Leftist, No Doubt, Run Amok.

[Traveler]

The idea of education is to provide the best qualified teachres on any given subject. The question concerning religions is not if it should be taught in public schools but who is qualified.

Some think the purpose of education is to convert someone to something. I disagree. The prupose of education is to expose a developing child to the best that society has to offer. I do not believe a child can be taught the truth of history without exposing them to the role of religion. I do not think socieites of different areas of the world can be understood without understanding the religion that influences that area. At present I believe teachers (as a whole) in the USA are unqualified to teach history, social studies, or politics or any other subject related to religion. This is one reason I believe education in the USA is at the bottom of the industrual nations.

The Traveler

[Ray]

The Holy Ghost is the only person qualified and capable of teaching the truth to anybody. Everybody else should simply try to share information and then get out of the way.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Ray@Nov 30 2004, 01:22 PM

I’m going to take this opportunity to say that I agree with the point Cal is making.

If I understand Cal correctly, he is stating that public schools should not endorse a particular religion… and not stating that public schools should not teach about a particular religion.

Do I understand you correctly, Cal? If not, then that is what I say.

In other words, I say that public schools should be in the business of sharing information, and not in the business of endorsing a particular view. And that means that public schools should be able to teach religion just as much as they teach history or homemaking or physical fitness, just as long as they don’t endorse a particular view.

Btw, evolution should also not be endorsed. I think it’s okay for teachers to teach students about evolution, and that some scientists believe in evolution, and that some scientists accept it as fact, but if a teacher goes so far as to say that evolution IS fact and should be accepted as fact, they are then endorsing evolution.

And in case you don’t know it, evolution is as much a religion as any other.

Ray,

That's a load of politically correct tripe. A teacher can endorse one religion, say Christianity, by pointing out the positive traits, like morality and accountability while painting a negative picture of another religion, say goat worship, or the Aztec religion involving human sacrifice or the brand of Islam than promotes misogyny and murder.

If we follow your line of fallacious thinking goat worship is neither better or worse than worship Christ. Heaven help the future if people like you and Cal get into teaching. Whoops! Too late!

[Snow]

Originally posted by Ray@Nov 30 2004, 02:18 PM

I believe a public school teacher should refrain from endorsing a particular view about anything while on duty as a public school teacher.  I think a public school teacher’s job is merely to present information, without personally promoting anything, and then to follow up with questions to determine whether or not their students are learning the information.  Do you understand what I’m saying?

Have illiterate space aliens taken control of your brain?

What about a teacher endorsing honesty? How about morality? How about loyalty?

Should a teacher endorse using the quadratic equation to solve for unknown variable?

How about endorsing astrophysics as a good way to understand the universe?

...and by the way, by teaching natural selection, a teacher is typically endorsing it, unless he/she goes to pains to make the students understand "maybe what Imma bout to say is true and maybe it ain't..."

Ray... did you see the news today that the Netherlands has made euthanasia legal... that's killing babies... should a teacher remain neutral about that too?

[Ray]

Snow,

I don't feel the love in anything you are saying to me. You do want to be my friend, don't you?

Originally posted by Snow@ Nov 30 2004, 09:36 PM

What about a teacher endorsing honesty? How about morality? How about loyalty?

I think public school teachers can and should teach about honesty and morality and loyalty without making any personal endorsements, or in other words, without saying something like this to their students:

“I believe in being honest and moral and loyal and you should be honest and moral and loyal too.”

If you need me to explain that to you, I’ll explain it by stating that public school teachers should draw the line between teaching about something and endorsing something, otherwise a public school teacher may be a promoter of evil as well as of good.

Should a teacher endorse using the quadratic equation to solve for unknown variable?

I think public school teachers can and should teach about the quadratic equation without saying something like this to their students:

“I believe the quadratic equation is the best way to solve for unknown variables and you should use the quadratic equation too.”

Btw, a student answering some questions from his teacher, who is trying to determine whether or not his students properly understand what he has taught them, does not constitute an endorsement by his students. It is merely a test to determine whether or not the students understand the material.

How about endorsing astrophysics as a good way to understand the universe?

I think public school teachers can and should teach about astrophysics without saying something like this to their students:

“I believe astrophysics provides a good way to understand the universe, so whenever you want to understand the universe, you should apply the principles of astrophysics.”

...and by the way, by teaching natural selection, a teacher is typically endorsing it, unless he/she goes to pains to make the students understand "maybe what Imma bout to say is true and maybe it ain't..."

Heh, you think so, do you?

What if I told you I could find a definition of “Mormonism” on the websites of other churches and from other sources of information unaffiliated with the Church. Do you think that means those other sources of information are typically endorsing “Mormonism”? I don’t. And I don’t think those other sources are going to any “pains” to help their readers understand that they are not making personal endorsements.

Ray... did you see the news today that the Netherlands has made euthanasia legal... that's killing babies... should a teacher remain neutral about that too?

Yes, I did see that news, and I personally think that is some very sad news, but I still think public school teachers can and should teach about euthanasia and about how it has been made legal without making personal endorsements either way. And considering how some people in this world think that euthanasia is “okay” now because it is has been made legal by certain public authorities, I would rather have public school teachers simply share information without endorsing their personal beliefs to their students while on duty as a public school teacher.

Btw, I notice that you seem to learn about a lot of things from news reporters. Do you recommend that news reporters refrain from making personal endorsements when reporting the news, or do you recommend that they share their personal beliefs when reporting the news? And regardless of which you prefer, don't you think it's best to allow other people to hear the news without endorsements from news reporters? I do.

With love,

Ray

[Snow]

Ray,

I just figured out that you are being sarcastic and are just spoofing me. Well done, I didn't know you had much of a sense of humor.

On the remote chance (and I do mean remotely remote - no one who can spell and owns a computer could be so dense) that you are not joking - and you are a teacher, then it is no wonder children grow up to be unwed parent, drug abusers, mentally ill, and violent.

[Ray]

Originally posted by Snow@ Dec 1 2004, 07:40 PM

Ray,

I just figured out that you are being sarcastic and are just spoofing me. Well done, I didn't know you had much of a sense of humor.

On the remote chance (and I do mean remotely remote - no one who can spell and owns a computer could be so dense) that you are not joking - and you are a teacher, then it is no wonder children grow up to be unwed parent, drug abusers, mentally ill, and violent.

Snow,

Where is your light? Where is your knowledge? Is this truly all you have to share with me? If you truly have something better to teach me then please provide something other than insults, because those really don't do much to help me understand things any better than I already do.

I'll rephrase one of the questions I asked you, in case you've forgotten:

Do you really want public school teachers to make personal endorsements about their personal beliefs while sharing information with your children or anyone else you know?

What if you had children who had a public school teacher who was a Satanist, or a Wiccan, or a Baptist, or who was anything other than a Saint? Would you really want that public school teacher to make personal endorsements and share their personal religious beliefs while sharing “other” information with your children?

You do realize that public school administrators cannot punish a person for their personal religious beliefs, don’t you? The only thing that public school administrators can do, or do righteously, is to restrict a public employee from personally endorsing their religious beliefs while in public schools. And why is the public afforded that protection? Because of the Constitution of the United States, otherwise public school teachers and all other public officials would be able to legally make any personal religious endorsement they wished. And while you may think that is a bad thing, I think it's a good thing because not everybody has our personal religious belief, and a lot of people are not even Christians... by their own admission.

And btw, I also think public school teachers can and should teach about issues such as unwed parenting, drug abuse, mental illness, and violence without saying something like this to their students:

“I believe that unwed parenting, drug abuse, mental illness, and violence are evil and you should consider those things to be evil too.”

