit
> >> the State to require that teaching and learning must be
> >> tailored to the principles or prohibitions of any religious
> >> sect or dogma."
> >
> >I'd be curious to see an explanation for Mark's alleged "straw
> >man" if I wasn't so sure that Newbie would run from such
> >a challenge and refuse to explain it.
>
> In fact, I wonder just what position newbie thinks I hold.
> My position is that Justice Fortas in his capacity of Supreme
> Court Justice issuing a precedence setting majority opinion
> said precisely what newbie quoted above:
>
> "There is and can be no doubt that the First Amendment
> does not permit the State to require that teaching and learning
> must be tailored to the principles or prohibitions of any
> religious sect or dogma."
[Snip remaining excellent explanation of the discussion to this point]
> >Mark has interpreted the events according to what is
> >commonly understood about the history of this case
> >and its ramifications. I don't see anything approaching a
> >"straw man" by him. I'm curious if anyone else saw a "straw
> >man."
>
> I doubt newbie did either. He just likes to argue. It is all about
> personalities with him. Since he can't respond constructively
> or with evidence, he is left with the classic strategy of divert,
> deceive, and just outright lie.
Which is why Newbie will never get any satisfaction out of this newsgroup.
newbie
>
Hi honey. Home from work?
>
>"newbie" <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message
>news:5%VM6.6091$6j3.5...@www.newsranger.com...
>>
>> In article <slrn9g6o0c...@peewee.telescopemaking.org>, Mark
>> VandeWettering says...
>
>[Snip]
>
>> >I read this statement to basically read that the banning of
>> >evolution from science curriculum can only be to promote
>> >a particular religious view and/or doctrine, and that it is
>> >against the First Amendment.
>>
>> Replace "can only be to" with "was found by this court to".
>> Read "The overriding fact is that Arkansas' law selects...."
>
>So Newbie, who has a frequently demonstrated tendency to fail to read for
>comprehension, would now tell Mark how to read?
>
>
>This is the same Newbie who took a series of statements that I made about
>Walter ReMine's "The Biotic Message" and got them all confused. I wrote
>about a chapter titled, "biogeography," and Newbie claimed that his reading
>left him with the impression that there was "no chapter entitled as such."
>
>This is rather amusing, actually.
>
>> >Has later case law refined this basic position?
>>
>> What basic position; your strawman, or "There is and can
>> be no doubt that the First Amendment does not permit
>> the State to require that teaching and learning must be
>> tailored to the principles or prohibitions of any religious
>> sect or dogma."
>
>I'd be curious to see an explanation for Mark's alleged "straw man" if I
>wasn't so sure that Newbie would run from such a challenge and refuse to
>explain it.
>
that the loon is curious. Bow wow.
>
>Mark has interpreted the events according to what is commonly understood
>about the history of this case and its ramifications. I don't see anything
>approaching a "straw man" by him. I'm curious if anyone else saw a "straw
>man."
>
>
>And maybe Newbie will get around to explaining the evidence that "strongly
>suggests" a component to life other than chemical processes...or the
>physical laws that life allegedly does not obey...or the myriad other
>unanswered questions and challenges put to him.
>
>Then again...maybe not.
>
Dave Horn
>
> In article <wbWM6.93384$2U.43...@news2.rdc2.tx.home.com>, Dave Horn
says...
>
> Hi honey. Home from work?
I have, of course, mentioned many times to Newbie that I am hetero and have
no interest in his proclivities.
> >"newbie" <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message
> >news:5%VM6.6091$6j3.5...@www.newsranger.com...
> >>
> >> In article <slrn9g6o0c...@peewee.telescopemaking.org>, Mark
> >> VandeWettering says...
> >
> >[Snip]
> >
> >> >I read this statement to basically read that the banning of
> >> >evolution from science curriculum can only be to promote
> >> >a particular religious view and/or doctrine, and that it is
> >> >against the First Amendment.
> >>
> >> Replace "can only be to" with "was found by this court to".
