Re: In the News: High school teacher found guilty of insulting

On May 2, 4:29 pm, Vend <ven...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 2 Mag, 22:17, "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:





On May 2, 3:39 pm, Vend <ven...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 2 Mag, 21:13, "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Teachers have every right, indeed DUTY, under the law to teach that
creationism/ID is SCIENTIFIC nonsense.  But they have no right under
US law do teach that RELIGION ITSELF is "nonsense", any more than a
teacher would have the right to teach that atheism is "nonsense".

Existing law is crushingly clear on this: Government cannot support
any religion, and it cannot support anti-religion.

The teacher in this case was wrong.  The judge was right.

If a student claims that diseases are caused by evil spirits and his
biology teacher says that this belief is "superstitious nonsense" is
the teacher right or wrong?

A good question.  And US law provides the test for answering that
question:

Can the teacher demonstrate a secular purpose? Then the teacher is
right.

What is a "secular purpose"?



You don't know what a "secular purpose" is? Really? Really and
honestly? No idea at all?




Either a belief is superstitious nonsense or it isn't.



In whose religious opinion . . . . . .?



Can the teacher NOT demonstrate a secular purpose?  Then no, the
teacher is wrong.

I'm pretty sure the teacher can provide a secular purpose for
declaring that diseases are not caused by evil spirits.

I'm also pretty sure the teacher could NOT provide any secular purpose
for referring to a particular religious opinion as "supertitious
nonsense".  And indeed the judge says specifically and clearly that no
such secular purpose was provided.

What is the difference?



You can't tell the difference between a secular purpose and non-
secular purpose?

Really?

Really and truly?

Come onnnnnnnnn . . . you sound just like the fundies do when the
courts rule that THEY can't teach THEIR religious opinions.





And that answers the question.

If, instead of declaring that fundie religion is "supertitious
nonsense", the teacher had declared that atheism is "anti-god
nonsense", I wonder how many of us here would change our opinions 180
degrees on the ruling . . . . . . .

Creationism can be shown to be superstitious nonsense, atheism can't.


In whose, uh, religious opinion . . . . . . . (sigh)



Right here, you yourself demonstrate quite effectively why the judge
was correct in his ruling.

Government officials have no right to criticize purely religious
opinions (and "God created everything" is about as purely religious an
opinion as I can think of). Period.

Had this teacher kept his head and said "creationism is SCIENTIFIC
nonsense", then there would have been no court case. The Supreme
Court itself has declared that creationism isn't science. And anyone
and everyone is (and remains) entirely free to criticize SCIENTIFIC
statements that are wrong.

But that is not what the teacher said. He said it was SUPERSTITIOUS
RELIGIOUS nonsense. When he said those words "superstitious" and
"religious", he left the scientific realm and entered the religious
realm. And he has no business being there. It's not the government's
job to decide or to declare which religious opinions are "supertitious
nonsense" and which ones are not.

So yes, there IS a wall of immunity around purely religious opinions,
which a government representative cannot cross. We call that wall of
immunity "the separation of church and state". It walls the
government off from ALL religious opinions -- even the ones you like
or don't like or think are total nonsense.

The court was correct.



================================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"


Editor, Red and Black Publishers
http://www.RedandBlackPublishers.com



.

Relevant Pages
Loading