Information is power, and I believe information can easily be conveyed without adding a personal endorsement, though it is nice when people can come together in agreement.

[Guest curvette]

I just read an updated article from the Cupertino Courrier:

http://www.cupertinocourier.com/cu-coverstrip.shtml

It sounds like there's a lot more to this story than originally reported (as usual.) I grew up very close to Cupertino, and I don't think their schools are any more liberal than anywhere else in the Bay Area. This whole thing was undoubtedly started when a parent complained to the principal. I don't think the principal would have intervened otherwise. I find it very interesting that the school district refuses to comment citing legal reasons, and yet the teacher's attorney is very verbal in talking to the press about the case. Is a defendant barred from public comment, but not the Plaintiff?

[Jenda]

Originally posted by curvette@Dec 2 2004, 11:00 AM

I just read an updated article from the Cupertino Courrier:

http://www.cupertinocourier.com/cu-coverstrip.shtml

It sounds like there's a lot more to this story than originally reported (as usual.) I grew up very close to Cupertino, and I don't think their schools are any more liberal than anywhere else in the Bay Area. This whole thing was undoubtedly started when a parent complained to the principal. I don't think the principal would have intervened otherwise. I find it very interesting that the school district refuses to comment citing legal reasons, and yet the teacher's attorney is very verbal in talking to the press about the case. Is a defendant barred from public comment, but not the Plaintiff?

I, personally, feel that when people feel that they have done something wrong, that they don't often feel like commenting.

It was the same thing in the case with the evolution discussion I posted about earlier. A parent complained when they saw (scientific) articles against evolution, and assumed that creationism was being taught. Both cases, it seems, people jumped to the wrong conclusions.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Originally posted by curvette@Dec 2 2004, 11:00 AM

I just read an updated article from the Cupertino Courrier:

http://www.cupertinocourier.com/cu-coverstrip.shtml

It sounds like there's a lot more to this story than originally reported (as usual.) I grew up very close to Cupertino, and I don't think their schools are any more liberal than anywhere else in the Bay Area. This whole thing was undoubtedly started when a parent complained to the principal. I don't think the principal would have intervened otherwise. I find it very interesting that the school district refuses to comment citing legal reasons, and yet the teacher's attorney is very verbal in talking to the press about the case. Is a defendant barred from public comment, but not the Plaintiff?

It's pretty common in high-profile, media-heavy litigation for the plaintiff's attorney to publicize his side of the case, while the big institutional defendant gives aan Oscar-worthy impression of a clam. In this particular case, there may well be some provisions of the school district's labor contract or internal policies that prevent it from commenting on any employment-related litigation. On the other hand, I suspect that the district is interpreting any such provisions as strictly as possible, because generally the defendant wants, for strategic reasons, to limit any admissions it makes to the minimum required by the legal process. If the district were to offer its side of the case in public, it might end up making statements that the plaintiff could use against it. The plaintiff's public statements, on the other hand, are probably just restatements of what he's already said in his complaint, or which he positively intends to advance at trial, so there's really no down side to him.

[Larry Kozlowski]

Originally posted by curvette@Dec 2 2004, 12:00 PM

I just read an updated article from the Cupertino Courrier:

http://www.cupertinocourier.com/cu-coverstrip.shtml

It sounds like there's a lot more to this story than originally reported (as usual.) I grew up very close to Cupertino, and I don't think their schools are any more liberal than anywhere else in the Bay Area. This whole thing was undoubtedly started when a parent complained to the principal. I don't think the principal would have intervened otherwise. I find it very interesting that the school district refuses to comment citing legal reasons, and yet the teacher's attorney is very verbal in talking to the press about the case. Is a defendant barred from public comment, but not the Plaintiff?

I did too. Paly High, in fact. We use to kick Homestead's keister in water polo every chance we got (Homestead is Cupertino's high school, in case you don't follow). Let that be a lesson to you...

[Faerie]

i still haven't seen where using the declaration of ind. and the personal journals of g.washington and thomas payne constitute "promoting religion." course i skipped over all the posts that were longer than a paragraph...lol

[Ray]

Originally posted by Faerie@Dec 2 2004, 04:04 PM

i still haven't seen where using the declaration of ind. and the personal journals of g.washington and thomas payne constitute "promoting religion." course i skipped over all the posts that were longer than a paragraph...lol

you silly girl :)

[Cal]

Originally posted by Jenda@Nov 28 2004, 07:15 PM

Cal, I fail to see what you are getting so incensed over. Where, in the original article, did it say that the teacher was promoting Christianity (or any other religion)? It states that the teacher was trying to teach the true history of the US, which included that the founding fathers were religious. If, as you say, some of them were Deists, then the teacher could hardly be promoting Christianity, could he?

Maybe you are the one missing the point.

Jenda--I think the implication was that the teacher may have been teaching US History as though all the Framers were devout practicing Christians--that leaves us with the impression that he may have been twisting the truth in order to promote Christianity; at least that would be a legitimate reason for the principal to be concerned.

[Cal]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Nov 29 2004, 12:34 PM

Had the Framers been in favor of the government promoting religion, they certainly would not have included the Establishment Clause.

As with most constitutional law, the devil (or the equivalent secular opposition figure) is in the details: What constitutes the kind of "promoting religion" that the Framers prohibited by the Establishment Clause?

"Establishment," at the time of the drafting of the First Amendment, was a legal term of art, referring specifically to the establishment of a state-sponsored church on the model of the Church of England, with clergy selected and paid by the government, and the church supported by taxes.

Since that time, judges have dramatically expanded the reach of the Establishment Clause's language, as judges are wont to do. Judges derive their power from statutory language; since it is human nature to desire more power, it can be expected that those judges will interpret that language to give them the broadest possible power. I think that was one of the flaws of human nature that the Founders overlooked in setting up the Constitution's systems of checks and balances, and one of the reasons why America has the world's most expensively litigious society, with 90% of the world's lawyers. But I digress.

You suggest that teachers have such a compelling duty to avoid "endorsing" religion that, given the vague and continually-evolving standard of what constitutes an endorsement, they must err on the side of caution -- even to the point of teaching distorted history. That flips the First Amendment's "chilling effect" jurisprudence exactly on its head. In First Amendment law, a law that does not clearly or directly restrict speech may violate the Free Speech Clause if it has a "chilling effect" on protected speech. That is, if people aren't certain of the reach of a law, they will watch what they say so as to avoid running afoul of it, and probably refrain from some measure of protected expression. (The economic counterpart of this problem is overinsurance. When you're uncertain of the level of risk, you may take greater precautions than are called for by the actual risk level.) It seems to me that you're advocating a "religious speech" exception to "chilling effect" jurisprudence, where not only does the "chilling effect" rule not apply to speech touching religion by certain figures, but operates in reverse, with the Constitution commanding that protected speech be suppressed so as to avoid getting anywhere near the line. That can't be right.

"The Pilgrims had a harvest festival to thank God for their survival" is not "promoting religion." "The Founders were profoundly influenced in their political thinking by a tradition that drew heavily on Christian religion as well as Enlightenment philosophy, with even the deists among them endorsing religion as an 'indispensable support' of civil society" is not a promotion of religion, either. It's a statement of historical fact -- or at least a statement of a debatable historical proposition.

The fact that some schools have been driven by fear of litigation to treat mentions of religion as a kind of allergen suggests to me that the separationists have gone too far, driving the First Amendment far beyond the bounds of its original meaning. My legal philosophy is that the original meaning of a text is the only acceptable meaning; otherwise, the text loses its legitimacy as an expression of the public will. (Laws "derive their just powers from the consent of the governed" and all that.) The ACLU (among others) have created a climate that impermissibly chills religious expression, and need to rethink their approach.

