Bush: Intelligent Design Should Be Taught

[Teri-K]

You are mistaken, Missy. Judges fill in the details in every law. Congress may pas a law which says "blue dogs are illegal", but this then raises the inportant question, "what exactly is a blue dog"? It's a judge or judges who will decide.

*********Snipped*************

You have far more patience than I do Simon. Very nicely done.

[TomB]

but the judges do not (or should not) MAKE the laws - that is the job of the legislative branch.

Of course, I tend to "disagree" with a judge being able to determine sentences, too - and would like to see uniform sentencing laws. Laws that are drafted by the legislature, signed by the governor, and upheld by the courts. Checks and balances, you know?

I don't think that anyone is arguing that point. Just that the term "judicial activism" tends to get thrown about by folks who don't like particular rulings. We all say that they are upholding law when they rule in a way we like, but if they don't, then folks tend to call them activists.

All the Best, Tom

[Nanohedron]

Wish I could take credit, refering to Shiva as a her got me in trouble with an Indian friend. The book thought that Shiva, being the creator, was a woman.

Ouch, I.D.10-t. Shiva's the destroyer. Brahma's the creator, and Vishnu's the preserver (this all in the simplest terms). That book was way off!

Yep pretty much butchered the Trimurti, and none of them were female.

I am agog; mere pixels cannot convey. I suppose the author(s) figured that that sort of thing wouldn't matter much to the Western reader in the grand scheme of things.

[s1m0n]

but the judges do not (or should not) MAKE the laws - that is the job of the legislative branch.

Every time a judge issues a ruling on anything, Missy, he or she is making law. Because of the role precedet plays our legal system, the task of issuing rulings of any kind is indistinguishable from that of making law.

[TomB]

but the judges do not (or should not) MAKE the laws - that is the job of the legislative branch.

Every time a judge issues a ruling on anything, Missy, he or she is making law. Because of the role precendet plays our legal system, the task of issuing rulings of any kind is indistinguishable from that of making law.

Exactly. That, as Simon has already pointed out, is precedent. Precedent isn't simply something done in the past by a lower court, but rather it involves the legal reasoning of the particular court.

If they didn't "make" law when interpreting, then there would be no need for them. I mean, it's illegal to kill say. OK, that's it then, you kill you go to jail. Over the years, the law has been interpreted so that it isn't always illegal to kill. That was done by judges.

Tom

[Bloomfield]

Of course, I tend to "disagree" with a judge being able to determine sentences, too - and would like to see uniform sentencing laws. Laws that are drafted by the legislature, signed by the governor, and upheld by the courts. Checks and balances, you know?

This was tried during the age of Enlightenment, when several very specific codifications were passed. Both King Frederick of Prussia (for his General Prussian Code) and Emperor Napoleon (for his Code Civil) went so far as to forbid the interpretation of the laws. True to Montesquieu the judge was supposed to do no more than to apply the law (as "the mouth that pronounces the words of the law").

It proved unworkable of course, and led to injustice. The ancient Romans had sussed that one already, stating "summum ius summa inuria" -- rigid application of law leads to injustice. Add to that strong methodological skepticism that we can even tell the difference between "applying" the law and "making" new law when it comes to deciding cases that were unforseen by the legislature. In the common law world you have the particular added issue that (despite Bentham's call for it in the 18th century), the legislature has never bothered to actually pass laws that could cover all the disputes that come up (such laws are called a codification). Even today with all the abundant statutes and regulations, there are many areas where no laws passed by legislatures and signed by Presidents are available for a judge to "follow."

[Walden]

When I was in Kindergarten I went, for a little less than a semester, to a public school where Bible classes were conducted for all students, in the classroom. It had been that way in this county for as long as anyone could remember. My father had grown up in the school Bible classes. The teachers were Baptist women. My family were not Baptists, but always had great respect for the Bible teachers. Sometime in the 1980's a family from the city moved into the community just long enough to protest it. A building was built across from the school where students continue to attend the classes on a voluntary basis.

"I haven't the faintest idea, because I haven't taken the class, or talked with any student who has. I did say I had taken a course in a state funded university that taught the Bible from a historical perspective, so I do know it has been done.

Well, you just have to look at what they are saying, it's pretty clear.

Tom

State colleges do generally offer courses in Old Testament Survey and New Testament Survey, as far as I know. I don't think it's a controversial practice.

Likewise, when I was in high school, the English literature textbooks, mainstream public school books, included portions of the King James Bible and the Pilgrim's Progress, which, of course are an important part of English literary history, and covering them in literature class is hardly perceived as proselytization.

[fiddleronvermouth]

My mom is a kindergarten teacher. Her class celebrates Christmas, Easter and well as Halloween (pagan / Christian festivals) and she invites the parents of kids from different cultures and religions to come in and share their own religious customs as guest speakers.

I think that's a great way to do it. No-one is excluded, no-one is either forced to speak or voiceless, religion (or not) is accepted as a part of family life and at the same time religious differences are tolerated. You don't have religious customs being taught by biased believers in other religions. (Ie, "the witches believe they have the power to control nature. That's why god burned them at the stake...")

Anyway, I have to leave work. Great discussion, folks. for the record, I'd go out of my way to avoid putting my children into a school with a bias toward Christian fundamentalism. As sincere as the believers my be, the entire philosophy runs against everything I value and hold sacred.

[missy]

I can understand, and agree with, what you are all saying about judges "making" the law.
However, I'm also going on what a judge talked about to our Citizens on Patrol group just last week. He was pointing out that a judge can do only "so much" about getting the criminals off the streets. First, is there room for them in the jails? If not, then the judge's hands are tied - he can only sentence a certain number of criminals before the ACLU and other groups come after him and the jurisdiction for treatment abuse. So - I guess one could say that is a way he is "making" the law. He can't necessarily follow the sentence put in place by the legislature, because doing so would cause even more problems. I see it more as "interpreting" the law - he has to weigh the pros and cons and do what is best in that situation.
But his point was to petition the legislature to somehow come up with more room to incarcerate the criminals, so that judges can then uphold the laws.

[I.D.10-t]

I think that's a great way to do it. No-one is excluded, no-one is either forced to speak or voiceless, religion (or not) is accepted as a part of family life and at the same time religious differences are tolerated. You don't have religious customs being taught by biased believers in other religions.

I don’t think that many people disagree with learning about religion; I think that they are afraid of it overlapping into other fields. If intelligent design is included natural history, why not numerology in math, alchemy taught in chemistry, or the humors taught in health class (okay ridiculous examples). Looking back on the churches role in the flat earth debate and whether the sun revolves around the earth, I can understand why some would feel that mixing science with beliefs is not a good thing.

I think that in many ways the fear of or embracing of this overlap is similar to politics and religion. Some want religion to be the basis of laws, others want a secular government.

[s1m0n]

But his point was to petition the legislature to somehow come up with more room to incarcerate the criminals, so that judges can then uphold the laws.

You're already incarcerating more people than any nation but china.

If the vast network of prisons you already have isn't enough, no further amount will solve your problem.

~~

Eisenhower talked about the "Military Industrial Complex" in 1961. Today the US suffers the effects of the "Prison Industrial Complex". No free nation imprisons such a large proportion of it's population.

[missy]

"alchemy taught in chemistry"

Actually - I had some of that, too. While not necessarily turning base metal into gold, a lot of the alchemy principles weren't all that far off from the actual chemisty involved. I remember at least two of my chemistry classes talking about the history of chemical study, and some of the experiments that are still accurate today.
Then, again, when I have an instrument in the lab that actually WORKS the way it should and gives me results without me having to baby sit it - I think that's alchemy because it's darn hard to reproduce!!!

[fiddleronvermouth]

I think that's a great way to do it. No-one is excluded, no-one is either forced to speak or voiceless, religion (or not) is accepted as a part of family life and at the same time religious differences are tolerated. You don't have religious customs being taught by biased believers in other religions.

