Notices
Results 1 to 53 of 53
Like Tree29Likes
  • 4 Post By Dywyddyr
  • 1 Post By Crimson Sunbird
  • 1 Post By Tranquille
  • 3 Post By KALSTER
  • 1 Post By Tranquille
  • 1 Post By Ascended
  • 1 Post By Lynx_Fox
  • 2 Post By Ascended
  • 1 Post By Lynx_Fox
  • 1 Post By Dywyddyr
  • 1 Post By Dywyddyr
  • 3 Post By Lynx_Fox
  • 1 Post By Lynx_Fox
  • 1 Post By Lynx_Fox
  • 1 Post By Dywyddyr
  • 2 Post By Lynx_Fox
  • 4 Post By Tranquille

Thread: Texas open to teaching creationism.

  1. #1 Texas open to teaching creationism. 
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    U.S.A
    Posts
    414

    The collective these past decades.. I mean for a very long time is going down a path that one could say is very.. not good. They are leaving us who understand damned. Texas open to teaching creationism in public schools. The horror in it's most awkward form.
    I should be damned in no time. I seldom experience true horror as I tend to witness it as I ponder about the collective of humanity. It's not the humanity I question, it's the collective. I find that the fight or flight response is becoming more of a weekly occurrence, I question if I may soon have to confront this fight or flight instinct in the coming decades. I just hope I am not the only one confronting this idea. I'm talking about old humanity and a new humanity; Freedom. Anyone feel the same way?

    I could be over thinking, but I only live once; unlike you immortal retards.

    Before my time..


    With bravery and recognition that we are harbingers of our destiny and with a paragon of virtue.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Good for them. Freedom of thought, ideas and speech should prevail. Let children, whom are bright if given the chance to be, can sort it all out.

    I completely disagree with ancient alien theory folks, but they sure are entertaining, educational and interesting to say the least.

    If parents want these things taught at schools, then they should be. It is just none of my business and I, as well as others, should not have the right or authority to stop them IMO.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Genius Duck Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    12,045
    You're kidding right?
    Did you watch that video?
    Teaching the bible as incontrovertible fact is not "freedom of thought".
    KALSTER, Japith, MrMojo1 and 1 others like this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,788
    The school board should shut it down.
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
    Jimi Hendrix
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Freshman Crimson Sunbird's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    39
    The guy says in the video (00:3300:38):

    Hey listen, were just going to teach the facts here, were not going to indoctrinate the kids
    Facts? What facts?
    Japith likes this.
    Dont fear change. Change fear.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Fortunately the Federal government has struck down this idiocy every time it has arisen when the state failed to do so.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    The Holy Land is everywhere Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Masters Degree Tranquille's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Solar System
    Posts
    733
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Good for them. Freedom of thought, ideas and speech should prevail. Let children, whom are bright if given the chance to be, can sort it all out.

    I completely disagree with ancient alien theory folks, but they sure are entertaining, educational and interesting to say the least.

    If parents want these things taught at schools, then they should be. It is just none of my business and I, as well as others, should not have the right or authority to stop them IMO.
    "Christ resurrection is an event that occurred in time and space - that it was, in reality, historical and not mythological".. This is freedom of thought?

    Freedom of thought is about teaching all religious teachings, not just the Bible and then saying it is infallible and the only truth... Freedom of thought is about keeping people's religious ideology outside of public schools and ensuring it remains in the private sphere and not forced upon all.
    Neverfly likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    It is not unconstitutional to have electives covering specific religions for educational purposes, nor is it unconstitutional, as Texas puts it, "to analyze, evaluate, and critique, scientific explanations."

    To suggest that a school cannot have an elective or lessons/discussions in other classes covering religion and/or religious things, is silly IMO. The Vedas alone offer a lot of historical information and other educational values, and to claim that vedic things or vedic classes/lessons/discussions should be banned in public schools is just over the top IMO.

    It is also not a bad thing to put scientific beliefs to the test in public schools, even if one uses a religious book, writing, art or artifact to do so.

    Freedom is not about being anti towards religious things... Nor is science, history, the arts, philosophy, etc..
    Last edited by gonzales56; February 1st, 2013 at 12:36 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    It is not unconstitutional to have electives, nor is it unconstitutional, as Texas puts it, "to analyze, evaluate, and critique, scientific explanations."

    To suggest that a school cannot have an elective covering religion, or even specific religions, is silly IMO. The Vedas alone offer a lot of historical information and other educational values, and to claim that such books or classes should be banned in public schools is just over the top IMO.

    It is also not a bad thing to put scientific beliefs to the test in public schools, even if one uses a religious book or writing to do so.
    The point was made that that was not what was going on- at all.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    It is not unconstitutional to have electives, nor is it unconstitutional, as Texas puts it, "to analyze, evaluate, and critique, scientific explanations."

    To suggest that a school cannot have an elective covering religion, or even specific religions, is silly IMO. The Vedas alone offer a lot of historical information and other educational values, and to claim that such books or classes should be banned in public schools is just over the top IMO.

    It is also not a bad thing to put scientific beliefs to the test in public schools, even if one uses a religious book or writing to do so.
    The point was made that that was not what was going on- at all.
    In fact, they are electives. No one is required to take the class. I believe many of the classes are called biblical history. Completely constitutional.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    In fact, they are electives. No one is required to take the class. I believe many of the classes are called biblical history. Completely constitutional.
    On that, I won't argue. But I do take exception to be dishonest about the presentation, skirting the rules and claiming to do one thing while actually doing another.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    U.S.A
    Posts
    414
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    It is not unconstitutional to have electives, nor is it unconstitutional, as Texas puts it, "to analyze, evaluate, and critique, scientific explanations."