PD---that you may not like the interpretation that the SC has put on the Establishment clause is a position to which you are certainly entitled. Personally, I like the fact that teachers feel "chilled" into keeping their religious ideas to themselves. The public school classroom never has been a completely open forum for expression by teachers. Teachers are "chilled" from expressing lots of things that they could otherwise, in a more open forum, express. ( ie cuss words, insulting remarks, etc.). So the fact that teachers feel "chilled" is no problem to me from a legal perspective.

Second, the fact that judges interpret the Establishment clause in a way with which you disagree hardly makes them wrong and you right. The fact of the matter is we live in a very different world than what the Framers contemplated. How would the Framers have reacted to the variety of religious cultures that came to be in the US? Would they have dreamed that there would be sizable populations of people that don't believe in any God at all, much less christianity. Should all these people be forced to see their government, that they also pay taxes to, favoring religion over non-religion, or one religion over another? Yes there is a degree of "chilling" when it comes to what government agents can do in their public positions regarding the promotion of their religious beliefs. And yes, they should feel a little chilly in that regard.

I don't think we are in diametrically opposed camps on this issue---I have no doubt that you don't favor teachers feeling free to hold prayer sessions in the middle of a Biology lesson, nor do I think that religion can not be mentioned in any context. The only "chill" that a teacher should feel is a chill on his intentions to convince the kids that they should feel obliged to believe in religion over non-religion. If the teacher's lesson carries the message that "hey, kids, the Framers were relgious, so we should all be", then that teacher needs to "chill out".

[Cal]

Originally posted by Snow+Nov 29 2004, 08:06 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Nov 29 2004, 08:06 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Cal@Nov 28 2004, 03:23 PM

Originally posted by -Snow@Nov 28 2004, 03:49 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Cal@Nov 28 2004, 02:07 PM

I agree with your last statement that teaching about religion is not the same as teaching in its favor. However, when a school principal decides that the teacher is crossing the line and is promoting religion over non-religion (or visa versa for that matter) he has the obligation to call the teacher on that.

What obligation?

Certainly not a federal constitutional obligation. Obviously not a moral or ethical obligation. The only obligation they have is to promote a liberal leftist agenda that attacks conservative values.

Snow-- you sure have gift for missing the point. The issue is not that you can't talk about religion in public schools K-12, you just can't do it in a way that conveys the message that says the student should prefer religion over non-religion or should adopt some particular religious philosophy. For example, I mention the CAtholic church several times when I teach about the evolution of scientific thinking in western society. Do I say, "he kids, the catholic church is bad, or you should join or not join the catholic church, ..."? Obviously not. I mention it as a matter of fact, without giving my slant on Christianity one way or the other.

When an american history teacher teaches that the puritans came to america to escape religious persecution and that they practiced their religion in early america that is fine. If the teacher goes on to say that since the puritans were Christians or even believed in God, that we should therefore have their religious symbols all over our governmental institutions (on our money, Christian prayers in our schools etc), you are saying, as an agent of a governmental institution, which a public school teacher is (like it or not) that our government prefers or endorses religion over non-religion---which is not only false, but illegal.

You are dead wrong about a principal not having an obligation to monitor what is being taught. In case you hadn't noticed school districts can be sued and held liable for violating Supreme Court rulings---and one is that that public schools may not ENDORSE religion. Talk about it all you want, but if the teacher starts teaching that the school is endorsing religion, then he is violating Supreme Court rulings. Supreme Court rulings are the law of the land, in case you hadn't noticed.

All your ranting and raving and name calling don't change the fact.

By the way, your extreme pronouncement that liberals hate religion is preposterous, and you know it. I don't hate religion, just your brand of it.

Talk about missing a point--- you seem to have missed them all.

I got your point entirely, I just disagree with it.

First, The constitution says nothing about a teacher giving preferential treatment to one religion over another. I see that PD has responded to this thread - without having read his response, I'm sure he'll have covered the constitutional issues but the constitution prohibits the federal govt. from making laws restricting or establishing religion. It says absolutely squat about a teacher teaching, say, Christianity in a positive light, and, say, donkey worship in a pejorative light.

Second, liberal activist judges make seek to legislate from the bench and may be successful in doing so but that doesn't make their liberal agenda right.

Third, I didn't say that a principal doesn't have an obligation to monitor teachers. What I did was question your assertion that principal has an obligation to ensure that religion is not given preference over non-religion. The constitution says no such thing and to the extent that liberal courts have "legislated" otherwise still doesn't make it right or good or desirable.

Fourth, I don't think that liberals, per say, hate religion. It is obviously however that those who are antagonistic against religion are generally liberal.

Snow--obviously you don't understand who the 'government" is or who a government agent is. You seem to think that because the constitution doesn't mention public school teachers by name, that it is not refering to them, as a government agent. Who do you think the constitution is trying to restrain when it prohibits the establishment of religion? Obviously, anyone in a position with governmental authority over others---that would be, among others, public school officials, including teachers. If you don't like that definition of "agent" take it up with the Supreme Court.

Pardon me for taking you at your word when you said: "liberals hate religion", I should have known you didn't mean what you said. I would agree that conservatives, especially ultra conservatives, are more likely to vocally profess deep religiosity. However, professing religiousity on a soap box, and actually having a caring heart toward your fellow man ( which is what Chrisitanity was supposed to be about--silly me, if I am wrong) are two different things. Liberals may be more in favor of government programs to care for the poor and needy than conservatives--I guess that makes them anti-religion

[Cal]

Originally posted by Ray@Nov 30 2004, 02:22 PM

I’m going to take this opportunity to say that I agree with the point Cal is making.

If I understand Cal correctly, he is stating that public schools should not endorse a particular religion… and not stating that public schools should not teach about a particular religion.

Do I understand you correctly, Cal? If not, then that is what I say.

In other words, I say that public schools should be in the business of sharing information, and not in the business of endorsing a particular view. And that means that public schools should be able to teach religion just as much as they teach history or homemaking or physical fitness, just as long as they don’t endorse a particular view.

Btw, evolution should also not be endorsed. I think it’s okay for teachers to teach students about evolution, and that some scientists believe in evolution, and that some scientists accept it as fact, but if a teacher goes so far as to say that evolution IS fact and should be accepted as fact, they are then endorsing evolution.

And in case you don’t know it, evolution is as much a religion as any other.

Well Ray, you got it half right! We do agree that govermental institutions have no business endorsing, even religion over non-religion.

However, I suspect you have spent precious little time studying Biology or Evolution. First, when you say that 'some' scientist believe in evolution, you are grossly understating the fact. As a Biology major myself in college, I never met even ONE Biologist that didn't think that organic evolution is a fact. And it is---all you have to do is examine the sedimentary layers of the earth, and they are literally miles deep in some places, and it becomes plain as day, that living things have changed over the eons of time. That, by definition, is evolution. The overwhelming majority of scientists accept evolution as fact, and even a larger proportion of those MOST familiar with the field, Biologists. As a matter of fact, even the vast majority of MORMON professional Biologist believe that evolution is a fact.

Evolution is a scientific theory (not theory, as though it were just a guess, but theory as it provides a model to explain the changes in living things over time), and not a religion. Religion starts with accepted premises (there is a God), and accepts only those facts that support it. Science starts with observed facts and develops theories to explain them. Scientific theories are never absolute, where as religious dogma is, by its nature, absolutistic. There are no absolutes in science, philosophically speaking. All principles and theories are open to question and revision. That is why creationism is not science. First, it is not open to revision, by those who espouse it, and second, it starts with an unprovable premise, and seeks only facts that support it.

Therefore, evolution absolutely should be taught in schools as the model supported by the vast majority of the scientific community as a fact of nature, and natural selection and mutation are two of the main processes by which it takes place.

Now, no scientist that I know has ever said that the fact of evolution disproves the existance of God. Science by its nature, can not prove or disprove such a thing. To try to prove or disprove something that can't be subjected to scientific experiment is simply not science. Therefore, religion and belief in God are in an entirely different realm, unless, one insisted that Genesis is to be taken LITERALLY; then there are some serious contraditions between science and religion. As long as you can take Genesis for what it seems to be, a quaint set of ancient creation stories not to be taken literally, then religion and science can coexist quite nicely.

I don't think that we should say that evolution shouldn't be taught in schools because it might upset those that take Genesis literally. Knowledge is always upsetting to the ignorant. (not refering to your or anyone else in this forum, of course) :)

Bottomline is that evolution isn't religion, it is a scientific model for addressing the fact that living things change over time. It doesn't encourage either the belief nor disbelief in dieties. The fact that some religions don't accept it as fact, is their problem, not the problem of public schools. We can't have religions dictating what scientific theories are acceptable and which aren't---now that WOULD be the establishment of religion.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Snow+Nov 30 2004, 09:32 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Nov 30 2004, 09:32 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Ray@Nov 30 2004, 01:22 PM

I’m going to take this opportunity to say that I agree with the point Cal is making.

If I understand Cal correctly, he is stating that public schools should not endorse a particular religion… and not stating that public schools should not teach about a particular religion.

Do I understand you correctly, Cal?  If not, then that is what I say. 

In other words, I say that public schools should be in the business of sharing information, and not in the business of endorsing a particular view.  And that means that public schools should be able to teach religion just as much as they teach history or homemaking or physical fitness, just as long as they don’t endorse a particular view.

Btw, evolution should also not be endorsed.  I think it’s okay for teachers to teach students about evolution, and that some scientists believe in evolution, and that some scientists accept it as fact, but if a teacher goes so far as to say that evolution IS fact and should be accepted as fact, they are then endorsing evolution. 

And in case you don’t know it, evolution is as much a religion as any other.

Ray,

That's a load of politically correct tripe. A teacher can endorse one religion, say Christianity, by pointing out the positive traits, like morality and accountability while painting a negative picture of another religion, say goat worship, or the Aztec religion involving human sacrifice or the brand of Islam than promotes misogyny and murder.

If we follow your line of fallacious thinking goat worship is neither better or worse than worship Christ. Heaven help the future if people like you and Cal get into teaching. Whoops! Too late!

Yes, and heaven help us if people get into teaching that can't think any more clearly than Snow. He seems to think that "morality" and "accountablity" are the sole province of only one religious philosophy. Who says goat worship couldn't be just as moral or accountable? Maybe the goat is the most loving, charitable, forgiving and responsibility-promoting goat imaginable? What would make him inferior to any other imagined god?

Second, whether you like it or not, until we get a new Supreme Court teachers CANNOT endorse religions in public schools, any more than George W. can insist that a picture of Jesus appear on our national coinage.

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by Cal@Dec 2 2004, 06:05 PM

Therefore, evolution absolutely should be taught in schools as the model supported by the vast majority of the scientific community as a fact of nature, and natural selection and mutation are two of the main processes by which it takes place.

I agree.

[Cal]

euthanasia legal... that's killing babies...

The above is a quote from Snow------Snow have you lost it completely? You used to impress me with a fair modicum of factual accuracy. Euthanasia is killing babies?

Euthanasia is the killing of mainly OLD people to supposedly shorten their suffering. Seldom is the term applied to babies. The rule in the Netherlands is for that purpose. (not that I necessarily support it)

[Cal]

Originally posted by Snow@Dec 1 2004, 07:40 PM

Ray,

I just figured out that you are being sarcastic and are just spoofing me. Well done, I didn't know you had much of a sense of humor.

On the remote chance (and I do mean remotely remote - no one who can spell and owns a computer could be so dense) that you are not joking - and you are a teacher, then it is no wonder children grow up to be unwed parent, drug abusers, mentally ill, and violent.

Snow- you may think that trying to over power people with insults and derision is somehow making a point, but it just makes you look ridiculous. Actually, Ray seems to understand the point about religion in public schools better than you do. You don't have to endorse religion to endorse positive social virtues, and there is nothing in the constitution that prevents the endorsement of factual information and value judgements in human relations, and the extolling and promoting of positive values like chastity or honesty etc. The sooner you can make the distinction, the less you will be hammering on nice old Ray. (or nice YOUNG Ray) :)

[Cal]

Originally posted by curvette@Dec 2 2004, 11:00 AM

I just read an updated article from the Cupertino Courrier:

http://www.cupertinocourier.com/cu-coverstrip.shtml

It sounds like there's a lot more to this story than originally reported (as usual.) I grew up very close to Cupertino, and I don't think their schools are any more liberal than anywhere else in the Bay Area. This whole thing was undoubtedly started when a parent complained to the principal. I don't think the principal would have intervened otherwise. I find it very interesting that the school district refuses to comment citing legal reasons, and yet the teacher's attorney is very verbal in talking to the press about the case. Is a defendant barred from public comment, but not the Plaintiff?

No, but the defendant may not feel it is in his best interest to comment. "When in doubt, say nothing" is the old adage.

[Jenda]

Originally posted by curvette+Dec 2 2004, 06:27 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (curvette @ Dec 2 2004, 06:27 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Cal@Dec 2 2004, 06:05 PM

Therefore, evolution absolutely should be taught in schools as the model supported by the vast majority of the scientific community as a fact of nature, and natural selection and mutation are two of the main processes by which it takes place.

I agree.

Have either of you read up on the problems with evolution? Macroevolution is not the issue. It is microevolution which Darwin, et al, postulates is the reason for us, and every other species on the planet being here, and there is just no evidence to support it.

If you want to support macroevolution, that is fine, but when evolution is taught, it is microevolution they are referring to.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Cal@Dec 2 2004, 05:28 PM

euthanasia legal... that's killing babies...

The above is a quote from Snow------Snow have you lost it completely? You used to impress me with a fair modicum of factual accuracy. Euthanasia is killing babies?

Euthanasia is the killing of mainly OLD people to supposedly shorten their suffering. Seldom is the term applied to babies. The rule in the Netherlands is for that purpose. (not that I necessarily support it)

I sorry Cal... we can't award you any points for paying attention.

AMSTERDAM, Netherlands -- A hospital in the Netherlands -- the first nation to permit euthanasia -- recently proposed guidelines for mercy killings of terminally ill newborns, and then made a startling revelation: It has already begun carrying out such procedures, which include administering a lethal dose of sedatives.

Euthanasia doesn't apply to any specific age group and I just assumed a certain level of current event literacy in the reader.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Originally posted by Cal@Dec 2 2004, 06:28 PM

euthanasia legal... that's killing babies...

The above is a quote from Snow------Snow have you lost it completely? You used to impress me with a fair modicum of factual accuracy. Euthanasia is killing babies?

Euthanasia is the killing of mainly OLD people to supposedly shorten their suffering. Seldom is the term applied to babies. The rule in the Netherlands is for that purpose. (not that I necessarily support it)

Cal,

You may not have heard of the Groningen Protocol, which is understandable given the almost complete mainstream news blackout on it. A Dutch hospital recently announced that not only are they developing procedures to decide when people without "free will" may be put to a supposedly merciful death, but that they have already euthanized several infants. Appallingly, while the wishes of parents of a severely-handicapped child for whom euthanasia is contemplated are to be taken into account, the doctors reserve the right to make the final decision even if the parents object.