Posted on 06/01/2005 9:24:53 AM PDT by Fester Chugabrew
It's a common claim of libertarians, liberals, atheists and skeptics that religious conservatives use the public schools to promote creationism. I believe that claim is incorrect. The truth is that libertarians, liberals, atheists and skeptics use the public schools to promote atheism. Public schools are bad of course, and all schools should be private. But if there are going to be public schools anyway, they should be for all people, for evolutionists and creationists, for atheists and theists. Public schools should teach both evolution and creationism, and students should be given the choice which of those courses they want to take. It's the libertarians, liberals, atheists and skeptics that want to take away people's free choice, in the name of religious freedom, so as to make sure that everybody is forced to learn scientific truth and nobody gets exposed to pseudo-scientific heresy. That idea is based on a mistaken view of what separation between Church and State means.
Separation between Church and State means, or at least should mean, that government will not takes sides promoting one religion over the other. Or religion over nonreligion. Or nonreligion over religion. Forbidding creationism in public schools is itself an attack on the separation between Church and State. It means the the State promotes education the way atheists want it and hampers eduction the way theists want it. My opponents will counter that public schools do not promote atheism. They're supposedly neutral and teach only science, while they teach neither atheism nor theism. Nonsense. What a school teaches is never neutral and can never be neutral. Every choice a school makes on what courses to give and how is a value jugdement on what is good. Therefore, the conflicts public schools create about what to teach can never be solved. They're inherent in the very idea of a public school and can only be solved by privatizing all public schools. The best public schools can do for now is cater to as many needs as possible, especially needs carried by large proportions of students. Not doing that, for example by teaching evolution and not creationism, is not a neutral choice.
If one interprets the Separation between Church and State more strictly, so as to mean government must not even have any indirect connection to religion, then one might indeed argue that public schools should not teach creationism. (One might then even be able to argue that people on welfare should be forbidden to spend their welfare money on religious goods or services.) But such a strict interpretation would be unfair as long as there is no Separation between School and State. For if there is this kind of a separation between Church and State, while there is no general separation between School and State, religious education is put at a severe disadvantage to any kind of other education. Why should all schools of thought about what kind of education is appropriate get a say in the public school system, except if there is a religious connection? Separation between School and State is a great idea, which would depolitisize education, via privatization. But a very strictly interpreted separation between Church and State is simply not possible or desirable, as long as government controls public schools. If they control public schools they should try to cater equally to all education needs and education philosophies, whether they be scientific, atheist, religious, or whatever.
In this regard it's the religious right that stands on the side of freedom of religion and free scientific inquiry. They fully respect the rights of atheists to teach evolution in public schools, even though they think it incorrect. Their opponents, on the other hand, do no respect the rights of theist to teach creationism in public schools, because they think it incorrect. It may be that strictly speaking evolution is not atheism while creationism is theism. That doesn't remove the unfairness of the public schools in that they do teach what many atheist want taught (evolution) while they do not teach what many theist want taught (creationism). One might argue that the principle involved is that public schools should teach science and that therefore evolution is an appropriate subject to teach while creationism is not. There are two problems with that view:
1. Many creationists believe creationism is scientific.
2. It's not true that public schools only teach science.
As to 1, I agree that creationism is bad science, or nonscience, while evolution is good science. But it's not appropriate for government to make judgements about what is science or not science. For government to do that is a violation of well established principes of free scientific inquiry. The fact that evolution is true and creationism is false is besides the point. Government shouldn't decide what scientific truth is and tell people what to do or learn based on that judgement. Using government power against religious scientism is just as bad as when the Church used force against Galileo's secular science, and this is so for the same reasons. Therefore, the most neutral position to take is that everything should be taught in public schools if there is a big enough demand for it being taught.
As to 2. Most people think public schools should teach certain things other than science, such as physical education, moral education, sexual conduct, political ideas, social skills. Therefore one may not disallow the teaching of creationism on the grounds that it's not science, even putting aside the fact that not everybody agrees creationism isn't science. The same argument would disallow many things that are currently being taught in public schools. If we single out religion as something nonscientific that cannot be taught, while say political correctness can be taught, then we are using the first amendment in a way opposite to how it was intended. Instead of protecting religion now it's being used as a bias against religion.
Creationism is just one of many subjects that could be taught by public schools. And if that's what many people want taught, it should be taught, at least as an optional subject. Allowing creationism taught does not require any law which would respect an establishment of religion nor does it prohibit the free exercise of religion, and so there's no first amendment conflict. Quite the opposite. Taxing people to pay for public schools, and then forbidding them to teach religion, limits people's funds and options for exercising religion. Precisely a law forbidding creationism in public schools prohibits to some extent, or at least hampers, the free exercise of religion.
Let me be clear that I don't think it's good that schools teach creationism, intelligent design, or other pseudoscience such as astrology, withchraft, ESP, etc. If I were to create or fund or support a school, I would argue against it doing those things. So it's not that I think it's appropriate for schools to teach falsehoods and pseudoscience. My point is that it is not for me to judge what is appropriate or not for other people. When I own my own private school, it's my own business to make those judgements. But when it's a public school, the school should serve the purposes of everybody. Not only should it serve the purposes of both those in favour of pseudoscience and those in favour of science. But, more importantly, it should recognize that not everybody will agree on what is science and what is pseudoscience. In a free society everybody is allowed to make his own judgement on that. For goverment to make that judgement for people is authoritarian. Therefore, governments should not forbid subjects being tought based on the fact that they are pseudoscience. If you give government the power to forbid something because it's pseudoscience, then they are bound also to forbid something genuinely scientific and true at some point, on the arguement that it is pseudoscience. We are all fallible, and so is the government. Power given to government to protect us against illness, unhapiness and bad ideas, even with the best of intentions, will eventually turn against us and control us.
The state is used to supply education the way atheists want it, while it cannot be used to supply education the way theists want it, but they do pay part of the taxes. The reason this is done is not because atheists value religious freedom. I'm not saying atheists don't value religious freedom. I assume they do, I'm saying that's not the reason they control the public schools in this manner. Atheists do this for the same reason that in Islamic states all education is religious. They do it because they want to force people to live wholesome lives and do and learn what is good for them. Science is good, religion is bad, ergo people must learn science and the teaching of religion must be made difficult. Every group uses state power to enforce their way of life on others. This will be so as long as there is a state. Only the theists are more honest about it. These conflicts can never be solved except by privatization of schools. But as long as there are public schools any special restrictions on any kind of teaching, whether such teachings are defended on religious, scientific, cultural or moral grounds, is inappropriate and in conflict with the spirit of the first amendment. I'm an atheist, by the way.
They could try, but I doubt that such an amendment could be drafted to avoid infringing on our individual right to make valid contracts.
Who could rule a Constitutioal Amendment Un-Constitutional?
The USSC could issue an opinion that such an Amendment was repugnant to Constitutional principles. -- And any Official could then refuse to enforce such an Amendment, on the grounds that it violated Constitutional principles.
Would that be anything like how liquor contracts were once prohibited by Constitional Amendment?
The 18th was never challenged in the USSC, but it could have been, -- and probably would have, - except for its repeal.
We can amend anything we like and there is nothing anyone could do to overturn it except by amendment...
Sorry, but majority rule decrees repugnant to Constitutional principle would nullify & void the contract.
The Court certainly cannot...
If not, then the Constitutional contract would be useless & revolution would be authorized.
Service worthy of any Yeoman.
It is you who lose... the legend in your own mind...
Now I know you are full of crap... nice try...
Well, you and your butt buddy are here defending the sodomite religion, aren't you?
How sad that the best you can come up with is a 'crap' retort.
Did you really go to Stanford?
At least that's what my discharge papers say for a former warrant officer...
Want a hanky? I'll bet you're 'deeply saddened'...
You'd do better learn to defend English first... at least you might be able to read it...
Typical. - You can't argue the issues, so you're commenting on my use/comprehension of english.
Sad display, sir.
Need a hanky? I'll bet you are 'deeply saddened'...
You're whacked, of course they can, that is exactly what we elect legislators to do in a constituional republic, make law. You can't marry your sister. You can't marry a two year old. If you don't live in Mass you can't marry somebody of the same sex.
You can argue that there should be no laws at all but to make silly statements like this is simply non productive.
They could try, but I doubt that such an amendment could be drafted to avoid infringing on our individual right to make valid contracts.
Dude, when they amend the constituion that is the law of the land until further amendment. There is no judicial review by the oligarchs. Sorry.
Yep, we could live to long enough to see government doing anything "they please", but I doubt it.
It would seem that anything you doubt has a ailry good chance of happening.
Right, and the arbiter of contracts in your ideal world would be who if not the government?
BTW, marriage is NOT solely a religious rite in America. Marriage does not exclude those who are not rlgious, it is a non discriminatroy secualr institution well established in American jurisprudence as a fundamental right.
Congress doesn;t regulate marriage, the states do.
States can "regulate", but they cannot make laws that decree marriage 'illegal' based on what the state legislators think will be beneficial to society. - Neither feds nor states have ever been delegated such prohibitive powers.
You're whacked, of course they can, that is exactly what we elect legislators to do in a constituional republic, make law.
Yep, they can make Constitutional law & 'regulations', - but not decrees.
You can't marry your sister. You can't marry a two year old.
Reasonable regulations. I agree.
If you don't live in Mass you can't marry somebody of the same sex.
Unreasonable reg. -- Why should I care if Bruce wants to 'marry' you? - I don't.
The states and Congress can certainly amend the constitution to define marriage as the union of one man and one woma if they so choose.
They could try, but I doubt that such an amendment could be drafted to avoid infringing on our individual right to make valid contracts.
Dude, when they amend the constituion that is the law of the land until further amendment. There is no judicial review --- . Sorry.
Wrong. -- The USSC could issue an opinion that such an Amendment was repugnant to Constitutional principles. -- And any government Official, at any level, could then refuse to enforce such an Amendment, on the grounds that it violated Constitutional principles.
-- current jurisprudence considers marriage a "fundamantal right" which is why the government can't force your spouse to testify against you. So while government can regulate marriage any way they please they can not abridge the right to marry.
Yep, we could live to long enough to see government doing anything "they please", but I doubt it.
It would seem that anything you doubt has a ailry good chance of happening.
So I guess we agree that while government can regulate marriage, they can not abridge the right to marry?
the arbiter of contracts in your ideal world would be who if not the government?
Fully informed impartial juries of our peers are the designated 'arbiters' in our Republic, walsh. -- Not the government, as you advocate.
I don't make moral judgements, right and wrong are your esoteric hobgoblins, your idolatries of personal conceit...
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
If you are powerful enough, you get to do what you want.
This is the only logical truth you have uttered. Life is brutish and short, isn't it?
Oh, and by the way, even your false analogy (false cause, non-causa) by invoking the term "Fascism" is innaccurate. The National Socialists weren't Fascists. Another Leftist trick exposed by Ayn Rand, the art of the smear (or schmear if you know what I refer to).
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.