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