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

On May 3, 11:23 pm, er...@xxxxxxxx wrote:
On May 3, 1:01 pm, Andre Lieven <andrelie...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

On May 3, 12:06 pm, GCPAXSZJI...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

On 3 mei, 17:01, Andre Lieven <andrelie...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

On May 3, 10:33 am, GCPAXSZJI...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

On 3 mei, 15:58, Andre Lieven <andrelie...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

On May 3, 9:42 am, GCPAXSZJI...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

On 3 mei, 15:11, Andre Lieven <andrelie...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

On May 3, 8:50 am, GCPAXSZJI...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

On 3 mei, 12:13, Ye Old One <use...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sun, 3 May 2009 02:41:14 -0700 (PDT), GCPAXSZJI...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
enriched this group when s/he wrote:

On 2 mei, 21:52, Andre Lieven <andrelie...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
...
I dare say that the non-kooks here would tend to agree that
creationism IS "superstitious nonsense". I dare add that such
a categorisation is not "anti religion".
...

I hope I qualify as one of the non-kooks here, and I
would like to register my disagreement with the
statement 'creationism is "superstitious nonsense"'.

Oh?

I would say that it is scientifically incorrect and
theologically misguided. But while "nonsense" is
harsh, it really is the "superstitious" that marks
this as an antireligious statement, as that is the
(oversimplified) enlightenment view of all religion,
which Corbett clearly shares.

superstitious
n       adjective having or showing a belief in superstitions.

DERIVATIVES
        superstitiously adverb
        superstitiousness noun

If creationism is a belief in superstitious nonsense then I really
don't know what would be.

Why is the characterization "superstitious nonsense"
better than "scientifically incorrect"?

I do not believe that I (Or, anyone else on this point.) has
said or suggested, that it is "better".

My point is that it is accurate enough, that it is a response
to a religious and non-science claim about a matter of the
material world, and that it should not be legally actionable
as being "anti religion".

Creationism is not banned from school teaching because
it is bad science, though it is that, as well. It is banned
from public schools because all that it is IS religion, and
the US Constitution bans the promotion of religion in such
a public sector space.

Well, allowing someone to put creationism forward in a
public sector space such as a school, *while denying any
comment about the religious nature of creationism there*,
IS a ploy to circumvent court decisions that, rightly, told
creationism that a bad disguise as science won't work.

In my view, this case is about a religious point of view
demanding that criticism of it's basis be made out of bounds.
Well, if religion wishes to engage with science, then said
religious views DO become fair game for rebuttals.

Andre

I don't think the judge necessarily wanted to place
criticism of creationism out of bounds, but that
using a phrase like "superstitious nonsense" was
"disparaging".

Well, once again, this is more of a response on the
part of evolution supporters, as it has been the
creationists who have lied and lied, and lied, with such
gems as "teach the (non-existant) controversy."

Further, I do not find any Constitutional provision that
holds that any point of view cannot be "disparaged".

I got the impression that that was
the problem, and against the separation of church
and state, but I am just a foreigner.

"Superstitious" is certainly disparaging.

Many things are; If disparaging speech were banned in
high schools, little would be left to be said.

Free and open debate must include the possibility that
anyone's view might well be "disparaged." Trying to
wall off a RELIGIOUS view from free and open debate is,
well, fascistic. It certainly is anti Constitutional.

Andre

I think you are mistaken that the constitution does
not provide against "disparaging" at least certain
kinds of views, from the side of the government
and its representatives, that is.

I will certainly admit that some areas of judicial decisions
of the last, say, 20 years, do lean more and more towards
a concept where there is at least an undertone that one
can sue for having your feelings hurt.

I acknowledge that trend, I just much disagree with it.

Open discussion
is something else entirely. This is the line the judge
seems to follow:

Or, wished to be seen as following. I am not convinced.

"Corbett states an unequivocal belief that creationism
is “superstitious nonsense.”  The Court cannot discern
a legitimate secular purpose in this statement, even
when considered in context.  The statement therefore
constitutes improper disapproval of religion in violation
of the Establishment Clause." (p.15)

The key phrase there is:

"The Court cannot discern a legitimate secular purpose..."

The issue I am bringing up is that the court's "discern(ing)"
is flawed.

and:

"The Court turns first to Corbett’s statement regarding
Peloza discussed above.  (See Farnan’s Ex. I, pp. 222-25.)
The Court finds that Corbett’s statement primarily sends a
message of disapproval of religion or creationism.

Again, I very much disagree with this part. It seeks to EQUATE
creationism AND religion.

That is very much a sign of a creationist. [M]adman often makes
the same claim, yet I would not be likely to ever agree with
[A]dman's views, were it to be made a judge.

 As
discussed above, Corbett states an unequivocal belief that
creationism is “superstitious nonsense.”  Corbett could have
criticized Peloza for teaching religious views in class without
disparaging those views." (p.21)

"could have" and "*should* have" are very different things when
it comes to the law.

Conflating the two is also a major error; Had the Kitzmiller judge
made the same error of law, he would have had to say that he
could not criticise creationism, yet in that decision, he criticised
it something fierce, by laying out three separate ways by which
creationism/ID fails to be science at all.

So the judge sees the Establishment Clause violated by
the disparaging alone, not by pointing out that it is a
religious view or (my extension) that it is an erroneous
view.

Once again, I will say that this is not a distinction that would hold
up in a court on most other topics.

Has this court ever rules that the gross disparagement of men
(See "Spreading Misandry", and "Legalising Misandry", both
by Paul Nathanson & Katherine Young) is illegal and actionable ?

Indeed.

Andre

If I may try to summarize our points: I understand that
the issue is the disparaging of religion, which violates
the Establishment Clause, and you object that
disparaging can not be an issue as long as it is correct.

Here's a reason why I dislike others trying to summarise
my views: because they often get at least one point wrong.

No, I would suggest that the disparaging should not be
a legal issue if 1) It is factually correct, and that 2) It is a
disparagement of one specific factual point or area of
debate (That is to say, that it be "creationism is hogwash,
and I'm happy to explain why", as opposed to "Religion (X)
itself is hogwash."), and that 3) The issue of the religious
argument was not first brought up by the "disparager".

I agree totally;  and, the teacher should have, at best, gotten a
finger-wag from the principle with instructions to, in the future,
look for a less inflammatory synonym for "religious superstitious
nonsense," and the whole business should have been kept out of court.
If a dispassionate explanation of the facts had hurt the student's
feelings, then too bad, but anyone would be hurt by words like
"superstitious nonsense."

Exactly. As I have maintained, this bad decision essentially
throws a chill to silence any criticism of the *claims* about the
world made by a religion.

To say that creationism is nonsense, whatever type of nonsense
one might choose to specify, or not, is NOT an "attack" on religion,
or even on A religion, unless the IDiots wish to admit that
creationism
is SO NOT a science that it is not an actual religion in of it's own
self.

Of course, that view would require that it be kept out of public
schools.

I am not convinced that you are correct in this,

Because you failed to "summarize" my actual views.

especially regarding a possibly touchy subject as the
EC, but I can only repeat my arguments.

It would be interesting to see this going further legally.

It would.

Andre

.

Loading