Missouri puts prayers back in skool...

[Seth]

It's basically saying that the children of fundamentalists should not be taught......science.

Which is within the religious rights of the parents involved.

Maybe the sprogs should have the right to be taught facts.

Religious freedom trumps atheistic agendas, for better or worse. The alternative is atheist oppression of religion, which results in a hundred million dead people.

[Seth]

They put it over as the right to pray. What they hide, is the erosion of people's right to not have prayer imposed on them.

If you pray audibly and visibly in a public place, you are interfering with other people's rights.

No, they are not. There is no right to be shielded from the public expressions of religion by private individuals.

If the law said that you can pray privately, but you can't have ORGANISED prayer, that would be enough to meet everybody's rights.

No, it wouldn't because you have no right to suppress the free speech of people who wish to use it to express religion.

But Audible, or visible organised praying at school is obviously interfering with peoples right to a religion-free education.

Nope. Prayer taking place outside of the academic schedule (such as during recess or idle periods) and outside the classroom is an exercise of free speech and it is expressly unlawful in the US for the government (which includes school authorities) to ban or restrict private speech, including that of schoolchildren, based on the content of that speech except in the most extreme cases involving threats of an immediate breach of the peace. School authorities have more latitude than the police to control speech on campus but only when it is necessary to do so to prevent an actual disruption of the teaching environment. Thus they may prohibit prayers in a classroom during educational time that is disruptive, but may not ban such prayers, even held as a group and volubly, taking place during a student's idle time. The SCOTUS has already ruled on this.

If you allow it, you are putting subtle peer pressure on those who don't take part.

So what? Students are allowed to proselytize other students all they like, so long as it does not disrupt the academic schedule. That's PRIVATE SPEECH between peers. The Constitution only regulates GOVERNMENT speech or actions that either advance or inhibit the free exercise of religion. The "inhibit" part is very important because it puts paid to your assertion that you have a right not to be exposed to public expressions of religion. You don't, at least not in the United States.

I would guess that it's not in keeping with the US constitution.

You'd be completely and utterly wrong.

[Svartalf]

Does this mean if any students who believe in Discordianism take themselves to a quiet corner out of the way they can perform the Turkey Curse? If so that will really piss the fundies off.

Has anybody ever managed to enact the turkey curse ritual and keep a straight face?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

RATIONALLY? From you that is a hoot.

[Coito ergo sum]

Does this mean if any students who believe in Islam take themselves to a quiet corner out of the way they can pray to Allah? If so that will really piss the fundies off.

It also legalizes atheism in this hick-fuck state.

It seems to me that the bit about not having to participate in instruction or presentations that violate one's religious beliefs is a good thing. If it's my kid, and somebody tries to "teach" Creationism, I would claim it violate's my kid's religious beliefs. Atheism has consistently been treated as a religious belief for the purposes of the law.

Also, in this case, and I think FBM mentioned this in the OP -- the right to pray in school, well, i agree with that. If a kid is in the lunch room and wants to say a non-disruptive prayer, then I can't see any good legal reason to prevent him or her. Obviously, this doesn't mean disrupting math class or getting special times to pray. But, freedom of religion includes not just freedom from religion, but also freedom, well, "of" religion.

Very little here seems to be much of a concern.

[Tero]

It seems that the kids do get some science. One year long course of science has to have a lab. Both of my kids took biology as well, as third science, but I do not know if it was needed to graduate.

[FBM]

Does this mean if any students who believe in Islam take themselves to a quiet corner out of the way they can pray to Allah? If so that will really piss the fundies off.

It also legalizes atheism in this hick-fuck state.

It seems to me that the bit about not having to participate in instruction or presentations that violate one's religious beliefs is a good thing. If it's my kid, and somebody tries to "teach" Creationism, I would claim it violate's my kid's religious beliefs. Atheism has consistently been treated as a religious belief for the purposes of the law.

Also, in this case, and I think FBM mentioned this in the OP -- the right to pray in school, well, i agree with that. If a kid is in the lunch room and wants to say a non-disruptive prayer, then I can't see any good legal reason to prevent him or her. Obviously, this doesn't mean disrupting math class or getting special times to pray. But, freedom of religion includes not just freedom from religion, but also freedom, well, "of" religion.

