Where do you Draw the Line?

[m_huber]

Creationists have Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Speech. They have the freedom to join school boards, and they have the freedom to raise their children how they see fit. They have the freedom to run for public office, and the freedom to govern as they please (within limits) if elected.

Unfortunately, the freedom to believe a thing does not make it real. Where do the rights of Creationists (and other religions/woos) run out? Where do you draw the line?

[Darth Rotor]

Creationists have Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Speech. They have the freedom to join school boards, and they have the freedom to raise their children how they see fit. They have the freedom to run for public office, and the freedom to govern as they please (within limits) if elected.

Unfortunately, the freedom to believe a thing does not make it real. Where do the rights of Creationists (and other religions/woos) run out? Where do you draw the line?
What citizens should not have the same rights as all other citizens?

Who should be more equal than whom?

DR

[Phil]

. . . Where do the rights of Creationists (and other religions/woos) run out? Where do you draw the line?


The same place as for anyone else. Specific religious beliefs afford them no more political rights than the rest of us.

[Darth Rotor]

The same place as for anyone else. Specific religious beliefs afford them no more political rights than the rest of us.

And no fewer. ;)

DR

[Sickly Crypsis]

When they force their bigoted dogma onto other people on the basis of their clubs magical president's handbook and unfounded claims about lifestyles other than its own.

Believe what you want

Raise your kids the way you want (as long as its free of neglect and full of love)

Present your claims to other people and let them decide.

Too black and white I know, but I've got to duck out to a job and don't have time to expand.

I'm sure you'll all do it for me though :D

[Darth Rotor]

When they force their bigoted dogma onto other people on the basis of their clubs magical president's handbook and unfounded claims about lifestyles other than its own.


What's your solution?

Are you for rounding them all up, and putting them in internment camps, all of the "them?" They would be, it seems, the ones who disagree with your precious world view.

Don't stop there, Sickly.

Round up all the people in the other political parties, the ones who yell out their party line in opposition to your position. They want people to vote differently than you do. That voting thing will have an impact on your life, your taxes, what you can expect for services, or lack thereof.

Don't stop there, Sickly.

Round up all those people who root against your team in the playoffs.

Why stop with the religious people? Round 'em all up, Sickly, so you don't have to deal with it.

DR

(Note for the uncertain: Trace elements of sarcasm and hyperbole were woven into that hand crafted post.)

[Fnord]

{SNIP} ... the freedom to believe a thing does not make it real. Where do the rights of Creationists (and other religions/woos) run out? Where do you draw the line?

A person's rights run out when they break the law. The line is drawn at criminal behavior. Believing in something that others believe is not real is not a crime, especially when it comes to religion and superstition.

Unless you can convince the lawmakers that the idea of Creationism - and even moreso, its believers - presents a clear and imminent threat, then such belief is insufficient grounds to deny their civil rights and liberties.

Furthermore, believing in something that isn't real is also insufficient grounds for denial of civil rights and liberties.

What would you have, a nation of "Haves" that has sworn allegiance to only those ideas that are proven true and valid existing alongside a nation of "Have-nots" who have been denied the right to speak, assemble, bear arms, and vote only because they believe in something for which there is no valid proof?

[Fnord]

Duplicate post.

[Soapy Sam]

Well, we are all subject to constraints of law- some of which seem quite arbitrary.
Some laws already impose constraints based on physical or mental ability. Most countries, for example, would not allow a blind person or someone with an IQ of 20 to drive a bus.
Is it so wholly unreasonable that one or two laws might impose constraints based on a test of general knowledge?

[Darth Rotor]

Well, we are all subject to constraints of law- some of which seem quite arbitrary.
Some laws already impose constraints based on physical or mental ability. Most countries, for example, would not allow a blind person or someone with an IQ of 20 to drive a bus.
Is it so wholly unreasonable that one or two laws might impose constraints based on a test of general knowledge?
Who decides what this general knowledge is?

What's the criterion?

Didn't Mother Church do something like this a few centuries ago? Didn't it turn out rather badly?

DR

[Fnord]

Didn't Mother Church do something like this a few centuries ago? Didn't it turn out rather badly?

Something covered under Godwin's Law comes more readily to mind, and it turned out even worse.