> >> Read "The overriding fact is that Arkansas' law selects...."
> >
> >So Newbie, who has a frequently demonstrated tendency to
> >fail to read for comprehension, would now tell Mark how to
> >read?
>
> Oh my!
Newbie, who is usually at a loss for an intelligent reply, still has this
pathetic need to reply. Consequently, we are left with one-liners and
evasions. That's typical for Newbie.
> >This is the same Newbie who took a series of statements that
> >I made about Walter ReMine's "The Biotic Message" and got
> >them all confused. I wrote about a chapter titled, "biogeography,"
> >and Newbie claimed that his reading left him with the impression
> >that there was "no chapter entitled as such."
>
> >This is rather amusing, actually.
>
> You are amusing, troll.
I don't think anyone really believes that Newbie is amused and, of course,
when Newbie doesn't have a rational answer for a challenge, he resorts to
his impotent name-calling.
> >> >Has later case law refined this basic position?
> >>
> >> What basic position; your strawman, or "There is
> >> and can be no doubt that the First Amendment does
> >> not permit the State to require that teaching and
> >> learning must be tailored to the principles or prohibitions
> >> of any religious sect or dogma."
> >
> >I'd be curious to see an explanation for Mark's alleged "straw
> >man" if I wasn't so sure that Newbie would run from such a
> >challenge and refuse to explain it.
>
> Not a real accurate picture of old Paluxy, being "curious."
So now Newbie wants to represent that I don't know my own intent. That's
typical, too. Newbie is an incredibly stupid creature, and cannot make an
argument or defend his own position, so he tries to restate the position of
others so that he can presume to ridicule that position. It'd be amusing if
it wasn't so pathetic.
> Except in the way that the loon is curious. Bow
> wow.
Of course, loons don't "bow wow." We have another example, then, of a claim
Newbie has made without support.
> >Mark has interpreted the events according to what is
> >commonly understood about the history of this case and
> >its ramifications. I don't see anything approaching a
> >"straw man" by him. I'm curious if anyone else saw a "straw
> >man."
>
> This is so laden with content it would make a Supreme's
> head spin.
Newbie is obviously at a complete loss to explain his "straw man" comment.
> >And maybe Newbie will get around to explaining the
> >evidence that "strongly suggests" a component to life
> >other than chemical processes...or the physical laws
> >that life allegedly does not obey...or the myriad other
> >unanswered questions and challenges put to him.
> >
> >Then again...maybe not.
>
> Asked and answered.
And here Newbie resorts to lies, because he has never told us about the
evidence that "strongly suggests" a component to life other than chemical
processes and he has not explained how life fails to obey physical laws.
Newbie simply wanted to mimic my responses when I had answered *him* (his
problem was that he didn't like the answers, not that he didn't get
answers). So Newbie, in his typical juvenile fashion, resorts to yet
another children's tactic.
Consequently, Newbie has again run from the claims he has made.
newbie
CASE that religion was the basis for excluding curriculum. In no way can what
you cite be construed to mean that the SC believes that the *only* reason for
excluding certain cirriculum must be attributed to religious reasons. Your
statement does not include "in this case".
>
>>Read "The overriding fact is that Arkansas' law selects...."
>
>Quoted below:
>
> "The overriding fact is that Arkansas' law selects from the
> body of knowledge a particular segment which it proscribes
> for the sole reason that it is deemed to conflict with a
> particular religious doctrine; that is, with a particular
> interpretation of the Book of Genesis by a particular
> religious group."
>
>Note that court didn't claim it was the opinion of the court that
>the law selected to exclude this knowledge on the basis of conflict
>with religious doctrine, it claimed that it was _fact_.
>
>>>Has later case law refined this basic position?
>
>>What basic position; your strawman, or "There is and can be no
>>doubt that the First Amendment does not permit the State to require
>>that teaching and learning must be tailored to the principles or
>>prohibitions of any religious sect or dogma."
>
>Remind me again newbie, just what difference is their between "my
>strawman" and the sentence that you quoted?