    To suggest that a school cannot have an elective covering religion, or even specific religions, is silly IMO. The Vedas alone offer a lot of historical information and other educational values, and to claim that such books or classes should be banned in public schools is just over the top IMO.

    It is also not a bad thing to put scientific beliefs to the test in public schools, even if one uses a religious book or writing to do so.
    The point was made that that was not what was going on- at all.
    In fact, they are electives. No one is required to take the class. I believe many of the classes are called biblical history. Completely constitutional.
    We can judge how many attend biblical history from the size of buildings they make to teach. If it is small then my OP still stands due to other counties irrepressibly let religion grow. If it is big then my OP still is standing.
    But imagine all the moms and dads who want there child to embrace the savior. It all has the same effect on me.
    With bravery and recognition that we are harbingers of our destiny and with a paragon of virtue.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,245
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    It is not unconstitutional to have electives covering specific religions for educational purposes, nor is it unconstitutional, as Texas puts it, "to analyze, evaluate, and critique, scientific explanations."

    To suggest that a school cannot have an elective or lessons/discussions in other classes covering religion and/or religious things, is silly IMO. The Vedas alone offer a lot of historical information and other educational values, and to claim that vedic things or vedic classes/lessons/discussions should be banned in public schools is just over the top IMO.

    It is also not a bad thing to put scientific beliefs to the test in public schools, even if one uses a religious book, writing, art or artifact to do so.

    Freedom is not about being anti towards religious things... Nor is science, history, the arts, philosophy, etc..
    I disagree. It is no business of a school to challenge science with anything. This bit is the problem: "to analyze, evaluate, and critique, scientific explanations.". That means it is not an innocent extra course in religion, it is an attack on science.
    John Galt, Japith and Neverfly like this.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Calling it "bible history" fails from the get go. A lot comes down the curriculum, it's certainly allowed to give a secular course about different peoples of course, "Hebrew history and archaeology or something similar, but if objective it would not preach and be quite different than the bible.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    The Holy Land is everywhere Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Masters Degree Tranquille's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Solar System
    Posts
    733
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    It is not unconstitutional to have electives covering specific religions for educational purposes, nor is it unconstitutional, as Texas puts it, "to analyze, evaluate, and critique, scientific explanations."
    See, there is this little thing called separation of church and State...

    To suggest that a school cannot have an elective or lessons/discussions in other classes covering religion and/or religious things, is silly IMO. The Vedas alone offer a lot of historical information and other educational values, and to claim that vedic things or vedic classes/lessons/discussions should be banned in public schools is just over the top IMO.
    Is that what they are doing though? By declaring the Bible to be the absolute truth, they are going beyond"lessons/discussions in other classes covering religion and/or religious things".

    It is also not a bad thing to put scientific beliefs to the test in public schools, even if one uses a religious book, writing, art or artifact to do so.
    Here is the thing about science. Or scientific beliefs, if I was to use your wording.

    You put it to the test through scientific means.

    Not by declaring the Bible to be factual and the absolute truth.

    Freedom is not about being anti towards religious things... Nor is science, history, the arts, philosophy, etc..
    Actually no. Freedom is about not having one particular brand of religion rammed down people's throats and then be lied to by telling them that it is the absolute truth above all else.
    MrMojo1 likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    I disagree. It is no business of a school to challenge science with anything. This bit is the problem: "to analyze, evaluate, and critique, scientific explanations.". That means it is not an innocent extra course in religion, it is an attack on science.
    I am pretty surprised here Kalster. The idea that teachers, professors, students, etc, cannot dare question/challenge Scientific beliefs/explanations in classes/courses is a very dangerous one IMO.

    The idea that questioning/challenging a scientific belief/explanation is an attack on science could not be further from the truth. Science itself is about questioning/challenging and putting to the test all beliefs and explanations.

    This is were those who practice religion and science tend to be identical. The law, perfect, unquestionable, cannot challenge beliefs and explanations, priests and scientist cannot be questioned/challenged, to question is an attack on almighty truth, blasphemy, obey, shut up and listen, etc..

    There has been, and there are, countless beliefs and explanations given by men and women of science that are just flat out wrong, and I prefer schools and learning institution for myself and family that will question, test and challenge all beliefs and explanations if and when teachers and studies feel the need to do so... And beliefs and explanations given by anyone, including the scientific community, should never be off limits/forbidden/banned from being questioned, tested and challenged.

    I can surely appreciate the attempt though. Religious art, history, philosophy, etc. is something you all do not even want mentioned, shown or talked about by anyone in schools... Forget even questioning, testing and challenging the beliefs and explanations given by religious objects/things that cover a wide range of subjects, you all want it all banned/forbidden, but you want scientific beliefs/explanations to be preach as indisputable facts, unchallenged, and you want teachers or students who would dare question or challenge any scientific belief/explanation to be forbidden from doing so... Correct?

    I am not afraid of learning, I am not afraid listening or studying anything. It does hurt me, it helps me. Banning, burning, forbidding in learning institutions, the anger and rage, is just not my thing.. That's all.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by Tranquille View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    It is not unconstitutional to have electives covering specific religions for educational purposes, nor is it unconstitutional, as Texas puts it, "to analyze, evaluate, and critique, scientific explanations."
    See, there is this little thing called separation of church and State...