[uruk]

I believe you should draw the line where it comes to foistingt thier belifes upon others. There are other religeons that exist in this country.
I believe there are already separation of church and state laws in effect. As long as they don't cross that line I am fine.

[drkitten]

A person's rights run out when they break the law. The line is drawn at criminal behavior. Believing in something that others believe is not real is not a crime, especially when it comes to religion and superstition.

Unless you can convince the lawmakers that the idea of Creationism - and even moreso, its believers - presents a clear and imminent threat, then such belief is insufficient grounds to deny their civil rights and liberties.

On the other hand, governments do not have "civil rights and liberties"; there is no such thing as the First Amendment for government policy. People acting as agents of government may have more restrictions on their speech and behavior than they would acting on their own behalf.

For example, as a private householder, I can order you the hell out of my house simply because I personally don't like the way you dress. As a teacher in a public school, I wouldn't have that authority w.r.t. my classroom; I would need a better reason than that.

[Fnord]

On the other hand, governments do not have "civil rights and liberties"; there is no such thing as the First Amendment for government policy. People acting as agents of government may have more restrictions on their speech and behavior than they would acting on their own behalf.

For example, as a private householder, I can order you the hell out of my house simply because I personally don't like the way you dress. As a teacher in a public school, I wouldn't have that authority w.r.t. my classroom; I would need a better reason than that.

Your employer - government, corporate, or private - can impose certain restrictions as a condition of your continued employment. This is not illegal, as they are not denying you your right to disobey (or any other right, for that matter). What they are telling you is that you are not being paid to express yourself, only to work, and that the two are mutually exclusive.

Go ahead, express your political, religious, or personal beliefs on the job. But when you signed any acknowledgement of employer policy, you affirmed that you would follow those policies as a condition of your continued employment. Remember that you still retain the right to remain silent...

;)

[Rufo]

Creationists have Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Speech. They have the freedom to join school boards, and they have the freedom to raise their children how they see fit. They have the freedom to run for public office, and the freedom to govern as they please (within limits) if elected.

Unfortunately, the freedom to believe a thing does not make it real. Where do the rights of Creationists (and other religions/woos) run out? Where do you draw the line?
Others also have Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Speech - the entire point of these is that they work both ways, which is not always in favor of creationism. It means that they'll always have to accept that others don't share their belief, and that those people voice their opinions.

Besides that, speaking about creationism specifically, I do not think they have the right to change the meaning of language on their own to suit their purposes, because it impairs communication when you undermine language. This means that I do not think they have the right to teach creationism as science, because it is not science. If they want to teach creationism in some other class, as long as they follow the general principles of teaching (which include certain objectivity and criticism of different views), I don't think we can flatly deny them that.

[Soapy Sam]

Who decides what this general knowledge is?

What's the criterion?

Didn't Mother Church do something like this a few centuries ago? Didn't it turn out rather badly?

DR

Who? I'd expect whoever it is who decides law now. Lawyers. Politicians.
Right. I see what you mean.

Dunno about the church. Don't many countries exclude the mentally ill from the franchise? Is it churches who expect people to take a public oath with their paw on a bible? Or is that lawyers again?

Not knowing the law is not a defence. That's the law. Not knowing that is...

...If they can make laws like that, why not make a law that says "If you can't present a reasoned argument that convinces half a dozen lawyers of your argument, you cannot vote to have your argument taught in schools." (It should be lawyers, because they're smart. They have to be, by law.)

You can't teach your kids that black people are stupider than whites. You can't even say it might be the case if you have a serious track record as a scientist. So why the heck should you be allowed to spout nonsense just because you got elected to a school board?

[drkitten]

\
You can't teach your kids that black people are stupider than whites. You can't even say it might be the case if you have a serious track record as a scientist. So why the heck should you be allowed to spout nonsense just because you got elected to a school board?

For better or for worse, this is simply untrue. Nothing under the law prevents me from teaching my children anything I like as long as I don't cross the line into active abuse; similarly as a tenured professor, I can say anything I like as long as I don't get caught with my hand in the university till.

The only negative consequences that I will get are social and extra-legal. If I teach my children that blacks are stupid, I will lose a lot of friends; if I publish that blacks are stupid, my papers are likely to be rejected and I won't get as many speaking engagements.

As a school board member, there are actually legal restrictions about what I can say and do. Precisely because as a parent, I'm representing only myself, but as a school board member, I'm representing the government and have to follow the government's rules.

[KoihimeNakamura]

I draw the line at getting unsupported beliefs into classes at the expense of supported facts.

[drkitten]

If they want to teach creationism in some other class, as long as they follow the general principles of teaching (which include certain objectivity and criticism of different views), I don't think we can flatly deny them that.

Sure we can. If they teach creationism to be true, then (since creationism is a specific religion), they are "establishing a religion," which violates the 1st Amendment.
See Edwards vs. Aguilera and now Kitzmiller vs. Dover.

If you want to know whether a given policy is legal w.r.t. creationism, simply substitute the phrase "that only through the Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ the Redeemer are we saved from sin." If the policy would violate the establishment clause in the second instance, it would violate the establishment clause in the first.

[skeptical]

Creationists have Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Speech. They have the freedom to join school boards, and they have the freedom to raise their children how they see fit. They have the freedom to run for public office, and the freedom to govern as they please (within limits) if elected.

Unfortunately, the freedom to believe a thing does not make it real. Where do the rights of Creationists (and other religions/woos) run out? Where do you draw the line?

The answer is the same for everyone, their right to swing their fist ends where my nose begins. If they are not breaking any laws and are not infringing on anyone else's rights, then they have not crossed the line.

In the US system, we rely on an educated and free populace to determine that nonsense is nonsense. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to be working so well. But, hope springs eternal. Far stupider ideas have come and gone. One day, the only creationists will be the old crazy wino down the street and you will have to go to a very well stocked library to find any of their out of print idiocy.

[Sickly Crypsis]

What's your solution?

Are you for rounding them all up, and putting them in internment camps, all of the "them?" They would be, it seems, the ones who disagree with your precious world view.

Don't stop there, Sickly.

Round up all the people in the other political parties, the ones who yell out their party line in opposition to your position. They want people to vote differently than you do. That voting thing will have an impact on your life, your taxes, what you can expect for services, or lack thereof.

Don't stop there, Sickly.

Round up all those people who root against your team in the playoffs.

Why stop with the religious people? Round 'em all up, Sickly, so you don't have to deal with it.

DR

(Note for the uncertain: Trace elements of sarcasm and hyperbole were woven into that hand crafted post.)


Ahh, thats better! The soothing sea spray of sarcasm, snide remarks and slanderous cynicism. :D

I think the most agreeable thing I've read is the notion of the law. Not breaking the law and not infringing on someones rights while expressing your beliefs is where the line seems to be drawn.

But law isn't as Cold, methodical or as free of misinformed or religiously underpinned laws for this to be completely true yet. For this to be 'ultimate', every decision and law passed has to be unbiased, free of emotion, and based purely on what is 'true'. But morality varies and has to follow some doctrine of some group of people, and emotion can never be ruled out.

Whether I like it or not, I'm going to hear people say (what I see as) untrue and loathsome opinions, but as you pointed out (albeit in a round about way) My opinion, based on whatever I have to support it, is still just my opinion, and will sound as equally loathsome to the people opposite me, and part of respecting freedom, is respecting people to confront me with things I don't want to hear.

As for my solution? TIME Law since its creation and in our own time is a crucible, continually refining , enough time and it will be pure.

Much Love

[Fnord]

As for my solution? TIME Law since its creation and in our own time is a crucible, continually refining, enough time and it will be pure. Much Love

Which do you mean:

- Evolutionary change in our social structure that makes religion well-nigh impossible?

- A metaphorical embodiment of a natural force, as is typical when one attempts to replace one politicized belief system with another?

- A deliberate polysyllabic obfuscation attempted by a misanthropic presbyterian in a missive that contains various and sundry rubric, which in turn is by-and-large intangible?

- Oogledy boogledy boo?

[m_huber]

Ok, so I've given this a bit of thought..

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but if I understand correctly, I lack the right to cause harm to someone else. This includes financial, physical, in some cases emotional, or psychological damage. Creationism causes philosophical damage, as it causes someone to think that a thing that is not true is true. It also is a source of misinformation about the definition of science, the actions of scientists, the credibility of scientists, and the honesty of scientists. That fits the definition of slander. The mindset that leads people to think that evolution doesn't happen is the same mindset that makes them think that global warming is a conspiracy. This has real, detrimental consequences for governmental policies and individual actions.

