Posted on 05/05/2009 10:26:46 AM PDT by davidosborne
“seems to me that adopting sex practices that tend to rule you out of the gene pool is not a good idea from an evolutionary point of view.”
Which is why I’ve always wondered why it exists. Or rather, why it’s been found in so many societies in statistically significant (yet relatively small) numbers. You’d think it would’ve been selected against. There’s always some rationale. Perhaps homosexuality is an off-shoot of an overactive sex-drive. Maybe homos have always had a better understanding of women because of their excessive femininity (excessive in relation to other men, that is), and therefore have been successful impregnating them despite males being their preferred partners. I don’t know.
“My own brother believes that Christians are barred from serving as president, but that this part of the Constitution is not enforced. While George W. Bush was in the White House, my brother referred to us as a theocracy ‘no better than Iran’”
Your brother is either a comedian, a liar, or an idiot.
What he should have said is theology is another subject, and if you are to include one set of beliefs, you need to include all beliefs of creationism, from the Hindu gods to Judaism, to Islam and Christianity and all other religions that have a 'creationist' theme.
The First Amendment allows for freedom of religion, it also allows conversely for freedom FROM religion. Or should I say freedom from ONE religion dictating public policy for education.
He lives in MA and votes for Ted Kennedy and Barney Frank.
“He lives in MA and votes for Ted Kennedy and Barney Frank.”
At least he’s at home. I live in MN and don’t feel like voting for anyone.
What if the teacher’s opinion is that Black people that civil rights suck because science proves Blacks are inferior. Should they be allowed to say that?
Religion and race are protected under the law from government oppression. Freedom of religion by the constitution. Race by Federal law. The teacher is a government employee preaching down one religion in favor of his beleif structure. He is imposing that on Christian kids and making it scarey for Christians to be in his class as the free people they are.
You mean they have not done it yet? It has been hours. Their slipping.
I could agree if it could be shown that homosexuality in human males is a strategy to gain access to females, or for human females to become more desirable to males. That is manifestly not the case and I am afraid that argument would garner you the same vituperation that is heaped on anyone who even suggests that human homosexuals can turned around or ‘cured’. The Inquisition will not be amused.
Saying something about the metaphysical is by definition promoting a religious idea.
Creationism does not equal Christianity
No different from this an say “... believing X is stupid, but Y is the right way”. Substitute Islam, Norse Myths, Greek Gods or EVOLUTION (Humanism).... in any combination of X/Y is still using government time, facilities and CONTROLLED ENVIRONMENT, to push a particular view.
But I am at a loss to understand how a listener’s First Amendment rights can be violated by someone speaking their opinion.This was more than one teacher's opinion, it was an authority figure - an agent of the state - in loco parentis denigrating the student's opinion, an opinion based on the student's free exercise of religion, a highly protected area of speech.
Because the teacher is preaching in favor of the absence of religion doesn't mean this is not like trying to get students to convert to Islam, Judaism or Christianity. He is basically trying to covert the students to become atheist.
With that, atheism is a belief. In fact it has become a religion as Darwin as their god. It's funny, these folks put just as much faith in theory as others put into their respective religion. It is faith because Darwin's theory is just that. Theory! So, being that evolution is not fact, their believe is based on faith. A sort of faith for those without faith.
“Saying something about the metaphysical is by definition promoting a religious idea.”
B.S. Metaphysics and theology are not the same thing, otherwise they’d have the same name.
“denigrating the student’s opinion, an opinion based on the student’s free exercise of religion, a highly protected area of speech.”
Again, the case is not about the free exercise of religion. The plaintiff and the judge were not silly enough to make that claim. The teacher could do nothing to restrict the student’s exercise of his own beliefs, beyond the normal restrictions high school places on behavior (you can’t leave in the middle of class to go worship God, unless you make prior arrangements, for instance). Even if the teacher shouted the kid down and didn’t let him respond (of which I didn’t see any evidence in the article), it wouldn’t violate the free exercise of religion clause, any more than not allowing a kid all the time in the world to speak about Metallica’s best album would violate the free speech clause.
The nub of the case is that the teacher’s mockery constituted the unconstitutional establishment of religion. Leave aside for the second the fact that the teacher deosn’t seem to have advocated any particular religion (and no, science, evolution, humanism, atheism, etc. are not religions). Please tell me where in the Constitution it says no government agent should denigrate religious opinion.
So long as we have compulsory education, we will give some level of authority to the opinions of the government officials known as teachers. Hoever, the opinion of the teacher is just that: his opinion. He’s not an official like the president is an official, or even like the principle is an official. He has not the power to establish anything besides his own control of the classroom.
If he declared his classroom the province of the Catholic Church, took his orders from the Pope, used money collected as tithings to buy supplies, forced his kids to take communion, MAYBE there’d be a case. But that’s not what happened. All he did was mock the kid’s beliefs. I have absolutely no doubt the Framers had no interest in stopping government agents from mocking people’s beliefs when they wrote the first amendment. There is no, never has and never will be, Constitutional protection against mockery.
But the student who sued is.
At least, from what I read he is.
You are wrong on several levels. A teacher is an official of the state in which he/she works, has obligations under the law to abide by laws codified for their state, and is not entitled to the expression of her opinion in a classroom. Teachers have been scolded for openly displaying Bibles in their classrooms. We are not allowed to express our opinions, only to allow students the freedom to express their free speech thoughts. Our opinion is irrelevant. We are to facilitate learning. Period.
The other element you are forgetting is that the student is a captive audience, unable to get up and walk out, change the channel or openly defy the teacher, because of disciplinary rules in place. As such, a student must listen to the teacher’s comments, but she has, by virtue of her position of authority, the power to not only shut the student down, but ridicule the student—and it often happens. I’m glad this suit has happened, in order to keep the liberal traps shut in the classroom.
My daughter has been the victim of such behavior by a teacher, and I guess now that this case has been heard, precedent has been set and liberal teachers will be put on notice. The rules in the past have all been designed to shut up Christian teachers, and I’m personally glad to see that the liberals have finally been called to task.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.