Re: California case settled
- From: John Harshman <jharshman.diespamdie@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 19:21:17 GMT
brian452@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> I have not followed this case even though I live in Fresno where the
> case was going to be heard. I am a strong opponent of teaching ID in
> the science classroom but ID was being taught in a Philosophy class in
> this case. This seems entirely appropriate to me.
It might seem that way unless you actually looked at the details of the
case. It wasn't a philosophy course. It was an attempt to teach
"creation science" thinly disguised by changing the name of the course.
> Are we at a point
> where any idea that has religious origins are forbidden in public
> schools?
No. We're at the point where schools are not allowed to endorse
religion, regardless of what they choose to title the course in question.
> This seems a bit over the top. Wouldn't, say, the concept of
> Original Sin and its effect on Western philosophy be an appropriate
> topic for a philosophy class?
Yes it would. Unless the point of the course was to convince the student
that he needs to accept Jesus as his own personal savior in order to
escape the effects of original sin. There is a big difference between
teaching about something and advocating it. The "philosophy" course was
advocating a definite fundamentalist Christian doctrine (separate
creation, worldwide flood, etc.). In fact it was just young-earth
creationism. And the teacher was not shy about declaring her explicitly
religious purpose, either.
.
- References:
- California case settled
- From: TomS
- Re: California case settled
- From: brian452
- California case settled
- Prev by Date: Re: Most recent human evolution
- Next by Date: Re: Most recent human evolution
- Previous by thread: Re: California case settled
- Next by thread: Re: California case settled
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading