• 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"?


  • Total voters
    50
I thought this was an interesting ruling because it isn't specifically about evolution versus creationism. (On that issue, schools should obviously teach evolution and not creationism, because one is a matter of scientific fact and the other is a matter of religion.) But in this case, you have a teacher who specifically called creationism "superstitious nonsense." Some people had a problem with this and sued the school, on the grounds that the state should not establish a religion. The judge ruled that the teacher should be able to voice that opinion in the classroom if he wanted to.

I'm actually on the plaintiff's side on this. While I think there is plenty of good reason to be hostile toward creationism, that's no reason for the teacher to make a statement like this. For those who disagree, ask yourself if you would be OK with a teacher saying the same thing about some other doctrine of religious faith: "Judaism is superstitious nonsense," or "the virgin birth is superstitious nonsense," or "not believing in God is superstitious nonsense." I think that whether one agrees with those statements or not, it's a bad precedent to allow government employees to express their personal religious views to a captive audience.

What do you think?
It's not a teacher's job to tell people that what they believe is "superstitious nonsense". However, I'm not sure that there is any legal basis from stopping this teacher (although I would fire his ass). They could make a legal argument against the teacher using a liberal interpretation of the free exercise clause of the 1st amendment, but it likely wouldn't hold water against the obvious interpretation of free speech.

That said, had the teacher proclaimed that "creationism is fact", the ruling would have been reversed which is hypocritical in my opinion.
 
I'm just going to ask, because I do it everytime this comes up.

1) Some people believe very passionately that the Moon Landing was faked (as we've seen in this very forum). Should that be taught as an alternative view of history?

2) Some people believe that the Earth is in fact, flat. Should that be taught as an alternative view of geography? (Actually, the basis for their belief can be found in the very same place as the Creationist belief. At least they say it's Biblical...)
 
1) Some people believe very passionately that the Moon Landing was faked (as we've seen in this very forum). Should that be taught as an alternative view of history?

That's an interesting question. My first thought was "No, it shouldn't be" but then thinking about it, even though I personally don't buy the conspiracy theory, it might warrant some mention that it exists during a historical discussion about the space race.

2) Some people believe that the Earth is in fact, flat. Should that be taught as an alternative view of geography? (Actually, the basis for their belief can be found in the very same place as the Creationist belief. At least they say it's Biblical...)

That one shouldn't even be mentioned by the people who believe it, unless they are using some sort of physics-based argument related to the curvature of space-time, in which case it could make for an interesting discussion.

But if they are simply saying "Nope, it's flat, damnit!" they should just be ignored. Actually, **** it, I'm feeling cranky tonight. If they believe that they should just be shot and their corpses should be fed to pigs.
 
But if they are simply saying "Nope, it's flat, damnit!" they should just be ignored. Actually, **** it, I'm feeling cranky tonight. If they believe that they should just be shot and their corpses should be fed to pigs.

We could just toss the corpses over the side of the Earth. According to them, it's possible.
 
I'm just going to ask, because I do it everytime this comes up.

1) Some people believe very passionately that the Moon Landing was faked (as we've seen in this very forum). Should that be taught as an alternative view of history?

2) Some people believe that the Earth is in fact, flat. Should that be taught as an alternative view of geography? (Actually, the basis for their belief can be found in the very same place as the Creationist belief. At least they say it's Biblical...)

This issue doesn't have anything to do with teaching creationism as an alternative view of biology. It's about whether or not a teacher should have a right to disparage a religious viewpoint.
 
This issue doesn't have anything to do with teaching creationism as an alternative view of biology. It's about whether or not a teacher should have a right to disparage a religious viewpoint.

You know how these threads are. They take on a life of their own.

But to play, what if a teacher said that "People who believe the Earth is flat are lunatics?"
 
I'm just going to ask, because I do it everytime this comes up.

1) Some people believe very passionately that the Moon Landing was faked (as we've seen in this very forum). Should that be taught as an alternative view of history?

2) Some people believe that the Earth is in fact, flat. Should that be taught as an alternative view of geography? (Actually, the basis for their belief can be found in the very same place as the Creationist belief. At least they say it's Biblical...)

Some people believe that diversity is good. Should that be taught in school? Oh wait, this myth is being taught in schools. Hmm. Bad example.

Some people believe that competition between students is a bad thing. Should schools stress cooperative learning? Oh wait, this is what is happening.
 
You know how these threads are. They take on a life of their own.

But to play, what if a teacher said that "People who believe the Earth is flat are lunatics?"

That viewpoint, unlike creationism, is not typically associated with religion. So I think he would be well within his rights to make that statement. Creationism is quite different IMO, because the crux of the belief is that the earth and its animals were created by a god in their present form. This is necessarily a religious viewpoint, as it invokes a deity.
 
That viewpoint, unlike creationism, is not typically associated with religion. So I think he would be well within his rights to make that statement. Creationism is quite different IMO, because the crux of the belief is that the earth and its animals were created by a god in their present form. This is necessarily a religious viewpoint, as it invokes a deity.

Really??? What sort of thinking led to the belief that the world is flat, if not religious thinking? It is absolutely a religious viewpoint. But because it's not a popular one, suddenly it doesn't count? I smell hypocrisy.
 
Really??? What sort of thinking led to the belief that the world is flat, if not religious thinking?

I'm not aware of any religion that holds that viewpoint. It seems like just a silly thing to believe that would no more be likely held by religious folks than non-religious folks.

It is absolutely a religious viewpoint. But because it's not a popular one, suddenly it doesn't count? I smell hypocrisy.

Creationism explicitly invokes a deity, so there is no question about it being a religious view. Flat-earthism doesn't invoke any deity and isn't commonly associated with any religion that I know of, so I think that's a much tougher case to make. Maybe there is some religion out there that believes it, but then I think the question is whether a reasonable person who heard the public school teacher make that statement would think that a religion was being disparaged.
 
Really??? What sort of thinking led to the belief that the world is flat, if not religious thinking? It is absolutely a religious viewpoint.


HUH?????????????


The type of thinking that led to the belief that the world was flat had nothing to do with religion, it was based on observation. It is very difficult to see the Earth's curvature when one is looking about while standing on the Earth. One has to go to a higher elevation in order to see tantalizing hints of curvature but even then one has to understand what one is seeing in order to place the visual clues into context. That's what led to the belief that the world is flat.
 
One has to go to a higher elevation in order to see tantalizing hints of curvature but even then one has to understand what one is seeing in order to place the visual clues into context.

One can also observe ships as they sail out to sea to conclude that the Earth is curved.

Or observe shadows cast at different locations on the same day of the year. (Or you can just read about how shadows are cast in one place at a certain time on a certain day and then observe observe how shadows are cast at a different location at that time and on that day, sort of like how Eratosthenes calculated the circumference of the earth).

IOW, there are actually a few visual cues to the Earth roundness that don't involve higher elevations, but they aren't really going to be that obvious to most people.

Also, very few knowledgeable people really believed the Earth is flat for a very long time now.
 
Last edited:
Some people believe that diversity is good. Should that be taught in school? Oh wait, this myth is being taught in schools. Hmm. Bad example.

Yes. Yes it is a bad example in the sense that the one has nothing to do with the other. Diversity is not a "myth." It's an ideal. It is sometimes pushed in idiotic ways, but it is not a "myth."
 
HUH?????????????


The type of thinking that led to the belief that the world was flat had nothing to do with religion, it was based on observation. It is very difficult to see the Earth's curvature when one is looking about while standing on the Earth. One has to go to a higher elevation in order to see tantalizing hints of curvature but even then one has to understand what one is seeing in order to place the visual clues into context. That's what led to the belief that the world is flat.

The belief in gods was based on observation too. It was just a very egocentric interpretation of what they observed. You never studied much religion, did you?
 
One can also observe ships as they sail out to sea to conclude that the Earth is curved.

Or observe shadows cast at different locations on the same day of the year. (Or you can just read about how shadows are cast in one place at a certain time on a certain day and then observe observe how shadows are cast at a different location at that time and on that day, sort of like how Eratosthenes calculated the circumference of the earth).

IOW, there are actually a few visual cues to the Earth roundness that don't involve higher elevations, but they aren't really going to be that obvious to most people.

Also, very few knowledgeable people really believed the Earth is flat for a very long time now.

I'm not discounting what you say, not at all. I'm saying that for us modern-folk, who've developed sophisticated analytic ways of viewing the world, testing our observations against models we hold, this is all natural. Look at my comment and you'll find that I stated the following: "even then one has to understand what one is seeing in order to place the visual clues into context" by which I meant most ordinary citizens of the long ago past were not going to be sophisticated enough to either do this themselves or to believe the authority of the smarter people around them when their pronouncements contradicted what everyone saw with their own eyes.

Don't we both agree that this viewpoint didn't originate from a religious dictate?
 
Yes. Yes it is a bad example in the sense that the one has nothing to do with the other. Diversity is not a "myth." It's an ideal. It is sometimes pushed in idiotic ways, but it is not a "myth."

It's not an ideal, it's actually pushed as "diversity is our strength."
 
One thing is constant in this thread is the recognition that creationism is religion...not science
 
I'm not discounting what you say, not at all. I'm saying that for us modern-folk, who've developed sophisticated analytic ways of viewing the world, testing our observations against models we hold, this is all natural. Look at my comment and you'll find that I stated the following: "even then one has to understand what one is seeing in order to place the visual clues into context" by which I meant most ordinary citizens of the long ago past were not going to be sophisticated enough to either do this themselves or to believe the authority of the smarter people around them when their pronouncements contradicted what everyone saw with their own eyes.