>
to basically read that the banning of evolution from science curriculum can only
the First Amendment."
>
The decision of this court did not explain that banning science cirriculum *can
only be to promote a particular religious view...". That is your strawman,
assuming that the SC has set a precedent whereby any exclusion of what the court
deems to be the "body of knowledge" is removed from the course of study that the
only reason possible is religiously motivated.
>
That is a crock, and a strawman. Argue all you wish. The words "can only be" are
generalized in nature and you make no specific inference to this as a specific
case, you attempt to generalize the Court decision.
>
Then you go on to ask if further case law has "refined" this basic position.
There is no way to further refine "this basic position" as the real basic
position held by the court in this case can only be used in context with each
individual case, and does *not* set a precedent whereby all exclusions of
cirriculum can be assumed to be based on religious beliefs.
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by ma...@peewee.telescopemaking.org
(Mark VandeWettering):
That would certainly seem to be the case if there is an
actual law banning the teaching of evolution (as seems to be
the case in your cite, but *not* in the situation in
question). I'm not fully persuaded that a school board
deciding to not teach a subject when the subject *isn't*
banned by an unconstitutional law (note the numerous
references to laws and the state legislature, and the phrase
"...on pain of criminal penalty..." above) would fall into
this category, but I appreciate the response.
>Has later case law refined this basic position?
Damfino; I'm not a Constitutional scholar, just an
interested layman.
newbie
VandeWettering says...
precedent be set on such a rediculous precept? Answer: It would not. Reason:
Because the next case could regard exclusion of cirriculum not based on
religious beliefs. See your own words above.
>>Mark has interpreted the events according to what is commonly understood
>>about the history of this case and its ramifications. I don't see anything
>>approaching a "straw man" by him. I'm curious if anyone else saw a "straw
>>man."
>
>I doubt newbie did either. He just likes to argue. It is all about
>personalities with him. Since he can't respond constructively or with
>evidence, he is left with the classic strategy of divert, deceive, and
>just outright lie.
>
first post, you are lying and being intentionally deceptive. And you do it so
eloquently with the words "it can only be".
Dave Horn
> In article <slrn9g8f55...@peewee.telescopemaking.org>, Mark
> VandeWettering says...
> >
> >On 17 May 2001 16:06:51 -0400, Dave Horn <dave...@ns.home.com> wrote:
[Snip]
> >>Mark has interpreted the events according to what is
> >>commonly understood about the history of this case and
> >>its ramifications. I don't see anything approaching a
> >>"straw man" by him. I'm curious if anyone else saw a
> >>"straw man."
> >
> >I doubt newbie did either. He just likes to argue. It is
> >all about personalities with him. Since he can't respond
> >constructively or with evidence, he is left with the classic
> >strategy of divert, deceive, and just outright lie.
>
> In in light of your apparent knowledge of the case that was
> not included in the first post, you are lying and being intentionally
> deceptive. And you do it so eloquently with the words "it can
> only be".
Well, it was just a matter of time. Newbie quoted Mark's full and very
reasonable explanation and then, in his usual attempt at gnat-straining
while getting it all wrong, screws it up entirely. Then he accuses Mark of
lying. Of course, everyone who challenges or disagrees with Newbie becomes
a liar sooner or later (according to Newbie). That's why he stigmatized
"wilderness_voice" in this way when all that person did was challenge
Newbie's behavior from a christian viewpoint. Newbie, of course, recently
tried to wiggle his way out of *that* (rather unsuccessfully, I might add).
It's all Newbie has. He can't even tell us what "science" there is to
"creation 'science'" nor can he tell us how science could have exposed the
Piltdown hoax while failing to use the scientific method.
And so it goes...
Mark VandeWettering
>>Quoted below:
>>
>> "The overriding fact is that Arkansas' law selects from the
>> body of knowledge a particular segment which it proscribes
>> for the sole reason that it is deemed to conflict with a
>> particular religious doctrine; that is, with a particular
>> interpretation of the Book of Genesis by a particular
>> religious group."