    To suggest that a school cannot have an elective or lessons/discussions in other classes covering religion and/or religious things, is silly IMO. The Vedas alone offer a lot of historical information and other educational values, and to claim that vedic things or vedic classes/lessons/discussions should be banned in public schools is just over the top IMO.
    Is that what they are doing though? By declaring the Bible to be the absolute truth, they are going beyond"lessons/discussions in other classes covering religion and/or religious things".

    It is also not a bad thing to put scientific beliefs to the test in public schools, even if one uses a religious book, writing, art or artifact to do so.
    Here is the thing about science. Or scientific beliefs, if I was to use your wording.

    You put it to the test through scientific means.

    Not by declaring the Bible to be factual and the absolute truth.

    Freedom is not about being anti towards religious things... Nor is science, history, the arts, philosophy, etc..
    Actually no. Freedom is about not having one particular brand of religion rammed down people's throats and then be lied to by telling them that it is the absolute truth above all else.
    You are wrong IMO.

    Electives are not ramming anything down someones "throat".. You can take the class or you can not take the class. Choice.

    People have the right to believe what they want. If they believe in tree spirits, ghost, aliens, god, scientific beliefs/conclusions, etc., that is their choice. Freedom.

    The more someone can learn, the better off they will be IMO. The more they are limited, the more they are controlled/indoctrinated. Not choice nor freedom.

    Concerning ones education, unlimited access to everything is the best thing IMO. There is nothing to fear, you can put your pitch forks down, put out your fires and stop trying to limit the choices people and families make concerning their own educations.

    If you do not what to learn or do not want those under your supervision/control to learn about religions by reading those religions books, studying their art, etc., then that is your choice. The government cannot force you to do so. However, you do not have the right to forbid others from doing so.

    I personally think those that choose to learn all they can, from as many diverse sources as they can, even from those ideas and beliefs they think they disagree with, are better off for it, while those who do not, do themselves a disservice.
    Last edited by gonzales56; February 1st, 2013 at 01:01 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    3,492
    I would like to see the parents reactions to being shown their offsprings future job prospects after being given a creationist education then presented with the job prospects of those pupils given a proper normal education, then let the parents decide for themsleves what kind of education they want for their children, now this would be interesting.
    Neverfly likes this.
    The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.

    Bertrand Russell
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Electives are not ramming anything down someones "throat".. You can take the class or you can not take the class.
    You are correct about freedom, which is the problem, here. Yes, it is an elective. Yes, the student has a choice as to whether or not to elect for the class.
    But once in it, the choice is made and they lose the freedom to drop the class once they realize that the description of the class was dishonest.

    It is not doing what it claims to do, but instead, is proselytizing in public schools and solely for one kind of faith, not the freedom to believe in any faith.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    You are wrong IMO.

    Electives are not ramming anything down someones "throat".. You can take the class or you can not take the class. Choice.

    People have the right to believe what they want. If they believe in tree spirits, ghost, aliens, god, scientific beliefs/conclusions, etc., that is their choice. Freedom..

    The reality are it is illegal to teach religion in the US in publicly funded school.

    Also young minds aren't developed and can't make "their own decisions" about what to believe. Schools has a responsibility, obligation and only time available to teach the facts as best known at the time, not the entire spectrum of possibilities.
    KALSTER likes this.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    The Holy Land is everywhere Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    3,492
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post


    The reality are it is illegal to teach religion in the US in publicly funded school.
    I think it should be manatory to teach about religions in school, the more religions the better. Teach about the effect religion has on people, what it does to their followers, teach about what it is these religions get people to believe and how it gives them control over people's lives. I think then when people become adults they will really be informed enough to make their own choices over whether or not they really want to become involved in religion, to often kids are brain washed when they are at that vunerable stage and get sucked into religion, then end up spending the rest of their lives believing all kinds of rubbish that they can never be disuaded from.
    Neverfly and Dywyddyr like this.
    The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.

    Bertrand Russell
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    You are wrong IMO.

    Electives are not ramming anything down someones "throat".. You can take the class or you can not take the class. Choice.

    People have the right to believe what they want. If they believe in tree spirits, ghost, aliens, god, scientific beliefs/conclusions, etc., that is their choice. Freedom..

    The reality are it is illegal to teach religion in the US in publicly funded school.

    Also young minds aren't developed and can't make "their own decisions" about what to believe. Schools has a responsibility, obligation and only time available to teach the facts as best known at the time, not the entire spectrum of possibilities.
    it is not unconstitutional to teach religion in the US in publicly funded schools. It is unconstitutional to make solely dedicated religious classes manditory.... big difference.
    Last edited by gonzales56; February 1st, 2013 at 08:38 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Genius Duck Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    12,045
    But it's a falsehood to teach it as infallibly correct.
    And very probably illegal to misrepresent what they're doing.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    But it's a falsehood to teach it as infallibly correct.
    And very probably illegal to misrepresent what they're doing.
    No, it is not. Where do you all come up with this stuff?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    it is not unconstitutional to teach religion in the US in publicly funded schools. It is unconstitutional to make it manditory.... big difference.
    Actually it is. Here's a bit of the Constitutional Law about the notion.

    In the majority opinion:
    "We repeat and again reaffirm that neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person 'to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion.'" Neither can constitutionally pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers, and neither can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs." Justice Clark (see Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961))
    You see allowing the religious teaching, even as an elective in public schools, is aiding that religion. The government MUST remain neutral.

