Leftist, No Doubt, Run Amok.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Outshined+Dec 3 2004, 03:36 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Outshined @ Dec 3 2004, 03:36 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Cal@Dec 2 2004, 07:39 PM

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.

Wow, the irony detector just went crazy!

It's a little like saying, "I'm going to beat the holy bejeebers out of you until you stop being bruised."

Here's the analysis: Obviously Cal thinks that deriding others is acceptable as he just did it himself. Beyond his hypocrisy he is telling us that it is all right to insult someone so long as they deserve it. However, it is not acceptable for others to decide who merits criticism - but it is all right for Cal to decide.

Cal... you're an open book but that's why we love you.

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by Jenda@Dec 3 2004, 07:26 PM

I am not talking about creationists.

Sure you are. Jonathan Wells is a hardline creationist. He's a Unification minister for heaven's sake! He received his PHD in Biology AFTER getting one in Religious studies. He entered the realm of science with an eye single to debunking "Darwinism." I'm sorry, but I just don't give those type of scientists the same weight as those who study science objectively. On a positive note, he is a good writer.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Ray+Dec 3 2004, 12:16 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Ray @ Dec 3 2004, 12:16 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Ray@ Dec 2 2004, 09:24 AM

<!--QuoteBegin--Snow@ Dec 2 2004, 08:33 PM

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.

Now it is put up or shut up time Ray. Where in the Constitution does it say that?

Amendment 1 - 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.

Ray,

I think the rest of the above quoted post and your others on this topic are so looney that I am no longer going to bother with them. I'll just respond to the point above. I asked you to show the part of the Constitution where you said it prohibits the endorsement (by which yoiu mean support of or promotion) of a particular religion and you quoted the establishment clause which prohibits the federal government from establishing a state religioin (although it does nothing to prohibit the states from establishing a state religion - don't believe me? - ask PD) or restricting the free exercise of religion.

Needless to say if I had wanted you to quote the establishment clause, I would have asked you to quote the establishment clause.

Getting back to my original challenge - put up or shut up time - where does it say that a teacher cannot endorse a religion?

Hint: nowhere.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Ray@Dec 3 2004, 03:14 PM

Snow,

Whether you realize it or not, you are making false judgments against me, and even though I forgive you, my Lord will be holding you accountable unless you repent.

Oh bite me Ray. Here we are having a discussion and I am belittling and ridiculing you and your opinion because it, to me, is whack, and you go off and pull some self-rigtheous phoney-baloney mallarky that your god will punish me.

Doesn't that strike you as abnormally suckey?

[Snow]

Originally posted by curvette+Dec 3 2004, 04:16 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (curvette @ Dec 3 2004, 04:16 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Ray@Dec 3 2004, 05:09 PM

I know about some of the theories proposed by some people who believe that humans evolved from lower life forms, or other species, and none of it makes a bit of sense to me.

None of it makes a bit of sense to you because you have a preconcieved belief that humans did NOT evolve from earlier life forms. Human evolution is actually doctrinal in our church. If humans can evolve to become like God, why couldn't we have evolved to be human? God could easily have created humans through advanced biological processes. If eternal progression is a true concept, earthly, physical progression seems quite within the realm of possibilities to me.

Ah hah! But the belief is that man and God are of the same species, not different.

However, you can believe in evolution in the Church and still be in line with Church doctrine. It's not much of an issue.

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by Snow@Dec 3 2004, 10:13 PM

Ah hah! But the belief is that man and God are of the same species, not different.

Well, technically, I guess Jesus being born sort of nixes the theory of divine speciation.

[john doe]

I'm just tossing this out without taking much time to think about it, but doesn't man have to evolve a just little bit to be like God?

[Snow]

Originally posted by Jenda@Dec 3 2004, 06:26 PM

I am not talking about creationists. I am talking about real scientists who have studied the specific areas of science that evolution is concerned with and intimately know their subject. They are the ones who say that the science just doesn't fit. They grew up believing evolution was all but fact, and they have found out it isn't really even in the running. The theories just don't fit the facts, and the more facts they find, the less the theories fit.

Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? by Jonathan Wells is a good book to read on the subject.

There's a problem with someone who let's his religion dictate his science. Here's the rap (or one of many on Wells)

his writing is that of an "deologue working from the fringe.

Throughout Icons you are presented with the supposition that there is a grand conspiracy being conducted by leading evolutionists, apparently with help from the National Geographic Society. To get around the problem that the overwhelming majority of biologists and other scientists understand and accept evolution as one of the basic tenet of science, Wells assumes that they are either part of the conspiracy or dupes unable to comprehend how they are being conned by their colleagues."

[Snow]

Originally posted by Larry Kozlowski@Dec 3 2004, 06:44 PM

Snow, I can't believe you forgot Marvin Philip in this illustrious group mentioned above! Frankly, I am aghast

I saw him play in person at the USC game and didn't even know he was a marman boy... and he leads Cal in pancake tackles!

Glory Be.

[Larry Kozlowski]

Originally posted by Snow+Dec 4 2004, 02:00 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Dec 4 2004, 02:00 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Larry Kozlowski@Dec 3 2004, 06:44 PM

Snow, I can't believe you forgot Marvin Philip in this illustrious group mentioned above! Frankly, I am aghast

I saw him play in person at the USC game and didn't even know he was a marman boy... and he leads Cal in pancake tackles!

Glory Be.

And from what I hear.... pancake eating.

Lord Praise Us!

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by john doe@Dec 3 2004, 11:59 PM

I'm just tossing this out without taking much time to think about it, but doesn't man have to evolve a just little bit to be like God?

Of course. But the type of evolution that's in debate is the actual changing from one species to another through thousands of years of small changes.

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Snow+Dec 4 2004, 12:24 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Dec 4 2004, 12:24 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@Dec 3 2004, 06:26 PM

I am not talking about creationists.  I am talking about real scientists who have studied the specific areas of science that evolution is concerned with and intimately know their subject.  They are the ones who say that the science just doesn't fit.  They grew up believing evolution was all but fact, and they have found out it isn't really even in the running.  The theories just don't fit the facts, and the more facts they find, the less the theories fit.

Icons of Evolution:  Science or Myth? by Jonathan Wells is a good book to read on the subject.

There's a problem with someone who let's his religion dictate his science. Here's the rap (or one of many on Wells)

his writing is that of an "deologue working from the fringe.

Throughout Icons you are presented with the supposition that there is a grand conspiracy being conducted by leading evolutionists, apparently with help from the National Geographic Society. To get around the problem that the overwhelming majority of biologists and other scientists understand and accept evolution as one of the basic tenet of science, Wells assumes that they are either part of the conspiracy or dupes unable to comprehend how they are being conned by their colleagues."

His was just one of many on the topic. Whether or not he is a creationist, as Curvette implies, is beside the point when they use science (as science ought to be used). There is not one place in this book (or any other), or in any of the videos that I have seen on the subject that uses anything besides science. And I agree with him. If a "scientist" refuses to use scientific method to reach a conclusion, and grasps at what was taught merely because the overwhelming number of people have grasped hold of a theory, then they are being duped or hard-headed. A scientist should rely on scientific method, not hearsay.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Jenda+Dec 4 2004, 03:00 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jenda @ Dec 4 2004, 03:00 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Snow@Dec 4 2004, 12:24 AM

<!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@Dec 3 2004, 06:26 PM

I am not talking about creationists.  I am talking about real scientists who have studied the specific areas of science that evolution is concerned with and intimately know their subject.  They are the ones who say that the science just doesn't fit.  They grew up believing evolution was all but fact, and they have found out it isn't really even in the running.  The theories just don't fit the facts, and the more facts they find, the less the theories fit.

Icons of Evolution:  Science or Myth? by Jonathan Wells is a good book to read on the subject.

There's a problem with someone who let's his religion dictate his science. Here's the rap (or one of many on Wells)

his writing is that of an "deologue working from the fringe.

Throughout Icons you are presented with the supposition that there is a grand conspiracy being conducted by leading evolutionists, apparently with help from the National Geographic Society. To get around the problem that the overwhelming majority of biologists and other scientists understand and accept evolution as one of the basic tenet of science, Wells assumes that they are either part of the conspiracy or dupes unable to comprehend how they are being conned by their colleagues."

His was just one of many on the topic. Whether or not he is a creationist, as Curvette implies, is beside the point when they use science (as science ought to be used). There is not one place in this book (or any other), or in any of the videos that I have seen on the subject that uses anything besides science. And I agree with him. If a "scientist" refuses to use scientific method to reach a conclusion, and grasps at what was taught merely because the overwhelming number of people have grasped hold of a theory, then they are being duped or hard-headed. A scientist should rely on scientific method, not hearsay.