Don't we both agree that this viewpoint didn't originate from a religious dictate?

You're right. We agree that the original idea that the Earth was flat was not some religious dictate. Much like the original view that the Sun traveled around the Earth was not a religious dictate.

Sometimes I fall prey to getting sucked in to the details of a side-issue and miss the main point going on. My apologies for that, as this happened here.

That being said, though, I think that someone could use religion as their basis for continuing to believe the world is flat despite encountering evidence to the contrary. I think that it's possible that someone is doing so today, but I have no idea why they would be doing it.
 
That being said, though, I think that someone could use religion as their basis for continuing to believe the world is flat despite encountering evidence to the contrary. I think that it's possible that someone is doing so today, but I have no idea why they would be doing it.

One could use any philosophy for believing an irrational idea. The human mind knows few limits when it comes to rationalizing conspiracies. Religion is simply one of many philosophies which can be used as such a foundation. We shouldn't be pinning craziness solely onto religion.
 
It's not an ideal, it's actually pushed as "diversity is our strength."

How is that not an ideal? To be clear, I'm not at all suggesting that that's not a stupid motto.

I'm also somewhat curious as to where that motto comes from (i.e. what school district, and why they came up with it).
 
How is that not an ideal? To be clear, I'm not at all suggesting that that's not a stupid motto.

Lecturing on "we should strive to find the good in diversity and try to leverage our differences into strength" would be espousing an ideal but stating "diversity is our strength" as though it is undisputed fact, as though it is knowledge that is as sound as the law of gravity is an altogether different type of animal. There is a world of social science literature, not to mention a historical accounts from all over the world, which directly contradict the myth that "diversity is our strength."

Schools have entire bureaucracies which push this myth. Imagine having an entire school bureaucracy dedicated to pushing religious creationism.

I'm also somewhat curious as to where that motto comes from (i.e. what school district, and why they came up with it).

In some deep dungeon lab in the feverish leftist swamps. I'm too scared to approach their borders to find the source.
 
One could use any philosophy for believing an irrational idea. The human mind knows few limits when it comes to rationalizing conspiracies. Religion is simply one of many philosophies which can be used as such a foundation. We shouldn't be pinning craziness solely onto religion.

True, it should certainly not be pinned on religion alone, nor should any philosophy be considered immune to it, but I think that in this instance, the particular people who currently believe that the Earth is flat are using religion to justify this particular irrational idea, and that this was why it was mentioned earlier. At least that is how I read it.

Now, one might argue that mentioning that this particular belief had a religious basis for the particular people currently promoting it is irrelevant, but I would have to disagree because some people are of the belief that if a belief has a religious basis for anyone people, it should not be described as an irrational belief in the right context in school. It actually has merit to mention whether or not there are people who hold this belief (or rationalize this belief) due to their particular views about their religion.

To explain, it is possible for someone to have a creation theory that is not necessarily religious in nature. One could believe that inter-dimensional aliens created our universe as a giant computer that has the goal of calculating a whole bunch of crap in order to reach the answer of 42. This would be a creationism that is not religiously based.
 
Lecturing on "we should strive to find the good in diversity and try to leverage our differences into strength" would be espousing an ideal but stating "diversity is our strength" as though it is undisputed fact, as though it is knowledge that is as sound as the law of gravity is an altogether different type of animal. There is a world of social science literature, not to mention a historical accounts from all over the world, which directly contradict the myth that "diversity is our strength."
.
Diversity is one of the main things people associate with the United States. And for a country that's a little over 200 years old, we've done pretty well with it. So I think it's pretty accurate to say that diversity is an American strength. I guess you could argue it's a weakness if you'd prefer the US be homogeneous - but then not only would you have to kick out all the blacks, Hispanics, Asians and so on, you'd also have to kick out the Irish and Italians...
 
Last edited:
True, it should certainly not be pinned on religion alone, nor should any philosophy be considered immune to it, but I think that in this instance, the particular people who currently believe that the Earth is flat are using religion to justify this particular irrational idea, and that this was why it was mentioned earlier. At least that is how I read it.

Now, one might argue that mentioning that this particular belief had a religious basis for the particular people currently promoting it is irrelevant, but I would have to disagree because some people are of the belief that if a belief has a religious basis for anyone people, it should not be described as an irrational belief in the right context in school. It actually has merit to mention whether or not there are people who hold this belief (or rationalize this belief) due to their particular views about their religion.

To explain, it is possible for someone to have a creation theory that is not necessarily religious in nature. One could believe that inter-dimensional aliens created our universe as a giant computer that has the goal of calculating a whole bunch of crap in order to reach the answer of 42. This would be a creationism that is not religiously based.

The above is some of the most ungainly writing I have ever engaged in in my life. My apologies. This is a sign that it is time for me to go to bed.
 
Back
Top Bottom