    What public schools can do is teach ABOUT RELIGION, such as the secular historic view of events and effects by religion on societies.
    MrMojo1 likes this.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    The Holy Land is everywhere Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Genius Duck Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    12,045
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    No, it is not. Where do you all come up with this stuff?
    Really?
    It's not false to teach something as infallibly correct when in actual fact it's not?
    There are no laws against misrepresentation in the US?
    There's a vast difference between "teaching the bible" and "teaching that the bible is incontrovertibly the word of god and 100% truth".
    MrMojo1 likes this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    it is not unconstitutional to teach religion in the US in publicly funded schools. It is unconstitutional to make it manditory.... big difference.
    Actually it is. Here's a bit of the Constitutional Law about the notion.

    In the majority opinion:
    "We repeat and again reaffirm that neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person 'to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion.'" Neither can constitutionally pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers, and neither can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs." Justice Clark (see Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961))
    You see allowing the religious teaching, even as an elective in public schools, is aiding that religion. The government MUST remain neutral.

    What public schools can do is teach ABOUT RELIGION, such as the secular historic view of events and effects by religion on societies.
    You clearly do not know what "force" means, nor "against".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Genius Duck Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    12,045
    And you, clearly, didn't actually read the highlighted relevant portions in Lynx_Fox's post.
    Was that deliberate (in order to sustain your argument) or are you merely slipshod in reading?
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    And you, clearly, didn't actually read the highlighted relevant portions in Lynx_Fox's post.
    Was that deliberate (in order to sustain your argument) or are you merely slipshod in reading?
    It is just not the case nor is it the law. I am very familiar with the case fox is referring to, fox is reading it wrong and unfortunately, even claims that religion, in all its glory and outrageousness, cannot be an elective for elective credits but, fox is wrong.

    The supreme court just refused to hear a case against SC that upholds that religious study and practice can be, and is, a class/course public school children can take as an elective for school credits.

    Bibles, korans, vedas, etc, not only can be used, read and studied in classes for many reasons, they can also be worshipped as electives.

    This is a good thing.. Not a bad thing.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    No, it is not. Where do you all come up with this stuff?
    Really?
    It's not false to teach something as infallibly correct when in actual fact it's not?
    There are no laws against misrepresentation in the US?
    There's a vast difference between "teaching the bible" and "teaching that the bible is incontrovertibly the word of god and 100% truth".
    All of which are allowed... All of which are constitutional. Remember, religion is also protected. They can lie about a god, a goat, a boat or an iron rock that floats..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Genius Duck Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    12,045
    Right. And we should just take your word for it?
    The word of someone who has already demonstrated quite clearly that he can't read a post correctly.
    Correction several posts.
    That's NOT what Fox is claiming, let's try again: neither a State nor the Federal Government canaid those religions - that's the relevant part.
    Allowing the bible to be taught, as fact, is aiding that religion.
    The class - as has been shown in that video - is NOT the bible being "read and studied" it's being pushed , onto children, as the absolute infallible truth.
    MrMojo1 likes this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Genius Duck Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    12,045
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    All of which are allowed... All of which are constitutional. Remember, religion is also protected. They can lie about a god, a goat, a boat or an iron rock that floats..
    Let me try again. I'll repeat my original contention (post #23):
    But it's a falsehood to teach it as infallibly correct.
    And very probably illegal to misrepresent what they're doing.

    To which you replied:
    No, it is not. Where do you all come up with this stuff?

    Your answer is that it's "not unconstitutional"? Oops, I said it's a falsehood.
    And whether it's constitutional or not I doubt it's legal to misrepresent any "product".

    Keep trying.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Right. And we should just take your word for it?
    The word of someone who has already demonstrated quite clearly that he can't read a post correctly.
    Correction several posts.
    That's NOT what Fox is claiming, let's try again: neither a State nor the Federal Government canaid those religions - that's the relevant part.
    Allowing the bible to be taught, as fact, is aiding that religion.
    The class - as has been shown in that video - is NOT the bible being "read and studied" it's being pushed , onto children, as the absolute infallible truth.
    If it is an elective class then it is allowed. It is that simple.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    If it is an elective class then it is allowed. It is that simple.
    "Don't confuse me with the facts- my mind is already made up."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Genius Duck Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    12,045
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    If it is an elective class then it is allowed. It is that simple.
    Still wrong.
    What the pupils' parents THINK they are electing for is "bible study" when in fact it isn't.
    Misrepresentation therefore illegal.
    And, as has been shown, unconstitutional.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    If it is an elective class then it is allowed. It is that simple.
    Still wrong.
    What the pupils' parents THINK they are electing for is "bible study" when in fact it isn't.
    Misrepresentation therefore illegal.
    And, as has been shown, unconstitutional.
    Religious worship electives

    They can scream and yell all they want about god, gods, or whatever, and they can do it constitutionally as long as it is an elective.

    If you do not like Texas schools having elective classes about the bible/religion, which is constitutional, then try to challenge them in the courts.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    You clearly do not know what "force" means, nor "against".
    sigh. If you have objection then, as should always happen in a science forum, you should provide evidence with links and supporting argument. For example the case the Supreme Court refused to hear--what's the name of it? And where's the link....all decisions but all the higher courts are posted almost immediately.

    But in this case you'll have to seriously revise your mistaken views. I'll provide some of the more important cases.

    In Frain vs. Barron (1969) the courts ruled that a public school starting a day with prayer, even if completely volunteery and kids offered a means to go to another room, was in violation of the US Constitution.
    Lossondate v Pleasanton Inified school distict (2003), the courts rules that proselyting prayer could not be used for a school graduation.
    In a similar case Jagar v. Douglas Country School District(1989) the courts also ruled against pre-athetic event invocations by a public school.