I'm a bit skeptical (okay - a lot skeptical) when someones premise is that he is right and all world class experts on the subject are 1. lying, 2. duped, 3. part of a vast right wing conspiracy trying to overthrow the presidency.

Wells readily make all three claims. From what I can tell looking at the net, Wells is considered a joke by the real experts. A number of them say that Wells deliberately misquotes and misconstrues them. Some say that Wells is factually dishonest and others say that he really doesn't even understand his material that well.

I going to pass on his book, there are enough things to read that stand up to criticism. His book apparently does not.

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Snow+Dec 4 2004, 04:18 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Dec 4 2004, 04:18 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Jenda@Dec 4 2004, 03:00 PM

Originally posted by -Snow@Dec 4 2004, 12:24 AM

<!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@Dec 3 2004, 06:26 PM

I am not talking about creationists.  I am talking about real scientists who have studied the specific areas of science that evolution is concerned with and intimately know their subject.  They are the ones who say that the science just doesn't fit.  They grew up believing evolution was all but fact, and they have found out it isn't really even in the running.  The theories just don't fit the facts, and the more facts they find, the less the theories fit.

Icons of Evolution:  Science or Myth? by Jonathan Wells is a good book to read on the subject.

There's a problem with someone who let's his religion dictate his science. Here's the rap (or one of many on Wells)

his writing is that of an "deologue working from the fringe.

Throughout Icons you are presented with the supposition that there is a grand conspiracy being conducted by leading evolutionists, apparently with help from the National Geographic Society. To get around the problem that the overwhelming majority of biologists and other scientists understand and accept evolution as one of the basic tenet of science, Wells assumes that they are either part of the conspiracy or dupes unable to comprehend how they are being conned by their colleagues."

His was just one of many on the topic. Whether or not he is a creationist, as Curvette implies, is beside the point when they use science (as science ought to be used). There is not one place in this book (or any other), or in any of the videos that I have seen on the subject that uses anything besides science. And I agree with him. If a "scientist" refuses to use scientific method to reach a conclusion, and grasps at what was taught merely because the overwhelming number of people have grasped hold of a theory, then they are being duped or hard-headed. A scientist should rely on scientific method, not hearsay.

I'm a bit skeptical (okay - a lot skeptical) when someones premise is that he is right and all world class experts on the subject are 1. lying, 2. duped, 3. part of a vast right wing conspiracy trying to overthrow the presidency.

Wells readily make all three claims. From what I can tell looking at the net, Wells is considered a joke by the real experts. A number of them say that Wells deliberately misquotes and misconstrues them. Some say that Wells is factually dishonest and others say that he really doesn't even understand his material that well.

I going to pass on his book, there are enough things to read that stand up to criticism. His book apparently does not.

Like I said, his was only one of several. You have to understand that when someone steps outside of the accepted "truth", those who feel they are being betrayed are going to make a stink. Look how you make a stink every time we argue about succession in the presidency. It is nothing more than sour grapes. And if there was really nothing to the arguments, they wouldn't have a problem with people examining them in closer detail.

[Guest curvette]

The fact that other scientists that Well's "quoted" and used information from in his book have stepped up and said, "He misquoted me", or "That's not what I said at all" show a basic lack of integrity by Wells. I'm not saying that he's not intelligent. He clearly is, and he writes very well. I don't believe him and I don't believe in his conspiracy theory. (where does this paranoia come from?)

[Snow]

Originally posted by Jenda@Dec 4 2004, 07:14 PM

Like I said, his was only one of several. You have to understand that when someone steps outside of the accepted "truth", those who feel they are being betrayed are going to make a stink. Look how you make a stink every time we argue about succession in the presidency. It is nothing more than sour grapes. And if there was really nothing to the arguments, they wouldn't have a problem with people examining them in closer detail.

and here's the problem with that Jenda,

1. The reason I argue with you about succession is not because I think you or the CoCC betrayed. I don't even know ya'll. It is because I think you are wrong and your position factually flawed and logically askew.

