• 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!

You Have No Constitutional Right To Your Own Science

Does An American Have Freedom Of Science?

  • No; there are limits to religious freedom when that is contradicted by science

    Votes: 5 21.7%

  • Science cannot limit an American's freedom of religion

    Votes: 5 21.7%

  • Sometimes. Kids should be taught whatever their parents want, but not abused.

    Votes: 2 8.7%

  • I think my religion explains the world and I have no use for science

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • What I do in my private life is my own business, and I can raise my kids however I like

    Votes: 10 43.5%

  • No opinion or undecided

    Votes: 1 4.3%
  • Total voters
    23
Pinkie

Pinkie

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 16, 2010
Messages
12,316
Reaction score
3,220
Location
Cleveland, Ohio, USA
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
Science is the process of ascertaining what reality is. You may not accept some scientific theories -- for example, I reject all the evidence that second-hand smoke causes lung cancer, as I do not believe the method used to reach the conclusion was sound.

However, if you have beliefs, for religious or other purposes, that you cannot die in a fire because you have on "magic underwear", or that humans lived at the same time as dinosaurs, you have no right -- in your capacity as my neighbor, representative or fellow voter -- to impose such nonsense on me. You cannot call such beliefs "science", and I should not be buying textbooks for schoolchildren via my tax dollars that teach such silliness. If you believe your gay child is possessed by the devil, that's sad. But if you try and torture that child to "convert" him or "cleanse" him, I'll be sending the cops along to arrest you for child abuse.

There is a difference between thinking abortion is wrong and thinking abortion does not exist, or is killing off a race of aliens.

So, my fundamentalist fellow Americans: feel free to embrace your fairy tales...but do not ask me to pay for them.

What say you?
 
Last edited:
Don't impose your beliefs on my children, and I won't impose my beliefs on yours.
 
Goshin said:
Don't impose your beliefs on my children, and I won't impose my beliefs on yours.
Click to expand...

Absolutely.

But if your beliefs inspire you to beat your child, don't your fellow Americans have the right to stop you?

If you believe ridiculous things, must your fellow Americans buy textbooks for your kids that teach them these beliefs are "science"?

And if I elect you, do you have the right (as my political representative) to denounce a scientific breakthrough on the basis of your religious beliefs?
 
Pinkie said:
Absolutely.

But if your beliefs inspire you to beat your child, don't your fellow Americans have the right to stop you?

If you believe ridiculous things, must your fellow Americans buy textbooks for your kids that teach them these beliefs are "science"?

And if I elect you, do you have the right (as my political representative) to denounce a scientific breakthrough on the basis of your religious beliefs?
Click to expand...
There is no reason to limit this to science or religion. The principle at work in your question is one based upon human liberty. It is not: "Do I have the right to impose my religion or my phony science upon you?" but "Do I have the right to impose my will upon my fellow man in any context?" Answer question #2 and you answer question #1.
 
Science does not limit freedom of religion.

It only shows us what reality is. Specifically, the natural world. Not the supernatural world, which is the realm of Religion and Theology.

You can't reject reality without being a delusional idiot. Mind you, you have the right to be a delusional idiot. But, reality is what you're going to be taught about in schools, not your fantasies.

Of course, an uneducated populace, in no circumstance, can maintain any form of democracy and liberty.
 
Pinkie said:
Absolutely.

But if your beliefs inspire you to beat your child, don't your fellow Americans have the right to stop you?

If you believe ridiculous things, must your fellow Americans buy textbooks for your kids that teach them these beliefs are "science"?

And if I elect you, do you have the right (as my political representative) to denounce a scientific breakthrough on the basis of your religious beliefs?
Click to expand...




1. Discipline yes. Beat abusively no.

2. Those who want their children to be educated in a certain manner differing substantially from societal norms should put their children in private schools. This would include rabid atheists who don't want their children exposed to Christmas as much as fundamentalists who don't want their children exposed to evolution. Vouchers.

3. Denounce? As is "speak against"? Sure, anyone can say anything. Denounce as in "try to block it"? Well, the bugger's got to stand to election doesn't he? Hold him accountable at the polls.
 
Pinkie, I have no way of making a choice in your poll. You have mixed things up too much. Clarify your thinking and give me some choices on just one aspect of freedom of and from religion.
 
OhIsee.Then said:
Pinkie, I have no way of making a choice in your poll. You have mixed things up too much. Clarify your thinking and give me some choices on just one aspect of freedom of and from religion.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry; you aren't alone in finding my poll confusing.

Choice 1: When science conflicts, everyone in America is ruled by science in their public lives, and children are as well in their private lives.

Choice 2: Science is a religion, and no more sound than mine.

Choice 3: No taxpayer should buy books for science classes which contain false statements based on religion.

Choice 4: I have no use for science.

Choice 5: Parents should have no limits placed on how they treat their kids based upon science.

Choice 6: Undecided or no opinion.