    Perhaps most important and building on Torcacos v Watkins, was the Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) case which establish what is commonly known as the Lemon Test by educational law experts.
    That test in short said to be taught the religious material to be taught must meet four conditions: Its primary purpose must be secular; it effect must be one which doesn't advance or inhibit religion; it must not entangle government with religion. Whether the material is elective or not, doesn't matter. Numerous lower cases have used the Lemon Test since.

    Now I encourage you to learn the law. I learned most of the above, during a course on Education Law I recently took through the Catholic University where I'm completing my teaching certification. It's such a big deal, sensitive issue and has resulted in the firing of so many teachers, that all stops were pulled to teach the course--including seminars by several lawyers and a senior member of the State's education board and teachers union. Teaching anything about religion in public schools, even a teacher wearing religious garb (a case from 1990 I'd have to research) is dangerous ground--and only allowed in completely secular ways regardless of student's or parent's choice in the matter.
    KALSTER, MrMojo1 and Neverfly like this.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    The Holy Land is everywhere Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Fox, i have given you a link. You are just not right concerning the law. Students can worship god/s for electives, students can also be given religious books, writings, art, artifacts and they can be read and/or studied in classes.

    I do not know why you all have a hard time understanding the law and the constitution. The court ruling was clear. Go to bible study, go to your church, read your bible, do your thing, it is an elective for your public school and you get your credits. One can also teach things in religious texts in schools as well.
    Last edited by gonzales56; February 1st, 2013 at 10:40 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Genius Duck Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    12,045
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Religious worship electives

    They can scream and yell all they want about god, gods, or whatever, and they can do it constitutionally as long as it is an elective.

    If you do not like Texas schools having elective classes about the bible/religion, which is constitutional, then try to challenge them in the courts.
    You're still having trouble reading, aren't you?
    1) That course is not detailed - IOW the content may be completely different from the dishonest one.
    2) Your link also states - "But school district officials say the policy is based on a South Carolina law allowing elective credits for off-campus religion courses provided they're evaluated using secular criteria".

    Do you honestly think a course claiming that the bible is infallibly correct will pass any secular criteria?
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Religious worship electives

    They can scream and yell all they want about god, gods, or whatever, and they can do it constitutionally as long as it is an elective.

    If you do not like Texas schools having elective classes about the bible/religion, which is constitutional, then try to challenge them in the courts.
    You're still having trouble reading, aren't you?
    1) That course is not detailed - IOW the content may be completely different from the dishonest one.
    2) Your link also states - "But school district officials say the policy is based on a South Carolina law allowing elective credits for off-campus religion courses provided they're evaluated using secular criteria".

    Do you honestly think a course claiming that the bible is infallibly correct will pass any secular criteria?
    The class does not have to be secular in its teaching, the school has to give the credit based on secular criteria. Huge difference. the class can rant on and on about how jesus is the savior and rose from the dead and have them read the bible but, the school has to give them the credit for the elective based on social study, art, etc., secular criteria. They worship, the school give the credit based on secular criteria.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Genius Duck Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    12,045
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    The class does not have to be secular in its teaching, the school has to give the credit based on secular criteria.
    I know. I'm the one that pointed it out.

    Huge difference. the class can rant on and on about how jesus is the savior and rose from the dead and have them read the bible but, the school has to give them the credit for the elective based on social study, art, etc., secular criteria. They worship, the school give the credit based on secular criteria.
    Again wrong. If they come out of that class having been taught that, for instance, Jesus rose from the dead, the world stopped turning for a day and there are no contradictions in the bible etc then what mark are they going to get?
    Fail.
    Every. Single. Pupil.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Fox, i have given you a link.
    No you didn't. What is the name of it? Where is the case so we can read it? You posted a sad media article that didn't even care to name the case, or put up the refusal note from the supreme court--something they always post even in the 97% of cases they refuse to hear. Do at least a bit of legwork to support your own argument. Even as provided in the bad article, it doesn't seem the school was providing the course, nor spending anything on its teaching. Nor does it address the specifics of the course to determine whether it was about religion, which can be ok, or teaching of religion, which is not ok. The fact the course must still pass secular standards suggest it's more about religion.
    Last edited by Lynx_Fox; February 2nd, 2013 at 12:47 AM.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    The Holy Land is everywhere Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    The class does not have to be secular in its teaching, the school has to give the credit based on secular criteria.
    I know. I'm the one that pointed it out.

    Huge difference. the class can rant on and on about how jesus is the savior and rose from the dead and have them read the bible but, the school has to give them the credit for the elective based on social study, art, etc., secular criteria. They worship, the school give the credit based on secular criteria.
    Again wrong. If they come out of that class having been taught that, for instance, Jesus rose from the dead, the world stopped turning for a day and there are no contradictions in the bible etc then what mark are they going to get?
    Fail.
    Every. Single. Pupil.
    If a student wrote a paper about jesus rising from the dead, etc., and a teacher gave them a failing grade because of the religious content/statements, that teacher will be fired for violating that kids constitutional rights. The school and teachers cannot give a grade based on the religious content, they have to give a grade or credit based solely on academic standards / secular criteria.

    US Department of Education
    "Students may express their beliefs about religion in homework, artwork, and other written and oral assignments free from discrimination based on the religious content of their submissions. Such home and classroom work should be judged by ordinary academic standards of substance and relevance and against other legitimate pedagogical concerns identified by the school. Thus, if a teacher's assignment involves writing a poem, the work of a student who submits a poem in the form of a prayer (for example, a psalm) should be judged on the basis of academic standards (such as literary quality) and neither penalized nor rewarded on account of its religious content."

