|
Grex > Agora56 > #84: Newspaper in Denmark prints cartoon pics of Mohammed | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 432 responses total. |
richard
|
|
response 91 of 432:
| 
Feb 6 19:30 UTC 2006 |
btw the ACLU protects religious freedoms, because those re protected in the
bill of rights of course. The ACLU has in the past represented groups like
the Mormons when states passed laws that infringed on their rights to practice
their beliefs. In fact I know aclu members who are devoutly religious.
|
tod
|
|
response 92 of 432:
|
Feb 6 19:34 UTC 2006 |
Why isn't the ACLU trying to overturn Executive Order 11246, then?
GW should have been impeached for that.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 93 of 432:
|
Feb 6 19:34 UTC 2006 |
There are no scientific data supporting "intelligent design" so why even
consider teaching it in science courses? (The answer is obvious - to bring
in religious doctrine, as unscientific as it is.)
Evolution is taught in science classes with full attention to its
uncertainties - its *scientific* uncertainties.
|
richard
|
|
response 94 of 432:
|
Feb 6 19:35 UTC 2006 |
kingjon, if there WERE a rational and widely accepted scientific theory based
pure science, that was an alternative, it would be taught. There is not.
There is NO SCIENCE that backs up intelligent design.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 95 of 432:
|
Feb 6 19:38 UTC 2006 |
"Crusader" specifically refers to a Christian fighting against infidels,
primarly Muslims. You might as well have a team named "The Pogroms";
that's no worse than any other violent term, right?
|
jadecat
|
|
response 96 of 432:
|
Feb 6 19:39 UTC 2006 |
resp:62 well, nut jobs certainly, but generally not of the religious
ilk. Though perhaps some of the pagan/nature religious ilk.
resp:68 and some of the silly. ;) Though that often gets lost in
translation. I, for one, really appreciate the level of respect and
courtesy you bring to discussions here.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 97 of 432:
|
Feb 6 19:39 UTC 2006 |
Re #990: Jon writes "And in English classes everywhere students are asked
to critically analyze the language."
Not in the sense of bringing it into question. The only "analysis" done in
English classes is of grammatical, syntactical and semantic construction,
and their evolution (!).
By the way, English IS a consequence of "intelligent design" - but the
designers can be identified and themselves studied, unlike the "designer"
in evolutionary "intelligent design".
|
richard
|
|
response 98 of 432:
|
Feb 6 19:39 UTC 2006 |
In fact we see in the islamic world now what happens when you don't teach
science, when you teach beliefs and train your youth to accept beliefs, no
matter how irrational, over reality.
To teach intelligent design, or any theory not rooted in science, is
DANGEROUS.
|
jadecat
|
|
response 99 of 432:
|
Feb 6 19:40 UTC 2006 |
Well as soon as anyone can tell me what a Chemic is... That would be the
name of my HS's rivals. We were the Chargers!
|
marcvh
|
|
response 100 of 432:
|
Feb 6 19:43 UTC 2006 |
Used as a noun, it's an archaic term for an alchemist. That's another
minority theory which presumably deserves mandated inclusion in chemistry
classes.
|
kingjon
|
|
response 101 of 432:
|
Feb 6 19:44 UTC 2006 |
Re #91: I know that -- but its detractors (who I'm at least playing
devil's-advocate for) claim that it's blowing up the Establishment Clause up
into something to take our freedoms away.
The first few quotes to come up on Google, just to give you a feel for what
they're trying to say (no weight at the moment):
"The founders simply meant that the government could not set up a national
church or compel its citizens to attend one church over another or to even
compel them to attend church at all. It has nothing to do with a judge wearing
a cross or any other religious symbol on their lapel. It has nothing to do with
the Ten Commandments on a stone monument in front of a courthouse. But the ACLU
has twisted the establishment clause to try to make it say what it clearly does
not."