As such, Creationists do harm to another group (science) and to individuals (scientists). They retain the right of free speech, but I would think that this should disqualify them for non-profit status.

Of course, other examples of groups in opposition to one another are easy to think of. KKK is one quick example, or environmentalists/oil companies, religions of different persuasions, etc. I guess my question is about when we consider these organizations to have overstepped their bounds. Of course, court cases have prevented Creationism from taking hold in schools officially, but I know from experience that evolution is actively avoided in some school curricula, and Creation is strongly suggested in many schools. This is teaching a falsehood, and it should not be done. But how far can Creationists go?

[Gate2501]

Ok, so I've given this a bit of thought..

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but if I understand correctly, I lack the right to cause harm to someone else. This includes financial, physical, in some cases emotional, or psychological damage.

I would definitely say that teaching creationism or ID to high school students will certainly cause financial harm to many adolescents who wish to become scientists !

[Sickly Crypsis]

Which do you mean:

- Evolutionary change in our social structure that makes religion well-nigh impossible?

- A metaphorical embodiment of a natural force, as is typical when one attempts to replace one politicized belief system with another?

- A deliberate polysyllabic obfuscation attempted by a misanthropic presbyterian in a missive that contains various and sundry rubric, which in turn is by-and-large intangible?

- Oogledy boogledy boo?

By Time I meant the unit to quantify motions of objects and durations of events.

What I implied was during that amount of time more and more laws will be seen to be erroneous, regardless of what they're based on (I still feel religious decisions lead the tally board). Evolving and maturing until we have a system which works and is 'Fair'.

Furthermore:

ТОВАРИСТВО ВЕТЕРАНІВ (власне Ц.К. Корпус військових ветеранів)?:D

[shadron]

I believe you should draw the line where it comes to foistingt thier belifes upon others. There are other religeons that exist in this country.
I believe there are already separation of church and state laws in effect. As long as they don't cross that line I am fine.

Depends on what you mean by foisting. They do, now, have the right by Amendment 1 to proselytize and evangelize; they can't coerce or threaten physically, but they can generally invade your personal space (can't if they're protesting at an abortion clinic). They pretty generally have the ability to coerce offspring and wives as long as it doesn't get "abusive". Should this change? Good question, but turning into an unaccustomed consie at this point, making changes to these rules could cause a lot of ripples and unintended consequences. I, too, support the wall between church and state.

[shadron]

In the US system, we rely on an educated and free populace to determine that nonsense is nonsense. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to be working so well. But, hope springs eternal. Far stupider ideas have come and gone.

Indeed. Unfortunately also, I don't see a better way. The obvious thing to want to do is to teach kids critical thinking before they can be godwashed, and perhaps in some future society that may be possible, if the problem of institutionalized, impersonal child rearing can be overcome. A lot of Christians (and others, atheists as well I imagine) will have to go down before that comes to pass.

[UnrepentantSinner]

See Edwards vs. Aguilera and now Kitzmiller vs. Dover.

Aguillar. Aguilera is the Dirty singer. ;)

[Soapy Sam]

As a school board member, there are actually legal restrictions about what I can say and do. Precisely because as a parent, I'm representing only myself, but as a school board member, I'm representing the government and have to follow the government's rules.


Point taken. I don't know what the legal constraints on a US school board member are.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Aguillar. Aguilera is the Dirty singer. ;)

Dirrty, not Dirty. :boxedin:

[drkitten]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but if I understand correctly, I lack the right to cause harm to someone else. This includes financial, physical, in some cases emotional, or psychological damage.

Yes from a moral sense, no (or mostly no) from a legal one.

If I were to put a sign in my yard saying that "Ron Paul supporters are illiterate mouth-breathers," that would probably cause emotional and psychological damage to any Ron Paul supporter that walked by and had someone read the sign to them. It would also be rude. But it would be 100% legal.

From a legal one it's much simpler.

The First Amendment (specifically the establishment clause) prevents the government from establishing a religion. While individual members of government (of course) have their individual religious beliefs, they cannot write those beliefs into official government policy or practice if that would have a negative effect on other religions.

So, for example, I cannot teach (in a public school) that it is immoral to eat cheeseburgers, because that's a religious belief. The Orthodox Jews would love it, the Reform Jews would probably think it stupid, and the Christians would decry it as a violation of their rights (which it is). Similarly, I can't teach that eating pork is NOT a sin, because that would violate the rights of the Muslims.

Creationism is a religion. As such, it cannot be taught, any more than it can be taught that "only through the blood of our Lord Christ Jesus are we redeemed from sin."

It's also a patently dumb idea that can cause damage to the kids --- but, let's face is, so is much of health class or football practice. Just because an idea is stupid beyond measure doesn't mean it can't be taught --- but a purely-religious based idea cannot be taught (under the establishment clause).

[Irony]

Here's my take on the conversation so far.

Various Posters: We shouldn't allow them to force their religion on others.
Darth Rotor: So you're saying we should gather them up in concentration camps and give them daily beatings and force them to drink puppy blood smoothies!!!!!

No Darth, that's not what we're saying.

[Rufo]

Sure we can. If they teach creationism to be true, then (since creationism is a specific religion), they are "establishing a religion," which violates the 1st Amendment.
See Edwards vs. Aguilera and now Kitzmiller vs. Dover.

If you want to know whether a given policy is legal w.r.t. creationism, simply substitute the phrase "that only through the Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ the Redeemer are we saved from sin." If the policy would violate the establishment clause in the second instance, it would violate the establishment clause in the first.
Maybe I was not clear enough on what I meant with "general principles of teaching". If they want to teach creationism, they should teach it in an objective manner. This includes teaching who believes in it, why they believe in it, and that it has nothing to do with science. Teaching should be about providing information, not about propaganda. Many people today do believe in creationism, and there is no harm in children knowing what it is. Think along the lines of teaching it as a part of various religious worldviews.

I want to clarify that I'm not talking about teaching creationism and evolutionary theory side by side as equals - as I stated previously, I believe it to be immoral to classify creationism as a scientific theory, because it is misuse of language. I also do not think children should be provided information which is false. But if creationists considers the details of creationism as important information that needs to reach children and are in a position (majority) to decide so, then I do not deny them that right. Just as I don't deny them the right to teach children that according to Christianity, "only through the Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ the Redeemer are we saved from sin", or that according to Scientology, they are the "authorities on the mind", or that according to Nazism... you get my point. It must be taught as a viewpoint, it must be taught objectively, and children must be encouraged to examine the information critically.

To clarify, I'm not a US citizen, so when I said "can", I rather meant so in a moral sense. In this particular case I think I agree with the 1st Amendment, but this was a response to where I draw the line.

[zeusbheld]

Here's my take on the conversation so far.

Various Posters: We shouldn't allow them to force their religion on others.
Darth Rotor: So you're saying we should gather them up in concentration camps and give them daily beatings and force them to drink puppy blood smoothies!!!!!

No Darth, that's not what we're saying.

you say 'gather them up in concentration camps and give them daily beatings and force them to drink puppy blood smoothies!!!! like it's a bad thing.

[zeusbheld]

Sure we can. If they teach creationism to be true, then (since creationism is a specific religion), they are "establishing a religion," which violates the 1st Amendment.
See Edwards vs. Aguilera and now Kitzmiller vs. Dover.

If you want to know whether a given policy is legal w.r.t. creationism, simply substitute the phrase "that only through the Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ the Redeemer are we saved from sin." If the policy would violate the establishment clause in the second instance, it would violate the establishment clause in the first.

SPOT ON. and teaching creationism as science does.

ID is an insidious and cynical attempt at sidestepping the establishment clause IMO.

[drkitten]

But if creationists considers the details of creationism as important information that needs to reach children and are in a position (majority) to decide so, then I do not deny them that right.

That comes perilously close to "establishment" of religion. The whole point of constitutional right is to prevent majoritarianism from trampling on the rights of the minorities; if the scientologists consider the details of scientological psychological theory to be important information that needs to reach children, but are NOT in a position to dictate that through the democratic practice, would you deny them that right?

If you do, then you are "establishing" creationism, in violation of the first amendment. (Case law citations exist but would be boring, so I have omitted them.)

[Rufo]

That comes perilously close to "establishment" of religion. The whole point of constitutional right is to prevent majoritarianism from trampling on the rights of the minorities; if the scientologists consider the details of scientological psychological theory to be important information that needs to reach children, but are NOT in a position to dictate that through the democratic practice, would you deny them that right?

If you do, then you are "establishing" creationism, in violation of the first amendment. (Case law citations exist but would be boring, so I have omitted them.)
I agree that it comes perilously close to establishment of religion. What information you impart on students allows you to control, to a certain degree, how they think. This is problematic. Democracy is problematic. But in a democracy, how do you decide which information is important if not through democratic principles?

Where do you believe we should draw the line for how much should be taught about religion? Should children not be informed of the opinions of creationists because their opinions are inconsistent with scientific theory? How should we determine how much to inform them?

[drkitten]

Democracy is problematic. But in a democracy, how do you decide which information is important if not through democratic principles?

The US is not a democracy, by design, and for exactly those reasons. It is a republic, with a written set of principles that are demonstrably anti-democration in order to prevent majoritarian abuses.

So one answer to your question is : in the enumerated set of principles that have been accepted.

Actually, quite a bit of US law is established non-democratically. Treaties, for example, are made by the President and ratified by the Senate (which is the non-democratic chamber) and the House doesn't even get a look-see. Despite this, treaties are binding law that will even take precedence over Acts of Congress.


Where do you believe we should draw the line for how much should be taught about religion? Should children not be informed of the opinions of creationists because their opinions are inconsistent with scientific theory?

No. Children should nto be informed of the opinions of creationists because it's not important enough as a religious movement to justify inclusion in a history-of-religion course (just as the Zorastrians or the Iroquois are probably not important enough to include in that same course, given the time constraints, the history of Andorra is probably not important enough to include in a world history class, and Dante's La Vita Nuova is probably not important enough to include in a world lit class).

How should we determine how much to inform them?

On the basis of good pedagogy.

[Rufo]

The US is not a democracy, by design, and for exactly those reasons. It is a republic, with a written set of principles that are demonstrably anti-democration in order to prevent majoritarian abuses.

So one answer to your question is : in the enumerated set of principles that have been accepted.

Actually, quite a bit of US law is established non-democratically. Treaties, for example, are made by the President and ratified by the Senate (which is the non-democratic chamber) and the House doesn't even get a look-see. Despite this, treaties are binding law that will even take precedence over Acts of Congress.
I don't think it's wrong to call the US a democracy. Most democracies in the world have principles to prevent majoritarian abuses. No country is completely democratic, and I agree that they should not be.

No. Children should nto be informed of the opinions of creationists because it's not important enough as a religious movement to justify inclusion in a history-of-religion course (just as the Zorastrians or the Iroquois are probably not important enough to include in that same course, given the time constraints, the history of Andorra is probably not important enough to include in a world history class, and Dante's La Vita Nuova is probably not important enough to include in a world lit class).
I'm not sure I can agree with you there. Creationism is a prominent viewpoint, if wrong. In fact, I almost believe it should be brought up as a social issue (as it often is here), especially in the US, since the numbers I have seen indicate that well more than a third of the US population believe in it. I find it very strange that you seem to think informing about it is the same as encouraging it. If creationists accounted for a small group of crazies, maybe there wouldn't be any need to learn about them, but the current situation is that they do not.

Then, of course, creationists will think that the children should also learn about their belief in extensive detail. I agree that this is unnecessary, but it is difficult to regulate exactly how much should be taught.

On the basis of good pedagogy.
Now this I can strongly agree on. The question is who decides what is good pedagogy.

[drkitten]

Now this I can strongly agree on. The question is who decides what is good pedagogy.

Generally (in the US), the state boards of education, in conjunction with the appropriate domain experts such as the NAS.

[Fnord]

I spoke to one of the children at my church about what her favorite classes were, and she told me, "I don't like science because they tell lies about evolution and stuff."

Yep, another future unpaid Sunday School Teacher for Jebus! She's only 10, and I already worry for her future children ... more ignorant, unemployed, religious fanatics yet to be born.