    Schools and teachers have to evaluate, judge, grade, give credit to religious works based not on the religious content of the work, but on academic standards / secular criteria. You are completely wrong when you state that the courses, studies or work being done has to be void of religious content and must be secular in content. This is just not the case.

    Again, the court is clear. Concerning the students..... bibles, religion, prayer, study, worship, etc., cannot be stopped in schools or on school grounds.

    Religion and religious things can be used by teacher's in public schools to teach children.

    Religious teachings and beliefs can be preached to children in elective classes by people whom are not being paid by the state/government at the time the class is going on, and those studies, are to be accepted by the school and credit is to be given based not on the religious content but, on a secular criteria.

    Texas also has biblical history classes as electives. They are constitutional. They can read the bible every day in school if that is what the teacher wants to do.
    Last edited by gonzales56; February 2nd, 2013 at 02:22 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    If a student wrote a paper about jesus rising from the dead, etc., and a teacher gave them a failing grade because of the religious content/statements, that teacher will be fired for violating that kids constitutional rights. The school and teachers cannot give a grade based on the religious content, they have to give a grade or credit based solely on academic standards / secular criteria.
    That would depend on the circumstance. For example in Harris v Tate (1996) a teacher was challenged when they gave a failing grade to a student who refused to change their subject from "The life of Jesus Christ." The courts found that so long as the teacher limited the subject based in the name of learning, rather than a pretext to restrict religion...they had the authority to restrict religious (and other) context. The teacher's actions were upheld.

    Concerning the students..... bibles, religion, prayer, study, worship, etc., cannot be stopped in schools or on school grounds.
    That depends largely on circumstance. Public school officials have broad authority to restrict religious activities if they can show it will be disruptive to learning, or entangle the school in supporting the religious activity (see Hazalwood v Kuhlmeir) As an example if a group of students started a quiet prayer group in the corner of the lunch room every Friday for a few minutes--that would be allow. If however that group tries to distribute bibles on school grounds as kids get off the school bus, or perhaps try to use their elective media class to broadcast bible quotes they could be restricted from doing so.

    (Yes I got an A in that course....knowing the law so I'll be able to protect student's rights and keep my own beacon out of the fire :-) )
    Last edited by Lynx_Fox; February 2nd, 2013 at 02:36 AM.
    adelady likes this.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    The Holy Land is everywhere Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Yeah but Gonzo, you're still ignoring the part where teachers are teaching that God is the one true God and such... While claiming that is not what they do... Which is wildly different from Secular grading, now isn't it?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    If a student wrote a paper about jesus rising from the dead, etc., and a teacher gave them a failing grade because of the religious content/statements, that teacher will be fired for violating that kids constitutional rights. The school and teachers cannot give a grade based on the religious content, they have to give a grade or credit based solely on academic standards / secular criteria.
    That would depend on the circumstance. For example in Harris v Tate (1996) a teacher was challenged when they gave a failing grade to a student who refused to change their subject from "The life of Jesus Christ." The courts found that so long as the teacher limited the subject based in the name of learning, rather than a pretext to restrict religion...they had the authority to restrict religious (and other) context. The teacher's actions were upheld.

    Concerning the students..... bibles, religion, prayer, study, worship, etc., cannot be stopped in schools or on school grounds.
    That depends largely on circumstance. Public school officials have broad authority to restrict religious activities if they can show it will be disruptive to learning, or entangle the school in supporting the religious activity (see Hazalwood v Kuhlmeir) As an example if a group of students started a quiet prayer group in the corner of the lunch room every Friday for a few minutes--that would be allow. If however that group tries to distribute bibles on school grounds as kids get off the school bus, or perhaps try to use their elective media class to broadcast bible quotes they could be restricted from doing so.

    (Yes I got an A in that course....knowing the law so I'll be able to protect student's rights and keep my own beacon out of the fire :-) )
    You contradicted yourself in your first example and I cant find the court case (the first one you mentioned).

    The court case I referred to

    Someone cannot legally use or hide behind religion to block busses or in general to be disruptive. You second point is valid but, that applies to all rights. One cannot also force others to listen to religious content nor use state or government property to force others to listen to it. These things/issues/situations are outside of the context and scope of what we are discussing here though.
    Last edited by gonzales56; February 2nd, 2013 at 03:16 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    TY for the SC case.

    Now I'm sure you can distinguish between the conversion when you said "it is not unconstitutional to teach religion in the US in publicly funded schools." and what that case was about: "for off-campus religious instruction offered by private educators." It wasn't done on public school grounds, nor use any public dollars and in the opinion of the courts "
    no evidence that the program has had the effect of establishing religion or that it has entangled the School District in religion." The case didn't support your contention.


    Here is the full case, which is a pretty good read. You'll note that the criteria are purely secular and were developed based on critia that allow transfer of students from from private to public schools--a pretty common problem not only for SC but all States.
    http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/111448.P.pdf
    MrMojo1 likes this.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    The Holy Land is everywhere Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Genius Duck Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    12,045
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    If a student wrote a paper about jesus rising from the dead, etc., and a teacher gave them a failing grade because of the religious content/statements, that teacher will be fired for violating that kids constitutional rights. The school and teachers cannot give a grade based on the religious content, they have to give a grade or credit based solely on academic standards / secular criteria.
    What you are STILL missing here is that any such paper would be factually incorrect. Ergo it fail on secular criteria.

    US Department of Education
    "Students may express their beliefs about religion in homework, artwork, and other written and oral assignments free from discrimination based on the religious content of their submissions. Such home and classroom work should be judged by ordinary academic standards of substance and relevance and against other legitimate pedagogical concerns identified by the school. Thus, if a teacher's assignment involves writing a poem, the work of a student who submits a poem in the form of a prayer (for example, a psalm) should be judged on the basis of academic standards (such as literary quality) and neither penalized nor rewarded on account of its religious content."