"In modern U.S. society, we've twisted the establishment clause of the
constitution to mean 'separation of church from state', or, more appropriately,
'elimination of any religious expression from any public venue'" (That was from
a blog that, based on this one taste, I'll leave a URL to:
http://photoninthedarkness.blogspot.com/2005/11/mea-culpa.html)
"They have also twisted the Establishment Clause, which was intended to prevent
Congress from establishing an official state Church, as barring public nativity
scenes, or prayers before a a highschool football game."
"Liberal judges and lawyers have twisted the Establishment Clause to mean
freedom from religion. The Founders had in mind to guarantee freedom of
religion."
"It has twisted the Establishment Clause into a disestablishment clause, wholly
subverting original intent."
|
richard
|
|
response 102 of 432:
|
Feb 6 19:48 UTC 2006 |
You cannot prevent establishment of an official state church if you start
allowing open religous displays in courtrooms and government buildings. That
is tantamount to our elected officials and leaders sanctioning one religion
over others, and that is unconstitutional.
,
|
marcvh
|
|
response 103 of 432:
|
Feb 6 19:48 UTC 2006 |
That's a pretty good sampling of half-truths from the ACLU's opponents.
Are there any honest ACLU opponents out there?
|
richard
|
|
response 104 of 432:
|
Feb 6 19:49 UTC 2006 |
In the islamic world, they are taught "intelligent design", they are not
taught evolution. Evolution is against islamic law. We are taught evolution
in this part of the world. You decide which is better. We don't have suicide
bombers here because are youth are not indoctrinated that their lives belong
to "god" and they must do god's will.
|
kingjon
|
|
response 105 of 432:
|
Feb 6 19:59 UTC 2006 |
#94: You're the one who brought in "intelligent design". I'm not. All
I'm saying is that *if* Evolution *is* true and every alternative
*isn't*, then it sure doesn't look good for every attempt to offer a
chance to its detractors to have their say *so that the students can
decide* to be squashed by an ACLU lawsuit.
#95: Then why isn't "civil rights crusader" an oxymoron, then?
"Crusader" means to me "one who uses even force to achieve a holy end."
#97: Richard brought up English as a lowest-common-denominator, to be
used as a parallel to evolution. My point is that the Academy in France
might, according to evolution's detractors, be a better parallel.
Richard brought it up, not I.
#98: Many of evolution's detractors claim to be scientists and claim
that evolution's backers aren't. Without laying *all* the data on the
table *we can't tell* -- and that's *all* the laws the ACLU jumps on
(the ones I've seen recently, anyway) have mandated.
102: So we've had a state church from the beginning, then? I think
there's been a chaplain for the Congress since the beginning, and the
Supreme Court begins (I've heard) with "God save the honorable Court!"
103: Like I said, that's the first few that Google popped up. On all
sides you have to dig deeper.
#104: In the Islamic world they are taught one thing and not taught to
investigate further. Here, we *used* to be taught to investigate. It
seems to me that we are now being taught to take evolution as axiomatic
fact and not investigate further -- your parallel can be made to work
exactly in reverse.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 106 of 432:
|
Feb 6 20:05 UTC 2006 |
There are laws which mandate presenting *all* of the data for or against
evolution? That would completely fill all 13 years of public school
education and would not leave time for any other scientific ideas, English,
math, music, or nap time. Is that really what anybody wants?
|
richard
|
|
response 107 of 432:
|
Feb 6 20:08 UTC 2006 |
you are only taught to investigate further because the schools are secular,
what the right wing wants is every one to go to parochial schools and such,
where they would only give lip service to the words "investigate further"
|
kingjon
|
|
response 108 of 432:
|
Feb 6 20:10 UTC 2006 |
106: No. But there are no laws which *permit* letting evidence against
evolution be presented as part of a curriculum in the public schools,
thanks to the ACLU. The laws which I've seen merely required additions to
the curriulum that seemed to be shortenable to "in this course, we will do
science by [insert description of scientific method here]." Of course,
because one of the main criticisms of evolution by its detractors (who
*include* but are not limited to the not-identical groups of some IDers
and some religious fundamentalists) is that it isn't science, the ACLU
(and similar groups) file lawsuits (or merely *threaten* to file
lawsuits), and the curriculum changes go away.
107: Not the case *at all*. In fact, in secular schools (evolution's
detractors claim) you are taught *not* to investigate further *unless
your investigations give data supporting your axioms*.
|
klg
|
|
response 109 of 432:
|
Feb 6 20:16 UTC 2006 |
Right. They are so afraid of ID that they don't even want to hear it
mentioned. Kind of like they think evolution is a straw house that
will crumble under the slightest breeze.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 110 of 432:
|
Feb 6 20:18 UTC 2006 |
I really don't think "axiom" is the word you want here.
|
kingjon
|
|
response 111 of 432:
|
Feb 6 20:24 UTC 2006 |
Isn't it? Something that's assumed to be true henceforward but not given a
logically rigorous proof? In practice it's given even more special treatment
than Euclid's geometric axioms; you see non-Euclidean geometries mentioned as
possibilities all the time, but breathe a word of the possibility of something
outside of Evolution (with the capital letter) and you face the threat of a
lawsuit.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 112 of 432:
|
Feb 6 20:35 UTC 2006 |
re #79: You're going to have to elaborate on that a little if you don't
want us to consider you a kook because for the majority of us here there's
a very stark and readily apparently contrast betweeen the motivations of
the ACLU and the motivations of radical Islamic extremists.
|
other
|
|
response 113 of 432:
|
Feb 6 20:38 UTC 2006 |
The current interpretation of the establishment clause has evolved
logically. It has not been reshaped, but it has been applied. In each
application, the courts have (ultimately) determined how it should be
applied based on logically consistent interpretation of the
Constitution.
Our whole system of laws is based on the fact that the few words of the
Constitution cannot be universally and unequivocally understood as to
their application is every specific dispute. That is why the courts are
set up to arbitrate those disputes, and their rulings establish
precedent in the application of Constitutional principles to specific
situations. If the framers could have foreseen every eventuality then
the Constitution would have taken an eternity to write and no court
system would have been needed.
So, the claim that the ACLU has "twisted," bent, broken, altered, or
otherwise affected the establishment clause is indicative only of the
ignorance (or at best, political agenda) of anyone who would make such a
statement. The same can be said of anyone who promotes the idea that
judges legislate from the bench. All judges do is interpret the law
as they see it, attempting to insure that laws are applied and enforced
in a manner consistent with the principles on which this country was
founded. (As well as settling disputes that individuals or corporations
are incapable of resolving without resorting to some higher authority.)
You can quote all the partisan "authorities" you want on the intent of
the framers of ther Constitution, but no matter what they say, it
doesn't change the reality that the current interpretations of the
Constitution have evolved mostly over extended periods of significant
debate in courtrooms across the land, and nothing they can say will
change it unless they are sufficiently persuasive in arguing their
positions in the courts.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 114 of 432:
|
Feb 6 20:39 UTC 2006 |
An axiom is something which is accepted as true either because it is
universally recognized as true, or because one is assuming it is true
for the sake of argument. Evolution is not an axiom (and neither, in
general, are Newton's Laws of Motion or the Fundamental Theorems of
Calculus, although they could be within a particular context.)
From a pedagogical standpoint, the fear behind ID is that it opens the
door to pretty much any other religious idea to try to wrap itself up in
scientific language and push its way into the schools. Today the
Discovery Institute, tomorrow the Foundation for the Advancement of
Science and Education (FASE), which will require all biology classes to
teach Thetan Theory.
|
other
|
|
response 115 of 432:
|
Feb 6 20:49 UTC 2006 |
Opponents of the teaching of ID in public schools are not afraid that
Evolution will not stand up comparison. They are afraid of the loss of
valuable time and resources in the education of children because of the
fact that THERE IS NO COMPARISON. ID has no scientific foundation,
period. It is a conclusion based on lack of evidence, which in itself
is a contravention of the very scientific process by which the theory of
evolution was developed, along with every other theory that science has
produced. ID is itself an attack on the scientific process, and that is
why its opponents protest so vigorously its inclusion in any scientific
curriculum.
Teaching ID in a science class is nothing more than a statement of
profound and *willful* ignorance on the part of its proponents.
|