• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Judges rule for teacher who called creationism "superstitious nonsense"

Should public school teachers be able to call creationism "superstitious nonsense"?

  • Yes; they have freedom of speech and academic freedom

    Votes: 27 54.0%

  • No; this amounts to the state picking sides on a religious matter

    Votes: 12 24.0%

  • Other

    Votes: 11 22.0%
  • Total voters
    50
RiverDad said:
What true believer could possibly be so butt-hurt by a teacher saying that racial differences in intelligence are pervasive and a normal, and expected, consequence of evolution. . . . .This is a case of liberal people looking for a fight. Check history, it's a common trait of hypocritical liberals.

You might be on to something.
Click to expand...
Redress and I dont often see eye to eye...but he has a point. How are you going to drag race into this?
 
According to science, what he said was true, so yes, in that context he should be allowed to say it.
 
Your Star said:
According to science, what he said was true, so yes, in that context he should be allowed to say it.
Click to expand...

Actually, science has nothing to do with creationism, and doesn't really have a position on it. However, creationism is clearly religion, and as such, a government official(which a teacher is) should not b e taking a position on it in their role as a teacher.
 
RiverDad said:
What true believer could possibly be so butt-hurt by a teacher saying that racial differences in intelligence are pervasive and a normal, and expected, consequence of evolution. . . . .This is a case of liberal people looking for a fight. Check history, it's a common trait of hypocritical liberals.

You might be on to something.
Click to expand...

You know, it's probably true to some degree. So what? Reality is what reality is. I'm certainly not butt-hurt by reality, why are the religious?
 
Tucker Case said:
You'll do anything to crowbar that **** into a discussion won't you? I'd call that one rabidly pursued agenda. What do you seek to gain with this agenda?
Click to expand...

There are two sides to the creationist coin - religious and liberal. I simply don't like seeing creationism as a synonym for religious creationism while liberal creationism is ignored. If people are upset about faith-based superstition being injected into the realm of science then let's dismantle the artificial boundaries and bring liberal creationism into the mix alongside its religious creationist counterpart.
 
RiverDad said:
There are two sides to the creationist coin - religious and liberal. I simply don't like seeing creationism as a synonym for religious creationism while liberal creationism is ignored. If people are upset about faith-based superstition being injected into the realm of science then let's dismantle the artificial boundaries and bring liberal creationism into the mix alongside its religious creationist counterpart.
Click to expand...

Your whole "liberal creationism" thing is both offtopic, and totally stupid.
 
RiverDad said:
What true believer could possibly be so butt-hurt by a teacher saying that racial differences in intelligence are pervasive and a normal, and expected, consequence of evolution. . . . .This is a case of liberal people looking for a fight. Check history, it's a common trait of hypocritical liberals.

You might be on to something.
Click to expand...

OK. How about this as a race theory: Black people are superior. Evidence: Jazz, Rock and Roll, Rap. Also Peanut Butter, the Air Conditioning unit and spark plugs. All invented by blacks.

Inventions Created By Black People

You're right RD, one race is superior, and it ain't us whiteys.
 
RiverDad said:
There are two sides to the creationist coin - religious and liberal. I simply don't like seeing creationism as a synonym for religious creationism while liberal creationism is ignored. If people are upset about faith-based superstition being injected into the realm of science then let's dismantle the artificial boundaries and bring liberal creationism into the mix alongside its religious creationist counterpart.
Click to expand...


So tell us what this "liberal creationist" theory is. Especially since we all apparently believe in it, but you're the only one who thinks it exists. Go ahead, tell me what I think.
 
RiverDad said:
There are two sides to the creationist coin - religious and liberal. I simply don't like seeing creationism as a synonym for religious creationism while liberal creationism is ignored. If people are upset about faith-based superstition being injected into the realm of science then let's dismantle the artificial boundaries and bring liberal creationism into the mix alongside its religious creationist counterpart.
Click to expand...

Nothing about your race theory has anything to do with creation of anything though, so why bring it up and pretend it does have something to do with a theory about creation?
 
Redress said:
Actually, science has nothing to do with creationism, and doesn't really have a position on it. However, creationism is clearly religion, and as such, a government official(which a teacher is) should not b e taking a position on it in their role as a teacher.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I think that a teacher saying that "The scientific evidence strongly supports evolution, and is inconsistent with young-earth hypotheses where animals have always existed in their current forms" is far different from saying that "Creationism is superstitious nonsense." One is a scientific statement of fact, the other is a judgment about a person's religious views.
 
Redress said:
Actually, science has nothing to do with creationism, and doesn't really have a position on it. However, creationism is clearly religion, and as such, a government official(which a teacher is) should not b e taking a position on it in their role as a teacher.
Click to expand...

I beg to differ here. The religious right continue to seek to give creationism equal time in the classroom as an "alternative viewpoint" to science. This places science in a position that must be defended.
 
Just1Voice said:
I beg to differ here. The religious right continue to seek to give creationism equal time in the classroom as an "alternative viewpoint" to science. This places science in a position that must be defended.
Click to expand...