Maybe Goshin can alter the poll questions?
 
Why we are treating the two as somehow similar is beyond me. Science and religion are two separate entities and should be treated as such. Government does indeed need to deal with both, but separately. Both evolution and intelligent design can indeed be taught in schools, but not together. Intelligent design belongs in a Religion class and Evolution in a Science class. I do not believe one or the other.

Many people seem to be polarised by this issue, why either has to be the basis for public policy is baffling, and why it is a continued source of debate is even more so. Again, they are separate and should be treated as such.
 
Pinkie said:
I'm sorry; you aren't alone in finding my poll confusing.

Choice 1: When science conflicts, everyone in America is ruled by science in their public lives, and children are as well in their private lives.

Choice 2: Science is a religion, and no more sound than mine.

Choice 3: No taxpayer should buy books for science classes which contain false statements based on religion.

Choice 4: I have no use for science.

Choice 5: Parents should have no limits placed on how they treat their kids based upon science.

Choice 6: Undecided or no opinion.

Maybe Goshin can alter the poll questions?
Click to expand...

Choice # 2 sounds more like that Science has no ability to restrict others religious beliefs. (On the poll, not the quoted post.)
 
DinodudeEpic said:
Choice # 2 sounds more like that Science has no ability to restrict others religious beliefs. (On the poll, not the quoted post.)
Click to expand...

Correct. Choice 2 means you do not think parents should be prevented from such things as denying their child necessary medical care, if they do so for religious reasons.
 
Actually "other", not "no opinion" nor "undecided".
Religion must not interfere nor obstruct science, as it has in years past.
IMO, under the guise of religion, it is OK for mom and dad to restrict medical care to themselves, BUT NOT TO THEIR CHILDREN !
 
Last edited:
Most things mentioned in this thread are not rights. One thing that truly pisses me off when people (in general) cannot differentiate between a "right" and a "privilege".
 
Fletch said:
There is no reason to limit this to science or religion. The principle at work in your question is one based upon human liberty. It is not: "Do I have the right to impose my religion or my phony science upon you?" but "Do I have the right to impose my will upon my fellow man in any context?" Answer question #2 and you answer question #1.
Click to expand...
Define "impose".
We advertise things/positions all the time, now its worse than ever, BUT, is this imposing ?
I think it is becoming that.
 
Pinkie said:
I'm sorry; you aren't alone in finding my poll confusing.

Choice 1: When science conflicts, everyone in America is ruled by science in their public lives, and children are as well in their private lives.

Choice 2: Science is a religion, and no more sound than mine.

Choice 3: No taxpayer should buy books for science classes which contain false statements based on religion.

Choice 4: I have no use for science.

Choice 5: Parents should have no limits placed on how they treat their kids based upon science.

Choice 6: Undecided or no opinion.

Maybe Goshin can alter the poll questions?
Click to expand...


I don't know that the new poll questions are any better than the old ones honestly.... sorry....
 
Pinkie said:
Science is the process of ascertaining what reality is. You may not accept some scientific theories -- for example, I reject all the evidence that second-hand smoke causes lung cancer, as I do not believe the method used to reach the conclusion was sound.

However, if you have beliefs, for religious or other purposes, that you cannot die in a fire because you have on "magic underwear", or that humans lived at the same time as dinosaurs, you have no right -- in your capacity as my neighbor, representative or fellow voter -- to impose such nonsense on me.
Click to expand...

How do you gel this legislators in Congress who openly claim that the Earth is 6,000~9,000 years old and evolution does not happen at all? After all, they were elected to make laws and it is our Democracy that gives our legislators to enact laws regarding the country. Therefore, despite the fact that I agree with you that they are entirely bat **** crazy, they still have the right as given by COTUS to impose such nonsense upon us. Ultimately the problem lies with those electing these people, but that again is their privilege. I don't see how you can stop this (at least quickly) without serious perverting the Constitution.
 
Pinkie said:
Correct. Choice 2 means you do not think parents should be prevented from such things as denying their child necessary medical care, if they do so for religious reasons.
Click to expand...

That brings up an entirely different issue. How much control do parents have over their children? An adult can refuse their own medical treatment based on religion, but in that example the adult is pushing their religious belief onto their child.
 
Pinkie said:
Absolutely.

But if your beliefs inspire you to beat your child, don't your fellow Americans have the right to stop you?

If you believe ridiculous things, must your fellow Americans buy textbooks for your kids that teach them these beliefs are "science"?

And if I elect you, do you have the right (as my political representative) to denounce a scientific breakthrough on the basis of your religious beliefs?
Click to expand...

As to the OP title - that applies to you as well (even if you have the majority behind you).

There is a difference between belief and action. This is why I absolutely am against hate crime legislation. We don't make laws against thought, but rather against certain actions.

As to the textbooks, again, apply that equally to yourself. Must the rest of us buy textbooks for your kids that teach them these beliefs are "science"?

