US judges rule for teacher who called creationism 'supers ious nonsense'

[Wild Cobra]

Saying that religion is wrong would be bad. Saying that a belief that is inherently unprovable (we were created by a rational creator) isn't science isn't bad.

Should we teach every crackpot theory about how we came about? Should we give equal time to people who think we were engineered by aliens, for instance.



I'm sure we teach things in our schools that disagree with Islamic beliefs. Does that mean we should stop teaching them?

Question.

Why is it so important to teach evolution?

I think it's the Atheists way to slap religion. Let students study such sciences as an elective. Not general mandatory science if they want it.

[Wild Cobra]

WC, honestly I think you're re ed sometimes. Not allowing the teaching of creationism = prohibiting free exercise of religion.

Hey, my kid's religion insists he meditates for five hours per day, from 9 AM to 2 PM. If schools make him go to classes, then they're violating his Cons utional rights!

I'm only asking people to show me where "separation of church and state" resides in our highest law. That is what you are responding to.

Can you?

[ChumpDumper]

Question.

Why is it so important to teach evolution?

I think it's the Atheists way to slap religion. Let students study such sciences as an elective. Not general mandatory science if they want it.

Yes, it's a grand atheist conspiracy. Someone finally caught on.

[ElNono]

I'm only asking people to show me where "separation of church and state" resides in our highest law. That is what you are responding to.

I already did. You didn't respond either, tbh

[Wild Cobra]

I'll let Thomas Jefferson explain it to you:

"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State"

I am fully aware of that, and the only place you find one of our founding fathers say those words, written in a letter. Not an official do ent. It is one well respected man's opinion and not part of the cons ution. He does not define that separation, and the cons ution clearly states a one way purpose.

Are you suggesting that amongst all our founding fathers, their opinions were in lockstep?

[ElNono]

I am fully aware of that, and the only place you find one of our founding fathers say those words, written in a letter. Not an official do ent. It is one well respected man's opinion and not part of the cons ution. He does not define that separation, and the cons ution clearly states a one way purpose.

Are you suggesting that amongst all our founding fathers, their opinions were in lockstep?

I'm suggesting Thomas Jefferson is a much more authoritative voice about the subject (including the SCOTUS referencing such opinion to reach conclusions on the matter) than yours.

[DarrinS]

Link?

(resolves not to hold breath waiting)

You may exhale that CO2 (just don't tell the EPA).

http://www.cep-dc.org/cfcontent_file...5F101007%2Epdf

[ElNono]

BTW, I posted a link to the study that the times article references.

Here, I'll post it again:
http://www.edline.com/uploads/pdf/Pr...oolsReport.pdf

[ChumpDumper]

I'm all for dedicating like five minutes of class time to creationism and/or intelligent design. Just say that some folk are content to throw up their hands at some point and say God or aliens did it and stop any serious inquiry into that belief right then. And that it's fine to do that. Anything else falls under the heading of a comparative religion elective.

[DarrinS]

BTW, I posted a link to the study that the times article references.

Here, I'll post it again:
http://www.edline.com/uploads/pdf/Pr...oolsReport.pdf

Taken as a whole, these findings suggest that students who attend private high schools receive neither immediate academic advantages nor longer-term advantages in attending college, finding satisfaction in the job market, or participating in civic life.

This study did identify two exceptions to this general finding. The primary exception is that students who attended independent private high schools had higher SAT scores than public school students, which gave independent school students an advantage in getting into elite colleges. (These independent private schools enroll many students from affluent families and are often expensive and fairly elite themselves, with tuitions as high as $30,000 a year.) This finding suggests that while these schools are no better at teaching the subject matter, they may provide students with test-taking skills that help them further their education, or they may enroll students with higher IQs (ap ude tests like the SAT are a better measure of IQ than achievement tests are).

A second exception is that one special type of private school, Catholic schools run by holy orders (such as Jesuit schools), did have some positive academic effects. There are very few such schools, however; most Catholic schools are run by their diocese, not by an order (Meyer, 2007).

[ChumpDumper]

Taken as a whole, these findings suggest that students who attend private high schools receive neither immediate academic advantages nor longer-term advantages in attending college, finding satisfaction in the job market, or participating in civic life.

[ElNono]

Right, which is counter to:

I was wondering how long it would take for this knee-jerk argument to appear. To answer your question, yes, there are studies that show, that even when "socioeconomic injustice" is accounted for, the religious schools still kick public school ass.

[DarrinS]

Well, they do better on SAT's. What subjects are covered on SAT's again?

[ChumpDumper]

lol standardized test smack

lol kick public school ass

[ChumpDumper]

[duplicate post]

[ElNono]

Well, they do better on SAT's. What subjects are covered on SAT's again?

This finding suggests that while these schools are no better at teaching the subject matter, they may provide students with test-taking skills that help them further their education, or they may enroll students with higher IQs (ap ude tests like the SAT are a better measure of IQ than achievement tests are).

[Wild Cobra]

I'm suggesting Thomas Jefferson is a much more authoritative voice about the subject (including the SCOTUS referencing such opinion to reach conclusions on the matter) than yours.

OK, how did he define this separation? Also, did you notice a key word "contemplate?"

[ElNono]

OK, how did he define this separation? Also, did you notice a key word "contemplate?"

You should read: Reynolds v. United States (1879) and Everson v. Board of Education (1947) for the SCOTUS's interpretation of that quote, and you can argue semantics with them.

[Wild Cobra]

You should read: Reynolds v. United States (1879) and Everson v. Board of Education (1947) for the SCOTUS's interpretation of that quote, and you can argue semantics with them.

Funny though how in both rulings, the letter is used, but not key to the rulings.

[ElNono]

Funny though how in both rulings, the letter is used, but not key to the rulings.

And?

[Wild Cobra]

And?

They were based on reasonable interpretations of the law.

Right or wrong?

[Spurminator]

Well, they do better on SAT's. What subjects are covered on SAT's again?

This finding suggests that while these schools are no better at teaching the subject matter, they may provide students with test-taking skills that help them further their education, or they may enroll students with higher IQs (ap ude tests like the SAT are a better measure of IQ than achievement tests are).

[ElNono]

They were based on reasonable interpretations of the law.

Right or wrong?

Both majority and dissenting opinions, which agreed on the separation of church and state, among other things by referencing that TJ paragraph, were used as legal precedent for posterior rulings on 'separation of church and state'.

Right or wrong?

[Wild Cobra]

Both majority and dissenting opinions, which agreed on the separation of church and state, among other things by referencing that TJ paragraph, were used as legal precedent for posterior rulings on 'separation of church and state'.

Right or wrong?

True, and I think it was a mistake.

Thing is, it is not clear what Jefferson meant by his words. His reflection on the wording of the cons ution is a statement, but not one of agreeing or not agreeing. I think he meant that the government could not make laws for the favor of religion, or stop religion from practicing their beliefs. that is the wall. This has since been interpreted that government must not do anything that appears in favor of religion. I don't see that idea in either the cons ution, or Jefferson's thoughts.

To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my cons uents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802.

On a side note, Mormonism was not an established religion at the time of these writings.

[ElNono]

True, and I think it was a mistake.

Thanks, but I'll take the SCOTUS legal opinion (who opined twice in different eras) over yours every day of the week and twice on Sundays.

BTW, the SCOTUS never said that 'separation of church and state' is an absolute. But I'll stop feeding you information you should be able to research by yourself.