New Evolution spat in U.S. schools goes to court

[vidcc]

On that note what is it that you conservatives fear about letting people live their own lives?

ummm.......vid.......sorry dude, but it's the liberals doing that
the liberals have taken just about every liberty away from us, ironic eh?

-freedom of religion
-freedom of speech

in the Bill Of Rights, yet have been restricted by liberal legislation
you can probably get sued just for saying "God" in public by now
(maybe not, but it's soon to come no doubt)

Is religion illegal now? I was unaware of that. I guess that would explain the cops arresting all those "religious criminals" as they leave church.
perhaps you are confusing freedom of religion with freedom to force your religion on others.
I am an athiest and an accused liberal (I don't mind) and I am not trying to do away with your religion. I don't understand what you are talking about, give me an example.
When was freedom of speech removed? There are laws where you cannot incite a riot. for example you can meet in a private venue and hold a KKK meeting but you cannot do it in the street in the middle of Harlem as you would cause a riot.
Give me an example of what you are talking about.

you can get sued for saying something someone finds "offensive",
even if the words aren't aimed at that particular person

Perhaps you should aim your words at that well known liberal Jerry Falwell.

[j2k4]

Why this irrational fear of I.D.?

If it's provenance is so apparently suspect, why not allow students to determine it themselves?

As with every other question I've asked throughout this thread, I imagine these will also go begging...

Oh no j2, please allow me.

I'm all for letting students "determine" things for themselves.
Right after the ID "science" class (presumably rotated with phrenology and astrology) they can toddle into Sex Ed and "Introduction to Alcohol", OK?

I didn't realize Conservatives were so...well, liberal.

If you believe I.D. to be on the same plane as phrenology and astrology, fine; if you feel the need to "even things out" by incorporating them into school curricula as well, then advocate for them.

We already suffer the bastardized educational structure foisted upon us by the NEA...

Trendy liberal curriculum fads are enthusiastically endorsed by the NEA, including multicultural ed, global ed, AIDS ed, environmental ed, bilingual ed, self-esteem ed, and suicide ed. NEA resolutions do not mention phonics education or teaching children to read. In recognition of the fact that semi-literate public school graduates must take high school courses all over again in college, the NEA went on record against denying taxpayer funds to college students enrolled in "remedial" courses.

The NEA is all for sex education so long as it includes "diversity of sexual orientation, incest, and sexual harassment." The NEA resolution follows the SIECUS-Planned Parenthood dogma that "it is the right of every individual [i.e., every child, without parental consent] to live in an environment [i.e., the school] of freely available information, knowledge, and wisdom [i.e., as defined by the school] about sexuality."

The NEA wants every child to have "direct and confidential [i.e., without parental knowledge or consent] access to comprehensive [i.e., K-12] health, social, and psychological programs and services [i.e., contraceptives]." The NEA wants guidance and counseling programs to be "integrated into the entire education system [i.e., so parents can't opt out their children] beginning at the prekindergarten level."

The NEA's answer to the problem of teen pregnancy is not to teach abstinence or self-discipline, but to teach self-esteem, making sure that it is "anti-biased, culturally sensitive." The NEA also demands that schools set up school-based health clinics (to distribute contraceptives) and "on-site child care services."

...so why cry about one more off-the-wall idea being taught in our schools?

Liberals have controlled the educational agenda in the U.S. for the past 50 years; I don't see anything more outrageous about the idea of teaching I.D. than that contained in the paragraph above-did any of you argue against crap like that?

I'll bet you didn't, and if the interweb existed when these ideas were borne into our educational system, you couldn't have been fussed to raise an eyebrow over it, and if you didn't care then, why do you care now?

BTW-the first person who brings up separation of Church and State should show us all how much he or she knows about the Constitution by reproducing the section of that document that spells out this separation.

Come now, it's only a google away, right?

vid-

Your opinion that I.D. is Creationism in disguise is your entitlement; that doesn't make it any truer than mine, and to call I.D. a fairy tale is...presumptive.

As to what you would be willing to live with as to how I.D. were ensconced in our children's learning, I think you'll find that you have no say whatsoever over those particulars if I.D. actually makes it into the edu-system, because parents' opinions don't count when teachers are running the show.