As to elected representatives, they have the same right you do to denounce what someone else calls a scientific breakthrough for whatever reasons they wish. Remember, treatments for [female] hysteria were all the rage in scientific breakthroughs some decades ago. Should we all have bought into those? How about using mercury in vaccines, huge scientific breakthrough in storage and efficacy?
 
clownboy said:
As to the OP title - that applies to you as well (even if you have the majority behind you).

There is a difference between belief and action. This is why I absolutely am against hate crime legislation. We don't make laws against thought, but rather against certain actions.

As to the textbooks, again, apply that equally to yourself. Must the rest of us buy textbooks for your kids that teach them these beliefs are "science"?

As to elected representatives, they have the same right you do to denounce what someone else calls a scientific breakthrough for whatever reasons they wish. Remember, treatments for [female] hysteria were all the rage in scientific breakthroughs some decades ago. Should we all have bought into those? How about using mercury in vaccines, huge scientific breakthrough in storage and efficacy?
Click to expand...


Good point. "Science" isn't always right, and scientists are just as subject to financial, social and political pressures as anyone else .... "publish or perish" is their motto, and attempting to publish theories that contract the popular scientific dogma of the moment is rarely smiled upon.
 
Goshin said:
Good point. "Science" isn't always right, and scientists are just as subject to financial, social and political pressures as anyone else .... "publish or perish" is their motto, and attempting to publish theories that contract the popular scientific dogma of the moment is rarely smiled upon.
Click to expand...

True, but beliefs that are obviously bat**** shouldn't be pushed around as science. Young Earth Creationism for one. We have TWO count them, TWO YECs on the House Science Committee. That is insane.
 
obvious Child said:
How do you gel this legislators in Congress who openly claim that the Earth is 6,000~9,000 years old and evolution does not happen at all? After all, they were elected to make laws and it is our Democracy that gives our legislators to enact laws regarding the country. Therefore, despite the fact that I agree with you that they are entirely bat **** crazy, they still have the right as given by COTUS to impose such nonsense upon us. Ultimately the problem lies with those electing these people, but that again is their privilege. I don't see how you can stop this (at least quickly) without serious perverting the Constitution.
Click to expand...

There's a difference between what is legal and what is right.

I agree, these whackadoodles can run for office and if elected, tard up my government. I should know,as Dennis Kucinich is my congresscritter, and he thinks he met Cleopatra in a past life and is ET.
 
clownboy said:
As to the OP title - that applies to you as well (even if you have the majority behind you).

There is a difference between belief and action. This is why I absolutely am against hate crime legislation. We don't make laws against thought, but rather against certain actions.

As to the textbooks, again, apply that equally to yourself. Must the rest of us buy textbooks for your kids that teach them these beliefs are "science"?

As to elected representatives, they have the same right you do to denounce what someone else calls a scientific breakthrough for whatever reasons they wish. Remember, treatments for [female] hysteria were all the rage in scientific breakthroughs some decades ago. Should we all have bought into those? How about using mercury in vaccines, huge scientific breakthrough in storage and efficacy?
Click to expand...

There is no "science". There is only science. It is the same for us all, and while you and I might reject any number of theories as unproven or unsound, you have no right (constitutionally) IMO, to force me to buy textbooks for your kids that say only gay people get AIDS, or that humans and dinosaurs roamed the earth together.

You do not get to pretend that a religious parable is in competition for the truth with an accepted, scientific fact.

Hate crime legislation is an entirely different topic. An very interesting one, but different.

 
Goshin said:
Good point. "Science" isn't always right, and scientists are just as subject to financial, social and political pressures as anyone else .... "publish or perish" is their motto, and attempting to publish theories that contract the popular scientific dogma of the moment is rarely smiled upon.
Click to expand...

There is absolutely junk science. There are also mistakes -- science does not move forward in an uninterrupted linear fashion.

I grant you we all have a right -- even a duty -- to reject or question junk science. And we can look at any new scientific finding with suspicion. For example, I wouldn't bless the Keystone Pipeline if Father Time wrote the feasibility study.

That's very different from rejecting evolution or modern medical care for your children.
 
First I thought the poll was limited. Next science is not a freedom within the confines of law. It is a search for truth using time honored and tested methods and a rigorous process of proofs. The various disciplines have thier own rigours but share the same methodology. they each have their own vocabulary and terminology.
Unfortunately for centuries the process has been misunderstood by the general public. Observation, reproducability and severe testing are the hallmarks of good science as is objectivity.
There can be no connection between religion or politics in true science. If a theory does not prove out it must be discarded without reservation. And if a theory does prove out it must be able to withstand close inspection and be reproduced several times before it gains any measure of acceptance within the Scientific community. Any person who cannot accept this and continues on is practicimg bad science and sooner or later will be found out.
IMHO the reason so many people have trouble with scientific ideas is that the mental process that we must go through and the language of science is so foriegn most people reject it out of hand or fear it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom