|
Post by Old Viking on Aug 22, 2011 14:27:29 GMT -5
About the third or fourth time he said "you know" I would have assaulted him.
|
|
|
Post by priestling on Aug 22, 2011 14:44:12 GMT -5
About the third or fourth time he said "you know" I would have assaulted him. Oh good, it wasn't just me, then!
|
|
|
Post by Thejebusfire on Aug 22, 2011 23:33:45 GMT -5
About the third or fourth time he said "you know" I would have assaulted him. That was actually the only part of the quote that pissed me off.
|
|
|
Post by corribean on Aug 23, 2011 0:24:19 GMT -5
he Court's opinion was more than gratifying, it was a victory for free thought and academic freedom. The 9th Circuit affirmed that in America, no religion has a right to demand that teachers defer to their beliefs. If that were true, teaching would become a Constitutional minefield. The Court held that “teachers must be given leeway to challenge students to foster critical thinking skills and develop their analytical abilities.” Chad’s lawyers argued that questioning “Creation Science” violated the First Amendment, but American law gives no special place to any religion. One person’s religion is another person’s superstition. To Jews, Muslims, Hindus and dozens of other religions, the New Testament is “Christian Superstition,” just as their views are superstition to Christians. When I referred to a religious belief as “superstition,” I sought to show respect for all by favoring none. My classes have Jews, Hindus, Bahai, Muslims, Buddhists, and others. Chad would demand a special place for his views, but in America, all beliefs should be treated equally by government.
The one thing that bothers me most about this case is that neither Chad nor his parents nor the so-called Advocates for Faith and Freedom, ever made an effort to talk with me before filing the suit. In my view, they were all more interested in gaining publicity for themselves, and donations for the Advocates, than in protecting Chad’s rights. They cost our schools hundreds of thousands of dollars when the whole thing could have been settled with a phone call that they never made.
Finally, here are two stanzas from Robert Service Poem (Reagan's favorite poet) that have been with me for 50 years--since my father read it to me when I was a teenager, At the time he was fighting the blacklisters who called him a Communist for working against a fundamentalist takeover of the Anaheim School Board
"Carry On" And so in the strife of the battle of life It’s easy to fight when you’re winning; It’s easy to slave, and starve and be brave, When the dawn of success is beginning. But the man who can meet despair and defeat With a cheer, there’s the man of God’s choosing; The man who can fight to Heaven’s own height Is the man who can fight when he’s losing. Carry on! Carry on! Fight the good fight and true; Believe in your mission, greet life with a cheer; There’s big work to do, and that’s why you are here. Carry on! Carry on! Let the world be the better for you; And at last when you die, let this be your cry! Jim Corbett
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Aug 23, 2011 3:24:18 GMT -5
...I've tried to read that post three times and it doesn't make anymore sense than the first time.
|
|
|
Post by ironbite on Aug 23, 2011 4:15:28 GMT -5
We've got the next Mabus folks.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger Joe on Aug 23, 2011 9:04:17 GMT -5
There is a very fine line between "preaching" and "teaching" and I can't say I'm 100% sympathetic with the teacher. He has a right to show how creationism or intelligent design does not fit into the model of the scientific method (and probably only if the issue is raised by a student, as there is no reason to proactively address these issues in a science class), but he doesn't have the right to preach that there is no god, just like any other teacher cannot preach that there is a god. The teacher could have taken a more neutral tone in regards to religion. Why? Why should he take a more neutral tone? The religious don't take a neutral tone when bashing evolution. Intelligent Design/Creationism is absolutely ridiculous. If you're in a science class, you are there to discuss science. If there are people alledging that Creationism/Intelligent Design is actual science, then the teacher should point out how fucked up it is as a theory. We shouldn't spare them simply because it's their religion. The moment people try to combine their faith with science, there is going to be some ridicule.
|
|
|
Post by Amaranth on Aug 23, 2011 10:37:00 GMT -5
Why? Why should he take a more neutral tone? I'm inclined to agree. Science is science, and trying to shoehorn religion into it should not be met with a "moderate" tone. Creationism is nonsense. It should not be treated with kid gloves.
|
|
|
Post by big_electron on Aug 23, 2011 10:43:29 GMT -5
Creationism is superstition. There are Christians who have accepted the theory of evolution as fact. Many creationists force themselves to believe creationism "just in case", need to score more points in the eyes of God, pastor, other churchgoers...
|
|