If you think differently, go to your child's school right now and try to effect any sort of change-they'll likely call the authorities and have you bounced out on your ear.

[j2k4]

For some recent abridgements of personal liberties please read the Patriot Act...hardly a liberal creation.

Apparently you are not sufficiently impressed by the terrorist acts which have occurred on our soil to suffer any additional security at all, unless it is whatever type might be authored by one of those supremely competent liberals like...oh, let's see...Jamie Gorelick?

Never mind the Patriot Act for a moment; do you think we should have done nothing?

Don't give me the song-and-dance about library records, either; if Abdul-Rahman-Leaping Lizard is signing out books about making bombs (the kind that really don't belong in libraries, but are there on account of liberally-sponsored free speech), I want to know it.

[vidcc]

BTW-the first person who brings up separation of Church and State should show us all how much he or she knows about the Constitution by reproducing the section of that document that spells out this separation.

Although the Constitution does not include the phrase "Separation of Church & State," neither does it say "Freedom of religion." However, the Constitution implies both in the 1st Amendment. As to our freedoms, the 1st Amendment provides exclusionary wording:

Congress shall make NO law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Thomas Jefferson made an interpretation of the 1st Amendment to his January 1st, 1802 letter to the Committee of the Danbury Baptist Association calling it a "wall of separation between church and State." Madison had also written that "Strongly guarded. . . is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States." There existed little controversy about this interpretation from our Founding Fathers.

[Busyman]

For some recent abridgements of personal liberties please read the Patriot Act...hardly a liberal creation.

Apparently you are not sufficiently impressed by the terrorist acts which have occurred on our soil to suffer any additional security at all, unless it is whatever type might be authored by one of those supremely competent liberals like...oh, let's see...Jamie Gorelick?

Never mind the Patriot Act for a moment; do you think we should have done nothing?

Don't give me the song-and-dance about library records, either; if Abdul-Rahman-Leaping Lizard is signing out books about making bombs (the kind that really don't belong in libraries, but are there on account of liberally-sponsored free speech), I want to know it.

You tail him then. You don't grab him and hold him indefinitely.

I must agree with you about bomb-making books though.

[3RA1N1AC]

We already suffer the bastardized educational structure foisted upon us by the NEA...

Trendy liberal curriculum fads are enthusiastically endorsed by the NEA, including multicultural ed, global ed....

the NEA does not control the public school curriculum in the U.S. any more than the UN, the GOP, the LDS, the ATF, or the RIAA controls it. local school boards control curriculum. more or less.

personally, i never had none of that foisted on me by anyone. perhaps i was just lucky enough to attend public schools that weren't under the control of rainbow-flavored, baby seal hugging, pot-smoking diverse-o-crats. most of my experience with social issues was thankfully in the schoolyard (away from the teachers and their NEA), where my schoolmates regularly made it a point to prove how well-versed they were in homespun values like racism, picking on the fat kid, picking on the sissy, picking on the kid with hand-me-down clothes, etc etc. how glad i am that the NEA didn't have their way and the schools i attended weren't in the business of socially adjusting children... and parents could be confident that when they sent their hateful little monsters to school, they'd get 'em back at the end of the day with their prejudices intact.

[j2k4]

Although the Constitution does not include the phrase "Separation of Church & State," neither does it say "Freedom of religion." However, the Constitution implies both in the 1st Amendment. As to our freedoms, the 1st Amendment provides exclusionary wording:

Congress shall make NO law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Thomas Jefferson made an interpretation of the 1st Amendment to his January 1st, 1802 letter to the Committee of the Danbury Baptist Association calling it a "wall of separation between church and State." Madison had also written that "Strongly guarded. . . is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States." There existed little controversy about this interpretation from our Founding Fathers.

A few things, then:

As your google notes, the document has nothing in it about "separation".

This part-

Congress shall make NO law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

...doesn't set the table for what is currently taking place anent Christianity, and that part I've highlighted is a freedom, not a restriction.

The entire reason for the inclusion of any statement inclusive of both religion and government was to short-circuit any attempt by the government to establish a church on it's own behalf, AS HAD BEEN DONE IN ENGLAND.

The further intent of the language was to forestall any attempt by the government to infringe upon the religious practices of it's citizens, END OF STORY.

Jefferson's remarks were perfectly in line with this intent, as they meant that government was to be prevented by this "wall" from interfering in the free practice of religion, not the other way around, and the sum total of these wordings were an effort to avoid the religious persecution and strictures suffered under the Church of England; the source and progenitor of your wall.

There is an inherent recognition that government policy may be informed by religion, but is not beholden to it.

That is the sum total of original intent, and nothing more has ever been required, to this day.

[Busyman]

Oh no j2, please allow me.

I'm all for letting students "determine" things for themselves.
Right after the ID "science" class (presumably rotated with phrenology and astrology) they can toddle into Sex Ed and "Introduction to Alcohol", OK?

I didn't realize Conservatives were so...well, liberal.

If you believe I.D. to be on the same plane as phrenology and astrology, fine; if you feel the need to "even things out" by incorporating them into school curricula as well, then advocate for them.

We already suffer the bastardized educational structure foisted upon us by the NEA...

Trendy liberal curriculum fads are enthusiastically endorsed by the NEA, including multicultural ed, global ed, AIDS ed, environmental ed, bilingual ed, self-esteem ed, and suicide ed. NEA resolutions do not mention phonics education or teaching children to read. In recognition of the fact that semi-literate public school graduates must take high school courses all over again in college, the NEA went on record against denying taxpayer funds to college students enrolled in "remedial" courses.

The NEA is all for sex education so long as it includes "diversity of sexual orientation, incest, and sexual harassment." The NEA resolution follows the SIECUS-Planned Parenthood dogma that "it is the right of every individual [i.e., every child, without parental consent] to live in an environment [i.e., the school] of freely available information, knowledge, and wisdom [i.e., as defined by the school] about sexuality."

The NEA wants every child to have "direct and confidential [i.e., without parental knowledge or consent] access to comprehensive [i.e., K-12] health, social, and psychological programs and services [i.e., contraceptives]." The NEA wants guidance and counseling programs to be "integrated into the entire education system [i.e., so parents can't opt out their children] beginning at the prekindergarten level."

The NEA's answer to the problem of teen pregnancy is not to teach abstinence or self-discipline, but to teach self-esteem, making sure that it is "anti-biased, culturally sensitive." The NEA also demands that schools set up school-based health clinics (to distribute contraceptives) and "on-site child care services."

...so why cry about one more off-the-wall idea being taught in our schools?

...'cause this off-the-wall idea has no scientific educational value. At least "multicultural ed, global ed, AIDS ed, environmental ed, bilingual ed, self-esteem ed, and suicide ed" are real world things that affect people. There are many things like distributing contraceptives in school that are crazy to me. Also not teaching abstinence is stupid.

Liberals have controlled the educational agenda in the U.S. for the past 50 years; I don't see anything more outrageous about the idea of teaching I.D. than that contained in the paragraph above-did any of you argue against crap like that?

That's mad talk. You equate ID with learning a foreign language?

I'll bet you didn't, and if the interweb existed when these ideas were borne into our educational system, you couldn't have been fussed to raise an eyebrow over it, and if you didn't care then, why do you care now?

Uhh that's 'cause things like "learning a foreign language" don't warrant raising an eyebrow.

Your opinion that I.D. is Creationism in disguise is your entitlement; that doesn't make it any truer than mine, and to call I.D. a fairy tale is...presumptive.

It has shit to do with science.

As to what you would be willing to live with as to how I.D. were ensconced in our children's learning, I think you'll find that you have no say whatsoever over those particulars if I.D. actually makes it into the edu-system, because parents' opinions don't count when teachers are running the show.

It has shit to do with science.

If you think differently, go to your child's school right now and try to effect any sort of change-they'll likely call the authorities and have you bounced out on your ear.

I'm with you to an extent. Many parents want things taught at home like homosexuality. The curriculum is not made known ahead of time in most cases so then the child comes home asking questions about a subject the parent considers "touchy".

[j2k4]

the NEA does not control the public school curriculum in the U.S. any more than the UN, the GOP, the LDS, the ATF, or the RIAA controls it. local school boards control curriculum. more or less.

I can see you believing that, even if it's not true.

[3RA1N1AC]

I can see you believing that, even if it's not true.

i must confess, i am a sunshiney optimist at heart.