2. Sour grapes means "disparagement of something that is unattainable." If I wanted to attain (be a member of) the CoCC, I could anytime. It is completely attainable. Moreover if you think that "sour grapes" applies because of the supposed superioty of your succession theory, think again because, as I have pointed out, it is a mute point - the LDS position won, that is if you consider mormonism winning. Every day that passes takes the CoCC further away, by your own admission, from Mormonism.

3. People don't have a problem examining Jonathan Wells in closer detail, they have and, I think, he was come up short:

a) Wells said this: "Father's (God's) words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism, just as many of my fellow Unificationists had already devoted their lives to destroying Marxism. - That is to say, he was not a scientist allowing his research to drive his conclusion. No, his religion gave him his conclusion and therefore, he went and got a biology degree so that he could "do battle" (his words) against Darwinism.

By the way: the irony here is that you are claiming that the worlds experts on the matter aren't real scientists but that a guy who says God told him to defeat Darwinism is.

We can safely stop right here. He is not a scientist persuing the scientific method. He is an apologist. Apologists convince no one, they only protect the faith of the already converted. I perfer my science straightup and out of the Sunday School class but for the sake of argument, there's a few more things to mention.

b)Wells inplies that another scientist Jerry Coyne agrees with him. Coyne says that he does not and that Wells has misrepresented him.

c)Bruce Grant says that Wells has intentionally misquoted him about peppered moths, and that Wells is dishonest.

d) Some scientists, experts in the field, think that Wells isn't even all that educated on the topic. For example Richard Weisenberb, a PhD in biology says this: "I met Dr. Wells in 1995. He was a friendly, intelligent person, but although he already had his biology Ph.D., he didn't seem to know much about evolution. For example, he thought smooth gradation was never seen in the fossil record. He thought that the famous jaw-to-earbone series was in dispute (but it isn't). He said that "saturation mutagenesis" has shown that all developmental mutations are harmful, when in fact that process is a search for harmful mutations."

...and so on and so. I don't pretend to understand the science I just know that Wells is arguing religion under the guise of science.

[Snow]

Originally posted by curvette@Dec 4 2004, 10:02 PM

He clearly is, and he writes very well. I don't believe him and I don't believe in his conspiracy theory. (where does this paranoia come from?)

As I understand it, he has had an illicit affair with Hillary Clinton AND Oliver Stone and caught it from them.

[Jenda]

Snow, read my lips for once. I am not arguing for or against Wells. There are other very notable scientists that have written on the same subject. And just because two people say he misquoted them doesn't mean that he is corrupt. He may feel he has divine sanction to do this, but as long as he (or anyone who is a scientist) uses scientific method, I will look at the results of that and not the name. And yes, when scientists stop using scientific method and rely on hearsay, then they are no longer objective scientists.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Jenda+Dec 2 2004, 07:07 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jenda @ Dec 2 2004, 07:07 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -curvette@Dec 2 2004, 06:27 PM

<!--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.

Jenda, since you seem to know the subject--please tell us what YOU think MICRO EVOLUTION is and then tell us what your objections are--then we can address what you are talking about. BTW--if you think that humans are not related to the rest of the animal kingdom--study a little comparative anatomy and genetics.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Snow+Dec 2 2004, 07:08 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Dec 2 2004, 07:08 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--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.

Yeah, just assume everyone has read some little abscure news piece and then hammer them when they question some comment you make--which, standing alone, is the exception to the rule. In this country, even though the definition is comprehensive, the term "euthanasia" is almost always used in the contexts of the aged.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Jenda@Dec 5 2004, 05:12 AM

He may feel he has divine sanction to do this, but as long as he (or anyone who is a scientist) uses scientific method, I will look at the results of that and not the name. And yes, when scientists stop using scientific method and rely on hearsay, then they are no longer objective scientists.

And that is the whole point. He doesn't and he, by his own admission, isn't.

[Cal]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck+Dec 2 2004, 07:11 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (TheProudDuck @ Dec 2 2004, 07:11 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--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.

Other than my comment that the term, at least in this country has usually refered to terminating the life of an old person to easy pain and reduce suffering when no hope of meaningful life remains, I really made no value judgement on the issue. As far as I am concerned, each case is specific to its facts, and I respect people's right to "living wills" and DPH-Health.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Snow+Dec 2 2004, 07:21 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Dec 2 2004, 07:21 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Cal@Dec 2 2004, 05:39 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--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) :)

Again Cal, no bonus point for paying attention.

I am not hammering on Ray per say. By his continued talking to me I think he understands that I am attacking what I see as absurdity in his opinions. I hope and expect that Ray knows that I respect him as a good and decent and contributing member of whatever he is a member of...

...but, anyone who maintains that a teacher can talk about honesty and morality and the quadratic equation and not killing babies but should refrain from actually endorsing such position, is few proton-proton chains short of thermonuclear fusion. Likewise, anyone who does not know that 1 + 1 = 2 until he prays about it and has the Holy Ghost testify to it is a more than a few AUs short of a light year (as it relates to his opinion on the issue) and I for one am not so politically correct that I can't say so.

Not hammering Ray per se? What kind of double talk is that? Talk about disingenuous.

The point you HAMMER Ray about is really pointless. And Ray is correct, teachers shouldn't be about actively promoting points of view, other than basic values of honesty, integrity and responsibility. We are SUPPOSED to promote such positive values, as part of the stated policies of most school districts. That is different from telling kids that only one point of view is acceptable as matter of fact when teaching history or science. Teachers need to promote independent thinking in kids--lay out the facts, and various points of view and promote thinking and analysis of those facts. This of course includes the idea that some "facts" are better established than others, and that knowledge is constantly evolving, and what is the best thinking on a subject today, may not be considered the best in the future.

I do agree that it is often difficult to not let one's own biases and opinions show. But, it is a matter of degree and emphasis. We all have biases, but to what extent do we communicate them, and consciously promote them? How aware are we of what we are communicating to kids? And, especially, on the topic of religion, we have to be careful how we let our biases show. At some point, it can come across as ENDORSEMENT of religion. Fortunately for teachers, there is no law against endorsing most other positive things--though it might not be considered adviseable to do it.

[Cal]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Dec 2 2004, 07:31 PM

Cal,

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".

We may not be in diametrically-opposed camps on this issue, but we appear to be taking diametrically-opposed positions on what the outcome should be. In your last sentence, what does the phrase "carries the message" mean? If the teacher were to say, explicitly, "The Framers were religious, so we should all be," then I agree; the present state of Establishment Clause law prohibits that. The problem is that the phrase "carries the message" is so vague that speech that present constitutional law does not prohibit will be chilled, as appears to be what's happening in Cupertino.

For an example of this vagueness: I could make a plausible case that if I were to teach that Patrick Henry was a stand-up guy, and that he was devoutly and conventionally religious, my teaching may effectively "carry the message" that religion is a good thing, no? On the other hand, I could also make a plausible argument that even though I portray Patrick Henry in a positive light, I'm not directly endorsing any particular aspect of his character. Which is the right conclusion? The Cupertino principal is apparently leaning towards the former, erring against allowing free discussion of religion. I predict that she's going to take a severe legal beating, being cataclysmically wrong in her understanding of both what the Establishment Clause restricts and what the Free Speech Clause requires.

Let's stand this thing on its head. If reporting positive aspects of religion in history (or associating religion with positively-viewed figures) amounts to illegal endorsement of religion, then wouldn't reporting negative aspects of religion (the Inquisition and Crusades, as conventionally taught, although when you compare them to their contemporary secular equivalents -- i.e. strictly politically-based torture and warfare -- they come across looking not quite so bad) effectively be promoting atheism, and likewise be constitutionally impermissible? Religious history is so much a part of human history in general that unless you limit the reach of the Establishment Clause to express endorsements of religion by teachers, you'll make teaching real history virtually impossible.

Whether absolute secularists like it or not, religion has been and continues to be a part of history. Whitewashing history to ignore its huge role is like airbrushing Trotsky out of the official Party pictures after he fell from favor.

I have no real problem with what you have said. As to who decides what is "carries the message", I quess that is why we have courts and lawyers. Each case gets decided on its facts. The line, by the nature of the subject, is not a bright one, as in many rules of law. We will probably have to live with the ambiguity--somewhere in the middle we may get closest to the intent of the Framers.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Outshined+Dec 3 2004, 04:36 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Outshined @ Dec 3 2004, 04:36 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Cal@Dec 2 2004, 07:39 PM

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.

Wow, the irony detector just went crazy!

There is a difference between disagreeing and name calling. I never said I have never done it--I just said Snow is the king!