I don’t think that many people disagree with learning about religion; I think that they are afraid of it overlapping into other fields. If intelligent design is included natural history, why not numerology in math, alchemy taught in chemistry, or the humors taught in health class (okay ridiculous examples). Looking back on the churches role in the flat earth debate and whether the sun revolves around the earth, I can understand why some would feel that mixing science with beliefs is not a good thing.

I think that in many ways the fear of or embracing of this overlap is similar to politics and religion. Some want religion to be the basis of laws, others want a secular government.

Yeah, I agree. I was rushing my point a bit because that monkey is the quickest way to bookmark where I last left off.

I think the point has been made already that science isn't a "belief" - it's a method. Hypothesis - experiment - analysis - conclusion. Creationism as a scientific hypothesis is totally without value, and including it in education about scientific method is not only inappropriate, it would actually have the effect of confusing children about what "science" is.

Then again, it's a predictable move for a government made up of Christian fundamentalists to make. There's no sense feeling frightened or disturbed by this kind of intrusion, I think. There is already, as missy pointed out, a veritable mountain of fallacy being passed off as fact in public schools. It remains the responsibility of parents to prepare their children with the tools they need to educate themselves when the public system fails them.

It also could be useful to initiate some kind of meaningful protest when your school boards or elected leaders attempt to impose blatant misinformation (ie. a faith-based methodology in a course about science). For example, maybe there are actual scientists in the community who would be willing to dedicate a couple hours a week to tutoring local kids about what science is. If that's the case, you could keep your non-Christian or moderate Christian kids out of classes where fundamentalist values have taken root.

Granted they'd flunk the tests, but they'd learn about science, which is the whole point of science class, isn't it

That said, of course it would be *better* if the public school curriculum wasn't dictated by religious fundamentalists of any stripe, but for the time being, while the political climate is in the midst of a radical swing to the religious right, parents are not powerless and there's no need to be afraid.

I think kids pay a whole lot more attention to what their parents believe than what they are taught in school anyway.

[TerryB]

Wormdiet asked for a clarification of the distinction between freedom of religion and freedom from religion. In my understanding, the former refers to the freedom of each individual to practice his or her religion (within certain bounds, of course). The latter refers to the privatization of religion so that those who don't like it won't have to be bothered with it (i.e., a society free from any outward evidence of religious life). I would not want the state to sponsor a church/religion, but at times it seems rulings have gone beyond the scope of that danger in the exclusion of religious practices from public life.

Terry

Teri-K wrote:

I have to disagree on this point. There is no difference between the two as they are one, or moreover, the latter gave birth to the first creating a single premise. The founders descended from religious intolerance at the hands of a government which dictated their beliefs through threat of persecution, prosecution, or execution. By declaring no religion should be established and supported by our government, this guaranteed citizens the freedom from that persecution. The right to practice your beliefs is, in essence, the freedom from the persecution of another’s beliefs.

[I apologize for going back so far in this thread, but a lot has been said since I last checked this morning.]

Teri-K, it doesn't seem to me that you're replying to what I actually said (or at least what I intended to say). The notion of freedom from religion, as I along with others have used it to distinguish it from freedom of religion, is that some who do not like or agree with religion believe they have the right not to be exposed to it in public life. In other words, religious freedom is limited to what one does in the home or sanctuary. I do believe our founders wisely sought to avoid the dangers of state-sponsored religion; I do not believe they intended to limit religious expression to that which happens behind closed doors.

[Wormdiet]

[
The presence of a course (With prosyletizing impact) in a public school indicates that there is official sponsorship and promotion of the religion.

So having a course on religion in a public institution could be considered a prosyletizing effort?

I think it absolutely depends on the course and the instructor in question. In my experience as a public school teacher in NC, some of my colleagues would very definitely be preaching or swaying their students to a Christian viewpoint. My sister, an assistant principal a few counties over, sees religious discrimination from her staff on a nearly daily basis. This is, IMO, wrong.

Then again, a history of religion course taught objectively (And giving considerable weight to non-western beliefs and atheism) would be great, as long as students are not pushed in any direction.

The problem is that it is impossible to draw a hard line here between "History" and "Faith Formation." Again, err on the side of caution.