Defending science is not the same as attacking someone's religion.
 
Kandahar said:
Defending science is not the same as attacking someone's religion.
Click to expand...

Creationism is a religious viewpoint. Not a religion. And it has been placed in direct competition with science. Have you ever looked at a creationist textbook? The text seeks to arrest the burgeoning scientific curiosity of the students. It seeks to make them stop asking questions and instead be satisfied with the answer "God did it." Calling that "religious nonsense" is not an attack on religion. It is a defense of the right of the students to ask "why" and to look for answers in places outside their sacred scriptures.
 
Just1Voice said:
I beg to differ here. The religious right continue to seek to give creationism equal time in the classroom as an "alternative viewpoint" to science. This places science in a position that must be defended.
Click to expand...

And the "religious right" are wrong to try and place creationism in science classrooms. That does not mean that science teachers should take a position on religious topics in their role as teachers.
 
Just1Voice said:
Creationism is a religious viewpoint. Not a religion.
Click to expand...

That's a pretty blurry distinction, since religions are essentially just a collection of "religious viewpoints."

And it has been placed in direct competition with science. Have you ever looked at a creationist textbook? The text seeks to arrest the burgeoning scientific curiosity of the students. It seeks to make them stop asking questions and instead be satisfied with the answer "God did it." Calling that "religious nonsense" is not an attack on religion.
Click to expand...

Yes it is. Regardless of the scientific flaws of the belief, or the societal ills it creates, it is not the government's place to take a position on whether or not it's "superstitious nonsense." By all means teach the scientific reality, but there is no need to attack someone's religion in order to do that.

It is a defense of the right of the students to ask "why" and to look for answers in places outside their sacred scriptures.
Click to expand...

No it isn't. That can be done without taking an explicit position on their religion.
 
Redress said:
And the "religious right" are wrong to try and place creationism in science classrooms. That does not mean that science teachers should take a position on religious topics in their role as teachers.
Click to expand...

It does if the religious topic is in direct contradiction to science. Science has found evidence that shows our universe has been around for roughly 13.75 billion years. Creationists claim it is a little over 6000 years old.

These two claims are in direct contradiction. They cannot both be correct. A science teacher faced with creationist teachings is duty bound call them "religious nonsense." Doing so jolts the students into a state in which they are able to decide for themselves who to believe. Without that jolt, they might go on being happy idiots for the rest of their days.
 
Kandahar said:
Yes it is. Regardless of the scientific flaws of the belief, or the societal ills it creates, it is not the government's place to take a position on whether or not it's "superstitious nonsense." By all means teach the scientific reality, but there is no need to attack someone's religion in order to do that.
Click to expand...

It's not a matter of the "governments position." It is a matter of the teachers responsibility to their students. Attacking a single viewpoint of a religion is not an attack on the religion. There are lots of Christians that believe in evolution and the laws of physics. It is only those things which religion tries to teach which are explicitly shown to be incorrect which teachers should address. Note that we no longer believe our Sun revolves around the Earth - religion survived that one.. it can survive this. But teachers should not tolerate falsehoods to be taught in the schools.
 
Just1Voice said:
It's not a matter of the "governments position." It is a matter of the teachers responsibility to their students.
Click to expand...

The teacher is an agent of the government when acting in an official capacity.

Attacking a single viewpoint of a religion is not an attack on the religion.
Click to expand...

Yes it is. That distinction is entirely subjective. If the government declared that the idea of a virgin birth, the trinity, Jesus being the son of God, miracles, the crucifixion, and the resurrection were all "superstitious nonsense" but didn't explicitly call Christianity "superstitious nonsense" would that be OK?

There are lots of Christians that believe in evolution and the laws of physics.
Click to expand...

So what? Just because SOME people believe one thing doesn't give a government official the right to criticize others who don't.

But teachers should not tolerate falsehoods to be taught in the schools.
Click to expand...

No one is suggesting they should. That has absolutely nothing to do with the subject of this thread.
 
Last edited:
Kandahar said:
The teacher is an agent of the government when acting in an official capacity.
Click to expand...


According to whom? A teacher has a responsibility to teach. If the government has hired them to teach, then that government must accept that the teacher is going to do their job.
 
ludahai said:
Actually, EVERYTHING has a history -- including both religion and science, and as such are part of any complete history curriculum...
Click to expand...

He shouldn't be discussing them, but he can certainly discuss their origins and the historical context from which they came about.
 
Tucker Case said:
He shouldn't be discussing them, but he can certainly discuss their origins and the historical context from which they came about.
Click to expand...

Shouldn't be discussing what? It is common to discuss the major tenents of the major religions of the world, and even some religions of historical note. This was actually in the mandated curriculum when I taught in Fulton County, Georgia...
 
ludahai said:
Shouldn't be discussing what?
Click to expand...

The logic behind the concepts (in depth, such as pointing out fallacious reasoning as this teacher did). A simple description of what is believed and by whom would more than suffice for a history class.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom