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.
He must be one of those Liberaltarians I've read about to last this long on this board. Thank him for being the irrelevant 2% of the political population, oh and thank him for voting for Bush.
Now he will go hit his bong and watch another rerun of Gilligan's Island while he still lives in his parents basement.
In compliance with a sentiment thus generally expressed, to quiet fears thus extensively entertained, amendments were proposed by the required majority in Congress and adopted by the States. These amendments demanded security against the apprehended encroachments of the general government--not against those of the local governments.
In compliance with a sentiment thus generally expressed, to quiet fears thus extensively entertained, amendments were proposed by the required majority in congress, and adopted by the states. These amendments contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the state governments. This court cannot so apply them. - Chief Justice Marshall
Well, I'll tell you. Courts issues decrees and royalty isssues decrees. In this country at this time the only government entity that issues decrees and is both a court and royalty is SCOTUS.
And as I guy I know is wont to say:
There you have it.
That means certain portions of the consitution are unamendable.
Exactly. The republic would fail if the 2nd Amendment was 'repealed', for instance.
No matter how large a super majority passed such an 'amendment', millions of patriots would remain who would refuse to accept such an infringement on our liberty.
-- what trumps everything is the most recently adopted amendment. It by definition is designed to trump any conflicting language.
You contend then that if a repeal of the 2nd Amendment was ratified, it would be valid and "trump" our right to bear arms?
Are we making any progrsss here?
You are rapidly progressing on a path to putting your foot in mouth, imo. But hey, -- feel free to continue.
And then we had the 14th amendment. Amendments matter, particularly if SCOTUS give them a robust scope in its decisions. The 14th amendment and the robust reading of the commerce clause has largely interred states rights. I don't mourn that much - indeed I don't mourn it a all (although I mourn the way the 14th amendment has struck down federal statutes outside the scope and reach or race issues). We are one nation, that will sink or swim together. There is no going back, practically or prudentially.
tpaine/P_A_I will explain to you that Marshall was wrong and the Bill of rights always applied to the states. You'll have to ask him if that means that the 14th amendment can or can't be repealed.
If the second amendment were repealed, any right to bear arms in a well regulated militia or otherwise would have to rest on some other basis. You just are not comfortable with the application of legal mechanics, if it does not comport with your policy agenda. That is not a new or novel idea. We see it all the time.
Nobody ever understands your schizophrenic ramblings. Fortunately no one else on the planet thinks the Constitution says what you imagine it does in your own little fantasy world. The American people overwhelmingly reject your libertarian faggotry, and have ratified constitutional amendments protecting marriage from the likes of you. It's too bad for you there are so few libertarians in America so you can't forcefully impose your degenerate immorality on the rest of the country.
Sure thing joe. Whatever you say.
PAI is a recycled poster?
No problem, pai, and while you libraltarians are still fighting the gubmint, we conservatives will be running it.
You don't recognize tpaine? His nauseating posting style is a dead giveaway as well as his intense nationalist anti-federalism.
I think you may be right. There are eerie echoes. :)
-- "The [Constitutional] principles, therefore, so established, are deemed fundamental. And as the authority from which they proceed is supreme, and can seldom act, they are designed to be permanent. -- "
They are designed to be permanent until the "sacred" text is amended.
We can't amend away our inalienable rights, torie. Get it yet?
You do know a Constitutional convention called by the states can rewrite the whole Constitution don't you?
A three fourths majority could try, - of course, -- but any serious infringements on individual rights would lead to civil war. - And imo, the Constitutionalists would win again.
I have never read with my beady little eyes any string of words asserting that the Constitution, or some parts thereof, were not subject to amendment, until I read you.
Marshall's words from 1803 mean nothing to you? Weird fella.
You are simply sui generis, with a new idea, indeed a novel idea, but not a good idea, or a correct idea, legally.
It's only new & novel to you my boy. You need to read more.
You seemed to be fusing as an idea armed insurrection or civil disobedience with the meaning and application of the law. Mixing it all up, may have culinary merit, but not, for discussion purposes, public policy merit.
If these matters cannot be resolved throught the rule of law, via the ballot box, the alternative is not a pleasant prospect. Fortunately most respect the result of the ballot box, and nobody is tampering with the civil right to participate in the public square in any meaningful sense. In the end, civil society only works, if the citizenry are civil minded. All the Constitutional paper in the world, however noble, will not substitute for the good habits and morals and willingness of the citizenry, to tolerate a pluralistic democratic governance.
If the second amendment were repealed, any right to bear arms in a well regulated militia or otherwise would have to rest on some other basis.
You contend then that we have no inalienable right to bear arms in our self defense?
You just are not comfortable with the application of legal mechanics, if it does not comport with your policy agenda. That is not a new or novel idea. We see it all the time.
"We" being who? -- And I am quite comfortable with the legal mechanics of our Constitution, which you admittedly are not.
The courts are a convoluted mess. I say we toss out all precedent cases and start over...
-- "The [Constitutional] principles, therefore, so established, are deemed fundamental. And as the authority from which they proceed is supreme, and can seldom act, they are designed to be permanent. -- "
They are designed to be permanent until the "sacred" text is amended.
We can't amend away our inalienable rights, torie. Get it yet?
You do know a Constitutional convention called by the states can rewrite the whole Constitution don't you?
A three fourths majority could try, - of course, -- but any serious infringements on individual rights would lead to civil war. - And imo, the Constitutionalists would win again.
I have never read with my beady little eyes any string of words asserting that the Constitution, or some parts thereof, were not subject to amendment, until I read you.
Marshalls words from 1803 mean nothing to you? Weird fella.
You are simply sui generis, with a new idea, indeed a novel idea, but not a good idea, or a correct idea, legally.
It's only new & novel to you my boy. You need to read more.
You seemed to be fusing as an idea armed insurrection or civil disobedience with the meaning and application of the law.
I do? Where do you get that odd idea?
Mixing it all up, may have culinary merit, but not, for discussion purposes, public policy merit.
Strange ideas you have for "public policy", torie. -- Claiming we can amend away our inalienable rights.
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.