I agree but I don’t see the open debate. I see a lot of closed debates, wedge documents, and shouting matches between conflicting ideologies and within ideologies.
1 Like
Your response provides zero evidence that the post you’re responding to was wrong.
1 Like
Liz Barnes is wrong on the law. Do you want court documents of hundreds of cases as evidence?
Take a look here: https://ffrf.org/legal
Ridiculous. Atheism need not be synonymous with anti-religious.
Here is what Liz Barnes says:
Additionally, there is a common misconception among both high school and college instructors that it is against the rules to have any discussion about religion in a public education setting, and often I hear instructors refer to the “separation of church and state” when they say this. However, the fact that we teach entire courses on world religions in public colleges shows how this is not true. Further, to properly teach the nature of science we often have to discuss other methods of knowledge acquisition, such as religion and philosophy, in order to distinguish what is and what is not science. With regard to using culturally competent practices, teaching about the different stances that religions have about evolution and showing examples of religious individuals with diverse opinions about evolution is certainly not in violation of the separation of church and state as long as the instructor is teaching evolution as a valid and well supported scientific theory.
It is wrong on the law. See hundreds of case law briefs at https://ffrf.org/legal
First sentence: It is not a misconception, it is the law.
2nd sentence: Irrelevant that world religion courses are taught in secular universities
3rd Sentence: No, it is illegal to teach any religion in science classes
4th sentence: Culturally competent practices is not a legal way to insert religion into the science of evolution.
First sentence is:
She is NOT wrong here. We can have discussion of religion. Several allowed ways:
- Discussing historical religious views on a topic.
- Discussing the religious beliefs of a figure in history.
- Discussing the ethical concerns that a different religious systems raise.
- Answering a student-initiated question about our personal beliefs.
All these are examples of talking about religion that do not violate separation of Church and State. Of course, one cannot promote a particular view in public education. This is distinct from offering facts that are relevant to the course at hand.
No it is not irrelevant. It shows that religion is discussed in some contexts.
It is not illegal to teach religion (or ID) as science in science class. There does not appear to be rules against the examples I gave above. For example, it is not illegal to teach that Darwin became an atheist, and that the Scope trial was motivated by religious opposition to the common descent of man. These are facts. They are pertinent.
That is not what I hear her saying. She is saying that acknowledging the range of religious responses to evolutionary science (without inserting religion into the science) might be helpful. It will likely depend on the precise details if this is violation of Church-State separation, and it can clearly be done wrongly. It is possible it might be done rightly too…maybe not. However, you have to accurate represent her proposal.
She is NOT advocating to “insert religion into the science” of evolution. That is just not what is happening. Maybe she is wrong, but not for that reason.
She is certainly wrong on all of these. None of these discussions are allowed to take place in a public school. They ALL violate the law and the School district can be and will be sued and the teacher can be fired.
Citation please to the law or court case that states that any discussion about religion is illegal.
The third sentence says nothing about teaching religion.
Could you point to anyone here who has suggested that it is?
1 Like
You’re a lawyer, I take it?
Here is one of many. Give me a few minutes to get others.
@Patrick this is what it says:
Violation: The high school had invited Bob Holmes to give a presentation to its student body during school hours at the school. Holmes took several opportunities to preach his Christian faith to the students.
This is different than…
I agree that Bob Holmes was in violation, if that description is right.
In public high schools, history classes discuss religious views all the time.
In universities where adults attend. But not in public schools where children attend.
No, I am a retired engineer and a long time member of FFRF who has 11 staff attorney’s who have been at this for decades.
Please tell me where so that a cease and desist letter can be sent to the School Superindent.
That was not an example of someone talking about religion in a school.
That’s a list of activities that do not include teaching about religion in the classroom.
Interestingly enough, FFRF does not include TE/EC as creationism:
There is a spectrum of creationist belief. At one end are the Young Earth Creationists, who believe that the world is between 4,000-6,000 years old and that god created all the species (humans and dinosaurs roamed the earth together, under this view). This bible-based belief is contradicted by all available scientific evidence. Intelligent Design (“ID”), somewhat farther along the spectrum, is equally unscientific. ID claims life is too complex to have evolved without a creator, but that the creator need not be complex in order to have generated complex life into existence. Even though creationists reject evolution, their ruses continue to evolve, and every few decades a new creationist ploy surfaces. At bottom, all creationist theories are attempts to do the impossible — square scientific facts with the bible.
https://ffrf.org/faq/state-church/item/20084-creationism