Scopes II
Edward Hoffman
I've recently seen two news reports (one on NBC about a week ago, the other on
McNeil/Lehrer last night) about a court case pending in Tennessee which has
been dubbed Scopes II. The background, as best as I can recall, is as follows:
The fundamentailist parents of a number of children in a public school system
(seven families in all) complained that the contents of the textbooks used in
their children's classes taught material which conflicted with their religious
beliefs, and requested that a different set of books be used. This request
was denied by the school board on the grounds that honoring such a motion would
constitute support of a particular set of religious beliefs. The parents for-
bade their children to use the books in question, and the children were subse-
quently expelled. They are now in private religious schools, and the parents
have brought suit claiming that they were forced to choose between a free
public education and the observance of their religious beliefs.
Among their complaints about the books were that some portrayed men engaged
in domestic work (they say this contradicts their beliefs about the roles of
men and women), that at least one stated that Christ was illiterate, that some
were critical of the U.S. government, that some allegedly encouraged children
to cheat, steal, and lie to their parents, that they encouraged suicide, and
(of course) that they taught evolution without also teaching creationism.
As far as I am concerned, the parents are clearly in the wrong. Public educa-
tion does not mean education subject to the terms of the various segments of
the community. Further, I do not believe that religious doctrine should re-
place (or even supplement) the material taught in our schools. This applies
mostly to those who would have scientific evidence ignored when it conflicts
with the Bible, but is also applicable to those who wish to avoid mention of
certain aspects of society (i.e. as it ACTUALLY exists) which conflict with
their interpretation of Biblical ideals. If parents wish their children to
learn such material, there are religious organizations which would be more
than happy to accomodate them.
The biggest threat I see in all of this is that they might actually win. I
don't know if a judge has been chosen to hear the case, but I fear that an
ultra-consevative judge might side with the plaintiffs. Of course, the case
is almost certain to be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court regardless
of the outcome, but a ruling for the parents anywhere along the way might set
a tragic precedent.
As an aside, I took a Civil Rights Law seminar last semester which included
discussion of a recent (i.e. less that ten-year-old) case involving the San
Antonio School system. The suit was brought by a group of citizens who claimed
that the funding mechanism for the school system discriminated against the
poor. Although the substance of the case does not bear directly on the matter
at hand, part of the Supreme Court's (or maybe District Court--I've sent the
book home for the Summer, and can't research it right now) ruling does have a
direct relation. The court found in favor of the School Board, but stated
that, despite the importance of a public education, there is no constitutional
mandate declaring that such an education must be provided. Thus it seems to
me that the Tennessee parents are in a situation where (assuming the school
board policy is a threat to their religious freedom) a constitutionally
guaranteed right is in conflict with a non-guaranteed right. Thus, unless
the Tennessee Constitution or local law mandates free education for all, it
seems clear that the ruling should be in favor of the school board.
Comments?
Edward Hoffman
ARPAnet: hof...@cheshire.columbia.edu
BITnet: CC4.EA-HOFFMAN@CU20A
UUCP: ...![seismo,topaz]!columbia!cheshire!hoffman
David Canzi
non-Christian children to Christian ideas (by means of school prayer)
doesn't deprive them of their religious freedoms. Similarly, exposing
Christian children to non-Christian ideas doesn't deprive them of
religious freedom either.
So I just can't see what their problem is...
--
David Canzi "In your heart you know it's flat."
Dave Hurst
Great! Now all we have to do is expose all children to Hindu ideas and
Buddhist ideas and Taoist ideas and Native American ideas (all varieties,
including Iriquois (sp?), Hopi, Aztec, and Maya) and African spritualist
ideas and ancient Greek and Minoan ideas and ....
What did you say? That it could take a lifetime to explore the intricacies
of all of the ideas of these different cultures? Gasp! You mean we'll have
to keep learning about things once we get out of high school? That could be
dangerous! We might learn to think for ourselves instead of blindly
accepting what others spoonfeed us! However will we be saved then? Oh
horrors, what a problem!
--
email: ...ihnp4!grc97!hurst David Hurst, KSC
phone: (312) 640-2044 Gould Research Center
flames: /dev/null
All hail Discordia! Kallisti!
Pete Zakel
Fundamentalist Christians, however, will completely reject the second point.
They consider non-Christian ideas to come from Satan, and they don't want
their children to be tempted away from the "true faith" under any
circumstances. Whether this fear is reasonable means nothing.
If they want their children to get a "Christian" education, they should send
them to a "Christian" school. Unfortunately, they would rather turn the
public schools "Christian" instead of setting up their own.
--
-Pete Zakel (..!{hplabs,amd,pyramid,ihnp4}!pesnta!valid!pete) (member of HASA)
Brian McNeill
>Well, as any fundamentalist Christian will tell you, exposing
>non-Christian children to Christian ideas (by means of school prayer)
>doesn't deprive them of their religious freedoms. Similarly, exposing
>Christian children to non-Christian ideas doesn't deprive them of
>religious freedom either.
>
>So I just can't see what their problem is...
I agree. More over it's considerably fairer. The fundamentalist
Christians tend to overlook the fact that there are more faiths
in the world than theirs. To be fair, you'd have to include
moments of prayers for Hindus, Moslems, Jews, Zoroastrians, Shintos,
Druids, Celts, etc (ad infinitum). In fact, I dont even think
you could get all the sects of Christianity to agree together on
one prayer (In fact, I'm sure of it). I am also against those
who are for a moment of silence because of the religious connotation
that idea has had added to it over the years. Peer pressure is
a tremendous weapon, as I, and no doubt many others have found
out.
>--
>David Canzi "In your heart you know it's flat."
/-----------------------------------------------------------\
| Brian McNeill ARPA : za...@sdcc3.ucsd.edu |
| UUCP : ...!sdcsvax!sdcc3!za56 |
| Generic disclaimer (I bought it at Price Club) |
| "Any opinions expressed herein are merely combinations |
| of random words and phrases and should not be taken |
| to represent the views of the ACC or UCSD unless, of |
| course, they should become profitable or famous......" |
\-----------------------------------------------------------/