    Note that the example given is a poem - not a factual paper.
    Schools and teachers have to evaluate, judge, grade, give credit to religious works based not on the religious content of the work, but on academic standards / secular criteria.
    You still don't get it do you?

    You are completely wrong when you state that the courses, studies or work being done has to be void of religious content and must be secular in content. This is just not the case.
    Since I didn't say that it's largely irrelevant.

    They can read the bible every day in school if that is what the teacher wants to do.
    And still avoiding the difference between reading the bible and being taught that it's the infallible truth.
    Well done.
    MrMojo1 likes this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Here is a Texas case of a student receiving an F after writing about the Life of Jesus Christ," and that teachers decision upheld by the courts because of teacher's broad desecration to control the curriculum and the secular reasons given by the teacher (and her principle) for rejecting the paper.

    "The plaintiff originally signed up to write a paper on "Drama." Subsequently, she changed her mind after deciding that the topic might be too broad. Without Ms. Ramsey's prior approval, plaintiff attempted to submit an outline for a paper entitled "The Life of Jesus Christ." The teacher refused to accept the outline and told plaintiff she would have to select another topic. At this point, plaintiff's father intervened to complain and met with the principal of the school, Ms. Ramsey, and other school officials. Ms. Ramsey told plaintiff's father that she would accept a paper on religion as long as it did not deal solely with Christianity or the Life of Christ. On April 3, plaintiff attempted to submit another outline, with the title "A Scientific and Historical Approach to Jesus Christ." Ms. Ramsey rejected this outline as well. Ultimately, the principal, the superintendent of schools, and the Dickson County School Board all expressed their support for Ms. Ramsey's decision and noted that the teacher had not exceeded her discretion as far as they were concerned. Plaintiff and her family decided to make an issue of the matter before the School Board and then in court.
    In her statement at a hearing before the School Board, and in depositions taken for the litigation of this case, Ms. Ramsey has explained that she refused to allow plaintiff's topic for a combination of reasons. First, she stated that the student had failed to receive permission to write on the topic prior to handing in the outline. Because plaintiff did not adhere to the requirement of submitting her topic for her teacher's approval, she had to choose another topic.
    Second, Ms. Ramsey said that she believed that it would be difficult for her to evaluate a research paper on a topic related to Jesus Christ. She stated that she knew that plaintiff had a strong personal belief in Christianity that would make it difficult for her to write a dispassionate research paper. Furthermore, Ms. Ramsey believed that the paper would be difficult to grade because plaintiff might take any criticisms of the paper too personally. Even remarks regarding grammar or organization might be misinterpreted as criticisms of plaintiff's religious beliefs. Ms. Ramsey thought it would be wiser to avoid such potential misunderstandings. "

    FindLaw | Cases and Codes
    MrMojo1 and Neverfly like this.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    The Holy Land is everywhere Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Forum Freshman Crimson Sunbird's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    39
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Here is a Texas case of a student receiving an F after writing about the Life of Jesus Christ," and that teachers decision upheld by the courts because of teacher's broad desecration to control the curriculum and the secular reasons given by the teacher (and her principle) for rejecting the paper.

    "The plaintiff originally signed up to write a paper on "Drama." Subsequently, she changed her mind after deciding that the topic might be too broad. Without Ms. Ramsey's prior approval, plaintiff attempted to submit an outline for a paper entitled "The Life of Jesus Christ." The teacher refused to accept the outline and told plaintiff she would have to select another topic. At this point, plaintiff's father intervened to complain and met with the principal of the school, Ms. Ramsey, and other school officials. Ms. Ramsey told plaintiff's father that she would accept a paper on religion as long as it did not deal solely with Christianity or the Life of Christ. On April 3, plaintiff attempted to submit another outline, with the title "A Scientific and Historical Approach to Jesus Christ." Ms. Ramsey rejected this outline as well. Ultimately, the principal, the superintendent of schools, and the Dickson County School Board all expressed their support for Ms. Ramsey's decision and noted that the teacher had not exceeded her discretion as far as they were concerned. Plaintiff and her family decided to make an issue of the matter before the School Board and then in court.
    In her statement at a hearing before the School Board, and in depositions taken for the litigation of this case, Ms. Ramsey has explained that she refused to allow plaintiff's topic for a combination of reasons. First, she stated that the student had failed to receive permission to write on the topic prior to handing in the outline. Because plaintiff did not adhere to the requirement of submitting her topic for her teacher's approval, she had to choose another topic.
    Second, Ms. Ramsey said that she believed that it would be difficult for her to evaluate a research paper on a topic related to Jesus Christ. She stated that she knew that plaintiff had a strong personal belief in Christianity that would make it difficult for her to write a dispassionate research paper. Furthermore, Ms. Ramsey believed that the paper would be difficult to grade because plaintiff might take any criticisms of the paper too personally. Even remarks regarding grammar or organization might be misinterpreted as criticisms of plaintiff's religious beliefs. Ms. Ramsey thought it would be wiser to avoid such potential misunderstandings. "

    FindLaw | Cases and Codes
    This looks like a cut-and-dried job to me. The plaintiff received an F not because she wrote on a religious topic but because she disobeyed the rules. She was told not to write about the life of Jesus, yet she went ahead and did it. What did she expect? This has nothing to do with religion; its all about not following instructions in school. Its up to the teacher to specify what is and is not allowed for the papers topic. The plaintiff would still have deserved an F if she had written something completely secular and non-religious yet not approved by the teacher.
    Dont fear change. Change fear.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Masters Degree Tranquille's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Solar System
    Posts
    733
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    You are wrong IMO.
    You are certainly free to your opinion. That does not mean you are correct.

