doesn't this violate first amendment rights?

[neopolaris]

What you believe in is your doctrine. If I want to call atheism a religion, there isn't much anyone can do about it.

[Meridian]

What you believe in is your doctrine. If I want to call atheism a religion, there isn't much anyone can do about it.

Of course, and you are entitled to call black, white - but that would be nonsense as well.


M

[JustinC939]

The statement was not establishing a religion, it was establishing science.
if your religion happens to reject science; that's not his fault.
It's not right to disrespect one for their beliefs, and a teacher should know better than to say those words in class.

[Meridian]

The statement was not establishing a religion, it was establishing science.
if your religion happens to reject science; that's not his fault.
It's not right to disrespect one for their beliefs, and a teacher should know better than to say those words in class.

Why? Surely allowing people to stay superstitious is against everything teaching stands for: it stands for reason and enquiry, not blind obedience (well, it does now anyway). If the teacher told people that believing in homeopathy, the tooth-fairy or Santa Claus was nonsense, would you have a problem with that? If not, why not - I'd certainly object if my kids were there. If so, then why should any superstition escape? Because there is no fundamental difference between "religion" and "superstition".


M

[otoc]

doesn't this violate first amendment rights?http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,518864,00.html

I'm assuming you mean the ruling in regards to the comments made by the high school teacher. The court found against him on the single comment of "where Corbett referred to creationism as "religious, superstitious nonsense," did violate Farnan's constitutional rights."

I find it interesting that after 19 of the 20 charges where dismissed against the teacher, the student's "family released a statement Friday calling the judge's ruling a vindication of the teen's constitutional rights."

It's my opinion that complaining about 20 statements, having 19 thrown out, and only one decided on is hardly a vindication after reading what wasn't considered a violation of the student's right to have creationism treated on the same level as science. I chuckled from that comment over the 16 months it took to argue all of the points at the cost to taxpayers.

[neopolaris]

Of course, and you are entitled to call black, white - but that would be nonsense as well.


M

Oh, what you believe in isn't your doctrine? Interesting. Why didn't your post just say you didn't understand. At least that would've been useful.

[Dutchcedar]

Sorry no one like me defining atheism as a religion. Of course there is no belief in a higher power (although in a sense you are worshipping self) but I do think that it is a belief system. There is also a measure of faith involved as you cannot prove atheism anymore than you can prove theism.

Well now, not everything that involves faith or a belief system can be labeled a religion, can it?

I do get your point and would agree that there are plenty of folks out there who are so zealous about their non-religious beliefs that they come very close to being religious about them and may even cross the line. Good examples would be some atheists who have become over zealous about their belief and global warmers of the same ilk.

Being able to then classify their beliefs as a religion though, doesn't really fit. I'd say its not dissimilar to calling same sex couples' relationships "marriages". It may fit the bill on many counts, but it simply boils down to a game of semantics.

And I fully get that many of these people use the fact that their belief systems can't truly be called a religion as a device to set themselves above others (in their own mind) because of their lack of religion, when in truth, its only a twist of a word. Its like hiding behind science to elevate one's self. And its not uncommon that the science being used to hide behind is just as misunderstood as the religion opposed.

[tucker]

Well now, not everything that involves faith or a belief system can be labeled a religion, can it?

I do get your point and would agree that there are plenty of folks out there who are so zealous about their non-religious beliefs that they come very close to being religious about them and may even cross the line. Good examples would be some atheists who have become over zealous about their belief and global warmers of the same ilk.

Being able to then classify their beliefs as a religion though, doesn't really fit. I'd say its not dissimilar to calling same sex couples' relationships "marriages". It may fit the bill on many counts, but it simply boils down to a game of semantics.

And I fully get that many of these people use the fact that their belief systems can't truly be called a religion as a device to set themselves above others (in their own mind) because of their lack of religion, when in truth, its only a twist of a word. Its like hiding behind science to elevate one's self. And its not uncommon that the science being used to hide behind is just as misunderstood as the religion opposed.

Of course you wouldn’t be suggesting that for some people atheism is an anti-religion cult, would you?

[AMDScooter]

Of course you wouldn’t be suggesting that for some people atheism is an anti-religion cult, would you?

Why bother to suggest a well known fact?

[Meridian]

Oh, what you believe in isn't your doctrine? Interesting. Why didn't your post just say you didn't understand. At least that would've been useful.

I understood the post I replied to, but certainly don't understand that. What?


M

[Electric Bill]

I understood the post I replied to, but certainly don't understand that. What?


M

Me either but then I don't understand what a Political Athesist is either.

Bill

[JustinC939]

Why? Surely allowing people to stay superstitious is against everything teaching stands for: it stands for reason and enquiry, not blind obedience (well, it does now anyway). If the teacher told people that believing in homeopathy, the tooth-fairy or Santa Claus was nonsense, would you have a problem with that? If not, why not - I'd certainly object if my kids were there. If so, then why should any superstition escape? Because there is no fundamental difference between "religion" and "superstition".


M

I understand what you're saying, but a discussion about religion vs science does nothing but p!ss people off.
You're not gonna anger people by calling Santa Clause nonsense, but you will anger people by saying Jesus is nonsense.
People will believe what they want to believe regardless of how much scientific evidence you throw in their face.
"Creationism" qualifies as a scientific theory for life. But the current and generally accepted theory is evolution. So if you're going to study life sciences, than you'll study evolution regardless of what you believe. Just as you will study Einstein's theory of relativity if you study physics despite there being other theories that counter his.
The bottom line is that religion and science are like oil and water. religion has rejected science in the past, and will continue to do so in the future.

A teacher's job is to teach facts, so I'm willing to say that we was wrong for callin Creationism "silly nonsense", but this being said, the teacher shouldn't have been sued, maybe a hand slap would have sufficed.

[Pehu]

"Creationism" qualifies as a scientific theory for life.

How?

[JustinC939]

How?

Well, I really don't know, but guess if enough people believe it than that's all you need.

I'm sure if you look hard enough you'll find scientists that think they've proven the validity of numerology, astrology, and mythology.

[bk94si]

Evolution cannot answer the question of how life began. Evolution cannot explain where the universe came from.