otseng wrote:Does teaching creationism in public schools violate the separation of church and state?
I agree with mrmufin. Teaching creationism
as one religious account of origins, out of many such religious accounts is acceptable. This provides an accurate historical perspective on different peoples' efforts to understand where they come from, and does not put the schools in the position of propounding a single religious doctrine. However, teaching creationism as if it were science, and as if it were the only valid alternative to evolution, does violate the establishment clause. This has been amply demonstrated by the large number of religious organizations that have stated publicly that creationism has no place in the science curriculum. It also violates the principles of science--unless someone can come up with a way to make creation scientific. This was the focus of the other thread...and we never seemed to come up with a way to teach it scientifically.
An Observer wrote:I do not think it is possible for a school to refrain from imposing religious rituals/beliefs on children. If a school only dealt with math and logic, it may be possible to keep the schools free from religion. But, the schools are used to impose “culture” on children, in addition to math and logic. And, I do not think it is possible to impose culture without being religious.
As I mentioned in an earlier post, even the word “CHANCE” as used when teaching evolution is loaded with religious significance. It is not possible to use the word CHANCE without being religious. If one were say that CHANCE means something happens for no reason, that person is asserting a religious belief!. …..
These two paragraphs are self-contradictory. To teach math and logic completely, one must teach probability and statistics, and thereby talk extensively about CHANCE. If I roll dice, I find that the various possibilities show up in a probabilistic way, that is best described as CHANCE. Is this religious? Is it necessarily the case that God is, or is not, guiding the dice? What about physics, and the interactions of the corners of the dice with the table, given the specific coefficient of friction, angle of incidence, etc? We get different numbers upon different rolls by CHANCE, but not without reasons.
Similarly, statistical analysis of mutation indicates that we cannot distinguish mutation from a random, or CHANCE process. This is a part of basic genetics, which Creationists claim to accept as part of science. There is no religion involved. Because mutations occur at random, or by chance, is there
no reason that they occur? No. The reason is DNA damage by chemical or radiational mutagens, or by error in DNA replication or repair. There is always a reason. What would make it religious would be the assertion that there is always a Guiding Hand in mutation, choosing the specific nucleotides that are altered.
I do think the government has a responsibility to help assure all children are educated. However, I also think the only way the government can be neutral regarding religion is if the government were not part of the teaching process.
On the one hand, it's too late--the government has already become part of the teaching process. The most recent example is Bush's No Child Left Behind law, which is pushing science teaching toward the worst-possible pedagogy of memorizing facts in order to pass a multiple-choice test. Still, the government has a responsibility toward its citizens to give them an education that prepares them for the world in which they will live. The world is becoming more technologically sophisticated, with instantaneous communication possible--among, between, and within groups of very different religious traditions. This indicates to me that the government has a responsibility to ensure that each student's scientific training is as up-to-date as possible, and that each student's cultural views include a willingness to work comfortably with people of very different cultural, religious, ethnic, racial, (etc) groups. Unfortunately, accurate science teaching, although necessary to enable individuals, and the country, to succeed in the future, is always going to be at odds with some of the teachings of different religions.
Yet, teaching accurate science
has no impact on the free exercise clause. Students are not prevented from exercising their religious beliefs. They are simply given additional information to think about. Their parents are always free to tell them "we don't believe in science in our house," or "don't worry about that stuff; we know that the earth is actually carried on the back of a giant turtle," or "ignore it; Kohoutek is coming."
The only solution that does not violate either the establishment clause or the free exercise clause is a solution that involves vouchers....
I think every child should be allotted a certain amount of money that they can then use at any school of the parents choosing. When this happens, it is the parents who are deciding religious issues. Religion is, therefore, not being imposed by the government, nor is it hindered by the government.
Within the constraints of ensuring that every student is taught the things that are necessary for success in the world they will enter, this might be fine. However, if it means that students will take my tax dollars to learn only about dianetics, and to shun modern science, or to become indoctrinated in a fundamentalist terrorism religion, then this is a misuse of public funds. Public funding must come with certain minimum educational standards attached. If parents wish to send their children to private religious schools, they may--but they should pay the tuition themselves, not use public funds. I had no problem with this when I sent my son to Christian school, and I have no problem with it still.
Unfortunately, it has not proven to be possible for parents to send their children to the school of their choice, even with the allotted money that should enable them to do so. Some schools have been labeled as "failing" by NCLB criteria, so the parents have been given the opportunity to send their children elsewhere. In many cases,
there was no elsewhere available. The other schools were full. As our newspaper headline said, Poor Children are Being Left Behind. This serves as a test-case for the idea of vouchers--and proves it to be unworkable
unless we can ensure that more good schools are available. Vouchers will only work if the schools are better, but if the schools are better, we don't need vouchers.
