tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post1063179348962701871..comments2023-10-26T22:06:11.166+11:00Comments on Metamagician3000: Secularism cuts both waysRussell Blackfordhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12431324430596809958noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-68979069280417273112009-05-06T18:58:00.000+10:002009-05-06T18:58:00.000+10:00AMEN mostly.
I am a biblical creationist Canadian....AMEN mostly.<br />I am a biblical creationist Canadian.<br />I have always argued that if the U.S schools can not say the God/Genesis is true then it can not be taught it is not true. The separation concept is a separation between parties and not just one party from the other.<br /><br />Likewise as you said even if origin ideas infringe on religion its not the too stop the discussion in science class. So if positive arguments for creationism happen to infringe on religion this is not to bring censorship of these beliefs.<br />Origin issues are not to be interfered with because they inadvertently advocate against or for religious ideas and presumptions.<br />The founders of America were a very Protestant christian people and never put into their great constitution anything that could be construed to deny the teaching of origins from concepts of God and the bible.<br />Every evolutionist in america should read this from Mr Blackford.Robert Byershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05631863870635096770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-44672830621571095122009-05-06T18:57:00.001+10:002009-05-06T18:57:00.001+10:00AMEN mostly.
I am a biblical creationist Canadian....AMEN mostly.<br />I am a biblical creationist Canadian.<br />I have always argued that if the U.S schools can not say the God/Genesis is true then it can not be taught it is not true. The separation concept is a separation between parties and not just one party from the other.<br /><br />Likewise as you said even if origin ideas infringe on religion its not the too stop the discussion in science class. So if positive arguments for creationism happen to infringe on religion this is not to bring censorship of these beliefs.<br />Origin issues are not to be interfered with because they inadvertently advocate against or for religious ideas and presumptions.<br />The founders of America were a very Protestant christian people and never put into their great constitution anything that could be construed to deny the teaching of origins from concepts of God and the bible.<br />Every evolutionist in america should read this from Mr Blackford.Robert Byershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05631863870635096770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-75843872321765366412009-05-06T18:57:00.000+10:002009-05-06T18:57:00.000+10:00AMEN mostly.
I am a biblical creationist Canadian....AMEN mostly.<br />I am a biblical creationist Canadian.<br />I have always argued that if the U.S schools can not say the God/Genesis is true then it can not be taught it is not true. The separation concept is a separation between parties and not just one party from the other.<br /><br />Likewise as you said even if origin ideas infringe on religion its not the too stop the discussion in science class. So if positive arguments for creationism happen to infringe on religion this is not to bring censorship of these beliefs.<br />Origin issues are not to be interfered with because they inadvertently advocate against or for religious ideas and presumptions.<br />The founders of America were a very Protestant christian people and never put into their great constitution anything that could be construed to deny the teaching of origins from concepts of God and the bible.<br />Every evolutionist in america should read this from Mr Blackford.Robert Byershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05631863870635096770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-18387983899328654162009-05-04T12:39:00.000+10:002009-05-04T12:39:00.000+10:00^Eek, in the fourth line I meant to write "though ...^Eek, in the fourth line I meant to write "though NOT an entire religion".Russell Blackfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12431324430596809958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-57237575186151919132009-05-04T12:26:00.000+10:002009-05-04T12:26:00.000+10:00If Jerry comes back, though, he might want to resp...If Jerry comes back, though, he might want to respond to this aspect. I do actually think that Creationism is a religious doctrine (though an entire religion). That's why it's unconstitutional to teach it in schools in the US. It's not a religion, but it's a doctrine of some Christian fundamentalists and has little other basis. Behe style Intelligent Design could more plausibly be passed off as not a religious doctrine - the Designer could be an alien or something - but it's been established, by now, that the attempt is a sham.<br /><br />All that being the case, I don't see how we can claim that gratuitous and emotive disparagement of Creationism by a teacher in a public school is any more acceptable under the First Amendment than gratuitous and emotive disparagement of any other religious doctrine, such as, say, the doctrine of transubstantiation.<br /><br />That said, it can potentially get very complicated. Disparagement of homeopathy, which doesn't seem to be a doctrine of any religion, but a piece of standalone pseudoscience, doesn't seem to create any problems. But disparagement of the doctrine that homosexuality is a sin may. The courts would not want to prevent debates in school about such issues as gay marriage, but a teacher could get into trouble if she disparaged the Catholic doctrine on the subject. It's tricky.<br /><br />For better or worse, we live in a world very different from that of the Founding Fathers or John Locke, a world in which many popular religious doctrines now seem to be plainly crazy to reality-based people like all of us, religious sects don't normally keep to themselves (the Amish being a dramatic exception), most teaching of children is done by the state, and we want to get children and teenagers to think critically, which sometimes necessitates provoking them. I don't think it's easy for the American courts when a situation like this arises.<br /><br />I'm hoping that my next book will be on the whole subject of religious freedom in the modern world - examined from a philosophical perspective - so good discussion of such cases is valuable to me. (But, of course, we'll have to see if I can interest a publisher in the idea ... and convince a publisher that I'm the person for the job.)Russell Blackfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12431324430596809958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-77518082330510342312009-05-04T11:49:00.000+10:002009-05-04T11:49:00.000+10:00There's a good discussion of this going on over at...There's a good discussion of this going on over at Richard Dawkins' site.Russell Blackfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12431324430596809958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-54625432766702901422009-05-04T01:49:00.000+10:002009-05-04T01:49:00.000+10:00Creationism is not a religion, it's a particular p...Creationism is not a religion, it's a particular point of view about where the world came from. The "creator" could have been space aliens (and some think they are). I think the judge was wrong. Had the teacher criticized Chrstianity, or Islam, that would have been a violation of the first amendment. But to criticize the view that the world did not evolve but was created--I don't think think that crosses the line.Jerry Coynenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-56364688531312512022009-05-03T21:39:00.000+10:002009-05-03T21:39:00.000+10:00In all these things, context is everything. If it...In all these things, context is everything. If it was a science teacher in the middle of a geology course discussing the age of the Earth and responding to a student's question about something Henry Morris wrote about the biblical flood and it was clear that he was talking about "scientific creationism," it would probably be okay. If it was a sociology teacher talking about various religious ideas in America, it might not be.John Pierethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17336244849636477317noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-36216572338393941282009-05-03T21:04:00.000+10:002009-05-03T21:04:00.000+10:00In context, it might have made a difference. Hard ...In context, it might have made a difference. Hard to say, though. There's an inevitable clash between teachers having some pedagogical discretion in what they say and trying to avoid them doing or saying anything that tends to impose or suppress religious beliefs.<br /><br />It's not satisfactory, but at least we can understand why ... and this teacher must have known he was sailing close to the wind.Russell Blackfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12431324430596809958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-34601139682911568532009-05-03T18:16:00.000+10:002009-05-03T18:16:00.000+10:00Would the legal situation be different if the teac...Would the legal situation be different if the teacher had said "Creationism is wrong"?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11980745475562786998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-2179499196200853002009-05-03T14:17:00.000+10:002009-05-03T14:17:00.000+10:00A very good analysis for someone in the antipodes....A very good analysis for someone in the antipodes. Incidently, the judge found no violation in several other instances of statements by the teacher that were quite harsh on religion but which were, in context, relevant to the subject he was teaching. The judge's opinion was thoughtful and appears legally supportable, though there can always be circumstances that didn't make it into his decision that an appellate court could find to be grounds for reversal.<br /><br />The school district will probably have to pay the plaintiff's legal fees (which can be substantial) and will be enjoined from doing it again (i.e. take steps to prevent similar occurances involving its employees).John Pierethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17336244849636477317noreply@blogger.com