>>
>>Note that court didn't claim it was the opinion of the court that
>>the law selected to exclude this knowledge on the basis of conflict
>>with religious doctrine, it claimed that it was _fact_.
>Yes, Mark. In this particular case in Arkansas.
In another post I raised the possibility that this decision may not
have wide applicability. Determining whether that possibility is true
or not requires legal expertise that I do not possess, but there is
nothing in Justice Fortas' opinion which leads me to believe that there
was anything particular to this case which would mean that it does not
apply to other states and statutes with similar characteristics.
People with more experience on legal matters or subsequent case law
are welcome to join in with comments.
>>>>Has later case law refined this basic position?
>>
>>>What basic position; your strawman, or "There is and can be no
>>>doubt that the First Amendment does not permit the State to require
>>>that teaching and learning must be tailored to the principles or
>>>prohibitions of any religious sect or dogma."
>>
>>Remind me again newbie, just what difference is their between "my
>>strawman" and the sentence that you quoted?
>>
>"This basic position" you refer to is of your own making:"I read
>this statement to basically read that the banning of evolution from
>science curriculum can only be to promote a particular religious view
>and/or doctrine, and that it is against the First Amendment."
That is how I read this statement. But let's be clear: I can imagine
how other reasons might be used to ban the teaching of evolution from
the classroom. I was responding to Judge Fortas' opinion, in which
he said (quoted here again)
The overriding fact is that Arkansas' law selects from the
body of knowledge a particular segment which it proscribes
for the sole reason that it is deemed to conflict with a
particular religious doctrine; that is, with a particular
interpretation of the Book of Genesis by a particular
religious group."
It seems apparent (but you are certainly free to argue otherwise)
from this that Justice Fortas did not see any alternative basis
for rejecting evolution otherwise than upon religious grounds. He
chose to use the word "fact" to describe the religious intent of
that law.
If you would like to make an intelligent discussion out of this, you
could perhaps discuss Justice Black's concurring opinion and how it
differs from Fortas'.
>The decision of this court did not explain that banning science
>cirriculum *can only be to promote a particular religious view...".
>That is your strawman,
No, that is what Justice Fortas claimed was fact in his opinion.
Mark VandeWettering
>>The Court did find the Arkansas statute to be illegal under the First
>>and Fourteenth Amendment. The justification presented by Justice
>>Fortas in the majority opinion would seem to apply to any case where
>>a scientific theory was specifically excluded from public school
>>curricula because of religious objections.
>>
>Yes! But not that "it can only be" because of religion, and how could a
>precedent be set on such a rediculous precept? Answer: It would not. Reason:
>Because the next case could regard exclusion of cirriculum not based on
>religious beliefs. See your own words above.
The word is "curriculum".
When I used the words "can only be to promote a particular
religious view and or doctrine", I was attempting to paraphrase Justice
Fortas' opinion. Once again, he (not me) said that:
Under either interpretation, the law must be stricken
because of its conflict with the constitutional prohibition
of state laws respecting an establishment of religion or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The overriding fact
is that Arkansas' law selects from the body of knowledge
a particular segment which it proscribes for the sole reason
that it is deemed to conflict with a particular religious
doctrine; that is, with a particular interpretation of the
Book of Genesis by a particular religious group.
It seems apparent that Justice Fortas believed that the sole reason
that the Arkansas statute banned teaching of evolution was because
it was in conflict with a particular religious doctrine. He called
that a "fact". I found that to be rather remarkable, as clearly
the state could have chosen to ban teaching evolution on some other
basis, a possibility that Justice Black echoed. Fortas also claimed
a bit above the previous quote:
In any event, we do not rest our decision upon the asserted
vagueness of the statute. On either interpretation of its
language, Arkansas' statute cannot stand. It is of no moment
whether the law is deemed to prohibit mention of Darwin's
theory, or to forbid any or all of the infinite varieties
of communication embraced within the term 'teaching.'
In other words, it wasn't just that the statute was vague (which was
seemingly the sole reason that Justice Black chose to concur).
>>I doubt newbie did either. He just likes to argue. It is all about
>>personalities with him. Since he can't respond constructively or with
>>evidence, he is left with the classic strategy of divert, deceive, and
>>just outright lie.
>In in light of your apparent knowledge of the case that was not
>included in the first post, you are lying and being intentionally
>deceptive. And you do it so eloquently with the words "it can only
>be".
*chuckle* Yeah, I was hiding my intelligence and knowledge from
everyone just so I could lure you into making a ass out of yourself.
I suppose it is my responsibility to write epic treatises upon all
that I know about the issues under discussion, and if I fail to
disclose all that I know or think about a topic, then I am
"intentionally deceptive".
By the way, my "apparent knowledge" of the case comes from reading
the court opinion, trying to understand it and asking questions.
You should try it sometime. It is a strategy which has been proven
to work.
Mark VandeWettering
>That would certainly seem to be the case if there is an
>actual law banning the teaching of evolution (as seems to be
>the case in your cite, but *not* in the situation in
>question). I'm not fully persuaded that a school board
>deciding to not teach a subject when the subject *isn't*
>banned by an unconstitutional law (note the numerous
>references to laws and the state legislature, and the phrase
>"...on pain of criminal penalty..." above) would fall into
>this category, but I appreciate the response.
I too am trying to understand just what has been established
via the cases decided by the Supreme Court. It seems clear from
the opinion in Epperson vs. Arkansas that the court saw no reason
why school boards could not eliminate entire fields of study from
the curriculum.
Justice Black wrote:
It is plain that a state law prohibiting all teaching of
human development or biology is constitutionally quite
different from a law that compels a teacher to teach as
true only one theory of a given doctrine. It would be
difficult to make a First Amendment case out of a state
law eliminating the subject of higher mathematics, or
astronomy, or biology from its curriculum....
Clearly he thinks the states could enforce such an elimination of
literally any subject matter from its curriculum, as he goes on
to elucidate quite clearly. He remained skeptical of Fortas'
assertion that the statute must be stricken on First Amendment
grounds, because he could picture what Fortas could not: that there
might be other reasons for eliminating the teaching of evolution
from the curriculum, such as avoiding controversy.
>>Has later case law refined this basic position?
>
>Damfino; I'm not a Constitutional scholar, just an
>interested layman.
:-) Me too. Thanks for the response. If nothing else, it provided
an interesting opportunity to spar with newbie, unarmed as he is...
It is an interesting case.
newbie
VandeWettering says...
banning of evolution from science curriculum can only be to promote a particular
religious view and/or doctrine, and that it is against the First Amendment."
>
reinforce this generalization.
>
Try as you will to squirm out of those words "can only be to" you can not change
the apparent fact that you had knowledge of Justice Black's opinion beforehand.
>
Continue to run around saying that this case shows that banning evolution from
schools can only be to promote a religious view. Doesn't matter to me, or what
you think of me. Most are not stupid enough to buy into it.
newbie
VandeWettering says...
your statement: ""I read this statement to basically read that the banning of
evolution from science curriculum can only be to promote a particular religious
view and/or doctrine, and that it is against the First Amendment."
>
statement in conflict with what you include above.
Mark VandeWettering
>Part of which you may never have brought up had it not been for my
>challenging your statement: ""I read this statement to basically
>read that the banning of evolution from science curriculum can only
>be to promote a particular religious view and/or doctrine, and that
>it is against the First Amendment."
*chuckle* You really are a waste of space, you know that?
Fortas' opinion (which I quoted at length prior to making this statement)
pretty clearly states exactly what I claimed it did. I never claimed it
was correct, or that it was universally held by the Supreme Court. That
you were apparently confused on this matter is not something I am going
to lose a whole lot of sleep over.
>Perhaps you would like to leave others with that understanding?
>Why is that statement in conflict with what you include above.
It isn't. Perhaps you'd like to explain why you think it is?
Mark
Mark VandeWettering
>Right. Like your stating "I read this statement to basically read
>that the banning of evolution from science curriculum can only be
>to promote a particular religious view and/or doctrine, and that
>it is against the First Amendment."
Honestly newbie, why do you persist in illustrating your lack of
reading comprehension? My statement followed a bunch of stuff from
the Fortas, all of which implied _precisely what I claimed it did_.
Fortas clearly states that he viewed the religious basis of the 1928
statute as "fact", and that it was Fortas' opinion and the opinion
of the court that it was in conflict with the First Amendment on that
basis. If anyone else can provide an alternative meaning for Fortas'
opinion, then by all means make it.
>That is a generalization, and you were asking about further case
>law that would reinforce this generalization.
While this opinion was not universal among the Justices, it was written
as the opinion of the Supreme Court. I do not understand the precedence
setting nature of his comments, or of Justice Black's, who clearly
disagreed with most of what Fortas claimed. To be accurate, I also
was not asking for further case law to reinforce this generalization,
I was asking for further case law which might have modified this basic
premise.
>Try as you will to squirm out of those words "can only be to" you
>can not change the apparent fact that you had knowledge of Justice
>Black's opinion beforehand.
Actually, to be honest I hadn't read Justice Black's concurring
opinion when I posted my original message (I hadnt' made it that
far). I was rather surprised by Fortas' wording of the original
finding, and was rather interested to learn later that Black had
identified the same basic problem that made me comment on Fortas'
claim in the first place.
Even if I had knowledge of Black's opinion, I'm not sure why you
think that it was deceitful for me not to present it, as I was
clearly addressing specifics of Fortas' comments which I cited
at length.
And of course, I did post the citation of the entire court opinion
on the case, and if you had bothered to read it you could have made
the points that I would later make, and you would have looked at
least a bit smarter, rather than just appearing to be a petty,
stupid, sniping dork.
>Continue to run around saying that this case shows that banning
>evolution from schools can only be to promote a religious view.
I defy you present any such instance. I presented some quotations
from a precedent setting Supreme Court case that clearly deals with
that question, and I presented some snippets that I found interesting.
I am not a lawyer, nor particularly trained in matters of constitutional
law, and was clearly asking for opinions as to what this ruling
meant in some practical sense. That you chose to shoot your mouth
off and act like an idiot over some perceived faux pas of mine
doesn't trouble me in the least.
>Doesn't matter to me, or what
>you think of me. Most are not stupid enough to buy into it.
Uh huh.
newbie
VandeWettering says...
>
>On 17 May 2001 20:48:33 -0400, newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:
>
>>Part of which you may never have brought up had it not been for my
>>challenging your statement: ""I read this statement to basically
>>read that the banning of evolution from science curriculum can only
>>be to promote a particular religious view and/or doctrine, and that
>>it is against the First Amendment."
>
>*chuckle* You really are a waste of space, you know that?
>
brainchild?
>
>Fortas' opinion (which I quoted at length prior to making this statement)
>pretty clearly states exactly what I claimed it did. I never claimed it
>was correct, or that it was universally held by the Supreme Court. That
>you were apparently confused on this matter is not something I am going
>to lose a whole lot of sleep over.
>
clearly state" any such thing. The opinion was made of a specific Arkansas case.
I made no mention of who held what opinion in the Surpreme Court, or that it was
universally held, and I did not argue that you thought it was "correct",
whatever that means. You aren't even good at your deceptions.
>
>>Perhaps you would like to leave others with that understanding?
>>Why is that statement in conflict with what you include above.
>
>It isn't. Perhaps you'd like to explain why you think it is?
>
for why you now claim your statement is not in conflict with the case. The only
thing you say above is in essense, "Yes it is!"
>
The *fact* of the matter was that a specific case was under consideration, and
one opinion was that *in this particular case* there could only be one reason
for excluding curriculum. Unfortunately, that is not what you wrote.
>
You wrote:
"I read this statement to basically read that the banning of evolution from
science curriculum can only be to promote a particular religious view and/or
doctrine, and that it is against the First Amendment."
>
that. You attempted to do so by showing a case that you thought would be
convincing case law where banning evolution can only be seen as religiously
motivated. You got caught.
Dave Horn
just amazes me. It isn't so much that he's stupid and pig-headed. What
blows me away sometimes is just how much Newbie wants to broadcast that
stupidity and pig-headedness.
"newbie" <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message
news:le_M6.6851$6j3.5...@www.newsranger.com...
>
> In article <slrn9g8ot7...@peewee.telescopemaking.org>, Mark
> VandeWettering says...
> >
> >On 17 May 2001 18:19:06 -0400, newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:
[Snip]
> >By the way, my "apparent knowledge" of the case comes
> >from reading the court opinion, trying to understand it and
> >asking questions. You should try it sometime. It is a strategy
> >which has been proven to work.
>
> Right. Like your stating "I read this statement to basically read
> that the banning of evolution from science curriculum can only
> be to promote a particular religious view and/or doctrine,
> and that it is against the First Amendment."
Let's notice that Newbie has not bothered to indicate if he has actually
read the case law, the opinions of the Court, or anything else relevant to
this issue he has presumed to create.
Let's also notice that Newbie is completely ignoring the support for Mark's
claims, to wit, the statement of Judge Fortas, which has been quoted many
times:
"The overriding fact is that Arkansas' law selects from the body of
knowledge a particular segment which it proscribes
for the sole reason that it is deemed to conflict with a particular
religious doctrine; that is, with a particular interpretation of the Book of
Genesis by a particular religious group."
And Mark's interpretation?
"I read this statement to basically read that the banning of evolution from
science curriculum can only be to promote a particular religious view and/or
doctrine, and that it is against the First Amendment."
Has Newbie shown this to be a wrong interpretation? No, he has not. He has
simply decided that Mark has erected a "straw man" (how this happened is not
explained) and that he has lied about it.
It looks to me like Mark's interpretation is completely in line with what
Fortas wrote.
It's obvious that Newbie won't bother to understand what he presumes to
criticize; but is anyone else confused by Fortas's statement and what Mark
has had to say about it?
[Snip more Newbie lunacies]
Mark VandeWettering
Sorry, newbie, go play with Horn. I'm not biting anymore.
Dave Horn
>
> On 18 May 2001 00:10:05 -0400, newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:
>
> Sorry, newbie, go play with Horn. I'm not biting
> anymore.
At least *you* have teeth. That's more than can be said for Newbie. Worms
don't have teeth.
S'pose we'll *ever* get out of him what evidence "strongly suggests" a
component to life other than chemical processes?
newbie
VandeWettering says...
>
[snip]
>
>>Continue to run around saying that this case shows that banning
>>evolution from schools can only be to promote a religious view.
>
>I defy you present any such instance.
>
>
Mark VandeWettering:
"I read this statement to basically read that the banning of evolution from
science curriculum can only be to promote a particular religious view and/or
doctrine, and that it is against the First Amendment."
>
You continue to claim that this is clearly what the opinion of the court was,
and hide from my attempts to show you that this was in respect to a *specific*
case, in which some of the justices thought it fact that religious views were
the reason - *in this particular case*. In effect, you are perpetuating this
generalization. You have not changed your tune. Hence, "running around saying
it."
[snip]
Mark VandeWettering
I don't really care what newbie thinks. I can't recall anything
he has ever said which has been even in the least bit thought
provoking, interesting, or even true for that matter. I'd take
time out to ridicule him, but most of the time his absurd prattle
does a better job of that than I could ever hope to achieve.
I was hoping for some intelligent discussion on the case law
surrounding free speech and the teaching of creationism and evolution.
It is unfortunate that other than a brief note from Bob, all I
managed to get was a response from newbie. I'll leave it to the
gentle readers of talk.origins as to who is misconstruing what.
I'm sure the flood of posters in defense of newbie's position is
just waiting for... hmmm. I wonder what?
Mark