Very little here seems to be much of a concern.

Dat.

[Robert_S]

The secular argument for ID is bullshit, "creationism in a cheap suit".

Only when it's presented by creationists as a sham argument used to forward creationism.

My secular argument for ID has nothing whatever to do with religion or creationism, it's purely secular and therefore a valid scientific theory every bit as valid as evolutionary theory itself.

Yeah, you're not the first one to trot that out, either. It's boring.

It's boring to you because you are not able to step outside your anti-theist bias and look at the subject rationally.

Hey Zilla, IIRC, you posted a video by a Catholic fellow a while back explaining all this.

Do you recall who it was? I think think the video bears reposting.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Wasted on Seth.

[Robert_S]

Wasted on Seth.

Seth ain't the only one in this thread though.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Wasted on Seth.

Seth ain't the only one in this thread though.

Okay, give me a clue, 'cause I post a lot of youtubes. (I have over five hundred filed right now.)

[Coito ergo sum]

It's basically saying that the children of fundamentalists should not be taught......science.

Which is within the religious rights of the parents involved.

Oh, I don't know about that.

The local school board sets the curriculum, and if they say that you need to take English Composition or Algebra to graduate, I do not believe that a religious person has a right to remove their child from those classes. Now, if they, start teaching religion (or atheism) in class, then I think there is a better point on your side.

However, the teaching of secular, nonreligious topics does not become unconstitutional because, say, and Amish person wants to send their kid to high school and only learn home economics. You can't just choose to send your kid to one or two classes, just because you're an Amish person who thinks that almost all education past the 8th grade is ungodly.

[Coito ergo sum]

The secular argument for ID is bullshit, "creationism in a cheap suit".

I'd almost allow it just to get them to shut up, because it takes about 3 minutes, maybe 5 if you speak slowly, to "teach" the "secular argument for ID."

O.k., class, we've learned a lot about evolution over the last few weeks of class. Now let's look at one of the popular "theories" that is offered to "oppose" the theory of evolution. It's called the Theory of Intelligent Design, or ID for short. ID is the idea that the universe came into existence through the intentional actions of an outside intelligent being or entity. There is no cohesive theory about any of the attributes of this entity and there is no direct or indirect evidence that it exists (and no theory exists as to whether it is a he, she, it or they). The theory starts with the premise that the universe had a "beginning" (of which there is no evidence), adds to that another premise that everything that does exist has a cause. Therefore, the theory goes, the universe must have a cause, and that cause is arbitrarily named "God" or the Designer (or deity, or universal force or any number of other arbitrary words).

Also, the ID theorists say that the universe appears too complex and/or too perfect to have come about "by chance" and that therefore some intelligent actor must have been involved in making it happen. We call that intelligent actor a deity or god or designer.

Now, none of this in any way impacts the theory of evolution, since the theory of evolution doesn't presuppose the existence or nonexistence of gods or designers. For all anyone, including the ID theorists, know or even theorize, this designer designed the process of evolution. So, ID is not an opposing theory to evolution.

Also, ID theory offers no proofs or evidence that the universe ever had a "beginning." It rests on the assumption that the Big Bang represents a "beginning" of the universe, which, as we have previously studied, is a fundamental misrepresentation or misunderstanding of Big Bang theory.

Also, ID theory offers no proofs or evidence for the other basic premise that all things that exist have a cause. This is assumed to be the case, but actually, in reality, nobody has ever seen anything come into existence. The most current scientific evidence is that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed, only changed in form. So, when the ID theorists say that a car or an airplane or watch was "created" what they mean is that different already existing parts have combined to form what appears to us as a watch or an airplane or a car. Nothing has been created there, and therefore no "creator" is needed. We see things combining to form other things all the time in the natural world, without any apparent involvement of an intelligence - like hydrogen and oxygen naturally form water, and various other things naturally form organic molecules, and various organic molecules combine to form nucleotides and all sorts of things form naturally without intelligent interference. So, the fact that some things are shaped by intelligent actors doesn't at all show that things need creators to come into existence -- it only shows that some things need intelligent designers to come into being through the use of other already existing things. Most things in the universe have come to be in their present form without any evidence intelligence behind it.

Whether the basic, constituent elements of the universe came to be by virtue of an intelligence is unknown. We don't even have a solid theory as to what the basic constituent elements of the universe ARE, let alone that they ever "came to be" as distinct from always being in existence.

So, there you have it, kiddies. Intelligent Design is a theory that a designer designed the universe. We don't know anything about the designer, or even that there actually was a designer, and the basic premises of ID theory are arbitrary and baseless assumptions offered arbitrarily as axiomatic.

Now, back to science....

[Coito ergo sum]

They put it over as the right to pray. What they hide, is the erosion of people's right to not have prayer imposed on them.

If you pray audibly and visibly in a public place, you are interfering with other people's rights.

No, they are not. There is no right to be shielded from the public expressions of religion by private individuals.

Here I have to agree with Seth. To suggest that making verbal statements in a public place is an interference with other people's rights is ludicrous. And, it's also in the "be careful what you wish for" category. If that premise is true, then audible and visual expressions of atheistic beliefs are interferences with other people's rights. So, like, putting up a billboard touting atheism or, like, the Dawkins-supported signage on public buses in England (there probably is no god, so stop worrying and enjoy life) would be an interference with the rights of others.

If people are allowed to talk generally, like, say in a cafeteria at lunchtime where chit chat is allowed, then religious chit chat must ALSO be allowed.

If the law said that you can pray privately, but you can't have ORGANISED prayer, that would be enough to meet everybody's rights.

No, it wouldn't because you have no right to suppress the free speech of people who wish to use it to express religion.

Again mistermack's proposed rule here is ludicrous. "Organized?" Two students praying together is "organized" prayer. What I hope mistermack meant was that you can't have school mandated or school endorsed prayers. If kids want to have a prayer circle, or an atheism discussion, during recess, then I fail to see the basis for denying one but allowing the other.

[Seth]

It's basically saying that the children of fundamentalists should not be taught......science.

Which is within the religious rights of the parents involved.

Oh, I don't know about that.

The local school board sets the curriculum, and if they say that you need to take English Composition or Algebra to graduate, I do not believe that a religious person has a right to remove their child from those classes. Now, if they, start teaching religion (or atheism) in class, then I think there is a better point on your side.

However, the teaching of secular, nonreligious topics does not become unconstitutional because, say, and Amish person wants to send their kid to high school and only learn home economics. You can't just choose to send your kid to one or two classes, just because you're an Amish person who thinks that almost all education past the 8th grade is ungodly.

Well, that's the point, the Amish can indeed not send their kids to high school based on religious objections.

In Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972) the U.S. Supreme Court held:

States cannot force individuals to attend school when it infringes on their First Amendment rights. In this case, the state of Wisconsin interfered with the practice of a legitimate religious belief.
Not all beliefs rise to the demands of the religious clause of the First Amendment. There needs to be evidence of true and objective religious practices, instead of an individual making his or her standards on such matters. The Amish way of life is one of deep religious convictions that stems from the Bible. It is determined by their religion, which involves their rejection of worldly goods and their living in the Biblical simplicity. The modern compulsory secondary education is in sharp conflict with their way of life.
With respect to the State of Wisconsin’s argument that additional modern education beyond 8th grade is necessary to prepare citizens to participate effectively and productively in America’s political system, the Court disagreed. It argued that the State provided no evidence showing any great benefit to having two extra years in the public schools. Furthermore, the Court contended that the Amish community was a very successful social unit in American society, a self-sufficient, law-abiding member of society, which paid all of the required taxes and rejected any type of public welfare. The Amish children, upon leaving the public school system, continued their education in the form of vocational training.
The Court found no evidence that by leaving the Amish community without two additional years of schooling, young Amish children would become burdens on society. To the contrary, the Court argued that they had good vocational background to rely upon. It was the State’s mistaken assumption that Amish children were ignorant. Compulsory education after elementary school was a recent movement that developed in the early 20th century in order to prevent child labor and keep children of certain ages in school. The State of Wisconsin’s arguments about compelling the school attendance were therefore less substantial.
Responding to Justice Douglas' dissent, the Court argued that the question before it was about the interests of the parents to exercise free religion, and did not relate to the child's First Amendment's rights. As such, the argument pertaining to the child's right to exercise free religion was irrelevant in this case.
Source: Wikipedia