Ken Ham: Atheists Are “Bullying” Us By Saying Schools Can’t Visit Ark Encounter


They say it isn’t science because it is religious.

The courts decided this 45 years ago in Lemon v. Kurtzman. You should read up on it:

(Robert Byers) #26

iIts not settled law but minor court decisions. Thats the essence of judicial review.
To deny taking kids to a creationist thing , which is about accurate conclusions on origins, is saying its NOT ACCURATE. this is illegal for a state to say this if its based on religion. if they are just saying its wrong science well thats just a opinion. its not to the public, parents, kids.
banning people like this is not just illegal; but its unAmerican and dictatorial .
its fanatical and this segregation must be stopped. i think it will when enough are intersted.
by the way having judhes(lawyers in black robes) deciude what is science and what is religion in subjects people involve themselves in based on scientific intersts iS HILARIOUS.
lawyers have no right to even suggest what science is and is not…
nor opine on what religion is. its absurd and just left liberal activism in the judiciary along with so much else.
the people must be free and are free to decide these matters without state control.

(S. Joshua Swamidass) #27

They are saying (1) it is not part of mainstream science and (2) it is designed to proselytize children. Even you should agree with both 1 and 2. For those reasons, it does not make sense to take children there with the public school. A private school, however, could certainly take children there.

(Robert Byers) #28

In canada catholic education is paid by the public.
anyways its not unconstitutional for the state to pay for religious schools.
When the constitution was made this was not a motive nor that schools in any way were part of the federal government.
paying for a religious thing is not endorsing its conclusions. otherwise paying for all would make all endorsed.
The motive is just to share the public money and is not to endorse. Obviously.
otherwise Army chaplins would be illegal or praying while in a state park.
The left liberal is turning ideas made hundreds of years ago into a modern attack on religion.
Just get better lawyers and bigger case.
This will fall.

(S. Joshua Swamidass) #29

The issue is not payment in this case. It is subjecting children to government-sponsored proselytizing against their parent’s wishes. That is the problem.

(Robert Byers) #30

Its got nothing to do with mainstream science IF its based on a legal rejection.
It is science and to say it isn’t is a opinion. FINE! Yet the public can make a contrary opinion.
its about truth, its about science in discovering truth, and to deny schools this when they desire it IS illegal, immoral, nasty, anti-christian.
On point (2) AGAIN its about accuracy in origins.If it has a christian agenda too then OKAY its about a religious motive also. However I undestand they introduce kids to conclusions about origins.
no way around it. they ban these things because of the conclusions are what the bible says.
Which means teaching the opposite is teaching the bible is wrong.
UNless a claim of scientific neutrality is made well so can the museum/ark.
Why is my logic wrong? Censorship and denials demand those doing it to prove thier moral and intellectual legitimacy.

(S. Joshua Swamidass) #31

This is not censorship @Robert_Byers. Any family, private school, or homeschool group can take their children to the Ark. They can invite their friends from class to join them too. Nothing prevents this. Censorship would block even mention of the Ark by children to other children in the class. No one is censoring.

Instead, the objection is to subjecting children to teacher-led proselytizing against their parents’ wishes. That is where the line is crossed.

Evolutionary science is neutral because it does not consider God. You call always remind your kids this. Evolution is hands down the best explanation that does not include God, so that is why science teaches it. You think its wrong. Great. It is just the best that theologically-neutral science has.


Canada does not have the same constitution as the US. In the US the constitution prohibits the government from promoting religion and entangling itself in religious affairs.

Paying for religious indoctrination in public schools using tax money is entangling the government in religious affairs which was found to be unconstitutional in several court cases. This is the law.

(Dr. Patrick Trischitta) #33

Correct. UK has a State Religion (the Anglican Church) which operate 75% of the school while only 2% of young adults identify as Anglican. I predict that UK will go secular in its education system soon.


That was my understanding as well, and it carried over to Canada since they were/are a part of the Commonwealth. It is interesting that the citizens of the UK are more secular than the US, yet our laws go in the opposite direction.

(S. Joshua Swamidass) #35

Same relation holds true in China.

Christianity do best in secular environments, or perhaps even under persecution. Following Jesus does not require power. The test of persecution is difficult. The test of power is much more difficult.

(Dr. Patrick Trischitta) #36

What do folks think about this:

(Robert Byers) #37

This is faulty reasoning. this is using words to change motives by the people when making thier constitution.
i insist very Puritan protestant and Anglican Protestant and other protestant people who created the constitution NEVER in any way made it to exclude the teaching of the truth of God and genesis.
Now it was not on thier minds as the state was not planned to have any education connection, much less a federal one, but look at the glorious intent.
The state, FINALLY, was not to be involved/entangled in anything touching on religion.
So what does a modern liberal attempt DO but use this glorious conclusion to BAN God/genesis in subjects touching on origins which touch on God/Genesis.!!!
If the state bans conclusions from G/G then its either saying these are false conclusions on subjects of origins OR the truth in same subjects is not the objective.
The latter is absurd and the former is illegal.
This is the law. The state can’t say religious doctrines are false. Banning these doctrines in subjects addressed by them IS DOING JUST THAT!!
Creationist should prepare a bigger case to bring before the public/courts.
On this state censorship is illegal and oppressive.

Anyways this is all irrelevant. THe state is not everything it pays for. Its absurd.
The constitution in no way can be construed to censor the great truths.
if the founders saw this claim today their white wigs would rotate thrice!

(John Dalton) #38

You’re entirely mistaken. Many of the founding fathers were of a strong Enlightenment mindset and not particularly religious. They consistently acted to ensure that the government kept out of religion and vice-versa.

A lot of things would do that, but they would understand current government-religion issues without difficulty I think. Why should the public taxpayer fund your religious education? It’s no more complex an issue than it would have been back then.

(Robert Byers) #39

No. The reason for paying for Catholic schools is based on a ancient agreement with French Canadians to pay for thier education in catholic schools as a part of a mutual nation. THEN in the 1980’s this was taken advantaged of by the ethnic immigriants etc in pther provinces to say THEY were owed public help with separate/Catholic ediucation. Evangelical schools, few, were not paid by the common purse.
Anyways America never made the constitution to deal with education much less censorship much lesser of Christianity.
Its judicial absurdity like many others.
in fact the state , by court decisions/etc is more entangled with religion and education then ever before and is not neutral.
The state censorship is a opinion that THAT which is censored is false since the ibjective in education is to teach what is accurate.

(Robert Byers) #40

James Madison and others insisted the founders of the constitution was the people by way of thier delegates and these deciding what was voted into the constitution.
The elite were not using the constitution to oppose religion.
its separation of church and state. However in this case the state is involving itself in what is true about origins by way of banning some. In subjects dedicated to truth on these origins.
You can’t escape the logic. If the state censors opinions then its involved in the accuracy of conclusions . So making a conclusion, by way of rejection of conclusions, is a conclusion and is a attack on religion.
In reality freedom of conclusions, speech, thought, academia , was never intended or can be construed to be in the constitution.
Further they never saw education as a state entity , and further the STATE is not everything it pays for.
Army Chaplins really are part of the state and are nurtured and paid for. They have too to get them to fight thier stupid immoral wars.

(John Dalton) #41

What’s the difference between this case and the entirety of constitutional and judicial history concerning church and state? None that I can see. The state funds public education. It’s a state function whether it was ever imagined that it could be one or not. That’s beyond question. The government is not taking a position on any truth claims, at all! It’s simply taking the position that no individual religious position should be funded by the government. Chaplains are an interesting exception, but an exception nonetheless. The needs of the country’s soldiers are a clearly separate issue which can’t be applied to society at large and certainly not to the education of children.

(Neil Rickert) #42

It isn’t censoring opinions. Rather, the constitution is saying that the state itself may not have an opinion on religious topics. But individual people are free to have and express opinions – just as long as those are individual expressions of opinion and not expressions by the state.

(Neil Rickert) #43

I should maybe mention that Robert Byers is Canadian, and some of what he says on this topic may reflect that Canadian background.

(Robert Byers) #44

the soldiers being a exception is not a good answer.
when the great concept was made to seaparate church from state, unique in the world and not so in the states themselves, it meant what it meant. no interference either way.
the state is not evrything it pays for. the schools are the state. the state means the power of government to impose come conclusion. like taxes. the state is not imposing religion by education funding. that is just a line of reasoning where you can reason anything.

Anyways the great point is the censorship. the state is censoring. why/ in educational subjects dedicated to truth, i hope, state censorship is a profound interference.
THEN they censor creationism/God exists ads options for origins.
If the purpose is to teach origins and thier discovery then censoring one side(historic, dominate, still popular side) is either the state saying THIS IS NOT A OPTION FOR TRUTH or truth is not the purpose of education on these subjects.
The state saying creationism is not a option for truth is interference with the church. iTS illegal by the very law they invoke for the censorship.
The founders9the people) NEVER imagined such a left wing anti Christian, anti-God, lEGAL DECISION.
Its an absurdity bordering on lunacy to say this very religious poulace would create a glorious constitution with the intent to BAN God/genesis as the true origin of everything!!
Seems that way from canada.