    Electives are not ramming anything down someones "throat".. You can take the class or you can not take the class. Choice.
    Two words for you.. "Establishment Clause"..

    By teaching what they are teaching (that Christianity is correct, that Christ is fact, etc) solely Christianity, they are preferring one religion over the other. This is in direct contradiction to the First Amendment.

    People have the right to believe what they want. If they believe in tree spirits, ghost, aliens, god, scientific beliefs/conclusions, etc., that is their choice. Freedom.
    Certainly. That does not mean that Government funded public schools should be teaching only one and declaring it to be the only one that is true and real, does it?

    For example, if they wished to teach religion, then they teach all religions without declaring any to be the 'winner' or the true and correct one or fact.

    The more someone can learn, the better off they will be IMO. The more they are limited, the more they are controlled/indoctrinated. Not choice nor freedom.
    People are free to learn about religion in their own time, not in public and Government funded schools.

    Concerning ones education, unlimited access to everything is the best thing IMO. There is nothing to fear, you can put your pitch forks down, put out your fires and stop trying to limit the choices people and families make concerning their own educations.
    Ah, unlimited access. That would mean that they would teach about all of the mainstream religions, instead of just Christianity and creationism and declaring only that to be the truth and fact. That is not "choice", nor is it legal to teach such things in Government Schools (refer to first point about Establishment Clause)..

    If you do not what to learn or do not want those under your supervision/control to learn about religions by reading those religions books, studying their art, etc., then that is your choice. The government cannot force you to do so. However, you do not have the right to forbid others from doing so.
    Just as the Government cannot and should not tell students that only Christ is fact and that creationism is true and correct, as these classes in Government funded schools are trying to do.

    I personally think those that choose to learn all they can, from as many diverse sources as they can, even from those ideas and beliefs they think they disagree with, are better off for it, while those who do not, do themselves a disservice.
    No one is saying that children cannot learn about Christianity or learn from as many diverse sources as they possibly can. What is being said is that the Government should not be funding people's private beliefs to be stated as "fact" in Government funded public schools. Doing so is in direct contradiction to your First Amendment. If this was about "diverse sources", then the classes would encompass all religions without telling them which one was the true and correct one. Alas, this is about the teaching of only one religion, in a publicly funded Government school and telling students who take the class that only the Bible is correct and factual.
    Lynx_Fox, adelady, MrMojo1 and 1 others like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by Tranquille View Post
    I personally think those that choose to learn all they can, from as many diverse sources as they can, even from those ideas and beliefs they think they disagree with, are better off for it, while those who do not, do themselves a disservice.
    No one is saying that children cannot learn about Christianity or learn from as many diverse sources as they possibly can. What is being said is that the Government should not be funding people's private beliefs to be stated as "fact" in Government funded public schools. Doing so is in direct contradiction to your First Amendment. If this was about "diverse sources", then the classes would encompass all religions without telling them which one was the true and correct one. Alas, this is about the teaching of only one religion, in a publicly funded Government school and telling students who take the class that only the Bible is correct and factual.
    Well, they are practicing religion and getting religious instruction, and they are turning in their work, and the public school is using public funds for teachers and administrators to evaluate their work and give them elective credits. The public school offers these options to students for these religious instruction classes and they give them credit for taking them. The courts have ruled they are constitutional.

    I do not know what else to tell you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Well, they are practicing religion and getting religious instruction, and they are turning in their work, and the public school is using public funds for teachers and administrators to evaluate their work and give them elective credits. The public school offers these options to students for these religious instruction classes and they give them credit for taking them. The courts have ruled they are constitutional.

    I do not know what else to tell you.
    You could start with reading about the case from the actual court record, which clearly shows it very different than what you think it was. Other than an evaluation and recommended changes to the curriculum, there was little involvement by the public school. There was no direct involvement by the public school teachers to evaluate students at the bible school. It became an unadvertised outside course, from which the public school would accept up to two transfer credit hours.

    "In carrying out the arrangement,Oakbrook reviewed syllabi, spoke with instructors, suggested minor curricular adjustments, and satisfied itself that the Spartanburg
    Bible School course was academically rigorous. After Spartanburg Bible School began its instruction under the arrangement with Oakbrook and Spartanburg High School, Spartanburg High School never actively or directly
    engaged in promoting the Spartanburg Bible School course or any other released time course. The Spartanburg Bible School course was not listed in the Spartanburg High School course catalog, and the Bible School was not permitted to advertise itself in Spartanburg High School classrooms. While the Bible School did provide Spartanburg High School guidance counselors with flyers, the counselors were authorized to discuss Spartanburg Bible School or the flyers with parents and students only after they expressed an interest in learning about the program."
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    The Holy Land is everywhere Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Teaching Yourself Biology
    By Yael in forum Biology
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: August 19th, 2014, 05:18 AM
  2. Texas A&M prof debates Lindzen
    By Bunbury in forum Environmental Issues
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: October 31st, 2010, 04:12 PM
  3. Teaching ID
    By Golkarian in forum Education
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: October 7th, 2009, 12:37 AM
  4. Texas hold-em odds
    By MagiMaster in forum Mathematics
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: April 9th, 2009, 12:04 PM
  5. Howdy From Texas
    By LunchBox in forum Introductions
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: March 18th, 2009, 04:52 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •